Metal Ship Inhaltsverzeichnis
Nun haben wir es also zusammen unser komplettes Line up für unser Metal Ship am Nachdem wir schon FORMOSA und VISIONATICA. Metal Ship. Gefällt Mal · 3 Personen sprechen darüber. Live Konzert auf dem Schiff Elegance ab/an Koblenz auf dem Rhein. Metal Ship. likes. Live Konzert auf dem Schiff Elegance ab/an Koblenz auf dem Rhein. Metal Ship. ACHTUNG! VERANSTALTUNG WIRD VERSCHOBEN! Bereits gekaufte Karten behalten Ihre Gültigkeit! Jetzt wird's laut. METAL SHIP - LORELEY LINE tickets. MIT: FREEDEOM CALL, FORMOSA + VISIONATICA. 1 Event: , Tickets ab 30,65 €.
Bring elegance into your home interior in a maritime style with this wonderful creation of nautical ship bell. Crafted from the shining brass metal and provided. September verwandelt zum allerersten Mal die Mein Schiff 4 die Ostsee erneut in ein Metal-Meer. Auf dieser Reise können die Metalheads die. Nun haben wir es also zusammen unser komplettes Line up für unser Metal Ship am Nachdem wir schon FORMOSA und VISIONATICA. Wie gewohnt war es de facto nur notwendig, click Kabine zu buchen. Neu in diesem Jahr waren die Pools Girls, die Robin Logo Hostessen dabei waren. Es traten 60 Bands auf; die Besucherzahl stieg auf Personen. Webcams Am Hafen. Inklusive der Besatzung befanden sich auf den bisher ausgetragenen Fahrten zwischen und Link an Bord. Die erste Fahrt führte vom Die irische Band Cruachan trat, neben ihren beiden regulären Konzerten, noch ein drittes Mal auf und spielte ein akustisches Folk-Set im bordeigenen Pub. Die Gesamtpersonenanzahl betrug Personen. Startseite zurück. Wie wäre es mit einem unvergesslichen Hamburg-Erlebnis? Symbol für Leichte Sprache Leichte Sprache. Hotel Melanie dem Festival nahmen Besucher aus 55 Ländern oder autonomen Regionen teil. Januar statt. Das Line-up bestand aus folgenden Bands  :. Die weiteren Musiker konnten auf der Facebook-Seite von Video abspielen. Inklusive der Besatzung befanden sich auf den bisher ausgetragenen Fahrten zwischen und Personen an Bord. Symbol für Drucken Drucken. Februar statt. Dabei gab es der Fahrt erstmals zwei read more Seetage.
Metal Ship - NavigationsmenüDaher finden sich Bands aus sämtlichen Metal- Genres. Dezember war bekannt gegeben worden, dass Pentagram , eine der ersten bestätigten Bands, ihren Auftritt aus familiären Gründen absagen mussten, ein Ersatz wurde aber gefunden. Wie gewohnt war es de facto nur notwendig, eine Kabine zu buchen. Bis auf den Beitrag von CNN, der eine kurze Videodokumentation darstellt, veröffentlichten alle anderen Print- und Webzines schriftliche Berichte des Festivals sowie teilweise auch Bildergalerien. Ansichten Lesen Bearbeiten Quelltext bearbeiten Versionsgeschichte. Es traten 60 Bands auf; die Besucherzahl stieg auf Personen. Natürlich lädt auch das Schiff dazu ein, einfach seine Annehmlichkeiten zu genießen, seien es das Pooldeck, die gut bestückten Bars, die hervorragenden. Am Samstag den startet unser Metal Ship in die zweite Runde. Nach der durchweg positiven Resonance nach unserem ersten. Entdecken Sie Pirate Metal Ship von ebunny bei Amazon Music. Werbefrei streamen oder als CD und MP3 kaufen bei versaandyou.co Alle Artikel und Videos des Metal Hammer über Full Metal Ship aus den Jahren bis heute. Lesen Sie jetzt. These strains becoming accumulative, in a large ship, would cause such a great When the entire framing of a ship is built of iron, steel, or other metal, but the.
To penetrate armor, increasingly heavy guns were mounted on ships; nevertheless, the view that ramming was the only way to sink an ironclad became widespread.
The increasing size and weight of guns also meant a movement away from the ships mounting many guns broadside, in the manner of a ship-of-the-line, towards a handful of guns in turrets for all-round fire.
From the s to the s many naval designers believed that the development of the ironclad meant that the ram was again the most important weapon in naval warfare.
With steam power freeing ships from the wind, and armor making them invulnerable to shellfire, the ram seemed to offer the opportunity to strike a decisive blow.
Those who noted the tiny number of ships that had actually been sunk by ramming struggled to be heard.
The revival of ramming had a significant effect on naval tactics. Since the 17th century the predominant tactic of naval warfare had been the line of battle , where a fleet formed a long line to give it the best fire from its broadside guns.
This tactic was totally unsuited to ramming, and the ram threw fleet tactics into disarray. The question of how an ironclad fleet should deploy in battle to make best use of the ram was never tested in battle, and if it had been, combat might have shown that rams could only be used against ships which were already stopped dead in the water.
The ram finally fell out of favour in the s, as the same effect could be achieved with a torpedo , with less vulnerability to quick-firing guns.
The armament of ironclads tended to become concentrated in a small number of powerful guns capable of penetrating the armor of enemy ships at range; calibre and weight of guns increased markedly to achieve greater penetration.
Throughout the ironclad era navies also grappled with the complexities of rifled versus smoothbore guns and breech-loading versus muzzle-loading.
Warrior highlighted the challenges of picking the right armament; the breech-loaders she carried, designed by Sir William Armstrong , were intended to be the next generation of heavy armament for the Royal Navy, but were shortly withdrawn from service.
Breech-loading guns seemed to offer important advantages. A breech-loader could be reloaded without moving the gun, a lengthy process particularly if the gun then needed to be re-aimed.
Warrior ' s Armstrong guns also had the virtue of being lighter than an equivalent smoothbore and, because of their rifling, more accurate.
The weakness of the breech-loader was the obvious problem of sealing the breech. All guns are powered by the explosive conversion of a solid propellant into gas.
This explosion propels the shot or shell out of the front of the gun, but also imposes great stresses on the gun-barrel. If the breech—which experiences some of the greatest forces in the gun—is not entirely secure, then there is a risk that either gas will discharge through the breech or that the breech will break.
This in turn reduces the muzzle velocity of the weapon and can also endanger the gun crew. Warrior ' s Armstrong guns suffered from both problems; the shells were unable to penetrate the 4.
Similar problems were experienced with the breech-loading guns which became standard in the French and German navies. These problems influenced the British to equip ships with muzzle-loading weapons of increasing power until the s.
After a brief introduction of pounder or 9. The decision to retain muzzle-loaders until the s has been criticised by historians.
However, at least until the late s, the British muzzle-loaders had superior performance in terms of both range and rate of fire than the French and Prussian breech-loaders, which suffered from the same problems as had the first Armstrong guns.
From onwards, the balance between breech- and muzzle-loading changed. Captain de Bange invented a method of reliably sealing a breech, adopted by the French in Just as compellingly, the growing size of naval guns made muzzle-loading much more complicated.
With guns of such size there was no prospect of hauling in the gun for re-loading, or even re-loading by hand, and complicated hydraulic systems were required for re-loading the gun outside the turret without exposing the crew to enemy fire.
The calibre and weight of guns could only increase so far. The larger the gun, the slower it would be to load, the greater the stresses on the ship's hull, and the less the stability of the ship.
The size of the gun peaked in the s, with some of the heaviest calibres of gun ever used at sea. American ordnance experts accordingly preferred smoothbore monsters whose round shot could at least 'skip' along the surface of the water.
Actual effective combat ranges, they had learned during the Civil War, were comparable to those in the Age of Sail—though a vessel could now be smashed to pieces in only a few rounds.
Smoke and the general chaos of battle only added to the problem. As a result, many naval engagements in the 'Age of the Ironclad' were still fought at ranges within easy eyesight of their targets, and well below the maximum reach of their ships' guns.
Another method of increasing firepower was to vary the projectile fired or the nature of the propellant. Early ironclads used black powder , which expanded rapidly after combustion; this meant cannons had relatively short barrels, to prevent the barrel itself slowing the shell.
The sharpness of the black powder explosion also meant that guns were subjected to extreme stress. One important step was to press the powder into pellets, allowing a slower, more controlled explosion and a longer barrel.
A further step forward was the introduction of chemically different brown powder which combusted more slowly again. It also put less stress on the insides of the barrel, allowing guns to last longer and to be manufactured to tighter tolerances.
The development of smokeless powder , based on nitroglycerine or nitrocellulose, by the French inventor Paul Vielle in was a further step allowing smaller charges of propellant with longer barrels.
The nature of the projectiles also changed during the ironclad period. Initially, the best armor-piercing projectile was a solid cast-iron shot.
Later, shot of chilled iron , a harder iron alloy, gave better armor-piercing qualities. Eventually the armor-piercing shell was developed.
The first British, French and Russian ironclads, in a logical development of warship design from the long preceding era of wooden ships of the line , carried their weapons in a single line along their sides and so were called " broadside ironclads".
Because their armor was so heavy, they could only carry a single row of guns along the main deck on each side rather than a row on each deck.
A significant number of broadside ironclads were built in the s, principally in Britain and France, but in smaller numbers by other powers including Italy, Austria, Russia and the United States.
Broadside armament also had disadvantages, which became more serious as ironclad technology developed. Heavier guns to penetrate ever-thicker armor meant that fewer guns could be carried.
Furthermore, the adoption of ramming as an important tactic meant the need for ahead and all-round fire.
There were two main design alternatives to the broadside. In one design, the guns were placed in an armored casemate amidships: this arrangement was called the 'box-battery' or 'centre-battery'.
In the other, the guns could be placed on a rotating platform to give them a broad field of fire; when fully armored, this arrangement was called a turret and when partially armored or unarmored, a barbette.
The centre-battery was the simpler and, during the s and s, the more popular method. Concentrating guns amidships meant the ship could be shorter and handier than a broadside type.
Centre-battery ships often, but not always, had a recessed freeboard enabling some of their guns to fire directly ahead.
The turret was first used in naval combat on the USS Monitor in , with a type of turret designed by the Swedish engineer John Ericsson.
A competing turret design was proposed by the British inventor Cowper Coles with a prototype of this installed on HMS Trusty in for testing and evaluation purposes.
Ericsson's turret turned on a central spindle, and Coles's turned on a ring of bearings. The fire arc of a turret would be considerably limited by masts and rigging, so they were unsuited to use on the earlier ocean-going ironclads.
The second problem was that turrets were extremely heavy. Ericsson was able to offer the heaviest possible turret guns and armor protection by deliberately designing a ship with very low freeboard.
The weight thus saved from having a high broadside above the waterline was diverted to actual guns and armor.
Low freeboard, however, also meant a smaller hull and therefore a smaller capacity for coal storage—and therefore range of the vessel.
In many respects, the turreted, low-freeboard Monitor and the broadside sailer HMS Warrior represented two opposite extremes in what an 'Ironclad' was all about.
The most dramatic attempt to compromise these two extremes, or 'squaring this circle', was designed by Captain Cowper Phipps Coles: HMS Captain , a dangerously low freeboard turret ship which nevertheless carried a full rig of sail, and which subsequently capsized not long after her launch in A lighter alternative to the turret, particularly popular with the French navy, was the barbette.
These were fixed armored towers which held a gun on a turntable. The crew was sheltered from direct fire, but vulnerable to plunging fire , for instance from shore emplacements.
The barbette was lighter than the turret, needing less machinery and no roof armor—though nevertheless some barbettes were stripped of their armor plate to reduce the top-weight of their ships.
The barbette became widely adopted in the s, and with the addition of an armored 'gun-house', transformed into the turrets of the pre-Dreadnought battleships.
The ironclad age saw the development of explosive torpedoes as naval weapons, which helped complicate the design and tactics of ironclad fleets.
The first torpedoes were static mines , used extensively in the American Civil War. That conflict also saw the development of the spar torpedo , an explosive charge pushed against the hull of a warship by a small boat.
For the first time, a large warship faced a serious threat from a smaller one—and given the relative inefficiency of shellfire against ironclads, the threat from the spar torpedo was taken seriously.
Navy converted four of its monitors to become turretless armored spar-torpedo vessels while under construction in —5, but these vessels never saw action.
A more practical and influential weapon was the self-propelled or Whitehead torpedo. Invented in and deployed in the s, the Whitehead torpedo formed part of the armament of ironclads of the s like HMS Inflexible and the Italian Caio Duilio and Enrico Dandolo.
The ironclad's vulnerability to the torpedo was a key part of the critique of armored warships made by the Jeune Ecole school of naval thought; it appeared that any ship armored enough to prevent destruction by gunfire would be slow enough to be easily caught by torpedo.
In practice, however, the Jeune Ecole was only briefly influential and the torpedo formed part of the confusing mixture of weapons possessed by ironclads.
The first ironclads were built on wooden or iron hulls, and protected by wrought iron armor backed by thick wooden planking.
Ironclads were still being built with wooden hulls into the s. Using iron construction for warships offered advantages for the engineering of the hull.
However, unarmored iron had many military disadvantages, and offered technical problems which kept wooden hulls in use for many years, particularly for long-range cruising warships.
Iron ships had first been proposed for military use in the s. In the s and s, France, Britain and the United States had all experimented with iron-hulled but unarmored gunboats and frigates.
However, the iron-hulled frigate was abandoned by the end of the s, because iron hulls were more vulnerable to solid shot; iron was more brittle than wood, and iron frames more likely to fall out of shape than wood.
The unsuitability of unarmored iron for warship hulls meant that iron was only adopted as a building material for battleships when protected by armor.
However, iron gave the naval architect many advantages. Iron allowed larger ships and more flexible design, for instance the use of watertight bulkheads on the lower decks.
Warrior , built of iron, was longer and faster than the wooden-hulled Gloire. Iron could be produced to order and used immediately, in contrast to the need to give wood a long period of seasoning.
And, given the large quantities of wood required to build a steam warship and the falling cost of iron, iron hulls were increasingly cost-effective.
The main reason for the French use of wooden hulls for the ironclad fleet built in the s was that the French iron industry could not supply enough, and the main reason why Britain built its handful of wooden-hulled ironclads was to make best use of hulls already started and wood already bought.
Wooden hulls continued to be used for long-range and smaller ironclads, because iron nevertheless had a significant disadvantage.
Iron hulls suffered quick fouling by marine life, slowing the ships down—manageable for a European battlefleet close to dry docks , but a difficulty for long-range ships.
The only solution was to sheath the iron hull first in wood and then in copper, a laborious and expensive process which made wooden construction remain attractive.
After , steel started to be introduced as a material for construction. Compared to iron , steel allows for greater structural strength for a lower weight.
The French Navy led the way with the use of steel in its fleet, starting with the Redoutable , laid down in and launched in Even though Britain led the world in steel production, the Royal Navy was slow to adopt steel warships.
The Bessemer process for steel manufacture produced too many imperfections for large-scale use on ships. French manufacturers used the Siemens-Martin process to produce adequate steel, but British technology lagged behind.
Iron-built ships used wood as part of their protection scheme. HMS Warrior was protected by 4. The wood played two roles, preventing spalling and also preventing the shock of a hit damaging the structure of the ship.
Steel was also an obvious material for armor. It was tested in the s, but the steel of the time was too brittle and disintegrated when struck by shells.
Steel became practical to use when a way was found to fuse steel onto wrought iron plates, giving a form of compound armor.
Though the ships were laid down in their armor was not purchased from France until The French navy decided in to adopt compound armor for its fleet, but found it limited in supply, so from the French navy was using steel armor.
The ultimate ironclad armor was case hardened nickel-steel. In , the U. Navy tested steel armor hardened by the Harvey process and found it superior to compound armor.
For several years 'Harvey steel' was the state of the art, produced in the U. In , the German firm Krupp developed gas cementing , which further hardened steel armor.
By almost all new battleships used Krupp armor, though the U. Ironclad construction also prefigured the later debate in battleship design between tapering and 'all-or-nothing' armor design.
Warrior was only semi-armored, and could have been disabled by hits on the bow and stern.
Inflexible ' s armor protection was largely limited to the central citadel amidships, protecting boilers and engines, turrets and magazines, and little else.
An ingenious arrangement of cork-filled compartments and watertight bulkheads was intended to keep her stable and afloat in the event of heavy damage to her un-armored sections.
The first ocean-going ironclads carried masts and sails like their wooden predecessors, and these features were only gradually abandoned.
Early steam engines were inefficient; the wooden steam fleet of the Royal Navy could only carry "5 to 9 days coal",  and the situation was similar with the early ironclads.
Warrior also illustrates two design features which aided hybrid propulsion; she had retractable screws to reduce drag while under sail though in practice the steam engine was run at a low throttle , and a telescopic funnel which could be folded down to the deck level.
Her principal role was for combat in the English Channel and other European waters; while her coal supplies gave her enough range to cross the Atlantic, she would have had little endurance on the other side of the ocean.
The Devastation and the similar ships commissioned by the British and Russian navies in the s were the exception rather than the rule.
Most ironclads of the s retained masts, and only the Italian navy, which during that decade was focused on short-range operations in the Adriatic,  built consistently mastless ironclads.
The Royal Navy decided to switch to the double-expansion engine in , and by they were widespread. However, this development alone was not enough to herald the end of the mast.
Whether this was due to a conservative desire to retain sails, or was a rational response to the operational and strategic situation, is a matter of debate.
A steam-only fleet would require a network of coaling stations worldwide, which would need to be fortified at great expense to stop them falling into enemy hands.
Just as significantly, because of unsolved problems with the technology of the boilers which provided steam for the engines, the performance of double-expansion engines was rarely as good in practice as it was in theory.
During the s the distinction grew between 'first-class ironclads' or 'battleships' on the one hand, and 'cruising ironclads' designed for long-range work on the other.
The demands on first-class ironclads for very heavy armor and armament meant increasing displacement, which reduced speed under sail; and the fashion for turrets and barbettes made a sailing rig increasingly inconvenient.
The start of the s saw the end of sailing rig on ironclad battleships. Sails persisted on 'cruising ironclads' for much longer. The Russian ship General-Admiral , laid down in and completed in , was a model of a fast, long-range ironclad which was likely to be able to outrun and outfight ships like Swiftsure.
While Shannon was the last British ship with a retractable propellor, later armored cruisers of the s retained sailing rig, sacrificing speed under steam in consequence.
Many ships also used a forced draught to get additional power from their engines, and this system was widely used until the introduction of the steam turbine in the mids decade.
While ironclads spread rapidly in navies worldwide, there were few pitched naval battles involving ironclads.
Most European nations settled differences on land, and the Royal Navy struggled to maintain a deterrent parity with at least France, while providing suitable protection to Britain's commerce and colonial outposts worldwide.
Ironclads remained, for the British Royal Navy, a matter of defending the British Isles first and projecting power abroad second.
Those naval engagements of the latter half of the 19th century which involved ironclads normally involved colonial actions or clashes between second-rate naval powers.
But these encounters were often enough to convince British policy-makers of the increasing hazards of strictly naval foreign intervention, from Hampton Roads in the American Civil War to the hardening combined defences of naval arsenals such as Kronstadt and Cherbourg.
There were many types of ironclads: . The United Kingdom possessed the largest navy in the world for the whole of the ironclad period.
The Royal Navy was the second to adopt ironclad warships, and it applied them worldwide in their whole range of roles.
In the age of sail, the British strategy for war depended on the Royal Navy mounting a blockade of the ports of the enemy.
Because of the limited endurance of steamships, this was no longer possible, so the British at times considered the risk-laden plan of engaging an enemy fleet in harbor as soon as war broke out.
To this end, the Royal Navy developed a series of 'coast-defence battleships', starting with the Devastation class.
These ' breastwork monitors ' were markedly different from the other high-seas ironclads of the period and were an important precursor of the modern battleship.
However, they were still armed with only four heavy guns and were as vulnerable to mines and obstructions and enemy monitors as the original monitors of the Union Navy proved to be during the Civil War.
The British prepared for an overwhelming mortar bombardment of Kronstadt by the close of the Crimean War, but never considered running the smoke-ridden, shallow-water gauntlet straight to St.
Petersburg with ironclads. Likewise, monitors proved acutely unable to 'overwhelm' enemy fortifications single-handed during the American conflict, though their low-profile and heavy armor protection made them ideal for running gauntlets.
Mines and obstructions, however, negated these advantages—a problem the British Admiralty frequently acknowledged but never countered throughout the period.
The British never laid down enough Devastation -class 'battleships' to instantly overwhelm Cherbourg, Kronstadt or even New York City with gunfire.
Although throughout the s and s the Royal Navy was still in many respects superior to its potential rivals, by the early s widespread concern about the threat from France and Germany culminated in the Naval Defence Act , which promulgated the idea of a 'two-power standard', that Britain should possess as many ships as the next two navies combined.
This standard provoked aggressive shipbuilding in the s and s. British ships did not participate in any major wars in the ironclad period.
The Royal Navy's ironclads only saw action as part of colonial battles or one-sided engagements like the bombardment of Alexandria in Defending British interests against Ahmed 'Urabi 's Egyptian revolt , a British fleet opened fire on the fortifications around the port of Alexandria.
A mixture of centre-battery and turret ships bombarded Egyptian positions for most of a day, forcing the Egyptians to retreat; return fire from Egyptian guns was heavy at first, but inflicted little damage, killing only five British sailors.
Had the Egyptians actually utilised the heavy mortars that were at their disposal, they might have quickly turned the tide, for the attacking British ironclads found it easy for accuracy's sake to simply anchor whilst firing—perfect targets for high-angle fire upon their thinly armored topdecks.
The French navy built the first ironclad to try to gain a strategic advantage over the British, but were consistently out-built by the British.
Despite taking the lead with a number of innovations like breech-loading weapons and steel construction, the French navy could never match the size of the Royal Navy.
Prior to dismantling, an inventory of dangerous substances should be compiled. All hazardous materials and liquids, such as bilge water , are removed before disassembly.
Holes should be bored for ventilation and all flammable vapours are extracted. Vessels are initially taken to a dry dock or a pier, although a dry dock is considered more environmentally friendly because all spillage is contained and can easily be cleaned up.
Floating is, however, cheaper than a dry dock. The carrier is then secured to ensure its stability. Workers must completely strip the ship down to a bare hull, with objects cut free using saws, grinders, abrasive cutting wheels, hand held shears, plasma and gas torches.
The Basel Convention demands that all yards separate hazardous and non-hazardous waste and have appropriate storage units, and this must be done before the hull is cut up.
Asbestos , found in the engine room, is isolated and stored in custom-made plastic wrapping prior to being placed in secure steel containers, which are then landfilled.
Many hazardous wastes can be recycled into new products. Examples include lead-acid batteries or electronic circuit boards.
Another commonly used treatment is cement -based solidification and stabilization. Cement kilns are used because they can treat a range of hazardous wastes by improving physical characteristics and decreasing the toxicity and transmission of contaminants.
A hazardous waste may also be "destroyed" by incinerating it at a high temperature; flammable wastes can sometimes be burned as energy sources.
Some hazardous waste types may be eliminated using pyrolysis in a high temperature electrical arc, in inert conditions to avoid combustion.
This treatment method may be preferable to high temperature incineration in some circumstances such as in the destruction of concentrated organic waste types, including PCBs, pesticides and other persistent organic pollutants.
Dangerous chemicals can also be permanently stored in landfills as long as leaching is prevented. Valuable metals, such as copper in electric cable, that are mixed with other materials may be recovered by the use of shredders and separators in the same fashion as e-waste recycling.
The shredders cut the electronics into metallic and non-metallic pieces. Metals are extracted using magnetic separators, air flotation separator columns, shaker tables or eddy currents.
The plastic almost always contains regulated hazardous waste e. Large objects, such as engine parts, are extracted and sold as they become accessible.
While oxy-acetylene gas-torches are most commonly used, detonation charges can quickly remove large sections of the hull. These sections are transported to an electric arc furnace to be melted down into new ferrous products, though toxic paint must be stripped prior to heating.
At Kaohsiung in the late s and 70s, ships to be scrapped were tied up at berths in Dah Jen and Dah Lin Pu, at the southern end of Kaohsiung Harbor.
A typical 5,ton ship could be broken up in 25 to 30 days. The process began with "cleaning", a process in which subcontractors would come on board the ship to strip it of loose and flammable items, which were often resold in second-hand shops.
After that, the cutting crews would start to dismantle the hull, stern-first; large sections were cut off the ship and moved via cranes and rigging taken from previously-scrapped ships.
Because the scrapping at Kaohsiung was done at the docks, scrap metal was placed on trucks waiting to transport it to Kaohsiung's mills.
Burns from explosions and fire, suffocation, mutilation from falling metal, cancer, and disease from toxins are regular occurrences in the industry.
Asbestos was used heavily in ship construction until it was finally banned in most of the developed world in the mids.
Currently, the costs associated with removing asbestos, along with the potentially expensive insurance and health risks, have meant that ship-breaking in most developed countries is no longer economically viable.
Dangerous vapors and fumes from burning materials can be inhaled, and dusty asbestos-laden areas are commonplace. Removing the metal for scrap can potentially cost more than the value of the scrap metal itself.
In the developing world, however, shipyards can operate without the risk of personal injury lawsuits or workers' health claims , meaning many of these shipyards may operate with high health risks.
Protective equipment is sometimes absent or inadequate. The sandy beaches cannot sufficiently support the heavy equipment, which is thus prone to collapse.
Many are injured from explosions when flammable gas is not removed from fuel tanks. In Bangladesh, a local watchdog group claims that one worker dies a week and one is injured per a day on average.
The problem is caused by negligence from national governments, shipyard operators, and former ship owners disregarding the Basel Convention.
The employees have no formal contract or any rights, and sleep in over-crowded hostels. They hope to expand all along the South Asian coastline.
Several United Nations committees are increasing their coverage of ship-breakers' human rights. In , the International Maritime Organisation developed legally binding global legislation which concerns vessel design, vessel recycling and the enforcement of regulation thereof and a 'Green Passport' scheme.
Nevertheless, Greenpeace found that even pre-existing mandatory regulation has had little noticeable effect for labourers, due to government corruption, yard owner secrecy and a lack of interest from countries who prioritise economic growth.
There are also guards who look out for any reporters. In recent years, ship-breaking has become an issue of environmental concern beyond the health of the yard workers.
Many ship-breaking yards operate in developing nations with lax or no environmental law , enabling large quantities of highly toxic materials to escape into the general environment and causing serious health problems among ship-breakers, the local population, and wildlife.
Along the Indian subcontinent, ecologically-important mangrove forests, a valuable source of protection from tropical storms and monsoons, have been cut down to provide space for water-craft disassembly.
The World Bank has found that the country's beaching locations are now at risk from sea level rise. It aims to stop the transportation of dangerous substances to less developed countries and mandate the use of regulated facilities.
However, Greenpeace reports that neither vessel exporter nor breaking countries are adhering to its policies. The organisation recommends that all parties enforce the Basel Convention in full, and hold those who break it liable.
The Hong Kong Convention is a compromise. It allows ships to be exported for recycling, as long as various stipulations are met: All water-craft must have an inventory and every shipyard needs to publish a recycling plan to protect the environment.
The Hong Kong Convention was adopted in but with few countries signing the agreement. In March the European Commission proposed tougher regulations to ensure all parties take responsibility.
Under these rules, if a vessel has a European flag, it must be disposed of in a shipyard on an EU "green list. However, there is evidence of ship owners changing the flag to evade the regulations.
Although Chinese recycling businesses are less damaging than their South Asian counterparts, European and American ship-breakers comply with far more stringent legislation.
The following are some of world's largest ship-breaking yards: . From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For the novel by Paolo Bacigalupi, see Ship Breaker.
Retrieved 2 August Shaw Media Inc. Retrieved 4 August NGO Shipbreaking Platform. Retrieved 3 August United Nations Conference on trade and development.
Shipping Wonders of the World. Taiwan Review. Retrieved 9 December Vega Productions. The Basel Convention Secretariat.
Retrieved 1 August The Center for Land Use Interpretation. Spring BBC News. Retrieved 5 March BBC News Online.
The Economist. September