The Titanic

[Trev62]

Back in the media again regarding the incident with the submersible but I was reading the views regarding the "resting" place of the wreck from a descendant of people who had died on the ship. She stated the site should be left alone as it is grave for many people and should no longer be disturbed.

What do you think? Does she have a valid point or should people be allowed to continue visiting the ship? Bearing in mind many divers visit various wrecks off the UK coast and (in fact) all over the world.

[Mo]

Not sure.
Similar argument with archaeologists and property developers. Then the is the graveyard at Whitby that is falling into the sea.
But I did think there was a lot of trouble and expense to look for people who knowingly took a risk.

[lancashire lass]

She stated the site should be left alone as it is grave for many people and should no longer be disturbed.

Same could be said of cemeteries - not everyone visiting one is grieving or come to see loved ones (for example, I can remember my mother and I on a drive and came across an old and unusual graveyard going back centuries and stopped to have a little walkabout. And also people visiting a cemetery doing family history research - okay, they may find a distant relative and may pay their respect but then take a photo to put in their files ...)

During the Victorian period, it was common for people to go for a walk (and dress up in top hat, women with their parasols) or even have a picnic in a graveyard - back then, death wasn't considered morbid but a fact of life.

Bearing in mind many divers visit various wrecks off the UK coast and (in fact) all over the world.

Exactly.

To answer your question, I don't have a problem with visiting a "graveyard" whether it be on land or in the depths of the ocean. However, I would object to desecration of a site (that is, knowingly do damage)

But I did think there was a lot of trouble and expense to look for people who knowingly took a risk.

So it wasn't just me thinking that. Considering the safety aspects of deep sea diving, this was an untested (unchallenged) commercial adventure that was there to thrill and take money from rich people eager to tell everyone of their unique experience. There was no back-up plan in case the sub got into difficulty (if the air, motor or electrics had failed, apparently there were no secondary systems nor a 2nd (rescue) sub available should that happen) On this occasion it was a design flaw (including choice of materials in its construction) that the company had been warned about but had deliberately ignored - yet new aeroplanes have to comply within strict regulations and testing before releasing for passenger use. Same could be said for the growing interest in commercial flights into space - it was one thing during the 1950s & 60s when flight into space was an unknown but as history has shown, when things go wrong, they go wrong badly.

What I found very annoying was also the daily (excessive) news media coverage (what could be the problem, they only have x hours of air left and so on) - as you said Mo, they knowingly took a risk.