# Bomb hunters TV show



## my72jeep (28 Aug 2012)

Any one watch the new History show Bomb hunters?


----------



## Sigs Pig (28 Aug 2012)

A link would have been nice - Bomb Hunters

BTW no I didn't, will watch it later though.

From TVGuide:

‘Bomb Hunters’: Canada’s deadliest job


For almost a century, Canadian land has been used as a training ground for munitions, rockets, grenades and other items designed to maim and kill. Not all of them go off. The result is a country littered with unstable, unexploded shells capable of killing innocent bystanders. Someone has to clean them up. Cue History’s Bomb Hunters.

Ray Tremblay is one of the unsung heroes getting a well-deserved turn in the spotlight for making our whole country, and a corner of Quebec in particular, safer. The former Canadian Forces combat engineer heads up Mine/EOD, a company which specializes in disposing of buried ordinances. Tremblay and his staff are one of three teams followed in Season 1 of Bomb Hunters, debuting Monday at 10 p.m. ET on History.

The stocky Tremblay is in charge of cleaning out Lac St. Pierre, a large body of water in Quebec that was used as a testing ground during both the Second World War and the Cold War. Allied countries used the area — and roughly 700 other spots around the country — to lob explosives at, trying new technologies that were then used overseas. 

“All the Allied countries used Canada for testing because we had the land,” Tremblay explained over the phone recently. “There was no war here, so they decided to take the land that they could.”

Now, with the population growing, Canadians are encroaching on land bristling with unexploded ordinances (UXOs). Lac Saint Pierre is especially bad, says Tremblay. He casually mentions his team is preparing to haul 300 “big bombs” out of the shallow lake after nine years of sediment testing and dredging a cleared area of water for residents to use. He expects the remaining work will last two years. The lake, he outlined, was used for testing from the 1950s right through the middle of the Cold War. Residents were removed from the area whenever testing occurred, and would be allowed back on the land right after. 

“I was talking to a guy and he told me the big bangs were his alarm clock in the morning,” Tremblay recalled with a chuckle.

Tremblay, who was deployed on two overseas missions as part of the Canadian Forces — 1991-92 in Kuwait and 1999-2000 in Bosnia — admits disposing of old bombs is dangerous (luckily no one has died doing it yet) but necessary.

“I’m happy to be part of this show, because now the country knows this part of our history. It’s dangerous and it needs to be done,” Tremblay explains. “When you prepare for war, you make a mess somewhere, right? Because of what happened in the training, tens of thousands of lives were saved during the war.”

Bomb Hunters debuts Monday, Aug. 27, at 10 p.m. ET on History.



Thx,
ME


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (28 Aug 2012)

Sounds kind of interesting, at least for a few episodes.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (28 Aug 2012)

What I want to know is who is going around burying all these laws and regulations?

And what makes them explosive?


----------



## The_Falcon (28 Aug 2012)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> What I want to know is who is going around burying all these laws and regulations?
> 
> And what makes them explosive?



 ??? ???


----------



## AmmoTech90 (28 Aug 2012)

There's a difference between ordinances and ordnance.


----------



## The_Falcon (28 Aug 2012)

Oh, gotchya,


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Aug 2012)

> Tremblay, who was deployed on two overseas missions as part of the Canadian Forces — 1991-92 in Kuwait and 1999-2000 in Bosnia — admits disposing of old bombs is dangerous (luckily no one has died doing it yet) but necessary.



Since no one has died doing it yet, it is clearly not as dangerous an activity as those that can lead to dihydrogen-monoxide  poisoning...


----------



## fraserdw (28 Aug 2012)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> What I want to know is who is going around burying all these laws and regulations?
> 
> And what makes them explosive?



The Tories and they are liberal laws!!!! :bowing:

I just finished watching it, and I mean I am finished watching it.  There were some cheap attempts at creating tension amongst the actors, but really it will become interesting only to an Ammo Tech or EOD about to retire and looking for work.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (28 Aug 2012)

It sounds like it might be interesting to see some old friends on TV, but really it is trying to make a range clearance dramatic.  Only, I presume, without the yelling to keep the sweepers in line.


----------



## medicineman (28 Aug 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Since no one has died doing it yet, it is clearly not as dangerous an activity as those that can lead to dihydrogen-monoxide  poisoning...



That's why clearance divers exist  ;D.

MM


----------



## Ammo (29 Aug 2012)

Watched it, recognized a couple of techs but overall amazing show!!! (LOL). Definitely Hollywood'ish (who else would call an "Explosive Ordnance", a "BOMB"). Did anyone notice that XTECH, NOTRA, GD-OTS… are not featured in this show. That's because real "techs" didn't want to be associated with this drama show and some of these "actors" (Additionally, "Range Clearance" as it should be called is not as sexy as "Bomb Hunting". No wonder Steve Donovan jumped ship and joined a real Range Clearance company!!!).


----------



## Gramps (29 Aug 2012)

This show is, in one word, reallyfreakingboring.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Aug 2012)

In bomb disposal, boring is good, with just the occasional planned BANG to live it up with.


----------



## PanaEng (29 Aug 2012)

I missed the opening show.  Will watch it online.
Yes, I know it is going to be like most of the "reality shows" that try to create "drama" where none exists...
Just want to see which old fart I recognize ;-)

Chimo!


----------



## Ammo (3 Sep 2012)

Episode 2 tomorrow night at 10PM (Ont Local Time). Don't miss it!!!


----------



## NavyShooter (3 Sep 2012)

Watched part of it last night.

UGH.

I know Sean Dockrill, sailed with him years ago before he crossed over to become a clearance diver (which on the show, was described as a combat engineer???)  and he's a former Naval Weapons Tech....the part with him fooling around with the guys on site is his personality....the way his boss jacked him up, well, pure theater I think.  

The "system" they were trying to use to sweep the bottom of the river was rather hokey....I worked with Side Scan SONAR systems for a while (a short while) but we had some pretty sensitive magnetometer instruments available too....and saying that their GPS antenna's stainless steel mounting point was affecting the readings....????  And of course, when their "trial" passed, they didn't show the readout on the screen....interesting.

The whole aluminium frame design that they have for that "sensor" bank is, well, completely impractical, as you could see in their testing.  (Getting blown around everywhere.)  Designed by someone who has a good idea about magnetic signatures, but poor real world engineering skills for practical, employable/deployable systems.

I'm not favourably impressed with the show.  

NS


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Sep 2012)

Thanks, NS.  I'll give it a miss and save an hour of life.  I can spend it here instead.   :nod:


----------



## Ammo (4 Sep 2012)

Just finished watching Episode 2, more drama... 
Can't believe that Gemtech was allowed to hire General Labour vice General Technical workers, no wonder the project got shut down after they realized that there might be some "live" UXO. But I doubt it!!! McGivney was an Ammunition Depot and I firmly believe that, even though bias, any "dump" there are Free From Explosives.
On the other hand, don't know much Thiepval but seems like the biggest hazard in that operation is environmental, not necessarily explosive (IMOO).


----------



## AmmoTech90 (4 Sep 2012)

Ammo,

I spent a lot of time digging up stuff in Renous, also a depot, and it was most definitely not all FFE.  You can also ask the boys in Pet about the items found buried in the old storage area on base.  We aint angels by far and anyone who would honestly believe no UXO would be present at a former storage site is fooling themselves.  

One thing to keep in mind with private companies is they are not there to make the area safe, they are there to fulfill the contract requirements and most importantly make money.  They're not going to waste time making finely engineered jig to hold some sensors, if they could get away with a 2x4 and duct tape they would.  They do good work, but they're eye is firmly on the bottom line.


----------



## ammocat (8 Sep 2012)

Finally saw an episode.  Surprised by the use of general labourers and lack of uxo techs on site.  Also disappointed with having them explain the 3.5 inch rocket when the warheads they found were clearly marked 3.2 inch.   Curiosity will keep me watching this at least for awhile.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (9 Sep 2012)

Why didn't it surprise me when Don Duplisea and Paul Twomey showed up on the show......


----------



## old fart (9 Sep 2012)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Why didn't it surprise me when Don Duplisea and Paul Twomey showed up on the show......



Never bothered watching after the first episode.....may just have to now...

It's Paul Toomey BTW.....


----------



## Ammo (10 Sep 2012)

ammocat - 100% correct wrt your comment on the 3.2 vice 3.5 rocket ("Also disappointed with having them explain the 3.5 inch rocket when the warheads they found were clearly marked 3.2 inch." ) and clearly marked as DUMMY. Additionally pointing to the nose end and talking about propellant (ass end)!!! Too funny (or is it phony!!!). 

AmmoTech90- with all due respect to your experience in Renous, I stand by my comments. I firmly believe that pers back then were diligent in their work and followed accepted standard practice. Doesn't mean it was right, but nevertheless...


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Sep 2012)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Ammo,
> 
> I spent a lot of time digging up stuff in Renous, also a depot, and it was most definitely not all FFE.  You can also ask the boys in Pet about the items found buried in the old storage area on base.  We aint angels by far and anyone who would honestly believe no UXO would be present at a former storage site is fooling themselves.
> 
> One thing to keep in mind with private companies is they are not there to make the area safe, they are there to fulfill the contract requirements and most importantly make money.  They're not going to waste time making finely engineered jig to hold some sensors, if they could get away with a 2x4 and duct tape they would.  They do good work, but they're eye is firmly on the bottom line.



Got to take exception to this one.  I spent a good chunk of the past year digging in Petawawa, and to say making the area safe is not a priority is a disservice to every person who poked a shovel in that ground over the past few years.  Not all companies are so cavalier as you seem to think they are, but they also don't benefit from endless R&D and toy building budgets either.  If any of you have always had exactly what you need on hand at any given time and never had to bodge it together in your life, you're clearly in a different CF than I was.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Sep 2012)

Sure, but can they make it safe to dance?  ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dURDqFi7bV8


----------



## AmmoTech90 (10 Sep 2012)

Kat, Sorry missed a word, should have been "are not there *just* to make the area safe".

I never said they are cavalier, I said they make what they need to get the job done and dont sweat the cosmetic aspect of it.  I stand by statement though that the companies wouldn't exist if they lost money.  Individuals might be willing to do the job for free grub and a chance to blow stuff up, but the companies aren't.  Would you do the job if it cost you money?

Ammo, I'm not sure what you're saying.  You first implied that live material wouldn't be buried.  Then you say pers followed standard (perhaps wrong) practices.  I've found live ammo buried/hidden/abandoned from long ago in at serveral ammo storage sites.  Do you  





> firmly believe that, even though bias, any "dump" there are Free From Explosives.


, i.e. the only things buried deliberately were FFE, or 





> firmly believe that pers back then were diligent in their work and followed accepted standard practice.


, i.e. disposal of live items by burial was ok at one time but is no longer?


----------



## Container (10 Sep 2012)

I was a little surPrised when Tremblay showed up with that full face mask for his dive ops. The industry standard is the AGA. He wound up fighting against the huge air bubble in front of his face and was surprised. Thats the first thing a Tec diver would note picking up a mask for work. 

And the scene where he lost coms was garbage. He would just switch to line pulls. Had they actually been concerned they would have splashed the safety. But they didn't so they knew he was fine.


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Sep 2012)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Kat, Sorry missed a word, should have been "are not there *just* to make the area safe".
> 
> I never said they are cavalier, I said they make what they need to get the job done and dont sweat the cosmetic aspect of it.  I stand by statement though that the companies wouldn't exist if they lost money.  Individuals might be willing to do the job for free grub and a chance to blow stuff up, but the companies aren't.  Would you do the job if it cost you money?
> 
> Ammo, I'm not sure what you're saying.  You first implied that live material wouldn't be buried.  Then you say pers followed standard (perhaps wrong) practices.  I've found live ammo buried/hidden/abandoned from long ago in at serveral ammo storage sites.  Do you  , i.e. the only things buried deliberately were FFE, or , i.e. disposal of live items by burial was ok at one time but is no longer?



Of course the companies are in it make money, and I apologize if I made it sound like we only do this for the warm fuzzy feeling you can only get from digging a couple of hundred holes a day in +35C heat.  As in any field of endeavour, cosmetics are nice when time, money and resources permit, but pretty has never been the overriding factor.  If something looks stupid, and it works, it ain't stupid.  The geophysics guys I worked with are always finding newer and cooler ways of finding anomalies, the company will spend the lucra to do the job well and safely.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Sep 2012)

Container said:
			
		

> I was a little surPrised when Tremblay showed up with that full face mask for his dive ops. The industry standard is the AGA. He wound up fighting against the huge air bubble in front of his face and was surprised. Thats the first thing a Tec diver would note picking up a mask for work.
> 
> And the scene where he lost coms was garbage. He would just switch to line pulls. Had they actually been concerned they would have splashed the safety. But they didn't so they knew he was fine.



Didn't see the show, but you wear the mask that is bought for you. I wore the AGA in my work on SCUBA, I liked it, despite being an air hog, others didn't. The Kirby was our supplied air mask. As for comms, it depends on your protocols, if they say lost comms go back to surface, then that's what you do. This is not rescue work, so no time crunch.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (10 Sep 2012)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Of course the companies are in it make money, and I apologize if I made it sound like we only do this for the warm fuzzy feeling you can only get from digging a couple of hundred holes a day in +35C heat.  As in any field of endeavour, cosmetics are nice when time, money and resources permit, but pretty has never been the overriding factor.  If something looks stupid, and it works, it ain't stupid.  The geophysics guys I worked with are always finding newer and cooler ways of finding anomalies, the company will spend the lucra to do the job well and safely.



Kat, there's your problem.  The geophys guys are getting too good at finding anomolies, therefore you have to dig more holes, more often.  Maybe, in the interest of longer contracts for the company, and less digging for you they should cut back on R&D.  I know when we surveyed with Foresters we never had to dig 200 holes in a day.  >


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Sep 2012)

Believe me, if you saw the giant red blooms on the map after first second and third pass with the EM 61 array, you'd understand why we dig so much. Pet was unusual for the amount of digging we had to do, we pulled 12.5 metric tons of projectiles out of the Mattawa in a single week of digging last summer, definitely not the usual workload.  We would start excavating a single target hit and end up pulling 10 or more 18 pdrs out of one hole.  It got so you'd hope for a frag pit so you could sit down for a half hour.  Ask one of our resident rotorheads what that ground looked like from above.


----------



## Container (10 Sep 2012)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Didn't see the show, but you wear the mask that is bought for you. I wore the AGA in my work on SCUBA, I liked it, despite being an air hog, others didn't. The Kirby was our supplied air mask. As for comms, it depends on your protocols, if they say lost comms go back to surface, then that's what you do. This is not rescue work, so no time crunch.



Yeah Im catching what youre laying down- but it was Tremblay who purchased them- he was right to want through water coms. It may just be editing- I would imagine a guy with his experience would know better. But the editors at History wouldnt.

Out of the full faces in use I think the model they bought has the biggest face bubble. It would be tiring- and even Tremblay says when he gets out of the water that his jaw was tired from fighting the skirt. 

When I say they should have switched to line pulls- I should have been more clear. In the show he loses coms. Which happens everyonce in a while on through water coms- but he didnt surface it was edited to look like they were all very concerned about him but no diver is splashed and they dont attempt to communicate through line pulls. they just stare at the water. In reality they would a) wait a second to see if the coms catch again, which would be basically only happen if there was two divers working together. Otherwise you wouldnt wait (in my experience) b) attempt to switch to line pulls c) if he working by himself - splash the safety.

Im SURE it was editing. But it just makes it seems very unrealistic and unsafe. But thats the fault of the channel and producers.\

It would be pretty boring if it was real. *tug* *tug* *tug tug tug*


----------



## aesop081 (10 Sep 2012)

This is just like "The hurt locker".........just shut your brain off !!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Sep 2012)

Technically if the divers aren't military they would have to be diving to the Labour code of Canada, which is quite onerous. It's been a few years since I looked at it, but it may cover off requirements for comms. Anything with overhead or risk of entrapment required another full dive team.


----------



## Container (10 Sep 2012)

I was just perusing the labour code requirements and am now convinced that it couldnt have happened the way it looked on the show. Youre right Colin P. The code has alot more requirements than what the show demonstrated:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-86-304/page-99.html#docCont  

If anyone is interested.

Cdn aviator is right. Im just going to enjoy the underwater shots and stop with the details.


----------



## ammocat (1 Oct 2012)

Is there really a 18 Pdr WP flat head projectile?


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Oct 2012)

ammocat said:
			
		

> Is there really a 18 Pdr WP flat head projectile?



Yes. There are at least four people who I know personally that fit that description  ;D


----------



## R933ex (2 Oct 2012)

Actually on a point of jurisdiction, the camera crew would be subject to the CLC Part II and Regs and the "Clearance divers" would be subject to the provincial regulations as EOD type work is not specifically federally regulated.. Having said that as an ex inspector I bet both the provincial safety geeks are wondering WTF???


----------



## Container (2 Oct 2012)

Nomad933 said:
			
		

> Actually on a point of jurisdiction, the camera crew would be subject to the CLC Part II and Regs and the "Clearance divers" would be subject to the provincial regulations as EOD type work is not specifically federally regulated.. Having said that as an ex inspector I bet both the provincial safety geeks are wondering WTF???



The CLC applies to working divers unless specifically exempt......where can I get a reference for this? When I dive and do searches for explosives etc I am still subject to the CLC. 

Just looking for an expansion on what you said.


----------



## Container (2 Oct 2012)

The CLC applies to working divers unless specifically exempt......where can I get a reference for your post? When I dive and do searches for explosives etc I am still subject to the CLC. 

Just looking for an expansion on what you said.


----------



## R933ex (2 Oct 2012)

The jurisdiction issues go back to what the main purpose of the organization does. For example RCMP divers are covered under the code because according to the Code they are a federal undertaking, salvage divers might be under the code, due to the business's main activity falling under one of the elements listed in section 2 of the Act. However the diving for other purposes, that falls outside of section 2 would be under provincial jurisdiction 

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/L-2/page-1.html#h-2

An example from the provinces is here from BC:

http://www2.worksafebc.com/Publications/OHSRegulation/Part24.


----------



## Container (2 Oct 2012)

interesting.

good stuff- Im learning the law stuff still. Id rather just be under water.....


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Oct 2012)

Watched one episode yesterday. Lost interest after 10 minutes. Won't be back.


----------



## GAP (2 Oct 2012)

The whole show really stretches the credibility of the trade. Don't treat the audience like simpletons....we don't need things repeated 6 ways from Sunday to get the point it may go "boomie".

I ended up watching CNN....it was more intelligent. Oh, God.....what am I saying!!


----------



## Ammo (3 Oct 2012)

Agree with you, as I said much earlier, very Hollywood'ish (who else would call an "Explosive Ordnance", a "BOMB"), but I stand corrected as I can't believe that XTech got involved with this drama show (shame on you Eric - LOL).
I guess the message here is that there are #$%^ load of EOs out there across the country and there is a need to clean up the environment, but please do not dramatise it (18Pdr Flat Head WP!!! Checking presence of WP Filling with a pencil through the base of a tracer element... Come on, give me a break...)
Again, "Range Clearance" not as sexy as "Bomb Hunting"


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Oct 2012)

Everyone out there calls them bombs, bullets, rounds, projectiles, items, anomalies, and thingamajigs.  Not a lot of guys when we first strike metal get too hung up on guessing what an item is until we can see it.


----------

