Who does the stuff belong to?
If it has no obvious value then clean it up and dispose of it properly. What happens if it is valuble? Or Japan’s property? Are there moral only issues or is there international law. Does this apply to only governemt property or personal as well?
Just to make sure. I am severly against the suggestion of Japan having to pay or help or even feel bad for the results of the tsunami outside of Japan.
I can just see the Japanese, as the tsunami approached, destroying all in its path thinking: “OMG, just think of how the debris from this might someday briefly spoil the view from prime malibu beach properties. It may even lead to the cancellation of a beach party!”
There’s actually a small industry in the Great Lakes that finds and “harvests” lumber that’s been floating around the Lakes for decades. It’s not pulped, though, it’s turned into furniture and veneers. Apparently, floating around in water like that for a long time results in desirable characteristics.
I could see some enterprising group salvaging the ocean lumber.
The wood salvaged from the Great Lakes is not wood that’s floating around; it’s wood that’s sunk to the bottom. And a large part of it’s value is that it’s the original, old-growth timber that was harvested from the original forests in the area. The quality of this timber when it was first cut down is a lot higher than the timber that is cut now. I believe it has survived at the bottom of the lakes without rotting because of the cold temperatures and low oxygen content of the water.
So, although some lumber in the flotsam from Japan might be salvageable (I don’t know what effect the salt water would have on it), it’s not comparable to the timber salvaged from the Great Lakes.
The OP asked a legitimate question (in the sense that it was an attempt to get more information). I think the dumping here for asking is a bit extreme.
Not sure how broadly it extrapolates but generally if a tree in my yard falls in a storm on my neighbor’s house, his insurance is on the hook. Lots of exceptions for things like being told that the tree was a hazard for some reason, etc.
So bottom line, legitimate question but unless there was some negligence, the beach owners are one more victim of the “act of god”.
The great lakes are fresh water, though. I don’t know if that matters.
The OP asked a half-assed question which was, as i demonstrated in post #28, based on a misunderstanding of the facts.
This is Standard Operating Procedure for the OP. Read any selection of his (literally) thousands of GQ OPs and you’ll see.
I am no expert on the matter. I do however live in a bay were driftwood is very common. It is terrible on saws and is not the best for burning. Some logs are very beautiful though. We get some large Russian ceder driftwood. With considerable effort they can be utilized. Usually they are just left natural and used to line paths or gardens. Some beaches they are to be left alone to protect the berms and bluffs. Time in the ocean seems to play a critical role. Most other lumber type wood serves no end use utility. The salt destroys it in a major way.
Japanese glass floats are always a great find. Usually sell for about 10 bucks a pop for the common type. No one seems to be mad about finding that stuff and it is lost or discarded fishing gear. Not a natural disaster.
The U.S. Coast Guard is about to sink a Japanese squid boat that was washed away and is now off the Alaskan coast: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/05/us/japan-tsunami-ship/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Why sink it? Isn’t the cost of scrap metal enough to make it worthwhile towing it to shore?
Salvaging metal from large boats is a lot of work. You’ve got to haul them out of the water, for one thing. Probably there aren’t any shipyards on the nearby portion of the Alaskan coast capable of doing so.
Hey, SOMEBODY has to ask the hard questions!
It still cracks me up when people talk about the “legal” relations between countries in matters like this. Is Japan “liable”? The question arguably doesn’t even make sense, but let’s say they are. Who’s going to enforce it?
There’s no superior arbiter like there is in domestic legal contexts. It’s anarchy, in the literal sense. If the US wants to make Japan pay for it, they have to ask them to agree, pressure them to agree, or use force.
I’m sure the Hawaiian beach house owners are campaigning for the Manhattan Project to be reinstated, stat! :dubious:
If you don’t understand international law, you shouldn’t make assumptions about it (though it’s true that the idea that Japan could be liable for a natural disaster is indeed silly).
However, assuming they were, claims could be brought by individuals in US or Japanese courts. The normal enforcement mechanism, assuming a lack of voluntary compliance, would be seizure of Japanese assets in the US.
Alternatively, the US could bring claims on behalf of its citizens before any one on of dozens of international tribunals (such as the Chamber for Marine Environment Disputes of the ITLOS).
Uncontrolled dissent? Did Skylab advocate political anarchy or something?
May I point out that if your neighbor’s house blew up, and left a pile of rubble and bodies/parts you would most likely get really snotty if someone told you that it was being left there to rot and decompose into mulch. And by most definitions it is trash and junk, bodies nonwithstanding. [all a body is happens to be bone and meat, just as if you had a leg of lamb go bad and dropped it into the trash can. consider my body once I am dead to be just so much garbage, nothing holy or sacred about 200+ pounds of bone and flesh that I am no longer needing. I wouldn’t care if the hospital ran me to the nearest transfer station and turfed my corpse in.]
snicker
An update says a Canadian fishing boat claimed salvage rights and is going to tow it in.
Looks like the Canadian fisherman gave up his claim after all, and the squid trawler has now been sunk by USCG gunfire: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/06/us/japan-tsunami-ship/index.html?hpt=hp_c3
In all the coverage of this, I’m surprised there’s no mention of the actual owner of the trawler, who should be findable, since the trawler was positively identified (although I wouldn’t be surprised if he, she or it has already written off the trawler as a loss).
From the original link:
This article says it was due to be scrapped anyway: