Navy sink ship; Alaska fishing shut down??

Why is this BREAKING!!! news this is old stuff? What should be of concern is the recent earthquakes today. Their popping off pretty good.

Sunday April 29 2012, 17:28:46 UTC 3 hours ago off the east coast of Honshu, Japan 4.5
Sunday April 29 2012, 15:45:08 UTC 5 hours ago Volcano Islands, Japan region 4.9
Sunday April 29 2012, 15:02:19 UTC 6 hours ago Near East Coast Of Honshu, Japan 5.4
Sunday April 29 2012, 10:28:51 UTC 10 hours ago near the east coast of Honshu, Japan 5.8

Sorry to put this here but as a new member I cant a new thread. The ONLY reason why I am doing this is that hopefully some one else will confirm what I saw.

PS - Mods please move this message to the appropriate section please.

LONDON UK Heathrow.

I went outside and I saw a light but this light was not a planet. I know - mars etc done that seen that. It was really bright. So I called my son to have a look. When he came out we then saw three bright lights moving acros the sky, Now consider that I live next to Heathrow airport. But these lights had no flashing lights - constant bright lights. Then another two lights up. I said to my son, that is def. not a plane(the moving lights) or a satellite (the bright light above us on the horizon - location HEATHROW ENGLAND at 9.30PAM GMT).


The reason why I put this MODs is i cannt put an new thread out here but I thought this was too important to get this message out there. Any UK london ATS chaps or gals see what I saw?

PS. When me and my son looked at the "bright light" its looked triangular.

Sorry for any spelling mistakes but need to get this out now while other people might see/confirm what me and my son saw.


RubberDuck

Originally posted by RubberDuckGB
Sorry to put this here but as a new member I cant a new thread. The ONLY reason why I am doing this is that hopefully some one else will confirm what I saw.

PS - Mods please move this message to the appropriate section please.

LONDON UK Heathrow.

I went outside and I saw a light but this light was not a planet. I know - mars etc done that seen that. It was really bright. So I called my son to have a look. When he came out we then saw three bright lights moving acros the sky, Now consider that I live next to Heathrow airport. But these lights had no flashing lights - constant bright lights. Then another two lights up. I said to my son, that is def. not a plane(the moving lights) or a satellite (the bright light above us on the horizon - location HEATHROW ENGLAND at 9.30PAM GMT).


The reason why I put this MODs is i cannt put an new thread out here but I thought this was too important to get this message out there. Any UK london ATS chaps or gals see what I saw?

PS. When me and my son looked at the "bright light" its looked triangular.

Sorry for any spelling mistakes but need to get this out now while other people might see/confirm what me and my son saw.


RubberDuck

We should put this whole thread in the "joining the circus" category. *face+palm* .....

At least im wearing appropriate attire for this thread........

Originally posted by Darkblade71

This is false info as far as I am concerned.

I did wonder about the real reason for the sinking to be honest. But the OP is reporting this old news as if it is breaking so BS IMO.
Plus if it was that widely known that there was radiation all over the place the MSM would not be able to keep it out of the news.

u know reality is
someone could interview the Capt.&Crew of the Bernice C,,
u know ask them if they were ordered too leave
International Waters by the
U.S Coast Guard,,
cause i would have at the VERY LEAST,,
got some Diesel for my boat,,

2000 lites at $5.20 a gallon,,,, well ,,,wouldn't hurt to ask, the U.s Coast Guard too,,but doubt they would be,
free too divulge too much.
A pissed off capt and crew..who knows,,all just guess work.

Me.

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth


WE have been warned about not using nuclear. There is free energy alternative but we keep using nuclear.

Has anyone alerted staff of this thread...here I'll go first.

Originally posted by ProtectedWitness
This thread is a perfect example of how the Moderators and owners of this website are failing to do what they intended to do... deny ignorance. The credibility of this site has been destroyed years ago.

The ship was sunk almost a month ago. It was sunk because it was a potential hazard to other ships in the area.

If someone wanted to salvage the ship, they would have been entitled to it, and the Coast Guard wouldn't have sunk the ship. That alone lends credence to the fact that the ship was not radioactive.

A shut down of an entire fishing industry would be front page news everywhere.

No sources from OP. Just a mention of a text message his wife received.

Either this is a hoax, or a failure on the OP's part to fact check before jumping online and crying wolf.

This////^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Originally posted by BooKrackers
reply to post by Xterrain

 

They tested the boat.....it was NOT radioactive.......period....that and the float was quicker across the ocean than any prevailing winds that *might* have brought radioactivity through the area it was floating. Not to mention that by the time the radioactivity reached the boat at sea...it would have been severely diluted in concentration.

Yes, I am aware of physics.....I held a 94% GDP in the course. I also live in Alaska's biggest city...Im here...your not.

The only thing real nuclear that ever occurred in Alaska was maybe a couple of detonations in the chain, and project Chariot on the North Slope.

Floating boats didn't make the grade.

edit on 29-4-2012 by BooKrackers because: (no reason given)

Greetings:

Thank you for your interest and participation.

So far, you have been pretty much the voice of reason on the tempest-tossed sea of mis-info, dis-info and downright poor comprehension skills.

Thank you for all you do.

However, we have investigated this boat previously, and have been unable to validate your statement here:

They tested the boat.....it was NOT radioactive.......period

If one is serious about the truth whether or not the incoming debris field is radioactive, you will find the answer in this thread.

And your prevailing wind theory is not based on reality, as the debris field moves MUCH slower that prevailing winds.

Not to mention that by the time the radioactivity reached the boat at sea...it would have been severely diluted in concentration.

You can, of course back up that statement?

How far out to sea do you think the boat was when Unit 1 exploded on Saturday, 12 March? The prevailing winds at that time were offshore - North America-bound.




How far out to sea do you think the boat was when Unit 3 exploded on Monday, 14 March? The prevailing winds at that time were offshore - North America-bound.



Thank you for your time and consideration and we look forward to further communication.

Peace Love Light
tfw
[align=center][color=magenta]Liberty & Equality or Revolution[/align]

Great...... Now we have more to worry about. This just adds to the list of crap thats going to happen this summer.

reply to post by thorfourwinds


Duly noted and your research in the other thread is exemplary if I may say...however, are you prepared to support this portion of this OP?

(which imo is all but the meat and potatoes of what the thread intended to encroach upon.)

Now fishing along the coast of Alaska, the canneries, and other coastal businesses have been shut down due to nuclear fallout.

It's blatant sensationalism, inaccurate, and utter unverified misinformation, imo of course.

reply to post by dragonridr

Yes the ship was sunk no it wasnt RADIOACTIVE since it was washed out to sea before the nuclear accident. If you want to see why they sunk it this makes it pretty clear it wasnt worth salvage. Its a giant rust bucket and would never be declared sea worthy again without spending alot of money.

[url=http://news.discovery.com/earth/ghost-ship-sunk-to-johnnys-locker-120406.html]Ghost Ship yadda yadda[/url

Okay, and the link you provided says nothing one way or the other either. Just us going yadday yadda. I don't know one way or the other either. My conjecture is just that (in lieu of evidence). Simply trying to find out. Of course you use CAPS and link media reports(?).

By the way, salvage means either refurbish or scrap metal value. Towing it to port and pay check. Ships are filled with iron, brass, and copper. Total value of a 200 foot ship would be an insta pay of 10's of thousands of dollars, as is. For the scrap value alone. And if it floats (which it surely was) then hooking up and towing is simple, regardless of any media statements to the contrary. If it was floating it could be towed to port. That is another odd part. Sinking vessels creates its own problem because bottom wrecks snag expensive fish nets. That is not the best choice ( to sink it). And not primary procedure anyway.

The video in your link was interesting, the plume of black smoke is from burning oil. You would never purposefully sink a ship filled with fuel oil. It is totally illegal. You would board and pump out the tanks first. Its worth money too (by the barrel). Professional salvage companies are waiting all day long for the coast guard to call them about "abandoned" vessels at sea. They are so rare actually, everyone jumps at the chance to make a buck off scrap iron. Then there is the missing test results of samples taken from the ship to show it's "clean" which it wasn't anyway (oil). Any test results are missing.

This is just the first in a line of junk headed our way. The emissions from the reactors went on for days/weeks after the meltdowns (or didn't you see the plumes from the plants) and a lot of radioactive contamination settled out over the ocean onto the debris fields. Thats the concern anyway. Who's to say one way or the other for sure. And the boat is deep sixed anyway, now.

Maybe in a few years we'll test it on ourselves by eating the fish that were caught near the artificial reef of that wreck. Sushi anyone? Maybe a Mcfish burger? Yummmmm....

Will the OP at least provide some sort of evidence that he even received the text message he claims to have received so we can know if it is him or his friend who is relaying totally unsubstantiated rumors?

reply to post by BooKrackers

At least im wearing appropriate attire for this thread........

And making appropriate remarks. Just "clowning around", huh?

Originally posted by UberL33t
reply to post by thorfourwinds

 

Duly noted and your research in the other thread is exemplary if I may say...however, are you prepared to support this portion of this OP?

(which imo is all but the meat and potatoes of what the thread intended to encroach upon.)

Now fishing along the coast of Alaska, the canneries, and other coastal businesses have been shut down due to nuclear fallout.

It's blatant sensationalism, inaccurate, and utter unverified misinformation, imo of course.

Of course. But the other question of wether the pacific is carrying rad debris our way is quite valid. The sinking of that vessel by the coast guard is suspicious. Not confirmation, just odd.

reply to post by intrptr


Which is and has been discussed to great lengths in the thread mentioned above. If more direct discussion should ensue regarding the vessel that was sunk a month ago or radiated debris and members feel it is warranted then it should have it's own thread...respectively. This thread, unfortunately and unworthily imo, produced some interesting information nonetheless, all of which should be posted in a legitimate and more precise thread.

I don't pretend to know anything about maritime law, but some of these do. Read the comments section:

www.spearboard.com...

Can he legally tow the boat out to sea and intentionally sink it? is there a process to go through to clean the boat of all oil (motor parts) and harmful material before sinking? is there a cert. process he can go through to do this?

One answer:

*I think* most of it boils down to state and federal law dealing with environmental contamination. Most vessels sunk as artificial reefs undergo extensive decontamination where paints, oils, etc are removed.

Removed beforehand.

Just for your information, intentionally sinking a boat is called Scuttling.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is definitely illegal without all kinds of pre approval.

You must have a permit from ALL agencies involved depending on where you are located.
Here in the Keys, forget about it. D.E.P., E.P.A. State, FWC, National Marine Sanctuary , NOAA. Virtually impossible to get permitted and will take years

Basically what you are talking about is called illegal dumping. Of course the Coast Guard has those shiny cannons that are so fun to use, and they can forgo maritime law I guess, if they choose to. Who's going to say different?

There are all kind of considerations before legally sinking a vessel at sea. Cargo, currents, anchoring (so storms don't move it), any environmental hazards, etc. You would never just blast away, set it on fire and sink it. Well at least according to the law anyway.

Originally posted by intrptr


There are all kind of considerations before legally sinking a vessel at sea. Cargo, currents, anchoring (so storms don't move it), any environmental hazards, etc. You would never just blast away, set it on fire and sink it. Well at least according to the law anyway.

The military routinely scuttles ships for multiple reasons. The regulations you relay relate only to private ship owners:

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm sorry but this is complete bull**** in my opinion. I live in a fishing community, I think we would be aware of all fishing be shut down and nuclear material spreading everywhere.

Originally posted by UberL33t
reply to post by thorfourwinds

 

Duly noted and your research in the other thread is exemplary if I may say...however, are you prepared to support this portion of this OP?

(which imo is all but the meat and potatoes of what the thread intended to encroach upon.)

Now fishing along the coast of Alaska, the canneries, and other coastal businesses have been shut down due to nuclear fallout.

It's blatant sensationalism, inaccurate, and utter unverified misinformation, imo of course.

Greetings:

Thank you for your kind words... duly noted.

If you look carefully at that boat story, you will notice the feeble attempt at putting out the fire (photo) ... we figure a ruse to get close enough to get radiation readings.

RIddle me this: Why put out a fire that you, yourself, started on a boat you are attempting to sink?

There are definitely more that a few questions that need to be answered here.

We have been involved in researching the Fukushima disaster/fiasco since day one and are a regular contributor to the mega-thread and feel we have somewhat of a handle on the info, be that as it may...

We have found NO information that even remotely supports the OP, and, we would like the OP to provide any corroborating information, if possible.

Believe us, we have been looking for even the slightest hint of radiation in the Alaskan fisheries, ever since NOAA said they could identify a SINGLE radiated fish if it entered U.S. waters... we kid you not.

But we do ponder this question to you: What the heck is up with lesions on polar bears and ring seals that bear a remarkable resemblance to the COREXITED (hey, we coined a new verb!) fish and crustaceans in the Gulf of Mexico?

The full seal and polar bear update story and links are in: America's Being Nuked - Can We Together Stop the Madness Before It's Too Late?

If you liked the other research, you may also appreciate this.

Peace Love Light
tfw
[align=center][color=magenta]Liberty & Equality or Revolution[/align]