No, seriously!!

Why do I bother recycling my paper, plastic, glass, aluminium, etc??

Only to see approx 4,000 tonnes of steel sent to the bottom of the sea off the Central Coast of NSW???

:-? :-? :-?

For the perdy yellow top bin of course.

Why do I bother recycling my paper, plastic, glass, aluminium, etc??

Only to see approx 4,000 tonnes of steel sent to the bottom of the sea off the Central Coast of NSW???
------------------------------------------


And hearing  of the HUGE problem with the dumping of big box TV sets, computer moniters and electronic stuff thats piling up AND not being recycled....

BTW

Hi froggie  [smiley=vrolijk_26.gif]

Only to see approx 4,000 tonnes of steel sent to the bottom of the sea off the Central Coast of NSW???

- Froggie

Huh? This can't be right.

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 9:06pm:

Only to see approx 4,000 tonnes of steel sent to the bottom of the sea off the Central Coast of NSW??? - Froggie Huh? This can't be right.

Not sure if the plan changed but they were going to scuttle the HMAS Adelaide off Terrigal to create an atificial reef and dive site.

Quote:

Why do I bother recycling my paper, plastic, glass, aluminium, etc?? Only to see approx 4,000 tonnes of steel sent to the bottom of the sea off the Central Coast of NSW???

I can only assume you're referring to the scuttling of HMAS Adelaide.

You recycle your paper, plastic, glass etc to help minimise the stuff ending up as landfill.

The ship is being scuttled to provide an artificial reef, a haven for fish and a recreational dive site.

Life_goes_on wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 9:16pm:

Quote: Why do I bother recycling my paper, plastic, glass, aluminium, etc?? Only to see approx 4,000 tonnes of steel sent to the bottom of the sea off the Central Coast of NSW??? I can only assume you're referring to the scuttling of HMAS Adelaide. You recycle your paper, plastic, glass etc to help minimise the stuff ending up as landfill. The ship is being scuttled to provide an artificial reef, a haven for fish and a recreational dive site.

You assume correctly, life....

I know the reason WHY I recycle, but I question the validity of doing so when this quantity of steel is "DUMPED".

It could be reclaimed at a far cheaper cost than making new steel from scratch.

Though I do suppose it beats dumping it into landfill.  ;)

wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 9:01pm:

BTW Hi froggie  [smiley=vrolijk_26.gif]

And back at ya, vegi.... :)

Lobo wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 9:26pm:

Life_goes_on wrote on Sep 15th, 2010 at 9:16pm: Quote: Why do I bother recycling my paper, plastic, glass, aluminium, etc?? Only to see approx 4,000 tonnes of steel sent to the bottom of the sea off the Central Coast of NSW??? I can only assume you're referring to the scuttling of HMAS Adelaide. You recycle your paper, plastic, glass etc to help minimise the stuff ending up as landfill. The ship is being scuttled to provide an artificial reef, a haven for fish and a recreational dive site. You assume correctly, life.... I know the reason WHY I recycle, but I question the validity of doing so when this quantity of steel is "DUMPED". It could be reclaimed at a far cheaper cost than making new steel from scratch. Though I do suppose it beats dumping it into landfill.  ;)

The value it creates in tourism, particularly diving, far exceeds the scrap value of the steel.  It is effectively recycling it, just not into steel.

Quote:

It could be reclaimed at a far cheaper cost than making new steel from scratch.

Yes, it could be, especially when you add on the $6-7mil it's going to cost to get the thing suitable for scuttling.

But it's been assigned to another purpose than simply showing a result based on its scrap value.

reduce, re-use, recycle - in that order

The scuttling is a re-use, which is better than recycling.

freediver wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 9:54pm:

reduce, re-use, recycle - in that order The scuttling is a re-use, which is better than recycling.

Agreed and it is one of the few grand ways for a ship to die...the new reef should always be called for the ship that made it.

I understand where you are coming from Froggie but this IS a great re-use of the ship.

Oh my  :o this Thread is just tooooooooooo good to resist.

Maybe you might know me Froggie, from a previous Forum: DiveOz ?
...Blue Hawrasse, ring a Bell?

Now this is a subject that got me Banned from that Forum.

I dissagreed with the 'exploitation' of the words ARTIFICIAL REEF,
for the selfish gain of the Recreational Dive Industry and Wreck enthusiasts. Hence I got banned.

In my mind, these Ex-Naval Ships being 'dumped' are not for 'environmental' reasons. Placing the X-Adelaide just outside of the Dive Club along the north Coast of Sydney is not for the benefit of the aquatic life there. Its for the greedy $$$ (ching-ching-ching) of Tourism.
VARS - Victorian Artificial Reef Society, endorse such procedures under the motto "Trash for Treasure", so again the exploitation of 'Environmentalism' for Tourism financial gain is used. Its like driving a car without a muffler - but hey, its ok, the vehicle has a "Save the Environment" sticker on it.

All around the world giant Barges take tonnes and tonnes of Rubbish (mostly from USA/Nippon) and dump it out into the far deep ocean ...never to be seen again.

The concept of an Artificial Reef is incorrectly used by Australian Recreational Dive Industry. Why just stop at Ex-Naval Ships? Why not dump old Buicks, Shopping Trolleys and anything else not really needed?
Obviously there is not serious consideration for Aquatic Life at all.
If there was, then SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED  structures and objects would be put into place for the benefit of Aquatic Life as a 'priority' before the recreational pleasure of a Dive tourist.
...but there isn't.

EVERYTHING IS JUST WRONG.

I hope the Ex-Adelaide will not be sunk, and I'm sure the Residents of Avoca would prefer to keep their nice beach the way it is.

The 'scam' of justifying $$$millions in Preparation of Dumping Wrecks is a farce too. Many boats/ships are dumped in deep ocean trenches as quietly as possibly around the world. There is no 'preparation' for these. They say the X-Adelaide has to be 'stripped' bare for OH&S reasons, but its not like they are banning Divers from diving 'authentic' Wrecks that have everything attached. In fact many Divers who make a living documenting authentic Wrecks don't like it when these Wrecks are pillaged of their artifacts. Well maybe it is OH&S Divers cleaning them out (lol)?

Anyway, I think it is a cop-out to dump the ex-naval ship HMAS Adelaide, amongst others under the pretence of 'Environmental' concerns - just for Recreational Dive Tourism. Some 'dumped' Wrecks do attract an abundance of Aquatic Life, but many others barely attract the odd school of fish.
Like I said - this just leaves the door open for everyone to 'dump' stuff in the Ocean and justifies those barges dumping mega-tonnes of rubbish too.

Jason (formerly known as Blue Hawrasse upon DiveOz)

Oh and I used to work at the VISY Recylcing plant at Milperra a while back.
I doubt anyone has those 'Dividers' in their yellow bins anymore - if so, take em out, the rubbish comes in as 'one lot' anyway to be sorted by the Plant. If anything, we used those Dividers as giant Frisbees when they fell out and came with the rubbish.

Things might be different now, but back then, I think the price for a compressed 1metre-square block of Tin was worth about $500. These blocks were produced every 5 minutes. No wonder Mr Pratt got rich.
All in all, I saw the value for Recycling and every nation needs a good Recycling Industry up and running - its like your intestines taking out everything of value before it reaches the 'worthless' stage.

I think the Plant Recycled 90+% of what was delivered. Pretty Fantastic I think.

You would need to prove that having these ships sunk as dive sites is harmful, if you want to stop it JA.

If you have links for reputable scientific analysis of any such negative environmental outcomes, then posting those would help your case.
I am ambivalent, it does not effect me, that I know of anyway, one way or the other, so if people pursuing a healthy past time can get some benefit from creating these dive sites, I don't see the problem.

I understand your point and yes 'scientific proof' is needed. But I'm sure 'scientific proof' will provide for both 'for AND against' anyway.
Its a dead rubber upon that level.

What I'm saying is that it is an 'exploitation' of the Environmental angle, just to get the 'dumping' pushed through. The average Avocan doesn't know if there will or will not be any environmental advantage, they just presume that the Dive Industry has guarranteed it by using the words 'Artificial Reef', but like I said - there are a lot of Wrecks that just rust, without attracting aquatic life - but luckily they are looking into in a bit more now that there is local resistance to the dumping to prove the pros and cons.
Avoca's Beach attraction is its 'peace and quiet', from what I remember it.

Its the ACT of dumping unwanted Ships under the false disguise of Environmentally Friendly, to set a precedence and justification to dump all sorts of things - basically unwanted RUBBISH. People are people and this is what/is happening.
VARS has dumped numerous ex-Naval Ships outside of Port Phillip Bay - they are working towards creating a Dive Tourism to rival Truk Lagoon ...any Environmental attracting for Aquatic Life is just a By-Product of the original design - not the priority by which they advertise (possibly to keep people like me, Environmentalists, etc off their backs???).
I'm a Diver, I enjoy Diving Wrecks, my favourite spot is Currarong (it has the wreck Merimbula there too), but this Dumping of unwanted Ships, let alone Ex-Military 'Ego' - just leaves me feeling 'DIRTY'.

At a guess, the majority of die-hard Wreck Enthusiasts are pro/ex-military or cops. Their only desire is to have another 'toy' put in place for their 'hobby'. The fact that there was a big collection of them upon DiveOz probably was why I was banned for expression another point of view to a situation. They obviously wanted pure umbrella coverage of their view only.

If you ask them to participate in Scientifically and Artistically conceptualised/designed 'artificial reefs' that prioritise the wellbeing of Aquatic Life and not Diving - they are not interested and even 'against'.

There are people out there that work towards producing Artificial Reefs for the priority and benefit of Aquatic Life (well before some ex-military or cop can enjoy a 'swim-thru' for some ego enhanced photos)
and it is the hope that such Designs can proliferate and stimulate Aquatic Life more so than what a natural Bommie could do.

Of course, even placing such 'purposeful' stuff in the ocean can be expensive once Politics (Councils, etc) start charging whatever they can for something they really don't give a s h i t about, let along understand. Making up all sorts of bullcrap fees, again with 'environmental' tags that don't even relate to what is being done, because there is no real precendence.

...ah, damn - gotta go to work now.  >:(

Thanks, all....

It would appear that this scuttling is a 'great' idea.

For a minority of people. ;)

Just how many recreational divers do we have in this country?
How many, from OS, would be prepared to travel half way round the world to dive on this particular wreck??

Sorry, but I just see it as a waste of good steel. >:(

Maybe you might know me Froggie, from a previous Forum: DiveOz ?
...Blue Hawrasse, ring a Bell?-----jasig.

The 'hawrasse' bit rings a bell, but not from the site you mentioned.

Thanks for your input.

;)

Dnarever wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 9:15pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 15th, 2010 at 9:06pm: Only to see approx 4,000 tonnes of steel sent to the bottom of the sea off the Central Coast of NSW??? - Froggie Huh? This can't be right. Not sure if the plan changed but they were going to scuttle the HMAS Adelaide off Terrigal to create an atificial reef and dive site.

Well, quite frankly, I'd call that a good example of recycling

Well, quite frankly, I'd call that a good example of recycling-----buzz.

It takes more than 3 tonne of coal to make 1 tonne of steel.

I know which way I would prefer to go.

:)

Controversial warship sinking to go ahead
Posted Wed Sep 15

A government tribunal has ruled that the scuttling of a naval ship to create an artificial reef off the New South Wales central coast can go ahead.

The central coast artificial reef project group worked for a decade to get a decommissioned warship to create an artificial diving site.

Just days before HMAS Adelaide was due to be sunk in March, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal stopped the scuttling.

The No Ship Action Group wanted the Federal Government environment permit set aside because copper and lead on board the ship could leach into the ocean and go through the marine food chain.

The tribunal has ruled that the sinking, off Avoca Beach, can go ahead after the removal of any loose red lead paint, extra wiring and canvas.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/15/3012667.htm





Successful Bid for HMAS Adelaide - News Release
The Australian Government has accepted the NSW Government bid to sink HMAS Adelaide off Terrigal as a dive wreck, two Federal members have revealed today. Member for Robertson Jim Lloyd said both he and Member for Dobell Ken Ticehurst had worked for a very long time to secure a dive wreck for the Central Coast, calling the HMAS Adelaide an “enormous boost to tourism”.

Mr Ticehurst said the wreckage would open the door to a unique international tourism market and would attract divers from all over the world to the Central Coast.“As a dive-wreck, the HMAS Adelaide will be a significant addition to the number of tourist attractions available in the region with the further advantage of being just one hour north of Australia’s tourism capital of Sydney,” Mr Ticehurst said.

Mr Lloyd thanked all involved in getting the Central Coast a dive wreck, particularly the Central Coast Artificial Reef Project committee, whose members had “worked very hard for a number of years and never gave up despite so many setbacks”. Following Victoria’s winning bid last year for the HMAS Canberra, Mr Lloyd initiated discussions between the Australian Government and the NSW Premiers Department.

Following that meeting, the NSW Government was given exclusivity to bid for the HMAS Adelaide and the Australian Government also offered to ‘pay off’ the ship in either Sydney or Newcastle “saving NSW a considerable amount of expense”. The pair also congratulated the NSW Government on their successful bid and thanked the Central Coast community for the ongoing support in securing a dive wreck for the Central Coast.


http://www.ccarp.net/aboutcarp.htm

The steel industry has been actively recycling for more than 150 years, in large part because it is economically advantageous to do so. It is cheaper to recycle steel than to mine iron ore and manipulate it through the production process to form new steel. Steel does not lose any of its inherent physical properties during the recycling process, and has drastically reduced energy and material requirements compared with refinement from iron ore. The energy saved by recycling reduces the annual energy consumption of the industry by about 75%, which is enough to power eighteen million homes for one year.

G'day, buzz.

;)

the wreckage would open the door to a unique international tourism market and would attract divers from all over the world to the Central Coast.“As a dive-wreck, the HMAS Adelaide will be a significant addition to the number of tourist attractions available in the region------------

Please refer to my 1.14pm post.

As yet no-one has given a definitive answer.

I thought someone from the diving fraternity might be able to do so.

Quote:

In my mind, these Ex-Naval Ships being 'dumped' are not for 'environmental' reasons. Placing the X-Adelaide just outside of the Dive Club along the north Coast of Sydney is not for the benefit of the aquatic life there. Its for the greedy $$$ (ching-ching-ching) of Tourism.

What's wrong with that? And when was it ever promoted as an environmental benefit?


Quote:

Why not dump old Buicks, Shopping Trolleys and anything else not really needed?

Plenty of fishermen do this with old washing machines etc. They are great for cod. You have to be careful with vehicles because of the oil etc.


Quote:

If there was, then SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED  structures and objects would be put into place for the benefit of Aquatic Life as a 'priority' before the recreational pleasure of a Dive tourist.

Why build something special when you already have something suitable that is getting scrapped? YOu just finished complaining about the cost, but now promoted an absurdly expensive option.


Quote:

just leaves me feeling 'DIRTY'.

Why?

Lobo wrote on Sep 16^th, 2010 at 6:34pm:

the wreckage would open the door to a unique international tourism market and would attract divers from all over the world to the Central Coast.“As a dive-wreck, the HMAS Adelaide will be a significant addition to the number of tourist attractions available in the region------------ Please refer to my 1.14pm post. As yet no-one has given a definitive answer. I thought someone from the diving fraternity might be able to do so.

It would have to near double availability no?

I suppose FreeDiver, we can dump a wrecked Truck in your backyard to attract the local Birdlife and call it an Artificial Avery,
...rather than specifically build a 'Bird House' to reach a better requirement.

Oh, but you don't really give a hoot about the birds at all, you just wanna charge a $22 fee for people to climb over the truck.

...and I thought Divers in the middle of the USA with their Dams filled with Windmills, Aeroplanes, Pipes and Trucks - were a tad justified.

::)

qikvtec wrote on Sep 16^th, 2010 at 10:00pm:

Lobo wrote on Sep 16th, 2010 at 6:34pm: the wreckage would open the door to a unique international tourism market and would attract divers from all over the world to the Central Coast.“As a dive-wreck, the HMAS Adelaide will be a significant addition to the number of tourist attractions available in the region------------ Please refer to my 1.14pm post. As yet no-one has given a definitive answer. I thought someone from the diving fraternity might be able to do so. It would have to near double availability no?

And this is 'double' ......??

How many?

How many recreational divers currently dive off the Central Coast per year?

100, 200, 1000, 5000??

And how much hard cash does each one bring into the local community?

Seems to me that it would take a long time recoup the cost.

:)

Diving can be incredibly expensive. All the gear you have to get and of course the Industry wants you to pay the higher 'Australian' consumer price in the shop compared to what is paid overseas (in New Zealand, a wetsuit will be even dearer).
Most Divers are tight-arsed as it is, so Online/Ebay/etc has been the way to go these last number of years.
Its the 'Distributers' or middle-men that make things expensive.

Besides the fact that the Industry is heading for an all-time low (possibly along with a lot of Industries ? :-?), with many 'Local Dive Shops' or LDS's closing down.

Most Divers will skip spending money in everything around the area besides the cliche Cafe Latte or such, but then again, that might be all that there is. Most of the money is spent upon the 'Dive' itself, airfills, boat fees, etc.

Expect to cater to extra parking.

Most 'popular' dive sites tend to ruin the local environment as 'sausage-factory' style training courses are pumped through, so 'Beginner' Divers tend to turf up a lot of the underwater environment.

For the first year, there will be a lot of Divers packing it in, but after this ...when the novelty drops off, so will the numbers considerably.

I've got nothing against the 'Wreck' personally, I just hate how they 'EXPLOIT' the evironmental factor under the words "Artificial Reef" when they don't give a sincere hoot for the environment, the fish, etc ....they just wanna dump (and I quote) "Trash for Treasure" and make tourism $$$$.

Personally, from what I know of Avoca - bye bye Beach site and hello Dive site. Avoca will no longer belong to the locals, it will now belong to everyone outside of Avoca.
Avoca 'sold out'.

Quote:

I've got nothing against the 'Wreck' personally, I just hate how they 'EXPLOIT' the evironmental factor under the words "Artificial Reef"

I don't get it. How is labelling it artifical somehow exploiting the environmental factor?


Quote:

Personally, from what I know of Avoca - bye bye Beach site and hello Dive site. Avoca will no longer belong to the locals, it will now belong to everyone outside of Avoca. Avoca 'sold out'.

It is public space. It already belongs to everyone.

There are some Artificial Reefs in Georges River, Cooks River, the back of the Nepean and even Ropes Creeks ...give or take a few shopping trolleys amongst all those cars.

Calling a Spade a Wheelbarrow.

The use of these two words: Artificial Reef
are used to express a sense of dedication towards rectifying or improving the underwater environment by giving aquatic life a 'stimulus' akin to what 'natural' reefs provide.

The sinking of the Ex-HMAS Adelaide, uses these two words promotionally as the intention of dumping the wreck is for environmental reasons.
But in truth it is not the priority or true intention and reason for the dumping - it is a mere 'bonus' consequence of the intention for Tourism Dive Site dollars.
This is probably why the locals have protested regarding 'environmental concerns'.

>>>I'm gonna buy a gas guzzling smoke billowing big Ute, but hey, its an environmental vehicle with the small solar-panel on the top that boosts my decibal banging noise polluter!

So what I am saying is that they are drawing a line in the sand, when the tide is coming in - and that kinda smells wrong.

Quote:

The use of these two words: Artificial Reef are used to express a sense of dedication towards rectifying or improving the underwater environment by giving aquatic life a 'stimulus' akin to what 'natural' reefs provide.

No. They are used to refer to an artificial reef. That is after all, exactly what it is.


Quote:

The sinking of the Ex-HMAS Adelaide, uses these two words promotionally as the intention of dumping the wreck is for environmental reasons.

There are no connotations of environmentalism in the term. They are all in your head.


Quote:

But in truth it is not the priority or true intention and reason for the dumping

Duh.