Yea, seems to me the risk of removing is greater than leaving them be.
They’re at the bottom of a lake. When you consider what’s required to deal with that environment, and every phase of removal, I’m skeptical “the juice is worth the squeeze”.
No mention of analysis performed to assess leaving it alone, or the origin of this request (why is it now a concern? What changed?)
It’s a minimum of 150m/450ft deep. Has any of it exploded, ever? Given the types of munitions, what’s the likelihood of that happening.
Also, BI, what a crappy “news” source - they never have any detail.
Listening on CBC radio this morning it sounded like explosions were a small part of the concern, with the bigger issue being explosives degrading and leaking out to poison the water.
Yea, seems to me the risk of removing is greater than leaving them be.
They’re at the bottom of a lake. When you consider what’s required to deal with that environment, and every phase of removal, I’m skeptical “the juice is worth the squeeze”.
No mention of analysis performed to assess leaving it alone, or the origin of this request (why is it now a concern? What changed?)
It’s a minimum of 150m/450ft deep. Has any of it exploded, ever? Given the types of munitions, what’s the likelihood of that happening.
Also, BI, what a crappy “news” source - they never have any detail.
Listening on CBC radio this morning it sounded like explosions were a small part of the concern, with the bigger issue being explosives degrading and leaking out to poison the water.