Dealing with dangerous shipwrecks

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

I was reading CNN this morning when I came across an article about a leaky shipwreck in Belgian waters of the North Sea.

I’ve read of dozens, if not hundreds of such wrecks around the world that continue to pollute but are way too dangerous to try to raise/seal/otherwise deal with. This one in particular is polluting through corroding ammunition. Which raised a stupid question in my mind: If the ammo is what is causing the pollution, why not blow it up? A couple of shaped charges should detonate the cargo, thus ridding the ocean floor of continuing pollution. Sure, you get a bunch of chemicals all at once, but most should be converted during the explosion, shouldn’t they? Wouldn’t that be better than decades of slow leakage, with the threat of detonation always present?

Then there is the question of the SS Richard Montgomery…

Now that the “best and the brightest” have had their morning coffee, what can be done about these wrecks?

2

Not just shipwrecks. How about mustard gas dumped off Belgian and Dutch beaches?

3

Thank you for that link. It answered my first couple of questions about gas shells, ie does water neutralize them? Chlorine I knew wouldn’t be a problem. But mustard gas still would be.

4

Yes and no. This article says that the cold water can cause chemical reactions that build a « skin » on sulphur mustard, which keeps it from leaking. The cold water also means that sulphur mustard stays solid until brought to warmer temps. But then it can be extremely dangerous, for example to the fishermen in the story who found a lump of sulphur mustard in their nets.