|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:
I know Ellsworth is a superfund site even (wouldn't want to drink from any of the wells downstream of the base, although it's a lot better than it used to be). Wouldn't be surprised if most air force bases are or have been on the superfund list at some point. e. Most of this has been dealt with apparently but it's fun to read all the random stuff they had to clean up (the radioactive waste was mostly old radium instrument dials and whatnot that had been buried in concrete containers along with mustard gas training kits, apparently) https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.ous&id=0800585 Dr. Despair fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Dec 27, 2017 |
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Why, though? It was unprecedented and hasn’t been repeated since unless I missed an example. Yes, you did. Every blockade ever. “Go past this line and we’ll board and take or sink ya, cause if you go past that line then obviously you are abetting the enemy.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:I know Ellsworth is a superfund site even (wouldn't want to drink from any of the wells downstream of the base, although it's a lot better than it used to be). I recall there periodically (ie every time people start discussing base closures) being talk about the city of Virginia Beach just buying back the land Oceana was built on; however, I'm not sure what people intend for them to actually DO with it for this exact reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
Board and search is fundamentally different than threatening long range engagement by missiles and submarines by the UK against civilians, without warning. I guess it’s similar to Germany’s submarine tactics, though. Additionally, if they hadn’t used the exclusion zone at all, you wouldn’t have had even UK members of parliament and the public questioning the otherwise entirely reasonable sinking of the Belgrano. And it gave the USSR reason to bitch about denying (albeit more dangerous) freedom of navigation. It was stupid, IMO. A simple warning of “hey there’s potential for naval combat around here” would’ve been a public safety advisory without the UK just trying to make a bunch of rules it could neither legally back up nor actually enforce. And not that it’s the UK’s direct fault, but arguably the Argentines wouldn’t have attacked a neutral commercial ship if the UK hadn’t started playing the exclusion zone game. Their declared zone is decidedly different from a blockade of Argentina. There was no blockade against Argentina, in fact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Maybe they want to build houses for all the people who want to live in that specific area? Of course that falls apart because Oceana is the major non-tourism employee and once it goes away, welp, SOL.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Polikarpov posted:Isn't the saying about Sikorskys that you're only in trouble when the oil leak stops? If your GE turbofan is leaking oil, there’s something wrong. If your P&W turbofan ISN’T leaking oil, there’s something wrong. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:. Their declared zone is decidedly different from a blockade of Argentina. There was no blockade against Argentina, in fact. It was a blockade of the Falklands. Also, once ships could cover a couple of hundred nm in a day and weapons could cover even more in minutes then any freighter becomes a threat. It’s was a reasonable attempt to limit
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Murgos posted:tell the only people arguing against at this point are internet trolls and people pushing political agendas. What am I doing to troll or push a political agenda? I’m all for the UK winning that war and sinking Belgrano. I just think the TEZ was a dumbass policy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
When we did Libya, IIRC we posted a NOTAM that basically said, "Libyan national airspace is closed now and civilian traffic should avoid it for their safety." Is that fine because we didn't say the "we might shoot your rear end down" part out loud?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:When we did Libya, IIRC we posted a NOTAM that basically said, "Libyan national airspace is closed now and civilian traffic should avoid it for their safety." Is that fine because we didn't say the "we might shoot your rear end down" part out loud? Well, did it extend 200 miles in every direction into international air and waters?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Well, did it extend 200 miles in every direction into international air and waters? 200 miles every direction from the Falklands is basically... near-Antarctica empty water. Or Argentina. Who's using it other than Argentine shipping? It's a different situation from the entire Mediterranean.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Well, I guess if you’re going to make pointless and stupid proclamations, go into the middle of nowhere to make them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Given that the UK were using cruise ships and container ships as transports and Argentina was repurposing Lear jets and trawlers for intelligence gathering it doesn't seem unreasonable to just say chances are you're going to get lit up by a SAM or AShM if you get anywhere near this war zone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
By far the most disappointing thing about the falklands war was that a Nimrod never shot down a C-130 or SP-2H with jury-rigged heaters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Well, I guess if you’re going to make pointless and stupid proclamations, go into the middle of nowhere to make them. It’s kind of a tradition on the Antarctic
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
If they wanted to decommission an airbase, and turn it into a subdivision, is there any general figure floating around that gives one an idea of how much money it would take to remove all the contaminated soil? I know even a mom and pop gas station can get into the millions of dollars when you start looking at soil contamination and having to truck it away treat it, and then replace the stuff you took away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
A developer who wanted to develop on the NAS Alameda land said they expected it cost 2 billion to clean and develop in 2001. I suspect that number is low. It's moot because they gave up a few years later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
The former Grumman plant on Long Island is apparently a environmental nightmare smack in the middle of suburban NYC. whoops
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
They should do what they do here - sell the land to a developer for $1 with the condition that they clean it up before building houses and schools. That couldn't possibly backfire in a country that's gutting the EPA, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 23:06
|
|
Memento posted:They should do what they do here - sell the land to a developer for $1 with the condition that they clean it up before building houses and schools. If there’s no standard to meet for cleanup then there’s no need to cleanup!
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Now I wonder how many dead bases are just a pox on the land nation wide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Alaan posted:Now I wonder how many ftfy, and the answer is "all of them."
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
I'd call MB AFB a success until the cancer cluster gets discovered in a few decades.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
there's never not a good time to bring up picher oklahoma
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Whenever I see a place like this or those abandoned resorts on the Salton Sea I think "perfect filming location for a Fallout movie".
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Memento posted:They should do what they do here - sell the land to a developer for $1 with the condition that they clean it up before building houses and schools. Ask me about the Superfund site I grew up on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Ask me about the Superfund site I grew up on. What a post/username combo
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 06:27
|
|
Splode posted:What a post/username combo
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:A developer who wanted to develop on the NAS Alameda land said they expected it cost 2 billion to clean and develop in 2001. I suspect that number is low. It's moot because they gave up a few years later. Not too bad, Alameda is a mere 50 on the cercla site scale. Unless things have changed there are sites with an 80+ rating. It can be a morbid hobby looking around for the cercla superstars.  ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR STATION's Contamination Greatest Hits Full list of places you probably don't want to live. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/national-priorities-list-npl-sites-state#main-content
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:From the swirl of chaos formerly known as Venezuela: When last I visited the place (about 10 years ago) the wardroom in 12 Wing Shearwater featured beer mugs that bore a silhouette of a Sea King and the motto "Flying Yesterday's Aircraft, Tomorrow." Not for much longer, finally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
Blistex posted:If they wanted to decommission an airbase, and turn it into a subdivision, is there any general figure floating around that gives one an idea of how much money it would take to remove all the contaminated soil? I know even a mom and pop gas station can get into the millions of dollars when you start looking at soil contamination and having to truck it away treat it, and then replace the stuff you took away. To give you an idea, Love Canal, the original superfund site, cost $400 million to clean up and was only something like two miles long. I forget how wide, but it was basically a toxic trench so not anywhere near as wide as long. Cleaning that poo poo up is HELLACIOUSLY expensive. Unless it was drat-near-priceless land like five square blocks of downtown manhattan or San Francisco or something the solution is almost inevitably "wall that poo poo off and label it so people don't build there" with some extra hoping to god that it hasn't gotten down to the groundwater.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:To give you an idea, Love Canal, the original superfund site, cost $400 million to clean up and was only something like two miles long. I forget how wide, but it was basically a toxic trench so not anywhere near as wide as long. Cleaning that poo poo up is HELLACIOUSLY expensive. Unless it was drat-near-priceless land like five square blocks of downtown manhattan or San Francisco or something the solution is almost inevitably "wall that poo poo off and label it so people don't build there" with some extra hoping to god that it hasn't gotten down to the groundwater. $400MM is a doable number, financially if not politically. Then you have sites like Hanford that basically can never be cleaned up at any cost, although that one is an outlier. In other news, found out as a result of this thread that the Superfund site I grew up on was taken off the NPL in 2006!
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Why, though? It was unprecedented and hasn’t been repeated since unless I missed an example. It wasn't unprecedented. https://stockton.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1666&context=ils
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It wasn't unprecedented. “Unprecedented” is probably a bridge too far, but that very source indicates how poorly worded it was and how the UK had to keep amending its stupid policy language. TEZ dumb, so what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:$400MM is a doable number, financially if not politically. Then you have sites like Hanford that basically can never be cleaned up at any cost, although that one is an outlier. Sure, but that was the number for a relatively small site. The cost is due to the really intensive remediation that has to be done. IIRC with Love Canal all the dirt had to be dug up to a depth of something like 15 feet, replaced, and the dirt that was sent out had to be chemically scrubbed then disposed of. It's one of those things where the costs scale with size, so if you're looking at a decent sized lot it's going to get megabucks fast. Oh, and if you plan on having anything near it that involves people you probably can't just scrub the part you want to use and leave the neighboring lot a toxic dump. edit: Here, I grabbed one of those superfund sites at random to look at. The site narrative is illuminating: Burnt Fly Bog, in NJ The site is about 1700 acres with unlined lagoons that were used as toxic waste dumps in the 50s and 60s. Notable landmarks include two lagoons full of liquid, two full of sludge, and a ~13,000 cubic yard mound of sludge. That's a giant goddamned mess of a headache, and that's just bog (  ) standard industrial effluvia, not even some crazy military poo poo. The listing of how they've approached it is pretty telling: $336k in emergency grant funds issued to the state to figure out what to do with it, and $30k of that was spent on "build a fence so people know not to go there." edit: to put it into perspective, Love Canal covered about SIXTEEN acres. That's literally a hundredth of what that one nasty swamp in NJ is sprawling over. If it cost the same to fix Burnt Fly Bog as it did Love Canal it would be a $40B project. All of this is the most paper thin of napkin math, of course, but it gives some idea of the scale of the costs involved in truly cleaning up a superfund site. The real solution is going to be to wall them off and tell people not to drink the water. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Dec 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
The real point in which humanity will have conquered the stars is when we start dumping our trash into them
Mazz fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Dec 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:All of this is the most paper thin of napkin math, of course, but it gives some idea of the scale of the costs involved in truly cleaning up a superfund site. The real solution is going to be to wall them off and tell people not to drink the water. This is one reason why cleaning up China is not an option, short of some Naussica level poison cleansing bioengineered organisms
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:This is one reason why cleaning up China is not an option, short of some Naussica level poison cleansing bioengineered organisms Semi-serious question, could this lead China to pursue a Lebensraum option? If a significant fraction of the country is polluted to uninhabitability, that may lead to a desire to explore foreign lands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Sure, but that was the number for a relatively small site. The cost is due to the really intensive remediation that has to be done. IIRC with Love Canal all the dirt had to be dug up to a depth of something like 15 feet, replaced, and the dirt that was sent out had to be chemically scrubbed then disposed of. It's one of those things where the costs scale with size, so if you're looking at a decent sized lot it's going to get megabucks fast. The fact that sites do get cleaned up should give you some cause for optimism. The Columbia Organic Chemical Company site in SC doesn’t appear on that list anymore and that was a horrifically contaminated site, so it is possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
Sperglord posted:Semi-serious question, could this lead China to pursue a Lebensraum option? If a significant fraction of the country is polluted to uninhabitability, that may lead to a desire to explore foreign lands. That would require leadership to admit that there was a problem in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 01:24
|
|