NO TOXIC SHIP

[matt...]

appeal hearing in court on 5th, 6th & 7th of May - woo hoo!
NO SHIP
well, not yet anyway...

[matt...]

NO SHIP

[matt...]

NO SHIP

[matt...]

Plans to sink warship scuttled by court order

Updated 3 hours 27 minutes ago
HMAS Adelaide to be scuttled off Avoca Beach

HMAS Adelaide was the navy ship involved in the 2001 children overboard affair. (ABC)

* Audio: Dr Marian Lloyd-Smith from the National Toxic Network speaks to ABC Sydney 702 (ABC News)
* Map: Avoca Beach 2251
* Related Story: HMAS Adelaide to sleep with the fishes

HMAS Adelaide will remain in Sydney Harbour for the time being, after the New South Wales Government was forced to cancel its plans to scuttle the decommissioned frigate this weekend.

The Adelaide was due to be towed from Sydney Harbour today and sunk off Avoca beach on the central coast as a diving attraction.

But campaigners have been trying to stop it going ahead, saying it will pollute the water.

An 11th-hour stay of proceedings by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has put plans to sink the ship on hold.

There was a family beach festival organised to coincide with the sinking, but the PR company managing the event says all festivities have been called off.

A spokesman for the Avoca Beach No Ship Action Group, Ben Smith, says they are happy the case will be heard in court.

"It's still not over yet. We've still got a lot of work to do," he said.

Dr Marian Lloyd-Smith, a senior adviser to the National Toxic Network, says dangerous chemicals are supposed to be removed from ships before they are scuttled, and she does not think that has happened with the Adelaide.

"Electrical cables that show any evidence of fluid weeping must be removed in their entirety," she said.

"Well we have photos of quite a nasty, viscous substance seeping from these electrical cables still on board and that would go down with the ship."

The Minister with responsibility for the project, Tony Kelly, says the tribunal's decision will come as a blow to many.

"This is terribly disappointing for those people on the central coast who worked so hard and so long to make this a reality," he said.

The tribunal is expected to set a new court date later this morning.

HMAS Adelaide was the navy ship involved in the 2001 children overboard affair. It was decommissioned in Perth in 2008.

boo hoo Tony Kelly...

[mical]

You're persistent I'll give you that.

However, it's surely pretty obvious to even you that nobody here gives a rats a$s isn't it?

It's great to be passionate about an issue but fcuk me, we're not the ones you should be beating over the head.

You're worse than an newly converted evangelical happy clapper

[lessormore]

So, to keep the hordes happy who are desperate for a sinking-

SINK THE FAT TARD!
(see article above)

[matt...]

You're persistent I'll give you that.

However, it's surely pretty obvious to even you that nobody here gives a rats a$s isn't it?

It's great to be passionate about an issue but fcuk me, we're not the ones you should be beating over the head.

You're worse than an newly converted evangelical happy clapper

duh? thanks for stating the obvious!! and just in case you were wondering - i thought i had convinced olds completely & thought i nearly had Dino there for a minute!

the power of word of mouth, mical - it could be you & your neighbours rallying the scuttling of a decommissioned naval vessell 1.5kms off the low tide mark at bells.
it obviously is too hard & costs too much to pull them apart & dispose of them in less obvious, less harmful ways.
and i would be happy to contribute! as i would any coastal suburb with a similar issue.

have you heard about my one man campaign against the dog turds on the beach?
Distinct Opposition to Gross Poos On Oceanshore

have a good day - i know i will, i had 2 red bulls this morning!!

and dino, thanks for that, gorgeous.

[matt...]

i would definitely save south curl curl, dino - not enough closeouts & backwash on the northern beaches

yeah avoca is crap - don't come here...

[Clif]

Inside tip, matt ... the protest is doomed. Whispers in the corridors of power. Sorry ol' chap. NIMBY is to be scuttled.

[oldman]

hey olds, it's not Ben Smith who has made these predictions. Check the website for how the information was obtained.
To be quite honest with you, I thought that the "shoreline receding 5.3 metres" was a bit drastic. I totally agree it's a big call.
But, if you visit the websit & see the seabed contours map, it is the only section of sandy seabed in the area. You better surf Avoca Beach today or tomorrow, because you can say goodbye to the banks in front of the Sharktower.

Matt, I honestly don't care about this particular issue, but now you are telling me the only sand in the area is where they are gonna sink the boat. Matt, i've walked on the beach, and it's sand all the way.

I don't mind a good NIMBY fight also, except for the fact that I generally hate them, but what I really hate is these people who are either experts who are knowingly lying about their ability to predict events, or people who have no idea making up complete rubbish to scare people into agreeing with them.

There is virtually no chance of a ship being sunk 1.7 kms off the shore having any impact on the sand at Avoca Beach.

None,

No chance.

It's complete BS, and I really don't like BS, and I really do like calling people on it. It is BS, unadulterated, undoubted, concocted, fortified, rogerised, BS.

You know it makes sense.

[Animal_Chin]

I'm getting immense satisfaction from the knowledge that the billion odd layers of ship-side-gray I sprayed onto that piece of American crap is going to flake away and poison generations of future Matts.

Die horribly you annoying, persistent sand nazi!

[JET01]

Shame it's not closer to the beach... get the best of both worlds then... Nice reef break when it's rough and a good dive when it's flat... No doubt it'll be great for fishing too once it gets some growth on it.

Next thing you know, this bunch will start a group to stop people wearing suncream, and using board wax when surfing.... can't have it washing off into the ocean now can we...

[Lou]

Matt, a few points:

1. Just to be clear I must point out at the outset I am a very tolerant and broadminded individual. MY friends and associates are a multicultural constellation of all sorts, from the highly accomplished through to freaks, nutbags, drug addicts, draft dodgers, homos, cross-dressers, deliquents, soldiers, bikies, and even religious people amongst others. However, there is one kind of foul misfit that our society should never tolerate- dog haters. People who hate dogs are sick fcuks who cannot be trusted. You need to take a good hard look deep inside your sad dirty soul, you are a pariah of humanity without hope.

2. Nonetheless I think it's fair enough you object to having this ship foisted upon your community. I totally DON'T get folks who call NIMBY at others for giving a shit about their homes- in fact most are total hypocrites who are unconcerned about trashing other people's suburbs but would cry blue murder if it were their own. Good God, this ithe same State Govt that is proposing a law to compel private citizens to hand over their land to other private citizens [developers 'for the good of the State'. Kind of like what Robert Mugabe does.

3. I realise that to pass the time time up there on the Central Coast you all spend most of the day and night huffing solvents from a tin in a plastic bag, but sweet bleeding little baby Jesus I would have thought the solution to your dilemma was so obvious even you cretins would have figured it out. If they start towing the thing your way, get together a flotilla of boats and occupy the site where they wanna sink it. Boats, surfboards, whatever. They're never gonna drive through you and endanger lives to do this...

[mustkillmulloway]

, there is one kind of foul misfit that our society should never tolerate- dog haters. People who hate dogs are sick fcuks who cannot be trusted. You need to take a good hard look deep inside your sad dirty soul, you are a pariah of humanity without hope.

...

amen

who hates dogs anyway ....i mean sure theres some sickos on this forum but none us could be that bent

[matt...]

Inside tip, matt ... the protest is doomed. Whispers in the corridors of power. Sorry ol' chap. NIMBY is to be scuttled.

the ship may still be sunk, clif, i totally agree, but:
1. not before 5th may 2010
2. not in the condition it is currently in - it may be cleaned up a bit more, whatever happens it will be made safer.

NIMBY is irrelevant in this thread. one of the suggestions is to move it further out to sea, still off the coast of avoca beach, and definitely not in the condition it was in on wednesday when quentin asked to go on board & take some photos. there must have been something wrong because you can't pluck an injunction out of your bum.

Matt, I honestly don't care about this particular issue, but now you are telling me the only sand in the area is where they are gonna sink the boat. Matt, i've walked on the beach, and it's sand all the way.

I don't mind a good NIMBY fight also, except for the fact that I generally hate them, but what I really hate is these people who are either experts who are knowingly lying about their ability to predict events, or people who have no idea making up complete rubbish to scare people into agreeing with them.

olds, you seem to have misread what i said about the sand. take two minutes to look at the seabed contours pic. the beach is full of sand, so are most beaches on the central coast. not my point, but a point you have skewed. bulbaring bay is the only sand deposit close to shore, not on the shore. it is in the shape of a funnel indicating a natural flow in & out of the lake when it opens. it is at a depth of 35 metres below the surface of the ocean. every where else, close to shore, but under the surface of the ocean, is rock. if you go a bit further out, and a few minutes in a boat, it is sand again. there is a lot of sand 10 minutes boat ride offshore, so much in fact that your govt. wants to sand mine it & has wanted to since (kev)2007. get it?

again it's not a NIMBY fight, discussion or anything. i wouldn't want it this close to shore in the condition its' in - anywhere. it is based on factual reports done by experts in their field, over the past number of years. the experts have done this work over the years for govts., whoever. people have just taken the time & effort to research this topic & tap into these resources that already exist - not write it off on a friday afternoon on a surfers forum.
the rest of what you said is absolute waffle.

as for hating dogs: i take that on my own. i am happy to accept any comments about my personal dislike for dogs. the fact i don't like dogs is no secret. this issue is in no way related to any other issue in this forum, state, country or world.
if or when the scuttling does go ahead, people watching it will have to put up with the smell of dog poo on & around the beach. the council won't empty the bins often enough, where the dog poo is placed by THOUGHTFUL dog owners. the beach stinks of dog poo left by strays, dogs off leash & by thoughtLESS dog owners.

the few comments above about me & my take on dog poo fall into one or more of the following categories:
1. irrelevant in this thread - i really don't have a one man campaign, it was sarcasm folks, but i really do hate dogs. i know my sarcasm is at times very dry & often misinterpreted, but i'm used to that.
2. typical of self-righteous dog owners who love dogs more than people - get a life.
3. shows your lack of intelligence folks, if you have to stoop that low in a thread of substance, then you really don't have anything relevant or substantial to say. take the time, do the research, then come back & hang shit on me. not only will i respect it more, you may raise points that others have missed.

not a NIMBY fight, folks. sorry to deflate your posts.
not sorry about your other views, i can't help you on those because they are yours, not mine.

i know most people don't give a shit about this issue folks, so don't think your weak comments are important. they just show the limitations of your thought process. most people on the central coast want the scuttling - i know that. everyone knows that.

but sweet bleeding little baby Jesus I would have thought the solution to your dilemma was so obvious even you cretins would have figured it out. If they start towing the thing your way, get together a flotilla of boats and occupy the site where they wanna sink it. Boats, surfboards, whatever. They're never gonna drive through you and endanger lives to do this...

Lou, why wait till the thing gets towed? (with all due respect, i've ignored everything else you've posted)
the group was smart enough to act BEFORE the thing was towed. acting mainly on behalf of FUTURE residents & secondly, current residents. further discounting the NIMBY call.

the group has won the first round of a community, safety & thought provoking issue.
will a boat be sunk tommorrow? no.
will a boat be sunk in a dangerous condition? no. but it nearly was thanks to the laziness of the NSW state govt.
will a boat be sunk in the future? probably.
where? probably in the same spot, but maybe not. hopefully nowhere close to shore.

also, some people need a geography lesson:
avoca is down in the sourthern highlands near mittagong.
avoca beach is on the central coast of NSW, between North Avoca & Copacabana.

and your worried about me hating dogs? pfffft! really, i thought some of you were at least a little bit smarter than that. obviously not.

enjoy your weekend & easter, folks.
i will knowing there is no HMAS Adelaide 1.7km away from the sharktower.

[Animal_Chin]

Inside tip, matt ... the protest is doomed. Whispers in the corridors of power. Sorry ol' chap. NIMBY is to be scuttled.

the ship may still be sunk, clif, i totally agree, but:
1. not before 5th may 2010
2. not in the condition it is currently in - it may be cleaned up a bit more, whatever happens it will be made safer.

NIMBY is irrelevant in this thread. one of the suggestions is to move it further out to sea, still off the coast of avoca beach, and definitely not in the condition it was in on wednesday when quentin asked to go on board & take some photos. there must have been something wrong because you can't pluck an injunction out of your bum.

Matt, I honestly don't care about this particular issue, but now you are telling me the only sand in the area is where they are gonna sink the boat. Matt, i've walked on the beach, and it's sand all the way.

I don't mind a good NIMBY fight also, except for the fact that I generally hate them, but what I really hate is these people who are either experts who are knowingly lying about their ability to predict events, or people who have no idea making up complete rubbish to scare people into agreeing with them.

olds, you seem to have misread what i said about the sand. take two minutes to look at the seabed contours pic. the beach is full of sand, so are most beaches on the central coast. not my point, but a point you have skewed. bulbaring bay is the only sand deposit close to shore, not on the shore. it is in the shape of a funnel indicating a natural flow in & out of the lake when it opens. it is at a depth of 35 metres below the surface of the ocean. every where else, close to shore, but under the surface of the ocean, is rock. if you go a bit further out, and a few minutes in a boat, it is sand again. there is a lot of sand 10 minutes boat ride offshore, so much in fact that your govt. wants to sand mine it & has wanted to since (kev)2007. get it?

again it's not a NIMBY fight, discussion or anything. i wouldn't want it this close to shore in the condition its' in - anywhere. it is based on factual reports done by experts in their field, over the past number of years. the experts have done this work over the years for govts., whoever. people have just taken the time & effort to research this topic & tap into these resources that already exist - not write it off on a friday afternoon on a surfers forum.
the rest of what you said is absolute waffle.

as for hating dogs: i take that on my own. i am happy to accept any comments about my personal dislike for dogs. the fact i don't like dogs is no secret. this issue is in no way related to any other issue in this forum, state, country or world.
if or when the scuttling does go ahead, people watching it will have to put up with the smell of dog poo on & around the beach. the council won't empty the bins often enough, where the dog poo is placed by THOUGHTFUL dog owners. the beach stinks of dog poo left by strays, dogs off leash & by thoughtLESS dog owners.

the few comments above about me & my take on dog poo fall into one or more of the following categories:
1. irrelevant in this thread - i really don't have a one man campaign, it was sarcasm folks, but i really do hate dogs. i know my sarcasm is at times very dry & often misinterpreted, but i'm used to that.
2. typical of self-righteous dog owners who love dogs more than people - get a life.
3. shows your lack of intelligence folks, if you have to stoop that low in a thread of substance, then you really don't have anything relevant or substantial to say. take the time, do the research, then come back & hang shit on me. not only will i respect it more, you may raise points that others have missed.

not a NIMBY fight, folks. sorry to deflate your posts.
not sorry about your other views, i can't help you on those because they are yours, not mine.

i know most people don't give a shit about this issue folks, so don't think your weak comments are important. they just show the limitations of your thought process. most people on the central coast want the scuttling - i know that. everyone knows that.

but sweet bleeding little baby Jesus I would have thought the solution to your dilemma was so obvious even you cretins would have figured it out. If they start towing the thing your way, get together a flotilla of boats and occupy the site where they wanna sink it. Boats, surfboards, whatever. They're never gonna drive through you and endanger lives to do this...

Lou, why wait till the thing gets towed? (with all due respect, i've ignored everything else you've posted)
the group was smart enough to act BEFORE the thing was towed. acting mainly on behalf of FUTURE residents & secondly, current residents. further discounting the NIMBY call.

the group has won the first round of a community, safety & thought provoking issue.
will a boat be sunk tommorrow? no.
will a boat be sunk in a dangerous condition? no. but it nearly was thanks to the laziness of the NSW state govt.
will a boat be sunk in the future? probably.
where? probably in the same spot, but maybe not. hopefully nowhere close to shore.

also, some people need a geography lesson:
avoca is down in the sourthern highlands near mittagong.
avoca beach is on the central coast of NSW, between North Avoca & Copacabana.

and your worried about me hating dogs? pfffft! really, i thought some of you were at least a little bit smarter than that. obviously not.

enjoy your weekend & easter, folks.
i will knowing there is no HMAS Adelaide 1.7km away from the sharktower.

too long; didn't read

[zumabeach]

Instead of sinking Adelaide off Avoca, maybe they should sink Avoca off Adelaide - as some comedian suggested in the SMH's letters page today. From my time down there many years ago, the south end of Moana Beach, a dribbly little beach break at the best of times, could do with a decent pile of rubble dumped a couple of hundred metres off shore - instance reef break.

[Kunji]

Out of interest, is there a group of people who want the ship sunk closer to shore? As i diver, i would like to see this happen.

Cheers,
Coops.