What about a ship full of WW2 ammunition, has that been factored in??????
Perhaps PTE can enlighten us as to how a bang may be possible if the Richard Montgomery does go up, Boris certainly wouldn't have to worry about that rare wildlife anymore.
The full story (one of many) can be found here:
In 1944 the Richard Montgomery, a vessel some 440 feet long and weighing 7,176 tons, manned with a crew of 50, plus 30 gunners, sailed from Philadelphia with a cargo of 6000 (six thousand) tons of munitions for the US Air Force. This cargo included;
13,064 general purpose 250lb bombs
9,022 cases of fragmenting bombs
7,739 semi-armour piercing bombs
1,522 cases of fuses
1,429 cases of phosphorous bombs
1,427 cases of 100lb demolition bombs
817 cases of small arms ammunition
Estimates vary as to the exact amount of explosives left on board and scattered across the sea bed. No exact records were kept during the war time salvage operation. It is thought that around half her cargo still remains, perhaps from 1,200 tons to 3,000 tons of munitions containing TNT which does not deteriorate in sea water.
Is it likely to explode?
Is it still dangerous?
Is it likely to become less dangerous or more unstable as time passes?
Again opinions vary. The truth is, "we simply don't know".
Should it explode, some say, it will be the worlds biggest non-nuclear explosion. Sheerness would cease to exist, every building flattened by the explosion and the following tidal waves.
Any resulting tidal wave funneling its way up the River Thames could be devastaing as it would get taller as the river narrows. The thames barrier would be useless.
I get the impression some of the scenarios have been exaggerrated by those wishing to scare people, for whatever motive. I think the line in Dr_Bishop's post "we simply don't know" is probably accurate. There are many factors that affect any explosion and without expert knowledge I would guess the following would have a bearing on the result at time of detonation :-
1. Ebb and flow of tide.
2. Depth of water
3. Nature of the estuary bed
4. Wind strength and direction
5. Likelihood of chain reaction under water
6. Air pressure.
A major part of my job is the responsibility for Bird Hazard Control at BRS, in my honest & qualified opinon the proposed Boris Island scheme goes against proven science & ecology it will be impossible to manage bird hazard at this site, obviously no one has learnt from the recent lessons with the Hudson river incident involving Canada geese & other fatal birdstrike incidents with wader type species that thrive in this habiat.
Might I suggest that the new London Airport be located in the Pas de Calais? It's got excellent rail and road links to London. I suspect that, in this location, it is likely to get built far sooner than anywhere on the UK mainland and, no doubt, the idea would appeal to all the British NIMBYs!
One thing I have not seen mentioned in the media is the absolutely devastating effect that a Heathrow closure would have on the economies of West London, Surrey, Bucks, Berks. etc. Where would those in the area who are in airport related employment work if a Thames Estuary site was developed and if they moved out what would be left behind? Shades of the coal mining and steel industries of the north.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)