As farmers work on the fields in northern France they regularly find artifacts from the war and just toss them aside as an annoyance.
We were interviewed by a reporter from one of the red tops and they had to re-take our photo several times because we didn't look miserable enough.
More exactly they put them on the side of the field and the military (eventually) hauls them off to sites so they can dispose of them.
The nuts thing is that quite often they're chemical weapons they do this with - but it's not much different to what the military do - but nobody wants a cordon sanitaire around a productive field, so DIY it is.
I've never seen it done, but I did meet a farmer with an impressive array of ordnance stacked in his grange, some of which he sold, the rest of which he said he burned in a deep hole. Sure, single data point, but he definitely held the "this is what we do" attitude. This would've been '93.
They are both stupid ideas, but I can't see how a farmer would live past maybe one or two of those burn piles.
Was your father prosecuted?
Edit: see stefanfisk comment, there is a surprising similarity between one type of wwi motar and wwi machine gun barrels.
The bomb went undetected as he travelled back to the
UK through the Tunnel but later, as he attempted to
return to France to show the device to a war expert
friend, he was stopped for a routine check.
> "If it hasn't exploded in all this time, why would it go off now?"
This explains why someone might be (erroneously) confident that it won't spontaneously go off, but even if that was right, saying it hasn't spontaneously gone off doesn't tell you anything about what will happen if you instead activate the mechanism. Why would they conclude it's inert from the fact that it hasn't spontaneously gone off?
Even if their understanding of explosives is wrong, they must still understand that it's an offence to have these munitions?
Also, be careful of first aid kits from that era, as they sometimes used picric acid as an antiseptic on gauze, often in contact with a metal case...
> In the early 20th century, picric acid was stocked in pharmacies as an antiseptic and as a treatment for burns, malaria, herpes, and smallpox. Picric acid-soaked gauze was also commonly stocked in first aid kits from that period as a burn treatment.
On the slightly positive side, picric acid also sublimates, but I'm not sure how long it would take for evaporate from the first aid kit. On the other hand, sublimation also increases the surface area of any metal container for forming metallic picrates.
How could he mistake a « piece of metal » with a machine gun barrel ?
I could always tell when he'd been personally setting charges, because he'd come home with a killer headache on those days. Not because of overage 'sweating' dynamite, but because of his high sensitivity to headache triggers like minute amounts of nitroglycerine vapor.
edit: the number I remembered was lower than the actual count.
The last time was some weeks ago, and the local press not only did features about the two experts defusing the bomb, but was welcoming them by their first name, as they were old acquaintances.
Also, when you get official permission to build the permission does not only include restrictions like maximum height etc., but also very clear directives in case munitions are found, including the correct phone number in the regional government.
Before the permission for the building I'm living in was issued they actually interviewed older neighbours, one of which claimed he remembers some bomb droppings on this lot. They cross-checked with aerial imagery from the 1940s and concluded there was low risk and permission could be granted.
"The bomb is 10ft from my flat on the other side of a wall and I’ve had so many parties here if it was going to blow up, it would have done so by now."
"A guide on dealing with unexploded devices was released by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) in 2009."
"An estimated 15,000 items, ranging from unexploded bombs to small mortar rounds and grenades, were removed from UK construction sites between 2006 and 2008, the association said"
Does anyone know how long ago it was that one of these things actually unintentionally exploded?
Unexploded ordnance is a sad thing, causing continued death and misery (mostly land mines) long after whatever war it was meant for has ended.
In the UK I don't remember any uncontrolled explosions, though a lot of the bombs are detonated by the EOD teams rather than disarmed.
We also dumped an awful lot of nasty stuff in Beaufort's Dyke, a trench in the Irish Sea.
Another reply mentioned the Porton Down TV documentary, that is well worth watching.
Here's one example where they had to do a controlled detonation on site: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NbM2Xbc1uk - not so controlled after all, since the straw bales they used to dampen the shockwave cased several fires.
This airport means that a good share of the east londonders have to live their lives under noise so the 1% can get to their meeting a little bit more easily.
To me it's an example of social oppression.
Try living under the Heathrow flightpath before you complain about City airport.
I used to live in the flight path of another airport but even there the noise from road traffic was orders of magnitude worse than any noise from air traffic.
That said, I don't doubt that some people are badly affected.
I found it odd that on the one hand I was in one of the poshest homes I'll likely ever find myself, and how miserable I figured I'd feel not being able to enjoy any outside aspect of it, were it mine.
This is my direct personal experience, and how it affects the 0.001%. May I ask how personal your experience of City of London airport is and the horrors it impacts upon its neighbours, or are you simply regurgitating the widely-publicised leftist whinging that was surrounding the topic a year or so ago?
poor and middle class folks either just deal with it or are pushed out.
It's one of the smaller reasons I left London. (My workplace was under it, so I looked for a new job that wasn't.)
Close it down, replace with "thousands of new homes within easy reach of central London"
Which seems fair to me - surely a better site for an airport would be larger, further out and well-connected by rail? This applies to Heathrow as well.
It recently expanded with direct service to Rotterdam & Amsterdam, future expansions are under discussion.
If you live within half an hour's travel from King's Cross, eurostar does not take longer for door-to-door time. More pleasant and less weight restrictions too
Plane can do faster and cheaper door to door.
I admittedly am not optimizing for price--intra-Europe flights can be pretty inexpensive--but I'd much rather take the train than fly even if it costs a bit more and takes a bit longer.
I understand the feeling. I hate flying too, in particular cheap European airlines. Gotta admit that there is an inflection point though, maybe around a thousand kilometers, where trains are struggling to keep up.
I commuted monday-friday from London to Paris for a couple months, and if I were to fly I don't think I could take it.
The London-Lyon is disappointing. Better take a plane.
It depends on the speed of the service of course but, even with relatively high speed rail, a thousand kilometers is probably at the outside edge of where a train makes utilitarian sense.
However, my impression is that relatively few take it all the way from Boston to Washington DC. It's still about the same 1 hour flight that the shorter legs would be by air but now it's basically a full day of train travel. I've done it when I've just been happy to work on the train but it doesn't really make a lot of sense most of the time.
Even with a train service like the Shinkansen, getting from Tokyo to, say, Hiroshima is over a 5 hour train ride for a distance of a bit under 1,000 km.
I like taking trains in Europe and Japan but there's an upper distance limit for when they make utilitarian sense. (For London to Brussels or Paris though, it's hard to imagine why I'd want to fly even if it were a little cheaper.)
Whereas going to Marseille's airport is a right pain.
This is a place where land is cheap and sprawl is common, so the cost can't have been prohibitive.
I refer you to the same site for actual green party policies
I think their conception of what is "green" for the inhabitants of London is a little wider than just "public parks", though that is mentioned. But not specifically for that site.
Plus it looks like there is a fair bit of greenery in the photo.