Why Brazil Sank Its Own Aircraft Carrier At Sea
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 фев 2023
- Brazil’s Navy sunk its aircraft carrier São Paulo in the Atlantic ocean this month, ending a saga over what to do with the decommissioned ship. The vessel is full of toxic and dangerous material, including tons of asbestos, used in the ship's paneling, and no country - including Brazil - would let it dock in their ports. Environmentalists are outraged, some calling it state-sponsored environmental crime.
#brazil #saopaulo #ship #ocean #environment #pollution #asbestos 
Наука
Asbestos doesn't react with water. On the contrary, when handeling asbestos the best way to limit harm is...making it wet. Education is a beautiful thing.
Ok what about all the other chemicals
@@justsomeeggsinapot1784 All if not most of the other chemicals that would have probably been removed before it was sunk, if not then Brazil would face huge backlash form the international community for dumping hazardous materials.
@@bloodreaper8822 you know hazardous materials get dumped places daily right? It isn't easy but if you do deep research you can find lots of instances of overturned trains and sunken ships with vague or covered up cargo records
@@justsomeeggsinapot1784 I was talking about purposeful dumping not accidently ones that u r talking about.
Yes, BUT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT PLASTIC AND OTHER DANGEROIS MATERIALS THERE TOO.
Obviously they wont uninstall the cable system and etc in there.
You talk about education, but you're not educated as well😅
Some info, because this is not so simple.
This old ship was sold to a company that took it to Turkey. Turkey forbid is entrance. Brazil also forbid its return.
The company that was responsible threatened to abandon the ship in the middle of the ocean.
The Brazilian navy decided to assume reasonably over it again. But it identified three huge holes caused by oxidation at the hull.
3000 cubic meters of water had ALREADY entered the ship. The report said the ship would sink naturally before the end of February.
The asbestos is impossible to remove. It's an integral part of the ship.
The Brazilian navy decided to sink it because it would sink anyway. And if it sink uncontrolled, it might threaten the crew of the tugboat.
Furthermore, it might sink near the port, creating a logistical nightmare.
Or in an environmental protected area.
There wasn't much that could be done except this.
BTW, notice that asbestos was used extensively in ships at WW2 time. As so many ships were sunk at the time, the asbestos in this aircraft carrier is a drop in the ocean, in comparison
The ship was sinking according to the Brazilian Navy which had a clear interest in getting rid of the ship. All in all I think sinking it was the least worse option at that point, but I don't trust the Brazilian reports about the state of the hull too much.
@@a2falcone anyone may choose to not believe the official reports from any source.
@@a2falcone here, a tv report about the aircraft carrier, 3 months ago. Around the 8.20 mark they fly a drone around. There are several huge corrosion marks and holes on the hull
ruclips.net/video/1oQPqblE2Sc/видео.html&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE
@@a2falcone still doesn’t matter…the ship was useless and nothing could be done….better safe sinking it in a deep deep part of the ocean so deep reefs can’t even form…calm down take a marine biology course and understand no harm has been done, just gonna become a home for marine life on the ocean floor
Um relatório feito por quem queria se livrar do navio (Marinha) durante um governo que dava exacerbadas liberdades para as ultrapassadas e inuteis forcas armadas brasileiras ... nao acho que tenha muita credibilidade nao...
As long as you aren't breathing in the asbestos it isn't a threat. And if you're 350km off the cost of Brazil and 5km under the ocean and trying to breathe, then you have bigger problems than asbestos.
Bro how am I supposed to breath underwater in a healthy way with all this asbestos! FUC-
😂
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Nice one😂
❤😂🎉🙏🏾💪🏾 Best Response!
Sea animals: "Oh, a new apartment"
lol
The puffer fish and a hermit crab without a shell: Y I P P E E
That is the most accurate assessment of the ecological impacts of that ship.
@@williamhalsted4 yup.
I'm surprised that Brazil didn't try to sell it to China.
To a Chinese "Amusement Park Entrepreneur" no less
It’s probably in better shape than china’s aircraft carriers
They did try to sell it to Turkey tho🤣
@@faruk1472 Shit, that would have been perfect for their Bayraktar supersonic drone. The drone itself is much lighter than a proper fighter jet, so the old catapults should have had no problem with them.
Alas, Turkey probably had their reasons.
@@totalnerd5674 Brazil was not selling it to Turkish military, buy actually to a Turkish ship yard that would recicle the whole thing. Turkish authorities, however, didn't allow this ship to dock there, due to asbestos, so the deal was canceled.
The sinking footage was not of the Sao Palo, it was of the USS Oriskany - the carrier that the US properly decontaminated and sank to provide an artificial reef and a recreational diving spot.
LOL, YEP! I REMEMBER WATCHING IT SUNK LIVE ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL
São Paulo* honey
@@brunopontes6305 🤓
@@brunopontes6305 🤓
By "properly decontaminating", you mean burning 84,000,000 gallons of crude oil to prepare it for sinking....
80% of money spent on anything (including manual labor) goes straight to burning oil and gas. Don't forget it.
Neither of these methods are better or worse. Just different.
Future archaeologists are gonna find the ship and be like “wow this ship must have been sunken in a great battle thousands of years ago”
Nah mate, absestos.
not really. the sinking is already documented.
The great Battle to Breathe
The Mesothelioma War.
More likely that tiny bacteria will eat away at all of the iron content and leave a giant pile of asbestos and brass down there given a couple thousand years.
@@QWERTY-gp8fda lot of data today may very well be lost in a couple hundred years. If future militaries deliberately started targeting large data storage centers around the world. then most archived data will be lost and never regained.
Reading further context and facts, the decision to scuttle it in a safe manner rather than becoming a navigational hazard is a good call from the Brazillian Navy.
“Safe manner” is doing heavy lifting in your sentence
@@Sampsonoff as long as it didn't create a future navigational hazard, that's enough.
@@VandalAudi That’s an offensively low bar imo. But then again my passion for hunting and fishing is lifelong and I’ve been involved in many conservation efforts worldwide 🤷♂️
@@Sampsonoff I get what you're saying but no.shipbreaker facility would accept that hulk, keeping it afloat was a drain of resources and a hazard, disposing it that would satisfy your requirement requires an exorbitant sum of money and time that is way out of Brazil's budget, so this is the only good option left.
@@Sampsonoff Unless the ship has some toxic chemicals inside of it, that will react with water/combine with water, the ship will actually turn into a reef where fish thrive.
Asbestos is usually placed in water so that it no longer is deemed harmful.
Soooo, if the ship had no chemicals left inside, it's a new reef for those fish you like to catch.
Having served on a US helicopter carrier, built in mid '45, loaded with asbestos, our ship did well for decades. Asbestos was never a problem unless disturbed. After severely damaged in a gale off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, in the winter of 1967, the Navy sent us to repairs and refit at the yards in Boston. Took lots of work and time. Instead of moving its crew off ship, we became exposed to many types airborne hazards like asbestos during the work. I now have asbestosis...
🤔
Sorry mate. 😥
Wow I would like to know more about this if we could get to talk more on it off here
@@lolartover7819 asbestos is light enough to float but hard enough to damage your lungs.
Aussie band the mining of asbestos in 1966 and we only stop all use in 2003
I think no matter what you do someone will always hate you.
Wise words, my friend. Wise words. This is why death is a blessing in disguise.
@@revokdaryl1death to the hater?
*Loads Springfield 1903*
@@tedhubertcrusio372 LOL! Well recently I revisited the concept of eternal return, which seems far more plausible to me than any Heaven or Hell scenario. It proposes that, immediately after we die, we are reborn into the same life all over again. And this will continue for eternity. Nothing will change. The same pains, joys and sorrows will be experienced over and over and over again, down to the most minute detail, like that rainbow sweater you wore to school back in junior kindergarten.
They could have just declared war on some other country and let it be sunk in their waters and then say, “ we surrender “.
The absolute best way to mitigate the danger of asbestos is to get it wet. Problem solved, I'd say.
But still asbestos is not the only chemicals present
@@Elhinal3023depends, I hope they cleaned out all the fuel tanks and such thoroughly before sinking it.
...OR , not to have dug it up in the first place.
@@JUST-ME2468 if my grandmother had wheels she would've been a bike
@@cranci not a fan of British carbonara then ?
fun fact: before sinking it, Brazil actually sold the carrier as scrap for a Turkish company, but they didn't let it in because of the asbestos and stuff, so they sunk it
Lol so Brazil basically scammed Turkey
Edit: Trust RUclips comment sections to end up in semantical nonsense because someone looks too deeply into a joke…
@@DragoneerI wasn't sold to Turkey it was sold to a Turkish ship junkyard.
@@henry247 Ok Brazil scammed a Turkish ship junkyard
@@Dragoneer Eh...how?
@@henry247 By selling it and then sinking it before they can get their hands on it. You know this is a joke, right??
Crazy to see something so large go down
well you can see France Saw Brazil coming🤣🤣🤣
After what the Brazilian government has allowed to happen in the Amazon this ship sinking would have to be awfully bad for the environment to be worse than it.
Environmental crime? That's just an artificial coral reef.
The nasty chemicals leaking out would be an environmental concern
@@LiveTheLimit there are no chemicals leaking out. They wouldve remived the oil and fuel, and the asbestos is only harmful if airborne. If it isnt airborne, then it just sinks to the floor and is no longer a concern.
@@LiveTheLimit if you want an environment concern. You should be asking the USA for blowing up russia pipeline. Which is the worst environmental catastrophe
@@dethtour what does that have to do with anything?
@@commissarthorne3894 they're both environmental issues but no one talks about the worst in history that the USA caused on purpose.
As long as there weren't any chemicals, it would be fine. Asbestos is harmless if it's wet and undisturbed
Good thing the ocean is static and nothing actually moves in there.
@Humanaut. ocean currents aren't strong enough to move a shipwreck. Also, sarcasm makes you sound like an ass
Undisturbed?
@@peasant7214 as long as its left alone it won't cause any harm
@@Humanaut.are you stupid? I hope you’re being sarcastic
I don't know anything about asbestos but I do watch a lot of movies, so I'm pretty sure Brazil is going to be attacked by a gigantic radioactive squid as a result of this.
lol!!!
The president of Brazil are "Socialist Lula da Silva" (squid of Silva)
o porta-avião não era nuclear
I think the only mistake made here by the Brazilian Navy was not filling the ship with environmentalists before sinking it.
Sunken ships make it really easy to get a Coral reef going
5000 metres depth
Not that deep they dont
Asbestos fish
lol. duh duh duhhhh
Mmm fiber glass fish, heard they're good.
sunken ships are actually pretty good for deep sea creatures, thats a lot of hiding spaces and plenty of room for coral to grow
at 15000 feet, its too deep for coral to grow.
That’s after they stripped it of the hazardous things
Seafloor at the site is 1,03 leagues, there's no coral (or much of anything) down there. It's a safe resting place.
@@zee9709 There is still sea life down there that will find the shelter to be useful and a life giving habitat.
A tremendous waste of recycling materials
“To the horror of environmentalists” they should watch the ship breaking yards of Bangladesh that’s horror !!!
It was here in India also.
Maybe we can (and should) be opposed to multiple practices at once? idk, sounds pretty achievable to me
Their parents are making a fortune investing in the shipyards or making money off the shipping lines. So that protest is strictly off limits
@@stereotype.6377 Why? Whats going to happen? Few dead fish? Some algae too perhaps. The world aint ending. I couldnt care less about the health of fish. We can farm the tasty ones and let the rest die.
all environmentalists do is whine and yell and sit
Brazil : sails the ship to Turkey which accepted to decontaminate and dismantle the ship
Environnementalists : organizing strikes in Turkey to prevent the decontamination in Turkey from happening WHILE the ship was on its way for Turkey
Brazil : sunks the decaying ship in a safe way to prevent a deadly incident because no other harbors in the world want problems with environementalists
Environementalists : " wait thats illegal ! "
Is that actually true though?
@@bigmacstack3468 Environnementalists organized a strike in Turkey when they heard about the warship beeing sold to a turkish shipyard for decontamination and scraping.
Once the warship left Brazil for Turkey, the environnementalist strike succedeed and the shipyard canceled the operation.
Thus the warship had lost the right to enter in Turkey while it was already on its way to reach the country, and didnt have the right to enter in any other harbor in the world because of worldwide anti-absergo and environnementalism policies.
The warship was badly decaying during its trip between Brazil and Turkey, a few holes caused by rust were filling the hull with ocean water and the only way to get rid of the warship without endengering the crew was by scuttling the warship while they still had the control over the warship.
Warship again destroyed from eradicator mk IV💀
Once I was playing HOI4 as Brazil and I experienced a bug where my entire navy was sunk, save for one battleship that I couldn't control in the Caribiean. This Ghost Ship just sailed around engaging American ships and Aircraft and winning against entire fleets because it couldn't die.
É meu amigo Você já ouviu falar do lendário navio brasileiro encouraçado Minas Gerais o navio de guerra mais poderoso da Primeira Guerra Mundial???
@@capitaotrex505I heard that it was horribly mismanaged, and crew conditions were terrible to the point of mutiny.
That's not a bug. It's a feature.
When you're such a bad captain that your mutineers have to win the war for you
lol goddamn Battleship Black Pearl
Asbestos occurs naturally in aggregate form.
Having wet on the sea bed does absolutely no harm in any way. Every feature on the seabed promotes sea life. There could not have been a better use for it.
Thanks for the knowledge drop.
Though some comments are concerned that asbestos might not be the only dangerous substance on that carrier or that they did a good job cleaning it up.
recycling is a better use.
It will break down. Wash up on the beach. Dry on the sand. Get inhaled by beach goers.
@@generationfallout5189 Link to ONE TIME that has ever happened. (pro tip : it never has)
@@grecco_buckliano Everything breaks down in the oceans. The waters circulate. Currents carry nutrients here and there. The ocean is far from stagnant. Humanity always wants things to be simple but they very rarely are hombre.
Ships are sunken by many nations all around the world all the time. This because they help create barrier reefs. Seems “political” that its being made an issue. Also IMO, seems like Brazil doesn’t need a carrier. These are costly and mostly useful to attack/invade lands beyond your own 🤔
It's hard to say. The video implied there was other hazardous materials, so what exactly was on it when it sank? I don't think the asbestos will venture far from the ship, as it will usually be in panels and such, which ocean live will coat and seal in not long.
I mean, the common alternative would have been to ground the ship in India, which is what a lot of other countries did for quite a while. Hopefully the fact that the video implied it could means India has gotten a lot better about asbestos safety. Lots of people over there worked with asbestos with zero safety equipment for a long time. I remember videos of guys in nothing more than underwear fluffing asbestos and tossing it up in the air. They likely have all died horrific deaths.
If the only choices were to sink it and send it to some country that doesn't protect its workers, I would go with sinking.
On the other hand, likely the ship could have been dismantled safely, but at great cost, which means they probably just didn't want to spend anything on it. That's different. These countries should be obl8flgated to clean up the messes they make. The cost is a lesson to not repeat such choices in the future. They bought the ship at a time when they should have known the repercussions. Asbestos issues were well known back then.
Some of the video clips used in this video were of the sinking of the former USS Oriskany to make an artificial reef off the US east coast. This was done after months of mitigation efforts to remove asbestos and other hazardous material.
They don't remove asbestos inorder to sink a ship. Totally unnecessary....
I haven't found anything concerning asbestos in underwater conditions.
My guess is that it won't really float around and if it does, the huge surface area will make it suitable for colonisation, increasing its density and make it float down to the ocean floor.
In the case of Brazilian ship, it was sunk to a deph of 5km, so there won't be much biological activity to disturb the asbestos. It will sit there long after we're extinct, because it's a mineral.
@@etuanno, asbestos is a natural occurring rock like material. It's only danger is when it's reduced down to a powder or dust, where it can become airborne. It's filers are hook shaped and dig into the soft tissues of the lungs, thus causing the the body to form scar tissue around the fibers to encapsulate them. During asbestos abatement, water is sprayed on it to prevent frangible fibers from becoming airborne, so the ocean bottom is a perfect place. The substance is not toxic and is found in the ground all over.
France pulled a fast one on Brazil, by the sound of it.
That's thinking there was no experts in the brazilian military , and none of those knew how to read a spec sheet ....Cheap ships are cheap for a reason
They only paid 12 million dollars so I don't think so
Lol them sneaky frenchies
@@kiernoify USA financed Hitler after the weimar hyperinflation , then after letting Hitler roll on Europe pretexting "isolationnism" , came to "save" Europe by carpet bombing it and susbequently imposing a giant Marshall plan shark loan to buy their shitty american made products , now that european industry was on it's knees ..... Now that's SNEAKY ....
But it's not astonishing from an ex convict colony , that departed from catholic authority and created an more convenient protestant religion because it allowed to kill of the local indian population because they were deemed inferior , by giving them polio infested blankets ......
Ha ha
Imagine how much material they could have salvaged from it. Ah well, minerals grow back anyway, amirite? 🙄
man the titanic was a environmental crime and the captain, the people on board, and the iceberg should pay dearly
-environmentalist
15000 feet down, no big deal-- think about all the ships that went down in WW1 & 2
It all adds up.
Apparently environmentalists don't think of that.
Wonder how much of a problem asbestos fibers are in the water. Probably not much of one.
Those ships still cause ecological damage today. There’s been lots of study’s about it you can look it up. There’s a group that investigates old wrecks in the baltics that have a lot of good information about it.
Except those weren’t purposefully sunk by their own navy in peacetime?
You know what I think?
I think you left the cameraman on that ship.😮
Remote camera
Sponsored by GoPro
The camera man always survives. He's immortal.
lol
Cameramen never die, that's why later there's footage of it at the bottom. He's still there
Мдя, избавиться от такой посудины якобы из-за асбеста в конструкции, да еще и пойти тем самым на экологическое преступление - очень похоже на вынужденную меру под надуманным предлогом.
Lucky for me I have to pay $1 for a bag at the store instead of $0.25 as it was before we got "plastic taxes", cause we in Sweden, as one of the cleanest countries of the world, ruins so much of the global enviroment that taxes for plastic was urgently needed.
Now Lawyers are sending fish notices about mesothelioma lawsuits
Cheers 🥂🥂🥂
Seems bad for the fish though lol
I'd have bought it for less than what they paid to sink it. I've always wanted an aircraft carrier.
Sure you would.
Lol
@@totallylegityoutubeperson4170 well all the materials used to destroy it did indeed cost many thousands of dollars, if they just left it sitting in the ocean and another person claimed it that is free
TELL EM!
And transporting the unoperational boat to you, let alone the facility needed to store an architect carrier would cost YOU more than some mere explosives
Yeah The Foch, that was its name. It was sold to Brazil after being used for 40 years by the French navy
well you can see France saw Brazil coming🤣🤣🤣
I'm not an environmentalist per se, but that was a terrible idea. They were too cheap to dispose of it correctly but paid an astronomical sum to host the Olympics.
Great job.
Environmentalists are horrified by the controlled sinking meanwhile, environmentalists agitated to stop the ship from being sold for scrap or brought into harbor for remediation.
I think that environmentalists can only be happy once all electricity is produced by people on hometrainers.
The question is if they did remove the Asbestos Lining from the ship in a yard before sinking it, because if not then eventually that Asbestos is going to find its way into the ocean
@@ilo3456 then what about all the ww1 and ww2 ships with asbestos that sunk while active?
@@ilo3456 Kinda doubt that they did remove the asbestos. As I recall the reason that the ship was denied passage into the Mediterranean for scrapping was due to the presence of asbestos and that lead to the situation of it being stuck off shore until the scuttling.
@@alexnaismith351 Eventually all that asbestos will find its way through the foodchain, killing billions of creatures over the next century or two. But those were sunk during a time of war and when environmentalism wasn't that big a deal.
It will become an artificial reef, a hotspot of biodiversity
Not at 5000m! But as it degrades it will enter the foodchain. cancel that Lobster Bisque in Rio! I they could have keep it as a floating museum or hotel to recoup taxpayers money rather than just to throw it away!
@@brianbozo2447 its Brazil. The government is way beyond “retarded” levels.
@@brianbozo2447A ship with a history of problems.... So no, there was no other way to be operated on.
its too deep for a reef
@@zee9709 no it is not, it will be covered by deep sea sponges, crustaceans and molusks
There is no law governing the pollution of environment within a country’s territorial waters. And it’s not even an actively toxic chemical. So since it’s done within Brazil’s EEZ, that’s fine
1) they actually removed an cleaned the ship of a lot of the asbestos. In the end, the hardest parts to clean would probably end up polluting more. So actually sinking it away from everything was kinda the least worse they could do.
2) to me, an aircraft carrier never made much sense to Brazilian doctrine. Thank God it sank. Too bad it took so long.
We need more submariners, specially nuclear ones
@@lucascamelo3079 we need a lot of stuff. Aircraft carriers are kinda the "last step" of a fleet, meaning we'd need much better ships and in bigger quantity. Also, carriers are, doctrine wise, used to project power abroad, something that makes zero sense to Brazil's geopolitics.
@@josecarlosamador In order for a navy to effectively utilize a carrier, they first have to have a relatively strong fleet of escort ships
@@josecarlosamador , concordo contigo. E o Brasil até projeta poder nas missões internacionais de paz que colabora com a ONU, mas um porta-aviões não tem utilidade direta neste caso. Mais inútil ainda é um porta-aviões sem strike group, caso em que se transforma num enorme alvo flutuante.
Why couldn’t they save it? Just remove the asbestos.
This is fine, US Navy did this back in the day with the Oriskany and now it's a diving spot, plus it's underwater, it's no longer floating in the air and it's not gonna kill anyone.
"floating in the air""not gonna kill anyone" the most idiotic hippie statement ever
@@johnnyrebel4real166he’s referring to the asbestos, not the aircraft carrier, idiot.
the Brazilian aircraft carrier Atlântico can carry up to 18 helicopters, or
40 aircraft like Harrier or F35 can have 432 crew and up to 1,400 marines. It has the capacity to accommodate more people than some Brazilian municipalities, such as Serra da Saudade (MG), with only 771 inhabitants; Borá (SP), with 839; Araguainha (MT), with 909; and Engenho Velho (RS), with 932 residents. 23 Feb 2023The future aircraft carrier, possibly called Rio de Janeiro, is foreseen in the PAEMB program (acronym for Articulation and Equipment Plan of the Brazilian Navy), with the objective of being a fully operational aircraft carrier in 2040.
I don't care what it's full of you don't leave junk in our Ocean, and damage sea life. Humans need to be held accountable for all our actions.
It is now a great home for Marine life. Great idea.
I don't know a lot of asbestos but don't you think if it's that dangerous to humans, it would also be dangerous to animals?
@@torpedotorben No, asbestos is not toxic, it is like small needles pieces. When it's wet it's not harmful, when it's dry and it's dust in air, you breathe and they stab your lungs
@@torpedotorben do you even have an idea what asbestos is?
@@angelaferkel7922 The EPA states those who consume water with higher than that amount over extended periods may face an increased risk of developing benign intestinal polyps. Another recent study, however, has shown asbestos in drinking water could potentially lead to the risk of cancer, including mesothelioma... do you even have an idea what asbestos is angela?
@@torpedotorben source please
Repose in peace Carrier Foch
Where were all the environmentalists when they needed people to get in there with all the toxic material to decommission the ship? If they care so much they should’ve volunteered.
Asbestos that's wet is not hazardous cuz it's not loose. Coral will grow, overgrow it encapsulating it.
Where do people think most ships end up? In America we use old ships as target practice and send them to the deep. I’m sure more than a few had asbestos lol.
Nearly every one would have had asbestos inside. Won't do any damage underwater just like it doesn't when it's underground
Isn't that a waste of STEEL?
@@manuel.camelo it is cheaper to mine and produce from 0 than to recycle this metal
@@LcsGil 👁️👃👁️
That's weird.. but thanks for sharing this issue. 🙏
Brazil goes in America
It was starting to act like the Admiral Kuznetsov. The Brazilians are kind enough to put the poor thing down.
She's still fit and operational...the hell are you on about?
@@TheHuffmanator The Admiral Kuznetsov has a history of disasters and mishaps. Russia struggles to keep it functional let alone ready for deployment. When it is deployed it usually has a tugboat following because they don't trust that it'll make it home under its own power.
@@nate0765 ...that's the point bub...
The ship exist no matter what. 5000 meters (literally 3+ miles) below the surface seems to be the lesser of two evils.
The USA cleaned up Oriskany before it was sunk. Dismantling her must have been to expensive. Asbestos is dangerous when its airborne.
Asbestos is not dangerous underwater
exactly
As long as the fish don't start to remodel it 😉
@@StephenButlerOne fish don't have lungs
@@gregh7457 they don't do diy either you div
Source?
As long as it has the major toxic materials removed it could end up being good acting as an artificial reef
they werent removed
@@Bot-ov2hs he knows that’s why he’s commenting it to inform other people.
And which toxic material would that be?
@@consaka1 asbestos and possibly radioactive material depending on how the aircraft carrier was powered.
@@astatine5781 Asbestos is safe as long it is not tampered with. The ship was powered by a conventional engine powering steam turbines which powered the driveshaft
I'd say they wasted a perfectly good aircraft carrier 🤷 .......
seeing the whereabouts of this ship in national news was really confusing.
There was some navy enthusiast that suggested turning the ship into a museum(the ship was already sold and departed to be dismounted). The enthusiast and scientists warned about those toxic materials(again, the ship already sold, departed to be dismounted). The turks didn't want the ship anymore because of those toxic materials(it's a natural occurring material and it's pretty common to have those in aircraft carrier, I thought they knew about those materials). Neither Brazil wanted the ship docked in brazilian ports(as if it never touched Brazil before). The ship was left adrift for a while and then we decided to sink the ship to the bottom of the ocean
When you have an aircraft carrier you don't ask for permission to dock in the port
It doesn’t make you lawless…
Its a government owned ship but the government also controls the war docks that aircraft carriers can dock at so rather than endanger the lives of the crew they just has it wait at bay and got to dock on dinghies
Counterpoint: The missles on land are bigger than missles on boat
In your own port you mean
I thought the government can do anything it wants, even commit blatant crimes, with total impunity?
Or is that only the US government?
You know, sunken ships create homes for marine life.
When they’re not full of oil that is
Not at depth of 5 kilometers...
@@AllonKirtchik - I doubt they would’ve left oil in it. The toxic material left beyond was asbestos as no one wants it.
True. The ship had already emptied her oil and will be good place for deep sea life. Even in deeper wrecks found in the Pacific there still tons of prosperous marine life.
@@AllonKirtchik it wasn’t full of oil…..nice try tho
That thing was once on top , now she’s bloody deeper than titanic
Should have given the environmentalists the option to take it and dispose of it how they'd like.
And when they inevitably can't, then the military can sink it.
Environmentalists couldn't complain then, because they had their chance at it and they passed it up.
All of a sudden everyone became an asbestos scientist
Armchair researchers
On the other hand , REAL asbestos scientists in the 60s thought it was such an harmless substance they were seeing no harm in commercializing it ^^
But all in all , i agree with the utter annoyance of comment section improvised " experts " ...
And they’re not mentioning the heavy metals
everyone on the internet instantly gains an bachelor's degree on a certain topic just to win an argument
@@AeroBeII Not everyone but some have a degree in geochemistry and mineralogy indeed.
J'ai navigué sur ce Navire en 1996 , il vivait alors ces dernière années de service sous pavillon Français. Je suis triste qu'il ai fini de cette manière.
It was a piece of junk sh1t aircraft carrier, like most 3rd tier ship your contry produces!! WW2 technology.
@@agustinenzoa4447 Et dans ton pays on ne t'apprend pas le respect!?
Fair winds and following seas to the ald girl and your self 🤙
Tis sad to see any ship with history go….
je vois. je suis content d'avoir pu lire ton commentaire, comment était l'état du Navire l'année donc tu as navigué sur?
@@DrDrops420 Bonjour; oui j'étais affecté sur ce navire en 1996 et pour un navire de plus de trente ans déjà et d'une ancienne technologie il était en très bon état! l'entretien y était rigoureux et constant.
Ocean life will expand in this sunken ship.
The environmentalists will be pleased that this is the best way to have dealt with that particular situation. It would have been much worse to airborne those particles during a decommissioning and scraping process.
Fish: it's free real estate!!!!
That's not really an environmental issue and shipwrecks can work as an artificial reef for fishes.
Artificial reef at 5000 meters deep?
@@carlosceschini4104 Maybe not in this occasion but often on shallowish waters.
Have these people HEARD of asbestosis? I’d have sunk it myself
My dad is asbestos’ for a living and can confirm there are no problems with him/asbestos as long as it’s not disturbed…but one you get it angry…RUN
I think if the people of a free nation DOESNT WANT THEIR COUNTRY doing something then THE POLITICIANS SHOULD NOT DO IT.
People won't let it dock so they can remove the toxic materials.
People get upset when they sink it since they can no longer afford it
People do jumping jacks
Then Get upset when their ankles hurt.
People finding hypocrisy in, people is always fascinating
The main problem is not the Asbestos (which is only a problem if you breath it in), the ship also contained long term poisonous stuff like PCB, a chemical nobody wants in the food chain. It was used in oils, for example transformer oil or special low flammable hydraulic oil. PCB belongs to the worst chemicals if they find their way into the environment.
Ships sunk by the US as practise targets are stripped of such chemicals before they are used for targets
Of course it was removed
This ship was out of service since 2012 soo no oil or hydraulic nothing more just the runaway was new refit in 2010
I think the environmentalists failled to come up with a better plan. Otherwise, Brazil would have used it.
Huh? That doesn’t make any sense
No potentialy water polluting material was on board and asbestos is only toxic airborne. This is a pretty common practice to sink ships for artificial reefs don’t know what the problem is
So... environmentalists don't want a new Coral Reef off the coast then? Because I'd say that's a boon to the environment, not harm... As long as the fuels and oils were removed, there's nothing wrong with this. It's great for sea life!
Did you watch the video? They sunk it because there was toxic materials onboard. When ships are sunk to make artificial reefs, they are cleared of any toxic materials so it doesn't harm the environment.
Don't you love when a cancer comes onto a beautiful planet and gets to decide what's good and what's not good for the life on the planet.
@@ilikecinema1234 don't u get it environmentalist don't want anything in the ocean and someone put a carrier full of toxic in the Atlantic ocean 😅 some people react when it's to late
@DawnHadu This aircraft carrier, whether it had toxic materials or not, is a small fraction of what has been done to this planet, don't you get it?
@@carbinationXptah abaestus dont even harm the enviroment when on Water,its just dangerous when it is in the war,brazil is not dumb bro
What I think is that this has been done many times by many countries. With varying degrees of abatement and a variety of narratives such as "artificial reef for the fishies".
No reef will be possible in 16 thousand feet of water.
If Brazil and France knew then what we know now about asbestos and chemicals is likely that the ship would have been built differently but we didn't there are ways to remediate as best as in those chemicals Brazil chose not to spend the money
Average Brazil moment
if the environmentalist want it so bad let them go down there and get or they can shut because they didn't do anything for it when it was up besides complain.....
Exactly.
So the government shouldn't do its job?
@@antera1524 they did their jobs. But most of the public doesn’t understand what problems occur in these old ass ships. And tbh it’s getting ready annoying having to explain it all the time
@@antera1524 what are you talking about? Go live there if want the government to work oh wait they don't shit crap here either besides give us inflation n crime
@@redalertsteve_ do explain it
O casco afundado não pertencia ao Brasil porque foi adquirido por uma empresa turca que o rebocou até a entrada do Mar Mediterrâneo.
Tudo estava dentro da lei, mas as autoridades da Turquia mudaram de ideia por causa de protestos ecológicos da turma da Greta Thunberg e a empresa teve que rebocar o casco de volta ao Atlântico Sul.
A empresa abandonou o casco à deriva em águas da zona econômica exclusiva do litoral do Brasil. O casco estava fraturado, a água invadia as galerias internas sem controle e a embarcação afundaria em menos de duas ou três semanas.
A Marinha do Brasil fez o afundamento controlado do casco para não piorar a situação com outro desastre.
O Brasil não era o proprietário do casco da embarcação que sua Marinha afundou.
Then why did the narrator say that it belonged to Brazil?
these things will always happen with a Socialist populist like Lula da Silva!! They are ECO TERRORISTS and very IRRESPONSIBLE!!! Nothing good is to be expected of your new government, I am so sorry.
Seems like they did the best thing possible. Asbestos isn’t going to anything in the water so I think 5k meters down and 350 miles from shore should do it
What else were they gonna do with it? Give it to the environmentalists so they can snort it like c'cain? I'd actually like to see that.
Brazil should never have bought the pile of junk in the first place.
It already belonged to Brazil for decades, it was sold because it was old and cost a lot to modernize it.
@@user-sz3lu1ln3p do you not think, especially with him saying “ in the first place “
He means the original sale back in the 60s?…..
@@_just_another_filthy_redcoat It was a cheap aircraft carrier, and the government at the time was complicated, so it's an obvious answer.
@@user-sz3lu1ln3p that’s…. That’s got fuck all to do with what I just asked you… I asked did you possibly miss understand the original comment and you come back with that ?
Weird deflection but you do you I guess
Well those environmentalists could've paid to have the ship brought up to one of their port towns and demolished and recycled in an environmentally-friendly way. But they chose instead to hold signs and do nothing to actually provide an alternative.
The people who are offended by this all live in America and if they're offended by that then please do not swim off the coast of New Jersey where there are hundreds of rusting barrels of nuclear waste. What's more detrimental to the environment a crummy aircraft Carrier or hundreds of barrels of nuclear rods and waste
It was a Houthi attack with an explosive boat sailing in the Red Sea, which led to its sinking
The environmentalists should have been allowed aboard ship before it was sank.
Why.
I don't think they'll come over to the ship because they're busy checking their twitter notifications.
I wouldn't expect many people or animals would be breathing in asbestos dust when it's underwater.
Gills
fish: am I a joke to you?
Aww, that stuff is the best when snorting that white powdery stuff. I call it asbestoscain.
So fish aren't animals now?
Fish ingest and then we eat fish. Not hard to grasp
Just as long as they drained all toxic liquid then brazil 🇧🇷 has one of the largest man made coral reef and should be very good for the ecosystem.
Asbestos is the least of toxic concerns in water
Asbestos is a mineral. It's only a hazard if frayed or disturbed. Putting back into the ground works for disposal, but sinking is a good secondary option.
"environmentalists": they could be completely stupid and have no idea what theyre talking about except regurgitating what someone on TV told them yet they all get classed together under this word as if they know what they are talking about.
Wow you’re right! Who even knows if asbestos is harmful?!
How's that deregulation going in ohio
@@stereotype.6377 Asbestos is only harmful if it becomes airborne & you happen to inhale it. Working with asbestos requires a fitted respirator with P-100 rated filter cartridges.
@@stereotype.6377 asbestos is harmful when released into the air, also when a chemical reaction happens. But under water and at its depth it’s not gonna cause on lick of damage
Those environmentalists have a higher degree than you and probably make more money ;)
That's why they can afford it.
I’m not an environmentalist but that was not right! Any country that takes on the major responsibility of owning a ship of war should also take on the responsibility of the peace and everything that goes with it including the environment!!! Shame on you Brazil!
If its too toxic for human's its too toxic for the sea. The idea that Brazil said its own boat cant doc for health reasons and then sank it in their waters is the most bass ackwards thing I have heard in a while.
Japan dumping their nuclear waste into Pacific. That is even worst disaster to the world.
Payback for HIroshima and Nagasaki maybe!?
Fukushima? You should check the radiation doses in the seawater around there, it’s terribly minuscule.
“Kyle hill” has very good explanations on nuclear power and how it is generally safer than other forms of power. (Mainly just solar and wind is safer, but also less efficient)
@@tomatosoupwoo finally someone interested in nuclear power facts and not nuclear superstition.
Indeed nuclear is one of the safest and cleanest energy sources available for mankind, people should inform themselves more before taking Hiroshima and Cernobyl as a standard example...
@@endellion2066 but how do you know some countries won’t just dump their waste in the middle of the ocean at night?
@@levismith7444 there's a strict control from the international nuclear department from Onu who make sure you don't do this, actually most radioactive vaste are just simple clothings and other tools used inside the powerplant but are not really dangerous as their radiation level is minimal, only 1% of all toxic waste is considered to be life-threatening and as such is stored in composed material containment chambers.
It clearly can happen that some countries ditch their waste illegally but it's still gonna have a smaller impact on local wildlife than oil spreading in the sea or atmospheric pollution from gas powerplants.
Oddly enough even tho modern generation of nuclear powerplants are regarded as the safest structures on earth they are still publicly viewed as dangerous and threat, makes no sense to me honestly.
I think Brazil activists needs to be more worried about crime than their environment.
Well the Amazon being actively vaporized is kinda bad for our oxygen
@@FlexedNoose Uhh no? 85% of the oxygen comes from the ocean and not trees.
@@holdtheline8814 still, destroying one of if not the largest forest on the planet will not make our species breathe any better. Nor will it for the global temperature which has been rising steadily for 150 years.
At that depth I hardly think it’ll be a danger to anyone. No one can go down that deep with a special sub
Rather than complaining about it perhaps Environmentalists could proposed solutions?
Not half as bad as discharging radio active water into the pacific at Fukushima