Robots To Clear the Baltic Seafloor of WW-II Mines 286
An anonymous reader writes "A Russian company is building a massive natural gas pipeline that will run across the Baltic Sea floor. But first, they must clear some of the 150,000 unexploded bombs sitting at the bottom of the sea, left there by the Russian and German armies in the 1940s. About 70 of these mines, each filled with 300 kg of explosive charge, sit in the pipeline's path, mostly in its northern section just south of Finland. And so the company contracted to remove the mines is bringing in robots to do the dirty work. Here's how it will work: A research ship deploys the robot to the seabed, where it identifies the exact location of the explosive. After sounding a warning to surrounding ship traffic, scaring fish away using a small explosive, and then emitting a 'seal screamer' of high intensity noises designed to make the area around the blast quite uncomfortable for marine mammals, Bactec's engineers erupt a 5 kg blast, forcing the mine to detonate. This process ensures the safety of humans plus any animals living in the surrounding environment. The operation concludes with the robot being redeployed to clear up the scrap of the now-destroyed bomb."
DISCRIMINATION! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DISCRIMINATION! (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, it could be worse. I envisioned the robots to be like underwater roombas. The machines would roll over to the mine, and hit it really hard with a comically shaped hammer. Bam-Splat, no more mine or robot. Very Wile E. Coyote style.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So you are volunteering?
Re:DISCRIMINATION! (Score:5, Informative)
Nah, it's just the usual The Man keeping down...The Man.
Look at the map of current and planned gas pipelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Major_russian_gas_pipelines_to_europe.png [wikipedia.org]
Russia just goes into some trouble of building that pipeline so that their former colonies will be reminded of few things, will drop some weird ideas they got in the last two decades.
Re:DISCRIMINATION! (Score:5, Funny)
humans (Score:5, Funny)
One day robots will use humans to dispose of mines...won't be so funny then...
Re:humans (Score:5, Funny)
I, for one welcome our new aquatic suicide bombing robot overlords.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
In Soviet Russia robots use humans to dispose mines...
oh, "mines" not "mimes" (Score:4, Funny)
For a minute I read your post as this:
and I was going to vehemently disagree.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
For a minute I read your post as this:
and I was going to vehemently disagree.
ROBOT 01101001: Do you know what is funny about mimes?
ROBOT 10000110: No. What is funny about mimes?
ROBOT 01101001: Their interaction with my gustatory sensory circuits.
ROBOT 10000110: Ha. Ha. Ha.
Good news! (Score:2, Funny)
I hope that around 2050 we'll take care of Afghanistan, once Rwanda is done around 2035.
Re:Good news! (Score:4, Insightful)
As soon as we need to build a pipeline through either of those places, we'll get right on that mine-clearing effort.
Great another Robot news!! (Score:2)
Will the mines explore (Score:2)
What makes them think the mines will explode? I mean its not like these things were engineered to last 60 years.
Re: (Score:2)
In which case its likely no longer a threat?
Re:Will the mines explore (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Will the mines explore (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Will the mines explore (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The main explosive of a mine is typically something shock-sensitive and not at all fragile, like TNT. The detonators (which would have some other sort of explosive) may be no good, but a good shock will still set off the main explosive.
Re:Will the mines explore (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole point of setting off a bomb next to a bigger bomb is to ensure that any viable explosives will go off.
Large boom = the original bomb was a danger and the danger is gone.
Small boom = the original bomb had no viable explosive left so was never a danger in the first place.
Determining which are currently dead and which are still live is tricky. The cheapest, fastest, and safest way is to just blow them all up.
Re:Will the mines explore (Score:5, Funny)
The cheapest, fastest, and safest way is to just blow them all up.
That's your solution to everything.
Re:Will the mines explore (Score:5, Informative)
Those mines are still capable of detonating. As explosives age, they tend to become very unstable.
Swedish, german, danish and finnish underwater demolitions crews have been working on clearing areas together, and so far, in the last 6 years, 3 german divers have died(one diver got a cramp in his legs, attempted to straighten the leg and hit the seabed(Yes, the seabed, not the mine) with his flipper with a bit of force... the vibrations were enough to set off the mine 2m away ), 1 swedish and 1 finnish diver badly wounded(previously not found mine detonating in a sympathetic reaction as another mine was set off in a controlled blast). And those are just the casualties I know of.
Re:Will the mines explore (Score:4, Informative)
As explosives age, they become less stable, and thus more likely to explode. Especially if they're not properly stored. Unexploded ordinance from WW II is still a big problem in many places.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,584091,00.html [spiegel.de]
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-05/04/content_439409.htm [chinadaily.com.cn]
The French still have problems with unexploded ordinance from World War I, which was mostly fought on their territory.
Mines that old really still dangerous? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mines that old really still dangerous? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or more explicitly, would *you* personally (the original poster) take the chance?
It is easier to wave away risk when someone else is taking it.
I was present when a plumber was fixing a small, on demand water heater wired directly to the mains so you could not unplug it. (probably a building code violation) I switched off power to the bathroom at the breaker box and told him it was off. The plumber asked: "Are you sure it's off?", I said yes, he said "Then you wont have a problem touching those terminals yourself."
At that point I grabbed my meter and verified it was off and then shorted the terminals with a screw driver to be doubly sure.
Re: (Score:2)
We still discover Shipwrecks and sunken cruisers from earlier eras in the same intact position as they sunk - I have no reason to doubt a mine could last that long. You need Oxygen to rust, and while there is obviously a lot of it inside an H20 ocean, it doesn't have the C02 that usually helps pump out fast oxidizing.
Your car sitting outside with the wind and the rain and polution will rust much faster than a ship at the bottom of the ocean.
Re:Mines that old really still dangerous? (Score:5, Informative)
Probably not saturated. You may be thinking of gunpowder. People are still getting killed with WW I buried mines and shells.
Quoting Wikipedia: "TNT neither absorbs nor dissolves in water, which allows it to be used effectively in wet environments."
Let's say that only one out of twenty still work. Do you feel lucky? Exciting times.
Re:Mines that old really still dangerous? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hell, a couple of years ago, a guy was killed by a *(US) Civil War* shell [roanoke.com]. And that was one that not only had sat either in water or the Virginia mud for nearly 150 years, it had been flushed with water to try to make it inert.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
wikipedia also says Solubility in water, 0.13 g/L (20 C). I knew a guy that had worked in a munitions plant, he said it was a big problem, TNT dust disolving in mop water, getting into the sewers and concentrating when the sewer dried out.
Re:Mines that old really still dangerous? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, it is quite possible that the explosive agent in a fair few of these mines is Amatol. Because that stuff was hygroscopic, it was often given some sort of waterproof coating even if it was intended for land use, just so that it wouldn't go dud in storage. A basic coating of Bitumen could stand against seawater for quite a while, preserving the lump of possibly touchy explosive material even if the mine casing has been breached. Some of the period contact detonators, constructed largely of glass and lead, might also surive surprisingly well...
Re:Mines that old really still dangerous? (Score:4, Informative)
One would think that after sitting at the bottom of the salty ocean for 60+ years it's shell would have rusted through and the explosives saturated with water.
IIRC, bombs and mines are often filled with a molten explosive such as TNT, which is then allowed to cool into a solid mass. It's not a given that simply exposing such a monolithic explosive to water would render it harmless.
Re:Mines that old really still dangerous? (Score:5, Informative)
They certainly are.
Here in the UK we often have a problem of unexploded ordinance and I would imagine countries like France, Germany et al. do also. Unexploded bombs in land or mines at sea dating back to World War II are usually found a few times a year here in the UK and are generally detonated because they are not safe to simply move, although some are safe enough to just move.
Re:Mines that old really still dangerous? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Vasa [wikipedia.org] warship was preserved in the brackish waters a little way from Stockholm for over three hundred years. How long something lasts at the bottom of the sea depends on the composition of the water (oxygen, salt, etc) and other factors.
(If you visit Stockholm make sure you see the ship, it's amazing.)
Re:Mines that old really still dangerous? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no munitions expert, but if I were to design a mine that was going to go into saltwater I might also select a material that is somewhat resistant to saltwater. PVC, polystyrene, bakelite, teflon, and polyurethane come to mind, and all were around before WWII. Heck, even stainless steel was around, albeit probably too expensive for the Russian military at the time. I wouldn't necessarily expect it to last 60 years, but if I designed it to be even minimally saltwater-resistant it's not outside the realm of possibility that one might survive that long. The odds are against it, but it's not impossible.
So you go with the odds, and relative levels of damage involved. This is prepwork for a very expensive natural gas pipeline, and I doubt it really accounts for a significant portion of the overall expense.
If no bombs are viable, then the project has spent some money unnecessarily and set off a series of 5kg (~11-pound) explosives and not done any real harm to the surrounding environment except for a bunch of little areas that are about to get a LNG pipeline plumbed through anyway.
If just one of those bombs is live and goes off when natural gas is flowing through the LNG pipeline they want to build, that could be very devastating over a very large area.
Re:Mines that old really still dangerous? (Score:5, Informative)
Why take the risk? One lucky mine could ruin your whole day.
I lived in Charleston, SC for a while. It was not too unusual to dig up unexplosed ordinance from the Civil war; some of it was still dangerous.
Unless you want to die, treat all unexploded ordinance as dangerous; the older, the more dangerous.
Who would oppose this? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't believe they have opposition from ENVIRONMENTALISTS! Of all people, they should be the first to encourage the removal of mines. Frankly I would like to see all 150,000 removed, we have enough mines in our world we don't need them in the ocean as well.
Any pollution from the remains of these mines would only be temporary, the sea claims all things in the end and it will eventually filter out/destroy toxins on its own once its in flow is stopped. If its already heavily polluted they should focus their efforts on whatever is causing it before this.
Re:Who would oppose this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Never underestimate the idiocy of a subset of the human population. There are plenty of sane, rational environmentalists out there, but then there's PETA. An animatronic groundhog? Protesting the Westminster dog show? Those animals have better lives than I do, and mine is pretty good.
There will always be someone, somewhere, ready to protest anything.
Re:Who would oppose this? (Score:5, Funny)
The way the internet is, all you have to do is say "I like toast" and someone from the Anti-Cruelty to Bread Society will come out of the woodwork to harass you.
Re:Who would oppose this? (Score:4, Funny)
Damn your anti-dough-ism!
Leavenophiles are united! Heads will roll! We will not loaf; we will RISE to the occasion and defeat the effete fascist flour flouters!!
Re: (Score:2)
What don't environmentalists oppose?
I think the only thing they can all agree on is More Funding!!
There are the environmentalists that oppose everything and give no answers as to what we should do, those ones suck.
Then there are the environmentalists that look at a problem and see a solution, these aren't environmentalists, they're engineers.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, the process could be a lot cleaner if they simply raised the mines off the seafloor and transported them somewhere safe for detonation, or even better, disassembly and recycling.
Since this would obviously be a very dangerous job for any workers involved, let's get the environmentalists complaining about this to volunteer to do the job.
Re:Who would oppose this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only dangerous, but probably largely ineffective at actually preserving any environment.
These are mines. If they still have explosives, then they might still have devices designed to make those explosives go boom when the mine is moved. If 1/4 of the mines are still active, you'll have 1/4 the large explosions.
But you'll have larger, more expensive equipment that costs more and has to be abandoned due to severe damage the first time it encounters a mine that went off (as opposed to a small robot who was built to be blown up). Then you'll have bombs that make it all the way up to a ship THEN go off, leaving all the Diesel fuel and other chemicals in the water when the ship sinks
Blowing them up in place is probably the most environmentally friendly way of disposing of the bombs, short of not building them in the first place of course. But I lack a time machine AND any way to change human nature. ;)
Re:Who would oppose this? (Score:5, Informative)
Any pollution from the remains of these mines would only be temporary, the sea claims all things in the end and it will eventually filter out/destroy toxins on its own once its in flow is stopped.
Conservation of mass is still the rule of the land. Pollution doesn't "disappear" it just dilutes. That being said, from my memory of a week of hands on US army explosives training in the early 90s as an ammo specialist 55B:
1) All unexploded military grade explosives are somewhat toxic. In the movies, or during wartime, people mush C-4 with their bare hands, but its quite poisonous so we wore gloves in training. We were told you'll throw up in the short term, and get cancer in the long term. Best case is probably ANFO, the AN is harmless, but the FO part is literally pouring raw diesel fuel into the water, not all that nice of a thing to do. Just touching nitro dynamite gives an amazing headache, the RDX stuff is way better but still not exactly baby formula. TNT is oily gritty semisolid stuff that partially liquifies when its warm, probably not an issue in the baltic sea...
There are explosives that are non toxic like gunpowder that are not used as a military explosive but only as a propellant in naval guns (modern ones use nitro based smokeless powders). There are exotic mining explosives vaguely involving charcoal and liquid oxygen, which are not used by the military.
2) Generally speaking, the fumes/smoke/whatever of an explosive are WAY less toxic than the explosive itself. Given the choice of breathing the smoke from 1 lb of TNT, or eating 1 lb of TNT, the smoke is WAY more healthy. The smoke from C-4 is nasty and will kill you, but eating or touching unexploded C-4 will kill you WAY faster. The environment is way better off with the stuff exploded than unexploded.
3) Pest control was not an issue in the bunkers, as far as I know, aside from termites in the crates. Unexploded ammo is not good eats.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's commonly referred to as bang-head I believe. It's a side effect of the nitroglycerine [wikipedia.org].
Not so much for modern explosives, but in the old days of gun powder, fire ants were a real danger ;)
Neat (Score:2)
The interesting part is that the de-mining process starts with the assumption that all of these mines will still detonate. Wonder what kind of explosive is that reliable.
Hopefully, the actual fusing and ship detecting 'sensors' on the mine (not sure what else to call the big mechanical and magnetic switches mines of this vintage use) no longer work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wonder what kind of explosive is that reliable.
They're German mines. Of course they'll still work! ;)
But in seriousness, if they don't detonate after having 5 kilos of high explosive blow up on top of them, they're probably not going to detonate ever, and thus aren't a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting part is that the de-mining process starts with the assumption that all of these mines will still detonate.
Explosives Disposal 101: Always assume an explosive device is functional, armed, and active.
And if that assumption is wrong, the mine will still be destroyed, so no biggie.
Robots and explosives, what could go wrong? (Score:2)
Of course I expect it is not actually robots but rather remote controlled vehicles.
While the article does not state it the graphics clearly shows ROV. Remote Operated Vehicle.
No robots here. Please move on.
Where do I submit my CV? (Score:2)
Re:Where do I submit my CV? (Score:5, Funny)
The real process... (Score:2)
landmines (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's *very* profitable... for non profits. (Non Profits have to pay people salaries too... from their 12-14% "administrative overhead")...They just haven't been pushing their marketing as hard as they could lately.
Re: (Score:2)
and the Prosthetics industry.
gas leak (Score:2)
Won't be so nice for the environment when the new gas line springs a leak.
Origin of Mines? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Subs for sure. If they were still on the surface, they would have been cleared by now. Submarine mines were typically anchored deep in the water.
Re:Origin of Mines? (Score:5, Informative)
No, they were dumped there after the war, and not just normal bombs but chemical ones as well. Common practice at the time.
Germany had large stockpiles of these (including neurotoxic ones), but they feared if they used them the allies would use them too. Hitler was temporarily blinded in WWI by chemical warfare, so that might have played a role.
Nobody wanted to look after or defuse these, so they just dumped them in the Baltic sea.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Could be all sorts of things
There are areas of the channel that you don't want to play with as they were designated zones for USAF and RAF a/c to dump their unused bombs into - That action is in fact one of the theories around Glenn Millers dissappearance since that was near just such an area.
Also vast amounts of ordiance of all sorts was just dumped post 1945
But mines are generally anchored at a depth for either subs (various levels to create a barrier) or near the surface to take out ships. Once the ancho
I've found my new career! (Score:2)
Reminds me of a 'suicide mission' sketch on Cher (Score:2)
Yes, she had a variety show back then. One of the skits involved a WWII suicide mission, held in a tent, complete with a map they can point to from time to time. So the commander is brought in, they all stand at attention yadda yadda and when he starts the briefing he is half mumbling his words but the only words you could ever understand where the words suicide, death, and die. WHen he called in Cher to demonstrate gas masks (of all things) Cher also mumbles which even gets worse when she puts the gas mask
Sooo, paying for WWII cleanup...Who gets the bill? (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting how we're still expending money and effort to clean up previous wars. Due to the global nature of this particular war, really makes me wonder who should be footing the bill for cleanup like this, especially in "international" waterways.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously the Germans should be forced to pay war reparations...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A warning to anyone googling for "seal screamer" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Save everything that can move away fast enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Save everything that can move away fast enough? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Only a Chinaman would know.
Re:Save everything that can move away fast enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
That campaign has the effect of making them 400% more delicious to Dwarf Fortress players.
Re:Save everything that can move away fast enough? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Save everything that can move away fast enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
They'll grow back.
Re: (Score:2)
Get more fertile soil to grow in, more plant nutrients floating around, clear spots of ground to invade to.
I really don't see a downside for the plants, its not like they are being lit on fire. We've been using fertilizer as explosives for a long time, this really could help the plants.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We've been using fertilizer as explosives for a long time, this really could help the plants.
Sounds good in theory, and as for practice, I have never seen quite as much greenery as the explosives range at the army base in Huntsville, at least as of the early 90s. Apparently nitrates and phosphorous are good for plants, who would have guessed? Also the equivalent of soil aeration could help on the ocean floor.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Save everything that can move away fast enough? (Score:5, Funny)
"Although this decision is by no means unanimous, the Human feel that the seafloorlacks the necessary characteristics to take upon this task on their own," said Prostetnic Human Smith, a captain with the fleet. "Demolition will begin soon."
"As the proper paperwork has already been appropriately filed, resistance is useless!" Smith added. "This detonation had been discussed for several decades and the plans were available in a nearby continent for review and/or complaint. We regret the loss of lives, but we can't be blamed if you won't take the trouble to get out and get involved in your neighborhood"
Re:Save everything that can move away fast enough? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Save everything that can move away fast enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
Life isn't fair.
Seriously, what else are they going to do? If they try to reclaim the bombs and blow them up at another location, the project just got massively more complex, they are going to still damage the surrounding area when they dig it up and drag it away, the stuff that breaks if one goes off in-place just got a lot more expensive, you have the risk of someone getting hurt or killed during transport, and they've still got to blow it up somewhere. Some life forms are going to be extinguished when the bomb goes off, and no one in their right mind is going to design something to try and keep the bomb from going off. Unexploded ordinance is just nasty stuff that may or may not still be viable - the only effective way to make it safe is to let all the boom out of it.
They try to scare off all the critters they can, then they blow up the mine. It's as cheap, efficient, and about as minimally invasive as such a project could be. That's not to say it's not invasive, only that (short of transporter technology where we can beam it all into space) it's about as good as we're going to get.
Re:Save everything that can move away fast enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Unexploded ordinance is just nasty stuff that may or may not still be viable - the only effective way to make it safe is to let all the boom out of it."
For one of my projects, I was involved in unmanned aircraft activities at Fort Riley, KS, using an old weapons test range. Downrange was a tree line that we were warned to stay away from, and there were "UXO" signs around them. Apparently, trees had grown *around* unexploded ordnance, and that those trees were known to spontaneously explode. It was too dangerous to go out there, and they couldn't just bomb the land on base, so the Army just left that bunch of trees alone.
Re:Save everything that can move away fast enough? (Score:5, Informative)
Plants? WTF?! This is the bottom of the Baltic Sea, south of Finland, not a shallow coral reef in the Caribbean. There's no plants down there.
There's some very beautiful parts of the ocean, places where scuba divers and snorklers like to visit to see the pretty fish, coral, and underwater plants. The Baltic Sea is not one of these places.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Plants require photosynthesis to get energy. That means they need light. Therefore, plants don't exist at deep depths. Most scuba divers will tell you that unless you're interested in diving for shipwrecks, there's really nothing worth looking at below about 40 feet (unless you're looking for unknown species, in which case you won't be scuba diving, you'll be in a deep-diving submersible and out in the open ocean diving to thousands of feet, not in the relatively shallow Baltic Sea).
But you definitely ha
Re:Save everything that can move away fast enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you suggesting that the mines not be placed where they are? Very well. I'll call a meeting with Hitler and Stalin and see if we can get this un-done.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that the mines not be placed where they are? Very well. I'll call a meeting with Hitler and Stalin and see if we can get this un-done.
It's too late for that now, they're in big trouble. They're going to be SOOOO dead.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like they already know where they are - or at least the ones that are in the path of the construction.
Re:what about the corals (Score:5, Informative)
Coral doesn't grow in the Baltic sea, though this probably isn't a great idea for some of the stationary shellfish in nearby costal waters.
Re: (Score:2)
Coral doesn't grow in the Baltic sea, though this probably isn't a great idea for some of the stationary shellfish in nearby costal waters.
That was a far more polite answer than I could come up with.... coral in the Baltic? Other aquatic life yes.... but coral? *expletive deleted*
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't be so quick to judge. There are such things as cold water and deep water corals. These even live in some parts of Norway.
The reason for them not living in the Baltic is that the water does not have enough salt. But in the parts close to the North Sea - the Skagerrak - several types have been found.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And just what kind of reefs grow in brackish waters that freeze over in the winter?
Certainly, there aren't any corals in the region, except for hotels.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The shock wave is not a problem, this [wikipedia.org] is a problem.
Re:what about the corals (Score:4, Insightful)
Coral reef ends at about 40 meters or so. I don't think anywhere on the Baltic Sea floor would qualify as prime coral reef territory for a large number of reasons, but depth is the first and most immediate that comes to mind.
And let's think about this for a second. They are doing the "boom-boom" thing to eliminate the bombs to make room for a natural gas pipeline. You might as well complain that the local contractor is using a weed-whacker to clear pretty flowers before he starts leveling the ground with a bulldozer. The amount of damage caused by these bombs going off is nothing compared to what's going to happen when the pipeline goes in.
And if you skip the mine-clearing step, just wait till the first mine goes off and releases a few million gallons of natural gas into the surrounding environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The mustard gas is still going to leach out over time, this just releases it all at once over an area that has hopefully been largely cleared of wildlife. Certainly not an ideal way of neutralizing mustard gas, but overall probably not terribly much more harmful than leaving it there - the difference being that the damage is done all at once rather than over the course of decades.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Mines are cheap and effective. (Score:5, Insightful)
>Was mining the sea a shortsighted endeavor that ultimately caused more harm than what was being prevented (invasion)?
Mines were, and continue to be, cheap and effective area denial weapons.
When used at sea, they ensnare the unwary, and, once the position of the minefield becomes known to your enemy, diverts enemy traffic into places more convenient for you.
This has been sufficient justification for their use for about a hundred years or so.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For many of these folks, the war was one of survival: you did what you needed to. Or would you not fire a gun at someone who intended you harm, out of worry about the l
Re:Dirty Jobs ftw (Score:4, Funny)
"Dirty Jobs"... with Mike RoweBOT? (snare drum)