6 ms·

This seems like a clear case of letting the best be the enemy of the good: had the shipwreck not been salvaged, looters would have destroyed everything. And ho

by wtbob 10y ago

This seems like a clear case of letting the best be the enemy of the good: had the shipwreck not been salvaged, looters would have destroyed everything. And how the heck can a scientist claim in good faith that there is knowledge people shouldn't be allowed to see?

a_bonobo 10y ago
I guess it's like newspapers not reporting suicides - it invites copycats, in this case, it creates potential looters
- aaron695 10y ago
  This not necessarily true. There's conflicting evidence it's significant. Add to this it creates a culture of covering up a leading cause of death among certain group, it might make things worse.
curun1r 10y ago
I wonder how much the depth of the wreck should play a role in deciding how these wrecks are treated. At 40m or less, wrecks can be explored using recreational scuba gear. Every effort should be made to catalog these wrecks and remove all items of any interest before recreational divers are allowed to visit the site. Down to about 200m, tech diving equipment can still be used, but the danger and the skill level needed to salvage goes up. Given the likelihood that the wreck will be unexplored by any other than professional salvagers, the archeological rigor with which the site is treated should go down. Proper archeological treatment of the site will mean more dives and an increased chance that someone dies. And the equipment is quite a bit more expensive. It's only natural that they'd limit themselves to the more profitable salvage and leave what is essentially charitable salvage to any organization that can solicit enough donations to do their own work. Below 200m, you're talking submersibles and robots and the cost to salvage goes way up. Expecting archeological rigor at those depths likely means that most wrecks will be completely unexplored. I'd rather see the valuable stuff salvaged and put in museums than just left on the ocean floor. But perhaps I'm being too myopic to my own interests and those of other scuba divers.
- Someone 10y ago
  "Down to about 200m, tech diving equipment can still be used, but the danger and the skill level needed to salvage goes up" 70m apparently isn't much of a problem, given that several large World War Two wrecks have disappeared from that depth in the Java Sea (http://www.sciencealert.com/several-wwii-shipwrecks-have-mysteriously-vanished-from-under-the-sea http://www.sciencealert.com/several-wwii-shipwrecks-have-mys..., http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37997640 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37997640)
pyrale 10y ago
> had the shipwreck not been salvaged, looters would have destroyed everything. I believe the scientist's point is that commercial 'salvaging' is little more than looting, especially when it's done in a way that destroys the site.

by wtbob 10y ago

a_bonobo 10y ago

I guess it's like newspapers not reporting suicides - it invites copycats, in this case, it creates potential looters

aaron695 10y ago
This not necessarily true. There's conflicting evidence it's significant. Add to this it creates a culture of covering up a leading cause of death among certain group, it might make things worse.

curun1r 10y ago

I wonder how much the depth of the wreck should play a role in deciding how these wrecks are treated. At 40m or less, wrecks can be explored using recreational scuba gear. Every effort should be made to catalog these wrecks and remove all items of any interest before recreational divers are allowed to visit the site. Down to about 200m, tech diving equipment can still be used, but the danger and the skill level needed to salvage goes up. Given the likelihood that the wreck will be unexplored by any other than professional salvagers, the archeological rigor with which the site is treated should go down. Proper archeological treatment of the site will mean more dives and an increased chance that someone dies. And the equipment is quite a bit more expensive. It's only natural that they'd limit themselves to the more profitable salvage and leave what is essentially charitable salvage to any organization that can solicit enough donations to do their own work. Below 200m, you're talking submersibles and robots and the cost to salvage goes way up. Expecting archeological rigor at those depths likely means that most wrecks will be completely unexplored. I'd rather see the valuable stuff salvaged and put in museums than just left on the ocean floor. But perhaps I'm being too myopic to my own interests and those of other scuba divers.

Someone 10y ago
"Down to about 200m, tech diving equipment can still be used, but the danger and the skill level needed to salvage goes up" 70m apparently isn't much of a problem, given that several large World War Two wrecks have disappeared from that depth in the Java Sea (http://www.sciencealert.com/several-wwii-shipwrecks-have-mysteriously-vanished-from-under-the-sea http://www.sciencealert.com/several-wwii-shipwrecks-have-mys..., http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37997640 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37997640)

pyrale 10y ago

> had the shipwreck not been salvaged, looters would have destroyed everything. I believe the scientist's point is that commercial 'salvaging' is little more than looting, especially when it's done in a way that destroys the site.