Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Titanic tourist sub missing

Not to mention other manufacturing industries especially steelmakers and iron forged, plus coal mining. Coal contains heavy metals, radioactive isotopes and mercury to name but a few. And Glasgow was a home to chemical manufacturers for a long time. The high flats at Sighthill were built by Cruden on a large chemical waste site.

And where were these places? Largely in communities that were affected by poverty when the employer was no more. Places like Pollok, home to the Saracen foundry and decorative ironworks, or Parkhead where one of the largest forge's in Europe was. Patrick was home to a number of boilermakers (for ships and steam engines) as well as shipbuilders at Pointhouse on the north side of the Clyde.

Collieries of all grades and sizes were throughout the city, and whilst some like beneath Glasgow uni were worked out fairly early on, others towards the east of the city were not.

When people breathe in the byproducts of these industries it's no surprise that life expectancy decreases, and even now we're seeing the legacies of heavy industries across the city. Poverty only makes it worse.
Also, it has to be said, the impact of alcohol (and illegal drugs) on life expectancy in those former industrial cities.
 
Well the key designer died with their craft, the problem is that they took others with them.

I wonder if you have to take out public liability insurance in order to run something like this?
I wonder if it was insured, given that it was professionally tested/classed and given all those disclaimers that everyone going in it had to sign (see the video from that TV reporter who signed a disclaimer that mentioned risk of death three times)?
 
I wonder if it was insured, given that it was professionally tested/classed and given all those disclaimers that everyone going in it had to sign (see the video from that TV reporter who signed a disclaimer that mentioned risk of death three times)?

It wasn't professionally tested. It was amateurishly tested, but never used an official certifier.

e2a: the article tanya posted upthread is well worth reading if you haven't:

Paywall removed article to a good piece in The New Yorker.


The detail about the engineer who was fired for raising concerns is particularly chilling. Shortly before he was sacked, sued, and Rush tried to have him deported into the bargain, he desperately demonstrated one last time to Rush and co that the hull integrity wasn’t what it should be and that nobody should go in it, by shining a torch at it - and the light shafts filtered through all the cracks.
 
I used to love deep fried Mars bars, but I can't eat them now because they hurt my teeth so fucking much.
 
Stockton Rush (what an absurd name) didn't take kindly to criticism, and threatened to sue anyone who suggested that his venture was unsafe.
Many tried to warn Stockton Rush that he was flirting with deadly disaster. When Karl Stanley, a friend of Rush and a submersible expert, heard a cracking sound during a dive on the Titan, he cautioned Rush to conduct extensive testing on the hull. Rush replied to Stanley saying “Keep your opinions to yourself,” and “I hope you of all people will think twice before expressing opinions on subjects in which you are not fully versed.”
 
I think they might be missing a crucial piece of equipment, though.

Dunno, saw some photos in the last couple of days that might suggest they have a spare pressure hull and equipment package sitting in a car park in Everett!

Finding anyone to bolt all together/wire it up and with the confidence to get in it might well be the biggest problem! :eek:
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I think it's one thing to offer a service based on experimental technology that hasn't been fully tested and quite another on technology that barely works at all, offered by an egomaniac who thinks he knows better than anyone else in the engineering industry.
 
Yeah, I mentioned above, if Canadian law is anything like the UK, no waiver, no matter how it is worded, can protect you against a charge of negligence. The purpose of most legal waivers seems to be make people think they can't sue the company, when in fact in lots of circumstances they can.
 
Back
Top Bottom