7 ms·

I am personally with the salvagers. They are making good use of an economic resource for themselves and for others. They are also cleaning the ocean of old debr

I am personally with the salvagers. They are making good use of an economic resource for themselves and for others. They are also cleaning the ocean of old debris, not getting lost in some misplaced sense of sentimentality. If the home countries of these vessels want them so bad they should simply salvage them themselves. It's stupid that we have laws that protect stuff that sunk over a few decades ago. If you can't clean it up in 10-20 years, someone else should be entitled to it who can.

rogerwilco1 9y ago
Most of the ships are final resting places for the crew that went down with them. You don't disturb them for personal economic gain. Just like you don't steal a 100 year old stone from a graveyard.
- douche 9y ago
  Eh, we loot people's tombs and put their grave goods in museums all the time. It's essentially the entire business model of the field of archaeology. The only difference is the amount of time that has passed.
  - Nexxxeh 9y ago
    >The only difference is the amount of time that has passed. To me, your wording makes it sound like you think that is a minor difference. I think it's a major difference in the negative direction. These maritime war graves that are being robbed are of men whose children or grandchildren are alive. (How many souls were lost aboard the HMS Electra alone, over a hundred ?) A question I'm not sure I want to know the answer to - what are these thieving scumbags doing with the remains of the sailors who died aboard these ships?
- jaimex2 9y ago
  Wouldn't the crew be long disolved?
- jfoster 9y ago
  So you take their remains and give them a proper grave at the same time as cleaning up the shipwreck.
- Nullabillity 9y ago
  They're dead, good luck annoying them.
- glubGlub 9y ago
  The ocean is quite a different place. Wrecks are often debris fields, and not simple plots of land. It's not appropriate to wax indignant about remains that may have all but disintegrated into unrecognizable mud. These are not organized places, like the parks on land with paths that people walk. Consider the wreckage of the Titanic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wreck_of_the_RMS_Titanic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wreck_of_the_RMS_Titanic No one can simply swin to the bottom of the ocean to pay their respects.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
johan_larson 9y ago
I agree. I think it would be best to legalize this sort of salvage operation. It's kind of cool that anyone can make this sort of operation pay. More power to them. One issue that does deserve some attention is what should be done to any human remains in the wrecks. But if the salvage operations themselves were legal, so the recovery operations didn't have to operate on the sly, it should be possible to get them to obey minimal standards of decency. The governments that owns the vessels should also get a cut.
- jfoster 9y ago
  It should actually be the responsibility of a government/military to salvage. It may have sunk against their will, but they built it and put it in the water knowing that risk.
DanBC 9y ago
What's the difference between scrap metal and historically significant sites? The Neolithic stone circle at Avebury, Wiltshire, had several stones removed by local villages who wanted stone to build cottages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avebury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avebury In the centre of this screen, just south of Tunnel House In, you can see a square outline in a field. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Coates,+Cirencester/@51.7018193,-2.051598,1813m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x487113828030ae63:0x91d5bfe9bbc054ed!8m2!3d51.705847!4d-2.032488 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Coates,+Cirencester/@51.... That's a Roman camp. It's been ploughed over (it's just a field) and unscrupulous metal detectorists have plundered the site: http://www.bgas.org.uk/tbgas_bg/v119/bg119083.pdf http://www.bgas.org.uk/tbgas_bg/v119/bg119083.pdf People taking this metal from sunken ships aren't just cleaning up a mess, they're destroying historical information. And who knows what stuff is on the ships (oil, fuel) that isn't being properly cleaned up, just dumped into the ocean?
- Matt3o12_ 9y ago
  Historical sites are normally somewhat maintained and preserved. They are also quite often seen by tourists who are interested in those sites. Most sunken ships, they just sit there and nobody wants to take responsibility and maintain them so that no oil and fuel gets into the ocean. Furthermore, there is little to see. Sure there is some historical information on them but we should save those otherwise the ocean destroys them (surely but slowly). If those sunken ships were properly maintained, I would also call those scrapers thieves because they take something that belongs to someone else and it has value to them. But since most are just sitting there, waiting to slowly decay. The only things those scrapers should be held responsible for, is when they damage a tank or something like that which pollutes the ocean (and there should be resources on how to do that safely). But then again, those fuel tanks will leak at some point anyway (they won't last forever) and it should be our responsibility (as humans) to make sure that does not happen.
  - marcosdumay 9y ago
    The article goes to a great length about how those ships are popular tourist destinations.
Arizhel 9y ago
I agree completely. Even worse is how some people (in the article) think that there should be regular patrols to prevent "illegal" diving at these sites. So we want to waste resources and fuel just patrolling some remote ocean site to keep people from messing with an old ship sunken decades ago, and also not let any non-salvagers just look at it? It's crazy. I'm all for museums and saving history, but this isn't it. Museums are great: you take something that could otherwise be lost, and you preserve and protect it and put it on display so that people can see it and learn from it. Keeping people away from a sunken warship doesn't do that at all. And the concern for the feelings of relatives of these long-dead crew is nuts too. How much concern is there for the feelings of the descendants of King Tut with his body on display? With these old ships, there are no bodies in many cases: human remains don't last long in the sea, unless they're locked up in a watertight compartment. The final paragraph of the article is the only place where they really got it right: if you want to preserve these things, then salvage them yourself and put them in a museum. If you're going to leave something abandoned in the middle of nowhere, you can't get mad when someone comes and takes it.
- Nexxxeh 9y ago
  Long-dead? This was only 75 years ago. My nan could have gone to school with some of the men that were killed on these ships. My nan is alive and well. These ships are maritime war graves. The remains were of men that weren't vikings or ancient Egyptians. They were our grandparents generation. That's pretty damned recent.
  - jmcdiesel 9y ago
    Can you find a concrete, non-emotionally biased reason that they should be left alone? They are dead, hey memories live on not in the ship, but in the people who's lives they impacted.
    - Nexxxeh 9y ago
      Is there any concrete non-emotionally biased reason we bother with gravestones? Or do anything ritualistic with our dead? Why we have tombs of the unknown soldier? We are emotional beings.
ajnin 9y ago
I mostly agree with you. After 50 years untouched it should be up for grabs for anyone who cares. However as the article explains these old ships are one of the only sources of radioactivity-free steel (newer steel is contaminated by radionuclides due to the atmospheric nuclear explosions that took place from 1945). We should keep better track of it.
- MrJagil 9y ago
  Do you have more info on this?
coredog64 9y ago
In doing so, they also destroyed an artificial reef that was aggregating fish for the local fishing industry. We should at least have a plan to replace that.
marcosdumay 9y ago
They are destroying historical artifacts, and impoverishing the local ecosystem. It's unsettling that a local population can not sink some steel to create a rich fishery anymore.
keithpeter 9y ago
I take your point. I grew up in a seaside community that was notorious for questionable activities in the 18th and 19th centuries[1],[2]. There is a blunt harsh practical opportunistic side to seagoing people that might surprise you. How do we balance the opportunity afforded to the salvagers against the grazing rights of the local fisherfolk? Is there a replacement structure that can be sunk locally like a concrete wall or honeycomb? Is there research on the time scale needed to seed the coral colonies? Should we place all pre-1942 steel in a UN mandated market? [1] http://www.historyofwallasey.co.uk/wallasey/story_of_the_day_of_the_orange_wreck/index.html http://www.historyofwallasey.co.uk/wallasey/story_of_the_day... [2] https://www.tutorhunt.com/resource/7035/ https://www.tutorhunt.com/resource/7035/

rogerwilco1 9y ago

Most of the ships are final resting places for the crew that went down with them. You don't disturb them for personal economic gain. Just like you don't steal a 100 year old stone from a graveyard.

douche 9y ago
Eh, we loot people's tombs and put their grave goods in museums all the time. It's essentially the entire business model of the field of archaeology. The only difference is the amount of time that has passed.
- Nexxxeh 9y ago
  >The only difference is the amount of time that has passed. To me, your wording makes it sound like you think that is a minor difference. I think it's a major difference in the negative direction. These maritime war graves that are being robbed are of men whose children or grandchildren are alive. (How many souls were lost aboard the HMS Electra alone, over a hundred ?) A question I'm not sure I want to know the answer to - what are these thieving scumbags doing with the remains of the sailors who died aboard these ships?
jaimex2 9y ago
Wouldn't the crew be long disolved?
jfoster 9y ago
So you take their remains and give them a proper grave at the same time as cleaning up the shipwreck.
Nullabillity 9y ago
They're dead, good luck annoying them.
glubGlub 9y ago
The ocean is quite a different place. Wrecks are often debris fields, and not simple plots of land. It's not appropriate to wax indignant about remains that may have all but disintegrated into unrecognizable mud. These are not organized places, like the parks on land with paths that people walk. Consider the wreckage of the Titanic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wreck_of_the_RMS_Titanic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wreck_of_the_RMS_Titanic No one can simply swin to the bottom of the ocean to pay their respects.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

johan_larson 9y ago

I agree. I think it would be best to legalize this sort of salvage operation. It's kind of cool that anyone can make this sort of operation pay. More power to them. One issue that does deserve some attention is what should be done to any human remains in the wrecks. But if the salvage operations themselves were legal, so the recovery operations didn't have to operate on the sly, it should be possible to get them to obey minimal standards of decency. The governments that owns the vessels should also get a cut.

jfoster 9y ago
It should actually be the responsibility of a government/military to salvage. It may have sunk against their will, but they built it and put it in the water knowing that risk.

DanBC 9y ago

What's the difference between scrap metal and historically significant sites? The Neolithic stone circle at Avebury, Wiltshire, had several stones removed by local villages who wanted stone to build cottages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avebury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avebury In the centre of this screen, just south of Tunnel House In, you can see a square outline in a field. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Coates,+Cirencester/@51.7018193,-2.051598,1813m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x487113828030ae63:0x91d5bfe9bbc054ed!8m2!3d51.705847!4d-2.032488 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Coates,+Cirencester/@51.... That's a Roman camp. It's been ploughed over (it's just a field) and unscrupulous metal detectorists have plundered the site: http://www.bgas.org.uk/tbgas_bg/v119/bg119083.pdf http://www.bgas.org.uk/tbgas_bg/v119/bg119083.pdf People taking this metal from sunken ships aren't just cleaning up a mess, they're destroying historical information. And who knows what stuff is on the ships (oil, fuel) that isn't being properly cleaned up, just dumped into the ocean?

Matt3o12_ 9y ago
Historical sites are normally somewhat maintained and preserved. They are also quite often seen by tourists who are interested in those sites. Most sunken ships, they just sit there and nobody wants to take responsibility and maintain them so that no oil and fuel gets into the ocean. Furthermore, there is little to see. Sure there is some historical information on them but we should save those otherwise the ocean destroys them (surely but slowly). If those sunken ships were properly maintained, I would also call those scrapers thieves because they take something that belongs to someone else and it has value to them. But since most are just sitting there, waiting to slowly decay. The only things those scrapers should be held responsible for, is when they damage a tank or something like that which pollutes the ocean (and there should be resources on how to do that safely). But then again, those fuel tanks will leak at some point anyway (they won't last forever) and it should be our responsibility (as humans) to make sure that does not happen.
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  The article goes to a great length about how those ships are popular tourist destinations.

Arizhel 9y ago

I agree completely. Even worse is how some people (in the article) think that there should be regular patrols to prevent "illegal" diving at these sites. So we want to waste resources and fuel just patrolling some remote ocean site to keep people from messing with an old ship sunken decades ago, and also not let any non-salvagers just look at it? It's crazy. I'm all for museums and saving history, but this isn't it. Museums are great: you take something that could otherwise be lost, and you preserve and protect it and put it on display so that people can see it and learn from it. Keeping people away from a sunken warship doesn't do that at all. And the concern for the feelings of relatives of these long-dead crew is nuts too. How much concern is there for the feelings of the descendants of King Tut with his body on display? With these old ships, there are no bodies in many cases: human remains don't last long in the sea, unless they're locked up in a watertight compartment. The final paragraph of the article is the only place where they really got it right: if you want to preserve these things, then salvage them yourself and put them in a museum. If you're going to leave something abandoned in the middle of nowhere, you can't get mad when someone comes and takes it.

Nexxxeh 9y ago
Long-dead? This was only 75 years ago. My nan could have gone to school with some of the men that were killed on these ships. My nan is alive and well. These ships are maritime war graves. The remains were of men that weren't vikings or ancient Egyptians. They were our grandparents generation. That's pretty damned recent.
- jmcdiesel 9y ago
  Can you find a concrete, non-emotionally biased reason that they should be left alone? They are dead, hey memories live on not in the ship, but in the people who's lives they impacted.
  - Nexxxeh 9y ago
    Is there any concrete non-emotionally biased reason we bother with gravestones? Or do anything ritualistic with our dead? Why we have tombs of the unknown soldier? We are emotional beings.

ajnin 9y ago

I mostly agree with you. After 50 years untouched it should be up for grabs for anyone who cares. However as the article explains these old ships are one of the only sources of radioactivity-free steel (newer steel is contaminated by radionuclides due to the atmospheric nuclear explosions that took place from 1945). We should keep better track of it.

MrJagil 9y ago
Do you have more info on this?

coredog64 9y ago

In doing so, they also destroyed an artificial reef that was aggregating fish for the local fishing industry. We should at least have a plan to replace that.

marcosdumay 9y ago

They are destroying historical artifacts, and impoverishing the local ecosystem. It's unsettling that a local population can not sink some steel to create a rich fishery anymore.

keithpeter 9y ago

I take your point. I grew up in a seaside community that was notorious for questionable activities in the 18th and 19th centuries[1],[2]. There is a blunt harsh practical opportunistic side to seagoing people that might surprise you. How do we balance the opportunity afforded to the salvagers against the grazing rights of the local fisherfolk? Is there a replacement structure that can be sunk locally like a concrete wall or honeycomb? Is there research on the time scale needed to seed the coral colonies? Should we place all pre-1942 steel in a UN mandated market? [1] http://www.historyofwallasey.co.uk/wallasey/story_of_the_day_of_the_orange_wreck/index.html http://www.historyofwallasey.co.uk/wallasey/story_of_the_day... [2] https://www.tutorhunt.com/resource/7035/ https://www.tutorhunt.com/resource/7035/