Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SS Richard Montgomerysank 20th August 1944
SS Richard Montgomery“The Final Solution”
Mike A Barker M.B.E.
History of ResponsibilityBoard of Trade - MOD - DfT since 1983
Committee on Hazardous Wrecks comprised Experts from MOD and Home Office, Health and Safety Executive, Port of London Authority and Medway Ports that met annually but disbanded by the government in 1983
DfT never employed an expert in explosives and munitions to expertly consider advice it commissioned or was offerede.g. DERA in their report of 1997 or given by others, including e.g. me in 2007
Theresa Crossley claimed defining a safe zone, if the wreck exploded, would be the responsibility of the national and local civil authority contingency framework. These would include the Chief Constables of Kent, Essex and the Metropolitan Police But they deny such responsibility, even as a possible target of a terrorist attack
• The DfT have never employed a single expert in explosives and never sought advice from bomb disposal experts or their organisations
• Any single bomb found on UK land or mine in UK territorial waters, is routinely cleared in compliance with UK law, on the lines of;-
Public alert -> Police check and task Army or Navy EOD Unit -> Safe zone defined -> Police evacuate zone -> Bomb made safe• But not the 10,353 bombs the DfT have responsibility for managing • DfT denied it was their responsibility to define a safe zone • DfT have ignored expert advice given in the 1997 DERA Report that the
fragmentation bombs were safe to remove • DfT have refused DERA advice to define a safe zone to protect people • DfT do not know the extent of property damage and flooding• DfT rejected my offer to have all the risks modelled in 2007• DfT are breaking criminal laws in not protecting the public from explosives
DfT Prime Responsibility
• The 500 m buoyed zone is only a visible warning to shipping but no AIS electronic warning during fog or at night to avoid a collision in time
• Most believe it is a safety cordon if it exploded, like Mr Neil Roberts, Senior Executive of Lloyds Marine Association who wrote two letters to the Sec of State of the DfT, Ruth Kelly, and never had any reply. See attached
• DfT ignore any public opportunities to give any assurances in the Press or Media eg on ITV Meridian News on 3rd March 2013 when Gordon Henderson MP made comment
• DfT refused my invitation to my first public Presentation at Canterbury University on 27th September 2012 . They asked MI5 and Kent Special Branch to stop others
• DfT and Police have not armed patrol vessels to intercept a terrorist team who would certainly be armed and kill them to continue their mission
• DfT did not raise concern on the expansion of nearby National Grid LNG storage on the Isle of Grain that is now the world’s largest IED – 156 Hiroshima nuclear bombs and supply tankers of 39 Hiroshima nuclear bombs explosive power
• The DfT have refused to hold a meeting with any expert to defend their Policy of Non-Intervention and comment on my assessment and proposed clearance plan
DfT misinformation
• Explosives Substances Act 1883 Section 2
• Action falls within this subsection if it;-
• (a) involves serious violence against a person,• (b) involves serious damage to property,• (c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,• (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the
public
• Terrorism Acts 2000 - 2006
• Duty of Care in tort Common Law
• UK 1998 Human Rights Act Article 2 "The right to life"
DfT Legal Responsibilities
The DERA 1997 Report is the most expert and only explosives expert advice sought but DfT ignored their conclusions without any other expert supporting them in;-
1. Fused bombs may have been removed but no more unsafe than in original condition and could be removed with normal EOD handling care
2. The Keilce ship explosion was caused by using explosives to remove hull plates and not because the ship was unsafe
3. Computer modelling could determine risks to define a safe zone for people
These are the only reasons cited to continue not clearing the wreck but the DfT continue breaking laws not knowing how many would likely loose their lives and damage their property through flooding
DfT ignore DERA advice
1. Professor Stephen Murray Head of the Department of Engineering and Applied Science of the UK Defence Academy, named by the DfT, as the lead expertise in the UK of explosives advice is not the case. I suggested he supports the DfT or my new evidence that they were wrong on copper azide being very unstable and he has supported neither of us and said nothing.
2. I will be having him charged for Treason now also, as his failure has led to the Her Majesty life being put at risk because of his inaction.
3. His statement the about the difficulty of computing the tsunami wave height shows how little he knew in 2004, as I was using AUTODYN software fifteen years earlier that could have given a very good estimate at both low and high tides.
4. There is even better software that can do this today.
5. He also failed to remind the DfT of their legal responsibilities to protect people from explosives, as he has not discharged his responsibilities, as their chosen expert.
UK Defence Academy & DfT
• The fuses holding the detonators are not water tight and the small amounts of the initiator primary explosive lead azide is soluble and would have been washed away – See DERA Report.
• NAVSEA US (2008) conducted Steel Ball Impact Sensitiveness Tests on copper azide crystals, producing no reactions, so they chose copper azide for their detonators in a 40 mm Grenade and Mine Counter-Measure Dart – See NAVSEA Report
• Copper azides exists in two states cuprous azide and cupric azide• Other research work shows copper and lead azides similar in
sensitivity in impact tests but electrostatic tests show copper azide is more sensitive than lead azide that would not be relevant in metal cased detonators
Expert advice on copper azide has been wrong
• It is likely there are no fragmentation bombs as DERA strongly indicated in their Report
• But the fragmentation bombs, if present, are not armed and very likely the firing pins would be corroded solid but would not have sufficient kinetic energy to detonate the caps
• PERME stated any small initiator material would have been dissolved and washed away soon after sinking (In 1997 DERA Report)
• But copper azide exists in two forms cuprous and cupric azides. They are more sensitive than lead (plumbous) azide but can withstand steel ball impact tests. See NAVSEA Report
• Dr Daniel Jean of VAVSEA has used “copper” azide in a 40 mm grenade and mine clearance dart
• I consider the wreck is safe to clear from the munitions but not safe to leave to fate as a collision, an internal collapse or terrorist attack are real possibilities, causing it to explode that could kill all 14,000 in Sheerness and many more beyond
• Roger Elliot, now retired, Head of SMIT Salvage stated SMIT offered to support me , subject to contract, as I was going to lead the way in a submersible first
My case to clear the wreck
• I have read all the MCA Reports and available evidence and can see no basis for not clearing the wreck but the DfT insists it is too dangerous to conduct an internal survey of the state of the bombs that they are required by law, if they had a licence to hold explosives, that they do not have and are in breach of HSE Regulations
• The DfT have refused to find an expert to argue their case with me invite me or discuss my new evidence that the copper azide is not as unstable as they claimed
• DfT have refused my offer to have the risks computer modelled, so a safe zone could be determined and the number likely to be killed or seriously injured could be estimated
• DfT accept the wreck could explode from a collision , capsize or movement of the cargo but will not define a safe zone and move people away
• The last DfT Summary Report was in November 2000 and the Iraq war with the emergence of suicide bombers have a very easy accessible target intent on taking life that even the Police CCs have ignored.
• The Port Patrol vessels are not armed to intercept a terrorist, so the crews would likely be shot and mission accomplished
• DfT are waiting till the wreck collapses and then expect experts to clear it! But it might explode! Why!
DfT Non-intervention policy
The Kielce has been wrongly cited to support the Non-Intervention Policy.
It was totally irresponsible to use Explosive charges to cut holes in the hull plates with bombs on the other side
But the DfT state this as a reason not to clear the Montgomery, showing how little they know about explosives and munitions
Munitions are designed to detonate but this does not make them unsafe to handle, store or transport
DERA informed them explosives should not be used near the wreck
DERA 1997 Report Conclusions
3.1 The bulk of munitions are high explosive bombs. The main fillings are probably still in serviceable condition and, with suitable initiation, capable of a mass high order detonation.
3.2 Any fuses present are likely to have been completely flooded for some time and are either non-functional or no more sensitive than in their normal state.
3.3 The white phosphorus smoke bombs would present a special hazard in the event of a recovery operation or explosion.
3.4 The condition of the explosives would probably permit handling by normal EOD procedures providing an aqueous environment was maintained.
3.5 It would be extremely dangerous to use explosives in the vicinity of the wreck.
3.6 The reports which estimated the effects of a mass explosion of the remaining cargo were both written some time ago. As there have been significant developments in computer programs capable of modelling events of this type, it may now be possible to obtain a better assessment of the effects of a mass explosion under a variety of different wind and tidal conditions than was previously available. The Explosives Effects Sub Committee of the Explosive Storage and Transport Committee may be prepared to carry out this assessment.
Copper azides ChemistryCopper azide exists in two covalent states as cuprous azide and cupric azide Cupric azide can be prepared by a metathesis reaction between copper(II) nitrate
(Cu(NO3)2) and NaN3 sodium azide Cu(NO3)2 + 2NaN3 → Cu(N3)2 + 2 NaNO3 Cu/N ratio 1/6 atoms Cupric azide Cu(N3)2 has a Molecular weight of 147.59 Cuprous azide Cu2(N3)2 has a MW of 211.14 Cu/N ratio 2/6 atoms Atomic weight of copper is 63.546 Atomic weight of Nitrogen is 14.0067
Lead azide exists in two states as plumbous azide and plumbic azide. They both have different ratios of copper or lead to nitrogen atoms. Plumbic azide Pb(N3)2 has a MW of 291.24 Pb/N ratio 1:6 atoms Plumbous azide Pb2(N3)2 has a MW of 498.44 Pb/N ratio 1:3 atoms Atomic Mass of lead is 207.2 Atomic Mass of N is 14.0067
Lead azide Chemistry
• Joined R.A.R.D.E. 1966 Applied Explosives Branch EOD Section (luck to be saving lives not killing)
• 1968 Invented water guns up to 3m long - 16 mm mild steel plate penetration
• 1970 Water gun to make safe any limpet mines attached to Navy ship’s
• 1971 Circuit Breaker NI IEDs – made safe the first IED in Belfast on Friday 12th Nov 1971
• 1973 Beguine flying plate for first car bombs
• 1974 RARDE Fragment Attack Test Anglo- French TNT most unpredictable
• Sensitivity testing of UK explosives in many tests, including TNT and its mixtures with others like RDX
• 1977 Paw-Paw Mk 1
• 1982 Invited to be Team Leader of UK IND Response but rejected offer as no MOD insurance for Team
• 1986 low height Paw-Paw Mk 2
• 1987 Various enhancements to Mk 8 Wheelbarrow
• 1992 Trainee Team Leader of Nuclear Terrorist bomb Response Team and shocked how backward the US & UK were and still are
• 1994 Voluntary redundancy when PIRA declared their ceasefire 1994 – over 3,000 IEDs had been made safe in the UK by my systems
• 2007 Offered to computer model and clear the Montgomery
• 2012 First public proposal presentation on 27TH September at Canterbury University. Home Office, Kent Police & Medway Council warned people not to attend
Career Spectrum
