Peter Kirk wrote: I'm sure Boris suggested it be towed away
I wonder if any estuary port proposals were vetoed due to the dangers.
The other reason for posting again was that danger buoys seem to be yellow, yet an obvious choice would have been red. I know red is used for other purposes but yellow is less visible in poor light or mist. Still most vessels carry GPS navigation systems so probably irrelevant anyway.
The convention for buoyage, is that red marks the port side of the channel when coming into port, and green the starboard side. Buoys, or posts marking hazards are yellow and black and are positioned North, east,south, and west of the hazard.Each has two black triangles on the top, whose position tells you which of the cardinal points it marks, and thus you know where the wreck or hazard can be found.
canberra wrote: I suppose you could look at what happened at Fauld for a comparison. And at Fauld only one of three stores went up.
At Fauld there was a definite cause for the initial explosion, which destroyed a large part of the underground storage. I am no expert but my understanding is that the main charge in any exposive device is quite stable providing it does not get the shock that causes detonation, which typically comes from the fuse.
In the case of SS Richard Montgomery it is highly unlikely that anyone would actually do something that in itself caused a fuse to detonate. So the risk to the main charge is from deterioration in the seawater which makes it unstable and initiates itself, or the deterioration of the fuse or any of its components which causes it to become unstable and self initiate.
I am rather hoping Peter might be able to throw some light on this.
My simple guess is, if it were a risk something would have been done about it a long time ago, or the security around the site would be greater to prevent the intervention of a human.
I agree that the risk of it all going up is small. When it was shown on "coast" the Navy officer stated that as the munitions are in cool water the risk is low. As for actually clearing the wreck, how many clearance divers does the navy have? And of course all the munitions will have to be disposed of, thats a lot of controlled explosions!
I have never heard of a definite cause of the explosion at Fauld. Most sources say it is likely to have been someone taking a detonator out using a brass chisel, but obviously no one can prove this. But it does ask the question what was a bomb doing in a bomb store with the detonator in it?????
airfields man wrote: Surely after 75 years of being emerged in water, there is nothing Live left to explode ? Or does it ??
I believe the filling can still be initiated and even after 75 years underwater. If the casings are still relatively watertight the contents will still be all there but may have started to break down. It is not made clear what the threat of initiation is, or how likely a collision will cause one. The bigger threat would be a deliberate act.
Que more info on the stability of explosives over time and submersion in sea water. I assume the old dumping grounds in the deeps of the UK coast are in the same situation but perhaps not as concentrated or perhaps in the same quantity?
canberra wrote: I have never heard of a definite cause of the explosion at Fauld. Most sources say it is likely to have been someone taking a detonator out using a brass chisel, but obviously no one can prove this. But it does ask the question what was a bomb doing in a bomb store with the detonator in it?????
It was a damaged bomb under assessment for repair. No detonator was fitted. An airman under control of the AIS was attempting to remove (unscrew) an exploder pocket. Possibly some explosive was trapped in the the threads. The work should have been done on the surface. The use of nonferrous tools was mandatory on bombs so a brass chisel was in order. It is possible that some explosive had exuded into the screwthreads and detonated through friction.