Next message: Philip Lange: "Re: [world-cruising] the danger of semi submerged containers"
On 6/5/06, Rosalie B. <> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 16:56:36 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >On 6/5/06, Rosalie B. <> wrote:
> >>
> >> That's what I was trying to say. I don't think it is a really
> >> significant problem for a well built boat (one like ours had the
> >> throttle get stuck in the forward position and climbed a the wall of
> >> the haul slip and there was a bigger chunk out of the concrete slip
> >> wall than there was out of the boat), but I don't think it can be
> >> dismissed out of hand as NO hazard
> >
> >
> >Then we're in agreement! I've never said there was "NO hazard", and if
> >you'll bother to read back on these threads, you'll see that.
>
> I felt that you were saying there was no hazard when you were
> disputing the idea that containers could float and that you were
> grudging about allowing that anyone who had experiences from striking
> submerged objects in the ocean might have struck a container. The
> disagreement is a matter of degree rather than being an absolute
> antithesis.
I guess I should have been more clear. My belief is that - in the case of a
boat striking a large unknown object in Cook Inlet - that there are at least
two possible explainations that are more plausible than a container. A
large waterlogged tree/log (which are known to be abundant in the area) or a
whale (also abundant). You've probably heard of Occam's Razor which states
states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions
as possible. Many more assumptions are needed to place a container beneath
the surface of the water of Cook Inlet than either a waterlogged tree or a
whale.
I said it was "unlikely" to be a container. You turned that into an
absolute.
>
> >What I have said, and I'll stick to, is that your boat is in greater
> danger
> >from a lightning strike, and the possibility of sinking as a result of
> >damage from a lightning strike, than you are from hitting a container and
> >possibly sinking as a result of that collision.
>
> I think you are right about there being a hazard from lightening, but
> I'm not sure that one can conclude that there are more sinkings from
> lightening than from striking floating objects. We can't know that
> because we don't know why a lot of ships have sunk. Some of them
> could be from having a bubble of gas displace the water under them.
> Your analysis assigns a different weight to various possibilities than
> other peoples might. And I thought you were disparaging of other
> peoples analyses which might be just as valid as an assessment..
I personally know of three boats in the Chesapeake - your home - that have
been sunk following a lightning strike over the past ten years. That's not
a lot, but it's three more than I know of that have been sunk by container
collisions anywhere in the world. My hypothesis might be wrong, but it has
more factual basis than the legends of "semi-submerged containers" that
permeate this list. I have absolutely no problem with your disagreement,
but please do not disparage my posts unless you have some evidence, OK?
--
Best,
Bryan Genez
"Capella" V40-158
New Bern, NC
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/A1TolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/world-cruising/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
