HMAS Adelaide - Yay or Nay?

[Paolo]

^ Bingo.

Check out every other artificial reef in Australia and talk to the locals. 99% of them will tell you how amazing its been for tourism and their economy...oh and produce some pretty spectacular scenery beneath the water.

They were not arguing not to sink the ship ... these were divers who I expect would like to dive a wreck... they were saying take it out a tad more... means little in terms of tourism as you would need a boat to get to it now ... so a boat plus maybe another snip of fuel...

Has it not been said numerous times that the scuttling site was picked for a specific reason in terms of potential environmental impact to the sea floor and that there is no evidence to suggest that the boat could alter swell or sea patterns

 

[midfielder]

^ Bingo.

Check out every other artificial reef in Australia and talk to the locals. 99% of them will tell you how amazing its been for tourism and their economy...oh and produce some pretty spectacular scenery beneath the water.

They were not arguing not to sink the ship ... these were divers who I expect would like to dive a wreck... they were saying take it out a tad more... means little in terms of tourism as you would need a boat to get to it now ... so a boat plus maybe another snip of fuel...

Has it not been said numerous times that the scuttling site was picked for a specific reason in terms of potential environmental impact to the sea floor and that there is no evidence to suggest that the boat could alter swell or sea patterns

Accept perfectly what you say... however I stood on the rocks ... and think even now ( I am a tad over 21)  I could swim to the yellow buoy ....

When you look and see how close it is to the shore ... it does give you a feeling that maybe there is something in what they are saying.... remember it is the NSW government doing the assessment and we know how they get most things right ... and once in a blue moon get it wrong...

 

[goingtoadisco]

^ Bingo.

Check out every other artificial reef in Australia and talk to the locals. 99% of them will tell you how amazing its been for tourism and their economy...oh and produce some pretty spectacular scenery beneath the water.

They were not arguing not to sink the ship ... these were divers who I expect would like to dive a wreck... they were saying take it out a tad more... means little in terms of tourism as you would need a boat to get to it now ... so a boat plus maybe another snip of fuel...

Has it not been said numerous times that the scuttling site was picked for a specific reason in terms of potential environmental impact to the sea floor and that there is no evidence to suggest that the boat could alter swell or sea patterns

Site was chosen as it sits on sand so the ship can settle in the sediment evenly. Also chosen due to proximity to beach = less time to get to the site = reduction is costs for the operator. Which im all for.

As for what it can change and if it can change ? Welllllllll

There has been no comprehensive study done by either side on the effect this could have on sediment transport, the studies from both pro ship and no ship were V limited and inconclusive. They really have no idea what it will do to the sand deposits of both Avoca ad Wamberal 

From the goverment data and my personal knowlegde of hydrodynamics Im confident that it will not change wave hight or direction of waves. There will be minor changes in massive North cyclonic swells but the key word here is minor.

Poko i agree that this reef will be beneficial for Terrigal and will be also good for looking at fishies. But your dreaming if you think its going to be great for the coast. The reef will attract est. 3000 divers to the region over summer. While this is an improvement to put it in perspective a summers day brings roughly 1000(winter)-6000 (Summer) tourists to Avoca and terrigal beaches every week.

Also this site will not help fish stocks fish breed in esturies lakes such as the entrance and lakes systems. Reef sites are were they will eventually go to eat.

Hope i cleared a few things up.

 

[jiggles]

You are dreaming if you think this WONT be good for tourism.

Its not just about a boat on the bottom of the ocean. Its about putting our name on the map.

Golden Guitar - Tamworth
Big Banana - Coffs
Harbour Bridge - Sydney
Lighthouse (or Marijuana and dirty hippies, whatever) - Byron Bay

Tourists get attracted by the thought of one thing. Once they know there is something significant in the area, it increases the popularity of it becoming a holiday-area.

Something tells me Blush isn't a big enough draw card to bring people to the coast, sorry Pete

 

[dibo]

I'm all for sinking the ship, but it'll take more than a ship below the waves to be our Harbour Bridge. The vast majority of visitors (i.e. all bar 3000 across Summer won't ever see it). 

 

[jiggles]

Yeah, but its a start, right?

And ok, you could swim to the yellow bouy.

But does that mean you will?

 

[midfielder]

There is a difference between No and Yes if you...

From the Divers I sopoke to sink it ... just a bit further out as I indicated above... no one is denying the tourism thing... every body is on the same page...

They are simply saying move it .. not a long way but a little further out...

Disco said

There has been no comprehensive study done by either side on the effect this could have on sediment transport, the studies from both pro ship and no ship were V limited and inconclusive. They really have no idea what it will do to the sand deposits of both Avoca ad Wamberal 

I guess that is their entire point... to the eye if you stand on the rocks and look were they plan to sink it .... it does look very close...

So the only point of arguement is where to sink it... not should we sink it... and where does not mean in New Zealand or Newcastle... simply may be 500 meters further out...

The easy test is to go and stand on the rocks and see what you think...

 

[dibo]

Yeah, but its a start, right?

And ok, you could swim to the yellow bouy.

But does that mean you will?

Taking a wrecking ball to Gosford CBD (most likely driving over the indignant NIMBYs lying prostrate in the way) would be a start, this is fiddling at the edges.

 

[marinermick]

There is a difference between No and Yes if you...

From the Divers I sopoke to sink it ... just a bit further out as I indicated above... no one is denying the tourism thing... every body is on the same page...

They are simply saying move it .. not a long way but a little further out...

Disco said

There has been no comprehensive study done by either side on the effect this could have on sediment transport, the studies from both pro ship and no ship were V limited and inconclusive. They really have no idea what it will do to the sand deposits of both Avoca ad Wamberal 

I guess that is their entire point... to the eye if you stand on the rocks and look were they plan to sink it .... it does look very close...

So the only point of arguement is where to sink it... not should we sink it... and where does not mean in New Zealand or Newcastle... simply may be 500 meters further out...

The easy test is to go and stand on the rocks and see what you think...

but as i said in my original post there is no evidence that it will change any sea conditions

just because you can see the buoy and just because the divers think it is too close is a non-argument as no real reasons are given as to why it is too close

 

[midfielder]

There is a difference between No and Yes if you...

From the Divers I sopoke to sink it ... just a bit further out as I indicated above... no one is denying the tourism thing... every body is on the same page...

They are simply saying move it .. not a long way but a little further out...

Disco said

There has been no comprehensive study done by either side on the effect this could have on sediment transport, the studies from both pro ship and no ship were V limited and inconclusive. They really have no idea what it will do to the sand deposits of both Avoca ad Wamberal 

I guess that is their entire point... to the eye if you stand on the rocks and look were they plan to sink it .... it does look very close...

So the only point of arguement is where to sink it... not should we sink it... and where does not mean in New Zealand or Newcastle... simply may be 500 meters further out...

The easy test is to go and stand on the rocks and see what you think...

but as i said in my original post there is no evidence that it will change any sea conditions

just because you can see the buoy and just because the divers think it is too close is a non-argument as no real reasons are given as to why it is too close

Not quite true... the affect on the shore line by a close in reef is reasonably well know...

Given I have not had a look at the studies by the NSW gov .. or that I have the ability to make sense of it anyway ... sometimes reason comes into play ... I am not a builder but can tell you to build the foundations before the roof...

Disco quote above indicates that the gov has done little research into the affect as well... but a bunch of accountants show me a spreadsheet showing the income from increase tourism and thats OK... but what about the effects on the ocean... has that been carried out...

I am asking what my own eyes tell me is wrong... has anyone of any note under taken a study on the effects of the ship being sunk so close in... like my very simple understanding of the house .. roof & foundations... my eyes tell me it is too close ... my gut feeling no more ... for I am a humble Accountant who likes football diving surfing and the other thing .. Oh and likes drinking the odd ale at times... I would love to see a study saying it is OK supported by a bank guarantee...

So I guess during this debate I changed sides from the let's just sink the F...Ker to let's sink the F..Ker in the right place...

 

[jiggles]

Yeah, but its a start, right?

And ok, you could swim to the yellow bouy.

But does that mean you will?

Taking a wrecking ball to Gosford CBD (most likely driving over the indignant NIMBYs lying prostrate in the way) would be a start, this is fiddling at the edges.

Hah, give em a break. They painted like, 4 buildings that happen to be near the council building. The ones...hardly anyone goes past....unless your on your way to council.

 

[dibo]

There is nothing wrong with Gosford CBD (ha!) that considerable amounts of expertly placed dynamite wouldn't fix.

 

[Jesus]

Spoke to a group of Divers this morning about it... thinking they would be in favour ... they said NO ... But yes if they sink it further out ... essentially from what these guys were saying it is to close to the shore line.... move it out another half to one KL...

The closeness to the shore line is the problem.. and when I looked at the yellow buoy it did seem very close and I could see there argument..

What was their argument?

Interesting, I know a few keen divers, who, agreeing with their dive operator could not be more for it

 

[Paolo]

Yeah, but its a start, right?

And ok, you could swim to the yellow bouy.

But does that mean you will?

Taking a wrecking ball to Gosford CBD (most likely driving over the indignant NIMBYs lying prostrate in the way) would be a start, this is fiddling at the edges.

Hah, give em a break. They painted like, 4 buildings that happen to be near the council building. The ones...hardly anyone goes past....unless your on your way to council.

You realise that they are privately owned  and just maybe the work was done by the owner because they looked liked crap and nobody wanted to lease them and that the worst buildings in the cbd are across and next to the main chambers

 

[midfielder]

Well she is sunk now ... diving can start in a week...

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/hmas-adelaide-goes-under-after-dolphin-display-delays-scuttling-20110413-1dcwz.html

 

[adz]

YAY

 

[Bex]

Yay

However, there's a weird theological issue here. If I was to say, dump my old worn out car on Terrigal Beach, nobody would be happy about that. Yet, we're quite happy to dump an old ship 1km off the coast. I guess it's because nobody can see it unless you purposely go diving for it. Anyhow, it leads me to conclude that people are rather weird by nature.

 

[dibo]

I think it's weird you'd equate dumping a car on the beach and sinking a ship offshore.

One is nothing but dumping. All bad, no good. The ship is a measurable good with a measurable bad.

There are risks that have been examined and assessed to be acceptable by bodies that do their work in public and whose work is reviewable by your elected representatives.

There are plenty of people, elected and unelected, whose jobs will disappear if they cocked this up.

It will generate business and income for the local area. It's a net good I think.

 

[Bex]

Yeh but they are both still abandoning a primarily steel waste item...

 

[Bex]

As I said I'm for it...just weird that similarity