Comments by "Aden Wellsmith" (@adenwellsmith6908) on "Dangerous Russian ship off margate" video.

  1. There's two ships. One off Sheerness. The RIchard Mongomery has 1400 tonnes of high explosive
    17
  2.  @joannanoel4757  Sheerness should be OK from the RM. The seawalls are pretty large. It's also unlikely to go off. The fuses have been removed. It's cooled. Eventually the metal will rust, the explosives leach
    2
  3.  @johnclements6614  Except for Territorial waters. Even Russia insists on that. Territorial sea is a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state.[6] The territorial sea is sovereign territory, although foreign ships (military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it, or transit passage for straits; this sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and seabed below. In international law, adjustment of these boundaries is called maritime delimitation. Chanel is 18 nm at its narrows. Thats within the UK and French territorial areas. So given the war, the UK and France can simply say no. It's also worth looking at how you get a ship out of St Petersburg and pass through the Baltic.
    2
  4. The opposite. Major Algae blooms. Lots of fish food.
    1
  5.  @johnrussell3961  Of course they will breed. The food supply will rocket for the plankton eaters. The experiment of fertizer in the ocean has its own wikipedia page. A major carbon reduction removal approach. "vA number of techniques, including fertilization by the micronutrient iron (called iron fertilization) or with nitrogen and phosphorus (both macronutrients), have been proposed" Macronutrient nourishment can give 0.38 W/m2 of globally averaged negative forcing, which is sufficient to reverse the warming effect of current levels of around a quarter of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
    1
  6.  @maremma14  Plants produce oxygen from CO2.
    1
  7.  @maremma14  The research reference on Wikipedia states the opposite. They even state its the solution to carbon capture.
    1
  8. It's a fertilize not a polutant.
    1
  9.  @jethrotull2142  No its not. Search on Wikipedia for Ocean Fertilisation. It's the cure for "Global Warming"
    1
  10. Only because the UK and France allow it.
    1
  11.  @johnclements6614  JJohn, there are also special rules for the Bosphorus. That's why Turkey is looking at a canal. It can then charge and shut the Bosphorus down for ship traffic.
    1
  12.  @johnclements6614  PS theres an area in the Far east, north of Japan where there was a donut of russian seas, with a hole in the middle. Fishing vessels from all and sundry were plundering the hole. The result was Russia was given jurisdiction over an area more than 200 from its shores.
    1
  13.  @johnclements6614  No they don't. Lets say the Maltese ship was carrying bombs to Russia. The UK and France are perfectly within their rights to say no. Same for fertilizer. There are sanctions on Russia, and plenty of ships have been siezed under that.
    1
  14.  @johnclements6614  No John. Read the treaty. There are specific clauses on military ships.
    1