Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Tom Wylie writes: > I must write and agree with Alan posting, the systamic dsetruction of > wrecks "Systematic destruction of wrecks"... is this an oxymoron, or what??? > ...is typical of the greed of the 20thC. Do you really think that human nature has changed that drastically this century vs. the previous centuries? Leftist / socialist retoric. > ie people own houses are a lost cause as it is this > greed that denys anyone from seeing it, not only the public but a number > of future divers on that wreck, and all so one individual can gloat in > their little den on there selfish prize... Remember, _anyone_ who makes the effort and puts in the elbow grease can save these artifacts, not just that one individual... _all_ individuals! What other incentive would we have for saving these things? More leftist / confiscatory thinking. Why should I take great pains to save and restore these things, if they are only going to be confiscated by the government? How many artifacts can a museum display? The _vast_ majority would be left in storage, just like most museum's stuff is now, and no one would ever enjoy it. Sometime ago I heard that NOAA (I think) was considering a regulation in which divers would could keep artifacts (like now), but would have to display them in public (i.e. dive shop, museum, restaurant, etc.) for a certain period of time (I think a year) first. Does anyone know whatever became of this? I don't know if this would fall under their jurisdiction or not, or even if it would be constitutional. > But the person that wrote this below > ************************************* >> This life (sea anemones, muscels) has a relatively short life span. >> Are a few anemones worth saving over a porthole? The wrecks are >> covered with these things anyway. > ************************************* > deserves help.... > This is possibly the saddest posting that I have ever seen on the web.. > We dive to escape the hum drum of normality, to discover another world > and its inhabitants, no sooner that we are there than some of us bring > the destruction that we have inflicted upon the surface with us... > It is people whos mentality is akin to the statement above that have > depleated us of the dodo, nearly the whale, tiger and gorilla.. > I here you say that they wher only talking about (sea anemones, muscels) > , that is not the point it is the mentality of it not the species > as I am sure whales where abundant at one stage to.. This is one of the most ludicrous arguments I have ever heard. Using this argument, all animals should have been whiped out long ago. The oceans are full of anemones and mussels. The surface area of a wreck that is covered by a porthole is quite minute, while the surface area of a wreck covered by this sea growth is huge. No one is talking about going around and wantonly trying to kill anemones or whipe them out. Removing a couple of them from a porthole is not going to decimate the world's population, or even a small fraction of the population on a hull plate. This sea life grows at a rapid rate. Just look at the ships sunk as artificial reefs. Within a few years, they are covered by the stuff. There are probably far more anemones and mussels here now than there ever were in history, simply because there are far more wrecks for them to grow on. > Tom > ************************************************************************* > _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ tow@uk*.ac*.nb*.ua* > _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ PROUDMAN OCEANOGRAPHIC LABORATORY > _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ BIDSTON,MERSEYSIDE > _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ ENGLAND. L43 7RA It is hard to believe that this guy is from an oceanographic laboratory. Regards, Christina
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]