What really sank the Titanic?

Updated: June 10, 2009 - 2:48 PM

0
comments
resize text
print
buy reprints

Tweet
share

email
Email share

your name

your email

recipients email

+ add a comment add a comment

Tim Foecke grew up in Edina and Howard Lake and earned B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in material science and engineering from the University of Minnesota. He is co-author, with Jennifer Hooper McCarty, of "What Really Sank the Titanic" (Citadel, $14.95) and shared these observations last week:

The rivets were the problem: "The hull steel was state-of-the-art, but [the builders] did two things with the rivets: They went beyond their normal two rivet suppliers to as many as two dozen, some of whom had never made rivets," Foecke said, and they "ordered a lower quality level." If they had used the right rivets, the Carpathia, six hours away, might have reached the Titanic before it sank and saved a lot more lives.

More corner-cutting with lifeboats: "The rules were written when the average liner was one-third the size of the Titanic, and never changed," Foecke said. "At the time, they never thought they would have to put all the passengers in at one time. Back then, lifeboats weren't considered lifeboats; they were considered taxis to get people from the stricken ship to the rescue ship."

Humans not responsible for wreckage decay: "There's been a lot of speculation that humans visiting the site are pounding it to death, but the human visits aren't doing anything," Foecke said. "What's actually happening is that the wreckage is undergoing a 'midlife crisis,' where decks are cantilevered out and other parts have started collapsing on one another."

Rust never sleeps: The ship is turning into rust at a rate of one-half to one ton of steel a day, Foecke said. The collapsing will continue over the next 20 to 30 years, "and the wreck will slowly rust into an iron-ore pile over the next century or two. Most metals want to be rust; the natural state is to be rust."

BILL WARD