Print 38 comment(s) - last by Shadowmaster62.. on Oct 9 at 2:53 PM

Shipwrecks litter the coastal waters of the U.S.  (Source:
Arggh yee, maties, she be a toxic PCB drifting off the starboard bow!

DailyTech has previously reported about the rising epidemic of tech trash.  The export of tech trash, largely from the U.S. to third world nations, has become an international problem which has gotten so bad the U.S. Congress is considering tough new measures to curb the effects.  However, while some tech trash may be getting dumped on foreign soils, there's another major realm of tech trash that is only now beginning to be fully recognized -- the sea.

Every year boats, barges and ships sink in coastal waters around the U.S. due to accidents, weather damage, age or an owner's financial duress.  The majority is never recovered and lay rotting on the seabed.  The problem has taken on high-tech ramifications, as modern boats often have onboard computers and circuitry, much of which contains toxic chemicals.

Doug Helton, acting director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Debris Program describes, "You go to any harbor or shoreline in the country and you'll find derelict and abandoned vessels."

There may be as many as 10,000 sunken vessels surrounding the U.S. coast, with 400 to 500 being sunk in 2005 alone, with the arrival of Hurricane Katrina.  The wrecks typically leach toxic petroleum into the surrounding areas says Mr. Helton.  And while the petroleum chemicals will drift away, the PCBs onboard the ships will not and continue to leach toxic chemicals.  Mr. Helton says that these chemicals move up the food chain and are likely to eventually be ingested by humans.

The wrecks can also destroy local ecosystems.  The leaching iron can attract corallimorph, organisms in the same family as corals and sea anemones, which attack and kill corals and other sea life.  This phenomenon was recently verified by Thierry Work, a wildlife disease specialist at the U.S. Geological Survey, and his colleagues, in the journal PLoS One. He describes, "It's a carpet of living animals that destroyed all the other organisms underneath.  We were able to show man-made structures were responsible for the growth of these organisms."

The wreckage can also directly kill fish and other sea creatures.  According to Keith Criddle, a marine policy professor at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks the leading killer of endangered monk seals is fishing equipment aboard wrecks.  A 2004 report titled "An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century," the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy found that more than 267 different species were being adversely impacted by derelict fishing gear.

Professor Criddle and others have called on Congress to improve efforts to remove the marine trash, particular the fish equipment and toxic tech trash.  They say the biggest need is for a cohesive plan as their currently is a lack of organization in efforts.  While many states have fines for abandonment, often they are not strictly enforced and it’s less costly to take the fine that take apart the ship.  Breaking down a 40 foot yacht can cost as little as $5,000 to $10,000, but often it can cost up to 100 times that amount. 

Recently, Washington State has funded some efforts for boat removal and the U.S. Congress has given the NOAA some funding to remove boats from coral reefs.  While these efforts are helping, they cannot keep up with the pace of sinking ships, without more help.

One additional undesirable side effect of the PCB leaching has also surfaced -- "increased catchability".  While this may sound like a good thing, it’s a headache for fishers, as it causes regions to quickly be depleted of fish and lowers their overall revenue.

Mr. Helton says that with new government efforts technology aboard the ships and any fishing gear could be secured so the ship was not harming the environment, even if there were not funds to totally dismantle the ship.  He urges citizens as well to remember, "when a vessel is lost it's not gone."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: First global warming
By odessit740 on 10/3/2008 10:56:26 AM , Rating: -1
Okay Mr. Smart guy. Why don't you go crawl in a cave and invent some SOAP AND WATER to do the clean part of manufacturing electronics. When you come up with it, come on out and let us know. We'll use it. Until then, STFU!

It isn't like we WANT to pollute. But it is a dirty part of any industry so until good samaritans such as yourself, if you are one that is, go and invent these clean technologies... AKA SOAP AND WATER, the rest of the world will have to rely on more traditional methods.

Lastly, the guy whom you described as stupid was making a joke, he's part of the "funny" part of the population. You are a "tree hugger" (fat trees need love too, big mama what you gonna do?)

RE: First global warming
By InvertMe on 10/3/2008 11:07:32 AM , Rating: 5
Okay Mr. Smart guy. Why don't you go crawl in a cave and invent some SOAP AND WATER to do the clean part of manufacturing electronics. When you come up with it, come on out and let us know. We'll use it. Until then, STFU!

Actually that is my job now. I assist with creating better less wasteful processes in a mid sized manufacturing plant. Hopefully the work I am doing will translate into other fields and types of manufacturing. So far most (not all) of the changes we make result in reduced costs mostly due to less wasteful processes.

I am a tree hugger - I fully admit it. I choose nature over waste any day of the week. That said I also fully enjoy the benefits of modern life. There is a balance there and I am sure people can meet it.

RE: First global warming
By mindless1 on 10/4/2008 5:11:56 PM , Rating: 3
You choose to consume electronics, use power, just to come here and post conversations about news topics.

Sure, you're enjoying the benefits of modern life, like everyone else, and that's why we have so much pollution. There is no one group of people to blame, it's all of us with these ideas that our lifestyle matters more, that we can demand some arbitrary standard of living and insist that only the means to have that would change.

There is nothing to admit, you're not a tree hugger and do not choose nature. Neither do I, but at least I'm honest with myself about it.

RE: First global warming
By chmilz on 10/3/2008 11:18:21 AM , Rating: 5
Where the HELL do you morons come from? Do you use the preview button? Don't you realize how stupid you sound? F*ck you're ignorant.

Anyway, on to my argument...

The reality is and has been for some time that we need to develop cleaner ways to do everyday things. Our consume-everything lifestyle, multiplied by population, will eventually overwhelm nature. Even as most industries are already finding ways every day to clean up their processes, this article is simply pointing out one aspect most of us may not have considered.

RE: First global warming
By JonnyDough on 10/3/2008 11:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Humans impact nature, mostly because we are a PART of nature. We create NON-ORGANIC compounds, everything else that is living only creates organic wastes which are easily cleaned by nature. We need to learn to be more responsible or nature suffers. When nature suffers, obviously we suffer too. We are afterall a PART of nature.

"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation
Related Articles

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki