Enviromental impact of Drumbeat

Zachstar · 05-27-10, 09:50 PM

In war environmentalism goes out the window. Just idmagine how many species went extinct on the various hard fought pacific islands for one. However it was a completely different time back then. And I am pretty damn sure Hitler would have not given a damn killing a national park to build a factory to build tanks.

Most of the oil sunk was well out at sea while of course it still sucked. it would have quite a great deal of dilution before getting anywhere near shore.

Todays tankers are huge beyond belief. Many are bigger than WW2 aircraft carriers. If say north korea would have torpedoed one of those instead it would have been an ecological disaster the likes of Validez

Hartmann · 05-27-10, 10:09 PM

An important factor also is the effect of the warhead explossion , because it can burn a lot of Fuel

05-28-10, 09:12 AM

if your worried about the resulting pollution from war then dont forget pearl harbor was poluted after the attack with the whole harbor filled with dead bodies, spilled guts, and oil and gas everywhere.

in europe there was all the bombing of the war industry and chemical plants, the normandy beaches were scared and ecologically damaged from all the defensive structures and the shelling for allied landings.

this is the subsim sh5 forum, so shouldnt we be talking about the game here?

topics like this belong in general topics where its more logical to discuss this stuff?

Moeceefus · 05-28-10, 09:16 AM

something like a million gallons a day has been spilling into the gulf since april 20. i find myself more concerned with that at the moment.

one tonne of crude oil is roughly equal to 308 US gallons or 7.33 barrels and 1 oil barrel is equal to 42 US gallons approx.

interesting how the decay of an ancient past can be responsible for the decay of a distant future, though that seems to be the case in most areas of life.

janh · 05-28-10, 09:31 AM

Before the 70's changes in standards and society that probably lead to the environmental movements, what did people do with their old oil after an oil change on their car? There was no waste collection facility, nor were there draconic penalties as there now in most western industry nations. The rules for obtaining and disposing of chemicals also were essentially non-existent.
So I think the "environmental damage" was the least worry, if a thought at all at that time. Economics and the impact on war, hence on national sovereignty were the major factors. This has changed dramatically over the last 40 years.

05-28-10, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by janh

Before the 70's changes in standards and society that probably lead to the environmental movements, what did people do with their old oil after an oil change on their car? .

to the best of my recollection it was used as weed killer and just poured along fences and into ditches to kill grass

Sailor Steve · 05-28-10, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Todays tankers are huge beyond belief. Many are bigger than WW2 aircraft carriers.

Actually even the smallest supertankers are vastly larger than any of today's biggest aircraft carriers.

Wulfmann · 05-31-10, 08:21 AM

By the time I turned 5 years old in May 1954 my family had been living in Boca Raton Florida for 4 months (Population 1,200 people then).

We went to the beach often and always brought a can of gasoline to rub off the oils we got on our feet as it was everywhere in small balls.

We all knew it was from tankers sunk more than a decade earlier, just accepted it.
Most tankers sunk off the coast would have had the larger part of their cargo taken out to see in the gulf stream so the impact would have been small compared to the Exxon Valdez or the BP accident in the gulf.

Wulfmann

captainprid · 05-31-10, 10:43 AM

Actually there was a very interesting article in the paper recently about this very subject. The sinking of tankers during WW2 did far less damage than the sinking of U-Boats and war ships. The reason being is during WW2 tankers carried refined products like Petrol rather than crude, therefore when they were torpedoed they tended to go bang in a big way, the result was that the product was Burnt off and very easily dispersed whereas crude oil can not be so easily burnt off, certain elements can but it tends to leave behind the heavier product.
This changed after the war mainly due to instability within oil producing countries, that is why during WW2 there were hardly any refineries in Britain but after the war, refineries sprung up everywhere

msalama · 05-31-10, 02:06 PM

For anyone interested in these things there's an excellent Internet-released scientific article / paper about the general ecological damage of WW2 somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can find it just now

Oh well, maybe someone with a better Google-phrase brain will dig it up for ya...

Yours,

A lefty eco-warrior

05-27-10, 09:50 PM	#1
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	In war environmentalism goes out the window. Just idmagine how many species went extinct on the various hard fought pacific islands for one. However it was a completely different time back then. And I am pretty damn sure Hitler would have not given a damn killing a national park to build a factory to build tanks. Most of the oil sunk was well out at sea while of course it still sucked. it would have quite a great deal of dilution before getting anywhere near shore. Todays tankers are huge beyond belief. Many are bigger than WW2 aircraft carriers. If say north korea would have torpedoed one of those instead it would have been an ecological disaster the likes of Validez __________________

05-27-10, 10:09 PM	#2
Hartmann Sea Lord Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Grid CH 26, Spain ,Barcelona Posts: 1,857 Downloads: 204 Uploads: 0	An important factor also is the effect of the warhead explossion , because it can burn a lot of Fuel __________________ But this ship can't sink!... She is made of iron, sir. I assure you, she can. and she will. It is a mathematical certainty. Strength and honor

05-28-10, 09:16 AM	#4
Moeceefus 中国水兵 Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: New York Posts: 278 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	something like a million gallons a day has been spilling into the gulf since april 20. i find myself more concerned with that at the moment. one tonne of crude oil is roughly equal to 308 US gallons or 7.33 barrels and 1 oil barrel is equal to 42 US gallons approx. interesting how the decay of an ancient past can be responsible for the decay of a distant future, though that seems to be the case in most areas of life. Last edited by Moeceefus; 05-30-10 at 10:01 AM.

05-28-10, 09:31 AM	#5
janh Stinking drunk in Trinidad Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 349 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Before the 70's changes in standards and society that probably lead to the environmental movements, what did people do with their old oil after an oil change on their car? There was no waste collection facility, nor were there draconic penalties as there now in most western industry nations. The rules for obtaining and disposing of chemicals also were essentially non-existent. So I think the "environmental damage" was the least worry, if a thought at all at that time. Economics and the impact on war, hence on national sovereignty were the major factors. This has changed dramatically over the last 40 years. __________________ Scientific facts are not determined by the opinion of the majority, nor by a democratic vote.

05-31-10, 08:21 AM	#8
Wulfmann Ace of the Deep Join Date: May 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 1,010 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	By the time I turned 5 years old in May 1954 my family had been living in Boca Raton Florida for 4 months (Population 1,200 people then). We went to the beach often and always brought a can of gasoline to rub off the oils we got on our feet as it was everywhere in small balls. We all knew it was from tankers sunk more than a decade earlier, just accepted it. Most tankers sunk off the coast would have had the larger part of their cargo taken out to see in the gulf stream so the impact would have been small compared to the Exxon Valdez or the BP accident in the gulf. Wulfmann __________________ "The right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon, if only to prevent tyranny in government" Thomas Jefferson,; Constitutional debates

05-28-10, 09:12 AM	#3
Webster Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	if your worried about the resulting pollution from war then dont forget pearl harbor was poluted after the attack with the whole harbor filled with dead bodies, spilled guts, and oil and gas everywhere. in europe there was all the bombing of the war industry and chemical plants, the normandy beaches were scared and ecologically damaged from all the defensive structures and the shelling for allied landings. this is the subsim sh5 forum, so shouldnt we be talking about the game here? topics like this belong in general topics where its more logical to discuss this stuff?

05-31-10, 10:43 AM	#9
captainprid Watch Officer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Blackpool, England Posts: 347 Downloads: 23 Uploads: 0	Actually there was a very interesting article in the paper recently about this very subject. The sinking of tankers during WW2 did far less damage than the sinking of U-Boats and war ships. The reason being is during WW2 tankers carried refined products like Petrol rather than crude, therefore when they were torpedoed they tended to go bang in a big way, the result was that the product was Burnt off and very easily dispersed whereas crude oil can not be so easily burnt off, certain elements can but it tends to leave behind the heavier product. This changed after the war mainly due to instability within oil producing countries, that is why during WW2 there were hardly any refineries in Britain but after the war, refineries sprung up everywhere __________________ Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;

05-31-10, 02:06 PM	#10
msalama Samurai Navy Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: In an octopus's garden Posts: 565 Downloads: 99 Uploads: 0	For anyone interested in these things there's an excellent Internet-released scientific article / paper about the general ecological damage of WW2 somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can find it just now Oh well, maybe someone with a better Google-phrase brain will dig it up for ya... Yours, A lefty eco-warrior