Slashdot Mirror


Hudson River Shipwrecks Secretly Mapped

jonerik writes "According to this article in the New York Times (registration required) more than 200 shipwreck sites lying beneath New York's Hudson River have been mapped by sonar. In fact, scientists feel confident that the location of every Hudson shipwreck between Manhattan and Troy has now been pinpointed, adding that the nearly oxygen-free mud of the Hudson nearly guarantees that many of the wrecks and their contents are almost perfectly preserved. The hitch? For the time being the maps - paid for as part of the $186 million Hudson River Estuary Plan - are not being published since state officials are nervous about the prospect of so many shipwrecks suddenly being opened up to salvagers on one of the U.S.'s busiest rivers. 'We don't want to ring the dinner bell for people who have ulterior motives and don't behave responsibly,' says Mark L. Peckham, a historic preservation coordinator at the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. In the meantime, state officials are now attempting to determine the historical significance of the wrecks and how they might be protected, which should hopefully lead to the publication of the Hudson River maps at some future date."

262 comments

  1. Oooh! Treasure! by bludstone · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Lets search for treasure!

    --

    no .sig
  2. Age by dirvish · · Score: 1

    How old are these ships? Ships haven't been in the Hudson for all that long I would imagine.

    1. Re:Age by Latent+IT · · Score: 3, Informative

      Um.

      Henry Hudson was exploring the river in 1609. What do you mean by *old*, exactly?

    2. Re:Age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course there were those pesky Indians that lived here before Hudson.

    3. Re:Age by let_freedom_ring · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here, from the very the first sentence of the article, "Scientists mapping the bottom of the Hudson River with sonar say they have found nearly every single ship that ever foundered in the river over the last 400 years or more."

      So I'd say from 400 yrs or so.

    4. Re:Age by Latent+IT · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ah yes, those pesky Indians with large sailing vessels. Which ones were those, exactly?

    5. Re:Age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, c'mon, *old* is anything over 30 years. :-)

    6. Re:Age by gorilla · · Score: 2

      In Europe, that wouldn't be considered *old*. Heck, in Oxford we've still got New College, founded in 1379.

    7. Re:Age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said anything about large sailing vessels? The Native Americans indigenous to Manhattan island used the river all the time. I am sure that at least one of their dugouts lays at the bottom of the river and according to the article it could very well be preserved in excellent condition in the mud basin of the river.

      Were you trolling or are you just ignorant?

    8. Re:Age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      brings to mind the old saying, americans think 100 years is old, Europeans think a 100 miles if far.

      later
      Chris

    9. Re:Age by Latent+IT · · Score: 2

      Someone of your obvious intelligence should be a little more careful before whipping out the word 'ignorant', okay?

      Let's look at the title of the article:

      Hudson Shipwrecks Found, but No Loose Lips

      Did that say shipwrecks? I thought it did. Not tiny little sunken dugout canoes, but shipwrecks.

      Then they go on to talk about the various types of ships they're talking about - a 19th century sailing sloop, and revolutionary war vessels. Hey, here's an idea!

      SHIP:

      1a) A vessel of considerable size for deep-water navigation.
      b) A sailing vessel having three or more square-rigged masts.

      2) An aircraft or spacecraft.

      So uh... right. Please point me to the Native American tribe that built such vessels, and sailed them on the hudson. I'll be right here holding my breath!

    10. Re:Age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the good old USA we like new stuff not old crufty shit. If we had a building built in 1379 we would've long ago torn it down and built a cooler newer building. Old buildings are nothing but rat infested hovels.

    11. Re:Age by dirvish · · Score: 2

      I don't think sonar is going to pickup dugouts.

    12. Re:Age by ToeDruid · · Score: 1

      No wonder you posted this as anonymous...

      ignorant....

      --
      "The difference between meat and fish is that if you beat your fish it dies"
  3. so by 2MuchC0ffeeMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    they don't want to publish the areas of the shipwrecks, but anyone with the money or power to go dig up ships has some ethics in them.

    also, who is to say these ships now 'belong' to the state of NY ? i never understood that, it should be finders keepers.

    --
    Runnin' On Empty .... I'm Still Alive
    1. Re:so by Zerbey · · Score: 4, Informative

      also, who is to say these ships now 'belong' to the state of NY ? i never understood that, it should be finders keepers.

      Perhaps not belong, but I would imagine they fall under the juristiction of the NY coast guard or port authority.

    2. Re:so by ifreakshow · · Score: 1

      I would agree with you if the state was attempting to salvage them. Instead they will probably try to preserve them.

    3. Re:so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i never understood that, it should be finders keepers

      Well didn't they find them? Either way, except for a small part south of the Palisades which is shared with New Jersey, the whole river resides within New York State.

    4. Re:so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      any amateur can go and fetch stuff up to 30m deep with ease and serious diver can go to 100m without much trouble to salvage boat parts.

      Here in the Saint Laurent (québec, canada), a lot of us driver came to salvage the ship weck.

      and finders keepers is the best way to remove ethic from anything since you want to be the first to get the thing...

    5. Re:so by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Funny

      The ships themselves might not belong to the state of NY, but your ass will belong to the coast guard if you park your ship in the middle of the channel to go scuba diving.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    6. Re:so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Maybe in the St. Lawrence you can do that but if you read the article, the Hudson has a visibility of about 2 inches. Amateurs diving into that is exactly what the state doesn't want.

    7. Re:so by buzzdecafe · · Score: 2

      By the finders-keepers rule, the state found 'em. So they're keeping 'em. What's the problem?

    8. Re:so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up as +5 informative

    9. Re:so by Omicron · · Score: 5, Interesting

      but anyone with the money or power to go dig up ships has some ethics in them

      Bzzzzzzz! Wrong...unfortunately. I've dove at least a dozen shipwrecks now in the great lakes, and ethics are pretty far from the mind of most people. If you want a great example of ethics, go read a book called "Deep Descent - Adventure and Death Diving The Andrea Doria". The Doria is one of the greatest wrecks in the world to dive. However...many people have foolishly died on the wreck in their efforts to collect something as stupid as china plates.

      Salvers may be more ethical (I don't know any so I can't say) but I know that the mentality of a lot of divers is that it's finders keepers. There are underwater preserves in the great lakes, meaning that the shipwrecks are protected. But...most wrecks are found by private individuals and then pilfered of all the interesting stuff before they notify the government. So, when you actually get a chance to dive on the wreck most of the neat artifacts are gone. It's a shame...nothing can compare to the beauty of descended onto a wreck in the dark blue water and crawling through the hatches and seeing old tools, ropes...hundreds of years old. But a lot of divers only see a decoration in their living room.

      Even a recent wreck (10 years old) - the US Coast Guard cutter The Mesquite - is in a protected area. When it was sunk, there were crew uniforms, utensils, logbooks - theres still a copy machine and a radio on the deck. A couple of years after the sinking you could find ad's in diving magazines of crew uniforms for sale from the mesquite. It's a HUGE debate in the diving community, about whether artifacts should stay on the wreck or if they should be collected...but ethics....hrm. More of a feeding frenzy on some wrecks...

    10. Re:so by chinakow · · Score: 1

      funny, I find 2 Porshes and a viper on ocasion, not to mention plenty of corvettes and other fun stuff in the parking lot everymorning, I wonder why I don't get to keep them?

    11. Re:so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >>anyone with the money or power to go dig up ships has some ethics in them.

      These people with money (money=ethics) are currently stripping the Titanic. This is tantamount to grave-robbing.

    12. Re:so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe in the St. Lawrence you can do that but if you read the article, the Hudson has a visibility of about 2 inches. Amateurs diving into that is exactly what the state doesn't want.

      You don't "dive" into the Hudson, you get thrown in (while wearing cement overshoes).

      Alternately, you walk out to a good location and use your shovel and pick-axe to get down a few feet.

    13. Re:so by Joe+U · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who is to say anything below Tarrytown is even property of the state of NY?

      The Hudson river is bordered by two states, New York and New Jersey. Does NJ have a say in this as well?

      (And No, I'm from NYC)

    14. Re:so by gooser23 · · Score: 1

      There's a very subtle but important difference between knowing where something is on a map, and actually going there to plant your flag on the find.

      As far as I'm concerned, these wrecks are still up for grabs.

      --
      "Dying tickles!" -- Ralph Wiggum
    15. Re:so by flyneye · · Score: 2, Interesting

      http://www.melfisher.com/lobbying.html>Mel Fishers site may give you some insite into the problem of treasure hunting/salvage
      Personally,I'd find all of them in probably one trip down river using not much more than a rebent coathanger in a comfy boat with a lil cold beer,but thats another discussion.heck,I'd even tell you depth and position.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    16. Re:so by susano_otter · · Score: 2

      Probably because either the cars you're finding don't fit the legal definition of "abandoned", or the owner of the parking lot has no grounds to take possession of the cars (say, for unauthorized parking)--and anyway the owner of the lot isn't you.

      In general terms, salvage law works exactly the same way: if you have jurisdiction of the body of water in which the wreck is located, or if you can establish a stronger legal claim to the wreck than anybody else, then you get to keep it. And just like the cars, there's a lot of rules about what constitutes a strong legal claim.

      So, as a generalization, the comparison seems fairly apt.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    17. Re:so by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      First off, I am neither a merchant mariner nor a USCG officer. I just know a few and have listened in on coversations.

      "Salvers may be more ethical (I don't know any so I can't say) but I know that the mentality of a lot of divers is that it's finders keepers."

      A wreck belongs to whoever is able to first make a claim to it. If whoever owned the ship before it sank is unwilling or unable to stake a claim, then it's up for grabs to the first people who can get there. Anybody else (even those divers you mentioned trying to take things from the Andrea Doria) is a pirate.

      (No, not the watered-down ??AA variety, the kind that say "arr" and get fired upon by the USCG cutters. If they're lucky, it will only be small arms fire.)

      "But...most wrecks are found by private individuals and then pilfered of all the interesting stuff before they notify the government."

      They have to notify the government in order to make a legal claim on the wreck. If they don't, they get shot at.

      "It's a HUGE debate in the diving community, about whether artifacts should stay on the wreck or if they should be collected...but ethics....hrm."

      I have the feeling the USCG still owns USCGS MESQUITE and everything still on it. I wouldn't be surprised if a few of the idiots that advertised what they were selling are currently in a federal prison somewhere.

    18. Re:so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "anyone with the money or power to go dig up ships has some ethics in them"

      Sure, the rich and powerful are better and more ethical people, it's only natural... just ask Andrew Fastow or Scott Sullivan or Dennis Koslowski or John Rigas

      "also, who is to say these ships now 'belong' to the state of NY ? i never understood that, it should be finders keepers"

      This has all been worked out a long time ago in Sate and Federal courts. Shipwrecks located within state waters are under the jurisdiction of the state. Period. End of story, been affirmed by the US Supreme Court multiple times.

    19. Re:so by charvolant · · Score: 1
      they don't want to publish the areas of the shipwrecks, but anyone with the money or power to go dig up ships has some ethics in them

      This has not been true in the past. Why should it be true now? Anyone with a diving suit can start stripping a wreck of valuables.

      Here's an example: the wreck of the Loch Ard, one of the worst and most historic wrecks off Australia's coastline. When it was found, it was blown apart by drivers who wanted the lead ballast to sell.

    20. Re:so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is to say anything below Tarrytown is even property of the state of NY?

      The Hudson river is bordered by two states, New York and New Jersey. Does NJ have a say in this as well?

      (And No, I'm from NYC)


      What? Really? I can't believe you're from New York City and all you can think about is the area directly around you. There are so few people from the NYC area that only think about themselves.

      You do know that the Hudson goes all the way upto Albany... right? Are you so self centered that you don't know of anything more than 25 miles away from you?

      Does New Jersey have a say... Yeah they can have a say on the part that's theirs, that is if any state even has such power. But, the fact is, the part of the river New Jersey boarders is only a fraction of the total distance.

      From what it sounds like, New York State might even have a limited amount of power once everyone knows the locations of the wrecks. That's precisely why the group is keeping the results secret, so that they can hold the power. New Jersey doesn't have any right to the information from a New York State study.

    21. Re:so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and the State of NY found them.

    22. Re:so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he was trying to say he's not from Jersey, trollboy.
      Troll Troll go away, post again another day.

    23. Re:so by Omicron · · Score: 1

      Actually, the USCG doesn't own the Mesquite anymore. They declared the ship a loss and it was then intentionally drug into this underwater preserve and dropped there. It's now the property of the state historical society or something along that lines...

  4. Sonar? by docbrown42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why don't the salvagers get their own sonar rigs? Then they could find the wrecks themselves...

    --
    Ed Wedig
    Graphic design services
    docbrown.net
    1. Re:Sonar? by The-Perl-CD-Bookshel · · Score: 1

      Because even if they find them, New York probably will not allow them to disrupt a major US port (as mentioned in the story).

      --
      I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me
    2. Re:Sonar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Hudson is a VERY large river. Most people don't realize that. The cost to search the whole river would far outweigh the potential reward (maybe a boatfull of bricks).

    3. Re:Sonar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You pile of shit, those bricks are worth more than all your posts to slashdot put together! iosdjfskldjfsf!!#E

  5. National Park by ifreakshow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The government should make the bottom of the river a national park. This would ensure that the ships are preserved as long as our country. Imagine if the Greeks or Egyptians had done this.

    1. Re:National Park by JordoCrouse · · Score: 1

      Imagine if the Greeks or Egyptians had done this.

      Yeah, we would have a bunch of rotting ships on the bottom of the ocean... oh wait....

      --
      Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
    2. Re:National Park by Zerbey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The government should make the bottom of the river a national park. This would ensure that the ships are preserved as long as our country. Imagine if the Greeks or Egyptians had done this.

      First time I read this I almost passed it off as a troll. Thinking about it though, this seems to me a very good idea - there are a lot of Nava Battle sites around the world that are not in international waters (Pearl Harbor for one, which I think is officially a national monuement). Preserving such historical sites is important for future generations.

      Good post that man! (or woman!)

    3. Re:National Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...right, because that surely would have stopped the looters who came by centuries later when the government that established the parks had long since been conquered by an empire which later collapsed.

    4. Re:National Park by JordoCrouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Preserving such historical sites is important for future generations.

      Unfortunately, we have absolutely no idea how to preserve a ship under water.

      In fact, we are sitting around helplessly watching the Titanic and the ships at Pearl Harbor disintegrate (which, BTW is a very bad thing - since the ships at Pearl still have a lot of fuel trapped within them). The only way we can "preserve" a ship is to raise it out of the water, and that can only be done under certain circumstances.

      So +10 points for the thought, but -100 for complete inability do to anything about it.

      --
      Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
    5. Re:National Park by jazman_777 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The government should make the bottom of the river a national park. This would ensure that the ships are preserved as long as our country.

      The old Tacoma Narrows bridge ("Galloping Gertie") that went down in high winds in 1940(?) is a protected underwater landmark. You've all seen the video, right? Wouldn't want the souvenir hunters stripping it to nothing. Although why a collapsed bridge should be preserved is beyond me. It has no historical value at all. It's just a massive engineering failure.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    6. Re:National Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether or not we're able to preserve naval sites now, the original post is clearly idiotic.

      There are plenty of sites that ancient cultures considered sacred and protected by the gods (which puts them a couple of levels above "national park"), but that didn't stop them from being destroyed and/or looted by later (or even contemporary) cultures.

    7. Re:National Park by theguru · · Score: 1

      Beyond being a park, Pearl Harbor is also a maritime war grave, and is similarly protected.

    8. Re:National Park by kevlar · · Score: 1

      In the article it talks about the ships being in an oxygen-less environment which preserves it. The only thing we need to prevent is people pillaging the lute. Making it a national park would be perfect. As for Pearl Harbor, it'll be an incredibly long time before the Arizona disintigrates into nothing....

    9. Re:National Park by SirWhoopass · · Score: 2

      Disintigrates? True, that will take a while. Collapse? Could happen very soon. The collapse is a concern because of the 1.5 million gallons of fuel oil that were onboard (after the fire and leaking over the years, nobody is quite sure how much is still inside).

    10. Re:National Park by BTWR · · Score: 3, Funny
      The government should make the bottom of the river a national park... imagine if the Greeks or Egyptians had done this.

      Why would the Greeks or the Egyptians make the Hudson River a national park?

    11. Re:National Park by Tim+Browse · · Score: 3, Funny
      The only thing we need to prevent is people pillaging the lute.

      Yeah, who knows what tunes they might play on it!

      Tim

    12. Re:National Park by susano_otter · · Score: 1
      Why would the Greeks or the Egyptians make the Hudson River a national park?

      So they could trade it to us for Polytheism and The Republic?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    13. Re:National Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing we need to prevent is people pillaging the lute.

      Yeah. I mean, if they'll steal from a shipwreck, they're probably planning to use it to illegally broadcast RIAA music.

    14. Re:National Park by Goonie · · Score: 2
      So were the Spruce Goose, the Titanic, the NSU Ro80, and a bunch of other interesting things.

      I recall a comment by an astronomer that went something like "stars are like people. You learn something from the well-behaved ones, but you get a lot more information the ones that go off the rails". The same thing can often apply to engineered structures.

      --

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
      --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    15. Re:National Park by monki34 · · Score: 1

      they actually did that. When everyone was visiting, moses stopped parting the red sea, commiting mass-genocide. I wouldn't be surprised if the usgov tried that one out.

      > adding that the nearly oxygen-free mud of the Hudson nearly guarantees that many of the wrecks and their contents are almost perfectly preserved

      while it lacks oxygen, hudson mud accomplishes the same disintegrating effects through its high concentration of toxic waste!

  6. Suspected plane wreckage by radon28 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i remember some time last year, a couple driving across the george washington bridge (spans the hudson between new jersey and manhattan) reported that a small plane flew right between the supports of the bridge over the deck and crashed into the water.. the police looked into it and sent divers into the water, but it didnt seem like anything came out of it. the couple was supposedly "reliable", according to the Port Authority police (they control all nj/ny bridge and tunnel crossings). i haven't heard anything about it since.

    1. Re:Suspected plane wreckage by The-Perl-CD-Bookshel · · Score: 1

      A plane landed on the bridge but I have never heard of one going under it.

      --
      I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me
    2. Re:Suspected plane wreckage by radon28 · · Score: 1

      no, no, no, it flew over the deck, but inbetween the two columns, so only the cars on the upper level could see it. (i think the flight path was north to south.) i never heard about one landing ON it though.

    3. Re:Suspected plane wreckage by terraformer · · Score: 1

      At that part of the hudson there is so much water moving with so much force that if there was a plane that went down, it would be out over the side of the Georges Bank by now. I was out there last year in a boat that has a top speed of 40 MPH and we had the thing gunned and were only doing 22. There is a lot of current there and anything that went down in the lower Hudson is likely gone if it was not heavy enough to sink into the mud.

      --
      Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
  7. Sleeping with the fishes... by Sir+Network · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder how many pairs of shoes will be found encased in concrete when the salvage gold rush begins.

    --
    Life is tough. It's tougher if you're stupid. --John Wayne
    1. Re:Sleeping with the fishes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah - you're thinking of the East River.

    2. Re:Sleeping with the fishes... by JordoCrouse · · Score: 1

      Nah - you're thinking of the East River.

      Wouldn't they just throw them in the nearest river? Why would you put someone in a trunk and drive them all over Manhattan just because of tradition?

      --
      Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
    3. Re:Sleeping with the fishes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you have to ask, you'll never understand

    4. Re:Sleeping with the fishes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever been to New York? Manhattan is an island mostly surrounded by the Hudson, Harlem, and East rivers. The Hudson is on the West side and is bordered by New Jersey on the other side. The East river is on the east side (well, duh) and is bordered by the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens. It is more centrally located and therefore more popular with the Families who lived in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens.

    5. Re:Sleeping with the fishes... by Sabalon · · Score: 2

      West side of Manhattan is a bit nicer than the east - things might get noticed more over there.

    6. Re:Sleeping with the fishes... by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you keep asking questions like that, you may get to go see for yourself.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  8. Hmmm...So the scientists get to plunder first? by bobcat7677 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I guess they have the right since they did all the mapping... but I still think it's funny that they are keeping stuff a secret so the "Indiana Jones" types can plunder the wreaks first. "...That belongs in a museum!!!" -Indiana Jones

    1. Re:Hmmm...So the scientists get to plunder first? by BWJones · · Score: 3, Informative

      I guess they have the right since they did all the mapping... but I still think it's funny that they are keeping stuff a secret so the "Indiana Jones" types can plunder the wreaks first. "...That belongs in a museum!!!" -Indiana Jones

      Yeah, but the thing you have to realize is that many of the scientists will actually take the time to document what, where, when, location etc.... in an effort to preserve the history and data in the wreck so that further research can be done.

      I have dived before on wrecks and there are some folks I have seen that literally have no respect for the graves that many of these wrecks are or for the history of those wrecks. These people are out to tear off whatever trinket they can and sometimes those trinkets can be of great historical value. Furthermore, if not properly restored or stored, they can disintegrate loosing whatever value they retained.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    2. Re:Hmmm...So the scientists get to plunder first? by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

      You have a good point in context. Historically important items are worth preserving. But I doubt the majority of the wrecks in question have much real historical value.

  9. More power to 'em by ArmenTanzarian · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are the artifacts down there worth all the shots you'd have to get to swim in the Hudson?

    1. Re:More power to 'em by Latent+IT · · Score: 2

      Are the artifacts down there worth all the shots you'd have to get to swim in the Hudson?

      People swim in it all the time. Honestly, your biggest danger is uh...

      Okay, being hit by a floating telephone pole. Satisfied? But you don't need any shots!

    2. Re:More power to 'em by radon28 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      People go on an annual swim around the entire island of Manhattan every year, up the hudson, through the harlem river, then down the east river (not actually a river, but a tidal estuary). It's called the Manhattan Island Marathon Swim. the water is actually a lot cleaner than most people would (rightly) suspect. More info at: Manhattan Island Foundation. Even more interesting is the fact that every year, harbor seals and even dolphins can be seen swimming around the Battery Park area in New York harbor (southern most tip of manhattan).

    3. Re:More power to 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the "brown trout".

    4. Re:More power to 'em by seamelt · · Score: 1

      seems to me that the last time i was at Stevens Institue of Technology which sits on the hudson rive and i walked out to Castle point (neat little spot with an old school cannon from which stevens students used to shoot flaming tennis balls at boats) there was a sign posted down at the rivers edge that advised people not to eat any fish caught in those waters. Seems to me if you arent supposed to eat anything from the waters immediately around manhattan you wouldnt want to swim there either

    5. Re:More power to 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe at least two dozen posts in this article deal with the PCB's and the fish. Here is the Reader's Digest version - PCB is water, not so bad; PCB in basin, bad; PCB in fish, bad.

    6. Re:More power to 'em by clarkc3 · · Score: 1
      the water is actually a lot cleaner than most people would (rightly) suspect

      only down where near nyc, try swimming up near Troy and you will be exposed to large amounts of PCB's. The water up there is pretty nasty, the only body of water worse in NY is probably onondaga lake

  10. "It's economy, stupid" by Schillingsfuerst · · Score: 1

    Surely they reserve these to themselves. Lots of budget deficit to patch.

    Sch.

  11. Anyone looking for buried treasure? by Toasty16 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm selling rights to the Hudson River bottom on ebay, any takers? Also up for sale is a bridge in Brooklyn, good condition, barely used!

    1. Re:Anyone looking for buried treasure? by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "I'm selling rights to the Hudson River bottom on ebay, any takers? Also up for sale is a bridge in Brooklyn, good condition, barely used!"

      Didn't some big lizard really mess that bridge up once? I ran across that news story while I was channel surfing one day. Barely used indeed.

  12. You know... by Oliver+Defacszio · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...you can say what you want about freedom of information, etc, but the saddest part is that this data really would be used destructively by those who would rather have a barge full of salvaged steel than a glimpse into the past.

    It's a serious disappointment that society has arrived (not recently) at a state where truly worthwhile information is rightfully withheld because we, as humans, can't treat things with respect.

    --

    -
    Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
    1. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What arrived? Name a time in history where this wasn't the case? I mean even the Pyramids were plundered not too long after they were built. I don't condone the behavior but I am not fool enough to think it is a recent development.

    2. Re:You know... by pmz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's a serious disappointment that society has arrived (not recently) at a state where truly worthwhile information is rightfully withheld because we, as humans, can't treat things with respect.

      This is only devil's advocate: the nostalgic feeling we have towards these shipwrecks is of arguable value, but the monetary value of the ships' materials can provide a direct injection of wealth into the economy.

      Alas, choosing when to be sentimental is often hard (especially when spring cleaning comes around...)

  13. Permits? by derch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    . . . are not being published since state officials are nervous about the prospect of so many shipwrecks suddenly being opened up to salvagers on one of the U.S.'s busiest rivers. 'We don't want to ring the dinner bell for people who have ulterior motives and don't behave responsibly,' says Mark L. Peckham . . .

    Could someone with some knowledge of major salvage work give some words on wether or not a permit is required?

  14. Where are ya, Jimmy? by DirtyJ · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'd be more interested to hear how many people are swimming with the fishes in the Hudson River. I'm sure the NY mafia have fitted many people with concrete galoshes over the years. Maybe the'll find Jimmy Hoffa...

    1. Re:Where are ya, Jimmy? by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      "concrete galoshes". A fan of the origina "Star Trek" TV series, I see :-)

      Seriously, it's interesting that the article says they (the wrecks) would be well preserved because of the "lack of oxygen" at the river bottom. I guess this could apply to people wearing cement overshoes, as well. And sisce there's no statute of limitations on murder ... :-)

    2. Re:Where are ya, Jimmy? by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      I am not an expert but I think this is an overused stereotype. I think there are a lot more unmarked graves up in Harriman State Park (40 miles north of New York) and the surrounding areas. I know that it seems like every year you hear about a body being dug up when they start new construction.

    3. Re:Where are ya, Jimmy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Jimmy is in the end zone at the Meadowlands ...

    4. Re:Where are ya, Jimmy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude. Nobody drops bodies in the Hudson, it moves far to slowly. BODIES MUST BE TOSSED IN EAST RIVER, where the current is fast and bodies go bye bye quickly.

    5. Re:Where are ya, Jimmy? by verch · · Score: 2

      Hello? Everyone knows Hoffa is buried in the endzone at Giants stadium. Damn tourists.

    6. Re:Where are ya, Jimmy? by SaturnTim · · Score: 2

      Well, considering Hoffa was last seen just outside of Detroit, I think it's unlikely that the mobsters killed him, drove him to New York, and tossed him in the Hudson.

      It would seem to be an unnecessary risk to dispose of the body that far away.

      --T

      --
      http://www.theMediaBunker.com
  15. Oh, good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dropped a hackey sack into the Hudson last summer. Maybe some ethical salvage operation will get it for me!

  16. Titanic by Foxxz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think i recall how US Navy technology found the wrecked of the Titanic. Despite that US funds were used to find the wreckage a French company brought up a small peice of it and therefore claimed rights to salvage. This left many people angry, especially relatives of passengers on that wreck who want their loved ones remains to be left alone. This bears similarity to this case here as responsible salvage companies need to be selected and given scrict guidelines on recovery procedure on a busy waterway.

    -Foxxz

    1. Re:Titanic by f.money · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Titanic was/is in international waters. The Hudson is in NY state. BIG jurisdictional difference.

      Not sure what the right answer to this is, but keeping it under wraps for the time being seems to be the wise course of action.

      Jon

    2. Re:Titanic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem was that Glen Ballard, the explorer who found the Titanic with the Navy's help never claimed the ship. He rightfully thought that it shouldn't be "claimed" by anyone. What he didn't forsee was that that left the door open for anyone else who went to the site to claim it as their own.

      A sleight oversite on his part.

    3. Re:Titanic by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1


      Ahem, New Jersey says "Hi, we're on the Hudson too."

  17. Possible disaster... by craenor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Hudson (according to some) is loaded with PCB's from old General Electric dumping in the river. While they continue to fight the legal and environmental battle to decide how that's going to be handled...

    The last thing they need is a bunch of yahoo's with treasure maps digging around in the sediment and silt looking for treasure while dredging up 80 years worth of PCB's.

    The biggest opponents to cleaning the PCB's out of the river point to the environmental impact of disturbing all of this sediment. Imagine the nightmare when Joe Adventurer goes out and starts digging up the River.

    1. Re:Possible disaster... by franimal · · Score: 5, Informative

      I just want to clairify a point that often gets lost. It seems to be common belief that the PCBs in the Hudson River are locked in the the sediment and just so long as nothing disturbs the sediment everything is A OK.

      This is purpetuated by GE's ad campaign that shows pretty graphs with the PCB concentration dropping of dramatically in the 1970s (I can't remember exactly when) and saying "The River is healing itself!" What GE don't tell you is that this dramatic decrease is a result of them ceasing pollution. The PCB concentration in the water droped because GE stoped pumping PCBs into the water! NOT becasue the river is healing itself.

      Furthermore, PCB levels in fish have remained constant. There is a reason you are not allowed to eat the fish in the Hudson River (only catch and release is allowed). I know of no real evidence that the PCBs remain 'locked' in the sediment.

      To me this is a damn good example of a successful advertising campaign. The EPA really dropped the ball when GE spent millions and they [EPA] didn't respond in turn. Just look at the number of no dredging signs in the area, or if you're from the area ... chances are you've been visited by a GE PR rep (think kid on summer job) with nice fliers. I know I have. The kid was actually happy to get the other side of the story from my father, who is in a position to know damn well what goes on in that river.

      Oh yeah, one other thing: modern dredging techniques don't use those bucket chains on the GE fliers ... they use a vacuum technology that prevents recontamination of the river bed.

      My personal opinion is that GE should clean up their mess (ATM). And the EPA should have and should do a much better job with advertising.

      And to stick with the parent ... you're right ... you really do not want Joe Adventurer (without advaced equipement) stiring things up. No sense in making things worse, again.

    2. Re:Possible disaster... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. It might be a good way to get rid of a bunch of Joe Adventurer Yahoo types. Improve the gene pool a bit?

    3. Re:Possible disaster... by Alsee · · Score: 2

      Good post, just one thing that bothers me:

      And the EPA should have and should do a much better job with advertising.

      Doesn't that stike anyone else as a little off?
      It's not the EPA's job to buy comercials during Oprah or Star Trek. LOL

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    4. Re:Possible disaster... by TheOneEyedMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      I live in Queens along the Hudson river, right by a park with a fishing pier. Since there are signs that show you can eat 1 serving a month from the river and there is a fish cleaning table, you can, in fact, eat the fish.
      What I think you are refereing to is the Upper Hudson River (between the Federal Dam at Troy and Hudson Falls). Catch and release is still the rule there.
      http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/f ish/uphu dcar.html

      --
      Reality is that which refuses to go away when I stop believing in it. --Phillip K. Dick (remove SPAM to email)
    5. Re:Possible disaster... by franimal · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're right. I was not specific enough.

    6. Re:Possible disaster... by el_gregorio · · Score: 1
      fish must be stupider than i thought. who would have guessed they'd swim around eating Printed Circuit Boards?

      can't you just picture Bubba Hick reeling one of these beauties in?

      "Holy shit, Darryl, it's one of them bionic fish!! Run for the hills!!!"

      --
      "You want a toe? I can get you a toe by three o'clock... with nail polish."
    7. Re:Possible disaster... by Jodka · · Score: 1
      bla bla bla...The PCB concentration in the water droped because GE stoped pumping PCBs into the water! NOT becasue the river is healing itself...bla bla bla

      A river is a moving body of water. Place anything in a river and there are two and only two things that can happen to it:

      1- It is flushed out of the river by the current. 2- It sinks to the bottom.

      You are alleging that instead something remains suspened in river water indefinitely but is not flushed out by the current. That is not possible.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    8. Re:Possible disaster... by mesocyclone · · Score: 2

      Since PCB's are relatively harmless, and their carinogenicity in people has been well tested and found to be unmeasurable, this whole thing about the Hudson is basically a way to waste lost of taxpayer dollars, screw up the river, screw up GE, and fatten the wallets of some rich trial lawyers. Electrical workers, including those at GE, have had PCB exposures vastly higher than you can ever get from river water, and their cancer risk is at or below normal.

      One amusing phenomenon is the number of rich liberals who live along the upper Hudson - folks who are happy to impose ultrastrict environmental rules on everyone else - who object to this project because it will mess up the river for a long time/

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

  18. It's only a matter of time by carl67lp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Any sort of technology that is available to the upper echelon eventually trickles its way down to the common person wishing to use it for "ulterior motives."

    I should think that a more prudent way of handling this project would have been to map all of the ships, catalogue them, survey them individually (with divers, remote subs, or the like), and only then proclaim a successful project. At the same time, you could publish the maps without a problem.

    To announce to the world that you have maps simply invites people to use whatever means at their disposal to procure them--social engineering, hacking at computers storing the maps, or good old-fashioned information leaks.

    1. Re:It's only a matter of time by perfessor+multigeek · · Score: 2

      I should think that a more prudent way of handling this project would have been to map all of the ships, catalogue them, survey them individually (with divers, remote subs, or the like), and only then proclaim a successful project. At the same time, you could publish the maps without a problem.

      Hokay wid' me, boss. You jest biddy-baddle on out an' pick up the thirty to fifty billion dollars it would take to do that and I'll wait right here.
      Oh, and by the way, be sure you pick up a plan for handling the comprehensive shut down of a major river for ten years or more and your plan for tracking down that many qualifed divers and what you'll do for your Environmental Impact Statement and how you'll explain this all to the many archeologists who have long since concluded that the most responsible way to handle large bodies of artifacts is to leave much of the area pristine for analysis by technique we haven't thought of yet.

      Some people just have no idea of the implications of the things that come out of their mouths. Talk first, think later, huh?
      -Rustin

      --
      Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
  19. I used to fly down the river.... + PCBs in River by wwwssabbsdotcom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...in a Cessna 172 and the ceiling of the NYC airspace down south of the GWBridge is 1000 ft, so we'd fly down the NYC side at 600 ft and down and around the statue of Liberty, then up the NJ side to Alpine tower. I haven't flown in years, but Im sure the regulations are MUCH stricter since 9/11.

    On a second note, how many PCBs are in the riverbed and would be disturbed and brought downstream. Dont know if they'd "stir up" the environmentalists by suggesting going down for the wrecks/moving them.

    --
    Relive the BBS Past - One Byte at a Time! www.ssabbs.com
  20. Insurance companies may take the loot by RY · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The insurance companies may have standing to intercept any salvage operation of the wrecks.

    Once the insurance company pays out the claim they own the ship and cargo. If a salver raises the ship or cargo then the insurance company can collect on the find.

    1. Re:Insurance companies may take the loot by bluGill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, yes and no. I do not know all the issues involved, suffice to say it is complex, so if you want a real answer see a lawyer.

      That out of the way, the insurance company only owns the wreck until the abandon it. If you try to salvage a wreck and the insurance company can prove they are in the process of trying to get it, then it belongs to them, and they can decide what to pay you for your efforts (read they will screw you).

      However if you salavege a wreck long after it happens, and the insurance company has made no effort to get it, then it is assumed the insurance company has decided that the cost to salavage the wreck is greater than the benifits of doing so, and it is yours for the taking.

      The key is while the insurance company is making efforts to raise the wreck it belongs to them. I wouldn't start any salavage operation without consulting a lawyer. International waters are a little more tricky, if you can get the loot to the right country you might be able to salvage it from under the insurance company.

      Insurance companies generally don't bother with salvage unless they suspect the operation will turn up something other than the loot. Evidence that they don't have to pay the claim due to fraud is worth more than the claim itself if it keeps others from fraud. In minnesota they have divers bring up all outboards dropped overboard even though it often costs more than the claim because it teaches people that throwing a moter overboard will not get them a new one.

    2. Re:Insurance companies may take the loot by Exedore · · Score: 1

      Well, for ships insured by companies that are still around, anyway. Some of the wrecks go back 400 years. I wonder if Ye Olde Insurance Company of the Colony of New York (or perhaps New Amsterdam) still has offices in Manhattan.

      --

      I take drugs seriously.

    3. Re:Insurance companies may take the loot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they do. I can't remember what the name is now through all the mergers, but basically, the corporation that arose out of the loose arrangements of insurers and shippers at the coffee shops and bars in what is today the financial district became something like AIG or Prudential. The corporate entity that once posessed legal claim to those wrecks has definitely had an unbroken chain of property-passing till today.

      Interestingly, the same is basically true for commercial and investment banks in new york.

  21. Wise course by the_rev_matt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think that from a historical significance perspective, this is not a Bad Thing(tm). Allow the museums etc first shot at those wrecks of historical interest before the vultures descend.

    --
    this is getting old and so are you

    blog

  22. Interesting ethical questions by Badgerman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All other things aside, I find that declaring the contents of a publicly-funded project to be secret is food for thought. As big as I am on openess, I can understand the decision to hold off for now.

    My take is that the information is public knowledge, but releasing it would destroy public safety and public history. What needs to be done is a massive, organized effort to salvage and record the vast wealth of finds. Maybe private companies could be involved.

    Interesting to think of - I wonder what other cases of withheld public information may be justifiable . . .

    --
    "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
    1. Re:Interesting ethical questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What needs to be done is a massive, organized effort to salvage and record the vast wealth of finds."
      .
      Perhaps you would like to fund the project. I , for one, do not want a penny of my tax dollars spent on anything involving the Hudson river. Vast wealth, my ass. Moron.

    2. Re:Interesting ethical questions by liposuction · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Bah. This is just another case of a government made up of people, not trusting the people that pay it's bills.

      Rediculious.

      --
      "Thoughts are more powerful than any weapon, and I don't even let my people own guns." --Joseph Stalin
    3. Re:Interesting ethical questions by James+Willard · · Score: 1

      Publicly-funded projects are kept confidential all the time. Just look at the various military projects such as the Skunkworks and such. Sometimes secrecy (for a time) is a good thing. Of course, some years later, nearly everything is unclassified and the world is a happy place. My point is, keeping the products of publicly-funded projects secret, at least for a time, is not inherently bad.

      What I personally would love to see, but know will never happen, is the recouperation of some of the cost by selling portions of map data to various salvaging companies. That money could then be used to put money -back- in taxpayers' pockets and make the project less wasteful.

    4. Re:Interesting ethical questions by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are other solutions to this than to simply hope nobody leaks the maps, which is what they're doing (actually, what they're doing is akin to telling people you have $10,000 buried in a can somewhere in your nice garden, but you won't tell them where. Tomorrow the garden will be gone...)

      For instance, they could provide the information, along with notices that disturbing the PCB laden sediment is hazardous, as well as illegal. Then go and actually bust the people who decide it was worth the risk (use the map data to see where to catch them)

      In the end, I suppose the decision has to be made based on whether the government thinks it can beat back the blithering idiot masses who don't care.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    5. Re:Interesting ethical questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why should they trust us? What have we done to earn their trust? Hell some of us can't even spell ridiculous! I guarantee you that no matter what they do, when they release that map will do exactly what the State thinks they are going to do and then some.

      Anyway, if the State trusted us why would there be cops?

    6. Re:Interesting ethical questions by Badgerman · · Score: 2

      For instance, they could provide the information, along with notices that disturbing the PCB laden sediment is hazardous, as well as illegal. Then go and actually bust the people who decide it was worth the risk (use the map data to see where to catch them)

      Good idea and a good point. This is a case of "The cat's not out of the bag, but we let you know we've got a bag and a cat."

      --
      "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
    7. Re:Interesting ethical questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting to think of - I wonder what other cases of withheld public information may be justifiable . . .

      Aliens. Just don't tell them I told you so.

    8. Re:Interesting ethical questions by Badgerman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What I personally would love to see, but know will never happen, is the recouperation of some of the cost by selling portions of map data to various salvaging companies. That money could then be used to put money -back- in taxpayers' pockets and make the project less wasteful.

      Good idea. Maybe certain things can be kept by the state government, others sold off, and you get a win-win situation plus a lot of interesting artifacts and information.

      Yeah. It is unlikely. But thought-provoking.

      --
      "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
    9. Re:Interesting ethical questions by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1

      Good point


      I think you should bring this up with the gentlemen at Langley. After all, the CIA, the NSA, the military, the DIA, and every other TLA you can think of is publicly funded :)

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
  23. yeah by wantedman · · Score: 1

    (troll)
    Oh yeah, because

    money + power = ethics...

    I'm going to support the ethical RIAA, McDonalds, Hitler....

    heh...
    ( /troll )

  24. Ohhh, historical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They sank, for whatever reason, unless they have REAL treasure, let them remain on the bottom. Who givs a shit? Ohhhh, we found the Monitor, let's raise it? Stupidity. No we CANNOT learn squat about old shipwrecks. Let them die and rest in peace. Remember the Maine? All it told us was the excuse for the Spanish American War was a lie! Who did not know that in advance? Sheesh!

  25. Sometimes government secrets aren't all bad.... by tgd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Kartchner Caverns is a perfect example of a case when a state government spent a lot of money and effort researching and protecting a site of significant (in this case) natural importance without disclosing any of the information to the public until the "right" time. In this case, even the fact that the money was being spent, and what it was being spent on was, from my understanding, kept completely secret.

    I'm sure there will be people on here screaming that the government has no right to keep the fruits of labor paid for by taxpayers money a secret, but it sounds like NY, just like Arizona, is doing it to protect the sites they have invested a lot of time and energy in.

  26. It's only a model by Shamanin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Judging from the picture at Hudson River, the river seems to be quite small compared to the people on the bicycles, soldiers, and horses.

    What's the big deal about mapping such a tiny thing?

    And check out the miniture bridge, what's that about...

    --
    come on fhqwhgads
    1. Re:It's only a model by SpinyNorman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't be silly!

      That's an old picture.

      People and horses were much bigger back then.

  27. O2 free Hudson by Sebastopol · · Score: 2

    wow, for once pollution is a good thing, if you're a historian.

    speaking as a former resident of Troy, i think the O2 free hudson should be more of a concern than mapping the shipwrecks. not to get all partison, but the next time an anti-environmentalist raves that pollution isn't a problem, have him/her go for a dip in the hudson and see how many simultaneous illnesses they come down with. eeew.

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    1. Re:O2 free Hudson by xchino · · Score: 2

      Many bodies of water are unswimable without benefit of pollution. I found this out when I was 8 and jumped into a stagnant pond for a swim. Amoebic Dissentary is not a joke, and crapping napalm is not fun.

      --
      Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
  28. +6, Informative by WetCat · · Score: 2, Funny

    for the link of actual map or the map itself.

  29. Dirty Politicians by ifreakshow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1) Map Bottom of Hudson River Don't release information to the Public
    2) Give "rights to salvage" to political contributors
    3) Profit

    1. Re:Dirty Politicians by misterhaan · · Score: 3, Insightful
      1) Map Bottom of Hudson River Don't release information to the Public
      2) Give "rights to salvage" to political contributors
      3) Profit
      The crazy thing about politicians is that they do these steps in a different order: 1, 3, then 2 (maybe)
      --

      track7.org has all kinds of interesting stuff!

  30. Darwin by Apreche · · Score: 1, Informative

    I give a darwin award to anyone who is stupid enough to even TOUCH the Hudson river. Let alone swim to the bottom of it for extended periods of time! That water is so filthy and disgusting full of poison I would sooner eat my own shit than drink it. I highly doubt that any of the sunken ships have pirate treasure on them anyway.

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
    1. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      ...I would sooner eat my own shit than drink it.

      If you are actually able to drink your own shit, make sure you keep drinking fluids; diarrhea is a bitch.

    2. Re:Darwin by grundy · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, hope you don't live around here, or in NYC. Got news for you, more than one municipality draws water from the Hudson. While NYC doesn't on a regular basis, there have been many times in my life when they've turned on the Cold Spring pumping station to lessen the pressure on low resevoirs. There is always concern that pumping for NYC is helping move the brackish water farther north.

    3. Re:Darwin by kiwipunk · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Growing up in Albany NY, I spent many summers in the 1950's and 1960's swimming in the Hudson River in an area about 14 miles south of the city. This was before cities had polution controls that are now in place along the river. Of course, the only problem was barge oil on the surface, which prohibited swimming now and then. But the tides carried it away in a couple of hours. I recall seeing many 1000's of people swimming in the Hudson. No health problems were ever identified.

    4. Re:Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...I would sooner eat my own shit than drink it.

      If you are actually able to drink your own shit, make sure you keep drinking fluids; diarrhea is a bitch.


      Yes, but what he really needs is fiber. The Hudson River is a good source of fiber.

  31. What about the PCBs? by Eagle7 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Wait... there is a big ass plan to dredge the river to remove PCBs from the riverbed... so it seems that either:

    Dredging the river will decimate the shipwrecks

    or salvaging the shipwrecks will spread PCBs back into the river, which is one of the big problems with dredging

    More info is at the EPA. The article doesn't really mention this, which seems odd, since the PCB/Dredging issue has been a hell of a hot topic in the Upper Hudson Valley for the past year or two.

    --
    _sig_ is away
    1. Re:What about the PCBs? by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      Why would you throw all those PCBs into the river in the first place.

      Surely you could have run linux on them.

      Wasteful yankees.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:What about the PCBs? by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 3, Funny

      It took my brain a few minutes to click that people aren't talking about Printed Circuit Boards.

    3. Re:What about the PCBs? by nolife · · Score: 2

      About a year ago in DC, I heard radio commercials about the Hudson PCB issue all day long for about a month. GE and opponents were really trying to make a point to the general population in Northern VA and DC for some reason. They did not appear to be candidate related so I doubt it was for the elections. Maybe trying to gain support for a big contractor or something. Same with the Joint Strike Fighter contract and the Tauzin/Dingell bill.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    4. Re:What about the PCBs? by smnolde · · Score: 2

      Polychlorolbiphenols, if my memory serves me correctly.

    5. Re:What about the PCBs? by Reziac · · Score: 2
      Someone else mentioned that dredging in such situations is done with "big-assed vacuum technology" (I expect much like is used to pump septic tanks, massively magnified). Well, why not use such a suction system to pull sediment away from the ships, lifting and anchoring each ship as may be required when the supporting silt is removed.

      They aren't going to last forever in the bottom of the river, either, and better to suffer some damage as they're brought up, but be able to glean information from them, than to have them rot away, taking their history with them.

      Rise again, rise again, that her name not be lost
      To the knowledge of men
      Those who loved her best and were with her till the end
      Will make the Mary Ellen Carter rise again.
      -- Stan Rogers

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    6. Re:What about the PCBs? by Eagle7 · · Score: 2

      I agree 100% that they should be salvaged for thier historical value and significance. It would be as much of a crime to lose or destory them as it would be to make the pollution of the river worse while salvaging them.

      The question still remains - how do you do both (protect & clean the river, and salvage the ships) without sacrificing either.

      --
      _sig_ is away
  32. Re:I used to fly down the river.... + PCBs in Rive by wwwssabbsdotcom · · Score: 1

    Someone had mentioned a plane flying through the spans and crashing there, does someone have a link to that in the news? Im sure there are a few planes down there, too.

    --
    Relive the BBS Past - One Byte at a Time! www.ssabbs.com
  33. Re:Soviet sad man is saying: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry buddy, if yer gonna troll, troll. If yer gonna make lame Soviet Russia jokes, make em. But this, this is just pathetic. Take it back to the drawing board and come back to Slashdot when you have a better idea.

  34. Soviets did this LONG ago by Genady · · Score: 2

    I mean really, what Soviet sun skipper could resist hanging out on the bottom next to a wreck?

    --


    What if it is just turtles all the way down?
    1. Re:Soviets did this LONG ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but
      In Soviet Russia, the river maps YOU!

  35. Soviet sad man is saying: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i am sad that but this, this is just pathetic :*(.

  36. Things made with public money belong to the public by Plankowner · · Score: 1

    Having said that in my subject header, let me just say that I have mixed feelings about that in this case.

    While it may be true in the strictest sense there are those out there who will pillage these wrecks and some history could be lost.

    I think the sites should be surveyed by archeologists prior to opening the floodgates to the public

    Then designate them as part of the park system and treat them as historical sites.

    --
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++ Linux renders ships... NT renders ships usel
  37. Re:O2 free Hudson (not!) by grundy · · Score: 2, Informative
    Ummmm,I believe they are talking about the mud being O2 free, not the river itself.

    And as to getting ill from taking a dip, give me a break. Maybe down around Manhattan (especially the East River), but not for us upstaters. I've been swimming in that river since I was a kid, and let me tell you, when I was a kid (mid 70s)the toxins were flowing fresh daily. Yeah, there were limits, anytime a bunch of fish or clams etc washed up on the beach dead we couldn't go swimming (and usually wound up bagging some samples to see what killed them this time around). So taking a dip won't kill you, eating the local fish will.

  38. Re:Soviet sad man is saying: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i am sad that you are sad. It's all so sad.

  39. The question is... by gUmbi · · Score: 2

    How does Jimmy Hoffa look on a sonar scan?

    Jason.

  40. withholding the info is illegal by mapmaker · · Score: 1
    under New York's Freedom of Information Law.

    To paraphrase the statute's text, all New York State government agencies must disclose to the public all info/data/documents they possess unless doing so will violate someone's privacy or would endanger someone's safety, plus a few more exceptions that don't apply to these shipwreck locations.

    1. Re:withholding the info is illegal by Cap'n+Canuck · · Score: 2

      Yeah. And "They" can argue (and are doing so) that publishing the map:
      - violates someone's privacy
      - endagers someone's safety

      Then again:
      IANAL + YANAL = pointless arguing that solves nothing.
      (Kinda like /.)

    2. Re:withholding the info is illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would endanger someone's safety

      Boom. You nailed it right on the head. Thanks for bringing that up and justifying NYS's stance on this.

    3. Re:withholding the info is illegal by perfessor+multigeek · · Score: 2

      You don't live around here, do you?
      Keep in mind, this is the city where the mayor refused to publish either the full budget or the directory of municipal employees, got sued, lost, *still* didn't disclose, and then got re-elected.
      Remember, most of the scary federal goverment coverups (Watergate, Koreagate, Iran/Contra, etc.) have been organized and run by moonlighting New York lawyers.
      Welcome to the big city.
      -Rustin

      --
      Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
    4. Re:withholding the info is illegal by spazoid12 · · Score: 1

      Good point about the pointless arguing. Thanks for not participating in the pointless arguing. You raise the bar by setting a wonderful example for all of us!

  41. other sites? by chunkwhite86 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think it's extremely cool that they found 200 year old perishable goods like leather and potatos preserved by the mud.

    In think it would be even cooler if there was a similar project in europe or the middle east - places that have way more history than the US.

    The oldest ships you'll find in the Hudson are going to be ~2 hundred years old. Imagine finding a shipwreck in the mediteranean, red sea, black sea, or caspian sea thats ~2 thousand years old!!

    --
    I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
    1. Re:other sites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really that dumb? The oldest ships in the Hudson can be MUCH older. Who knows what Native American vessels may be found buried in that mud. Also, they do do things like this in other parts of the worl. Finally, the Hudson is a lot shallower and less volatile than the seas you listed.

    2. Re:other sites? by landtuna · · Score: 1

      The 333 year old Vasa is a warship that was raised from oxygen-depleted water off the coast of Sweden. Inside, they found all sorts of preserved treasures, and it's now a museum that you can visit in Stockholm. (I was there last year and was very impressed with the thing. It's huge and has very ornate carvings all over the outside.)

  42. irresponsobility my ... by koll64 · · Score: 1

    goverment sure does act irresponsobly if it withholds important information.

  43. they have to release the data by spazoid12 · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's the law. If the people paid for it (ie. taxes), then the people have to have access to it. I used to work as a consultant to NOAA. Everything we produced which NOAA paid for is available for cost of duplication and materials (this is usually a lot of money for simple things because the cost involves the wages of a government employee burning a dozen CDRs and the wages of his/her CTO, etc, etc).

    There are exceptions (like secret defense projects and stuff), but that's the exception. They can't simply say "we choose to keep this info out of the hands of the public", it requires working through a legal process to gain that kind of status.

    1. Re:they have to release the data by Cap'n+Canuck · · Score: 2

      I'm assuming you're not a lawyer, nor do you play one on TV - oh wait, you're posting on /. - what was I thinking? Of course your argument is valid and you know more than everyone else does.

      Silly me.

    2. Re:they have to release the data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if they said they are never going to release the information then you may have a point but anybody with an IQ over 90 who read the article would see that they are just evaluating the best way to release the maps.

    3. Re:they have to release the data by spazoid12 · · Score: 1

      No, I don't know more than everyone else does. Just you. Thanks for pointing out your silliness, but it was quite apparent.

    4. Re:they have to release the data by spazoid12 · · Score: 1

      My IQ is 89. Or, I didn't read the article. Or, I wasn't responding to the article but rather something that someone else wrote. Thank you for your insight.

    5. Re:they have to release the data by alleycat0 · · Score: 1

      "There are exceptions" is the key here. The OPRHP's archaeoogical site files, which contain detailed site location, are not available to the general public for fear providing ammunition to looters. I assume the shipwrecks will be classified as archaeolgical resources and be similarly treated.

      --
      I am not a number - I am a free man!
    6. Re:they have to release the data by spazoid12 · · Score: 1

      "There are exceptions". Yep.

      "I assume...will be...". Yep (if not already).

      The point is, there's a process. That process is not this:
      Q: Um, hey! Can I have a copy??
      A: Well... nah. I don't feel like it.

  44. Re:Permits? Actually... by rocket_w · · Score: 1

    ...salvage rights are guranteed to the person who can haul it in. At least that is the case for oceans, seas, etc. it might be different for rivers in the CONUS. In some cases injuctions have been granted to the government for cases of historical preservation. It unfortunately becoms a case of who ever is first to the site, or first to the judge. In short anything that sinks belongs to whomever is willing to bring it up. Maybe an interesting idea would be to an underwater national park/museum. It would preserve any artifacts and generate some revenue for the Parks and Wildlife Service, while allowing the public to see their history.

    --
    ----- "It's all fun and games 'til somebody puts an eye out, then it's just funny."
  45. The shipping channels belong to NY by Hairy_Potter · · Score: 1

    or at least they have jurisdiction over them.

    So if you think you can block off a busy route just to search for treasure, I'll tell you about the gold bar I saw someone drop into the concrete being poured for the New York Thruway.

  46. Arr, avast ye dumbass, gonna keelhaul ya! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    only a dopey shiteating dumbfuck would associate 'pirate treasure' with ALL invocations of the word 'shipwreck'.

    There are other things down there that could be considered treasure. Consider the suitcase they brought up from the Titanic site. Historical information. Not pirate gold.

  47. all sorts of interesting stuff by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    i was a tour guide on the hudson for new york waterway for awhile.

    there is supposedly pirates treasure.

    it would be nice to find one of these, called "General Washington's Watch Chain."

    maybe a german u-boat?

    or relics from the age of steamboats.

    the hudson is also pretty deep in places. off of west point, for example (206 feet), or near bear mountain bridge (165 feet). it is an ancient river, as old as the appalachians. some of it was carved during the last ice age, and is similar to a norwegian fjord. plenty of room down there.

    check this gem out, bannerman's island. an old arms dealer from the spanish american war blew up the castle he built with his business profits by locating his arsenal right next to his castle on his private island. oops. i've kayaked around it and can make out weird shapes in the shallow muck between the island and the shore. wonder what you would find near there! ;-P

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  48. "Arrest" the shipwrecks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to US maritime law, all the state has to do is see a judge with the documented location of each shipwreck and file a warrent to "arrest" the wreck. That's how a salvager gains legal custody of the wreck in US waters. Unless there's something specific about New York's own state constitution and state laws that would prohibit them from doing such, that's the mechanism they need to employ to keep all other potential salvagers out of the deal.

    1. Re:"Arrest" the shipwrecks. by TheMidget · · Score: 1
      According to US maritime law, all the state has to do is see a judge with the documented location of each shipwreck and file a warrent to "arrest" the wreck.

      But they first would need to prove that the wreck was involved in the trade of drugs. Alternatively, they could claim that the owner or the captain was black ;-)

    2. Re:"Arrest" the shipwrecks. by perfessor+multigeek · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope, then you've got to maintain presence (which means monthly or more frequent dives into water with two inch visibility, freezing temperatures, and, in some parts, currents strong enough to rip your arms off your body if you move wrong.) and you've got to otherwise show "good faith" attempts to salvage. You also need to make sure that nobody else already has rights to that ship. That can take you to Lloyd's, admiralty courts of a dozen nations, etc. Oh, by the way, you've also got to prove which wreck it is. Not so easy to do under those circumstances.
      It may be *possible* to get and hold rights to wreck but it's by no means easy.
      Rustin
      And, yes, I am currently on the edge of a team with a pending effort to retrieve a wreck in the Hudson.

      --
      Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
  49. Mmmm...plunder by KilroyTheVeg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am an amateur treasure hunter. I have been called a looter by archeology types at times. My proposal is this:
    How many historical sites/wrecks can be researched in 100 years? Take this number and double it. Now make a list of these sites. These sites would be "off limits" to looters, er treasure hunters.

    Now if a "new" site is found, in order to add it to the list you must drop an existing site from the list.

    My point is that there are so many sites there is no way they can all be researched, and without "looters" many existing museum pieces would not have been found and available for the public to see and researchers to study.

    Thank goodness for maritime law and the law of salvage....

    1. Re:Mmmm...plunder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arr! I be a treasure too! I liberated your sister's booty!

    2. Re:Mmmm...plunder by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 1
      The number of sites that can be researched in 100 years depends totally on the allocation of resources to research, doesn't it? Anyway, that's beside the point. If a site holds legitimate archaeological value, why should it be opened up to looters?

      When an archaeological site is excavated by anyone, even archaeologists, it's effectively damaged or destroyed as an archeological site. Archaeology is an inherently destructive science, alas; it destroys data even as it gathers and records it. The idea, then, is to gather and record as much data as possible in the process of excavation, something salvors and looters tend not to do. If someone loots a site, the information on provenience, deposition, etc. is lost forever.

      Having a finite list of "off-limits" sites from which one had to drop a site before adding another would be disastrous for research. Any archaeological site preserves unique information that cannot be gleaned from other sites; many sites contain information of immeasureable value, but one can't always know which sites will be most useful in advance. Forcing archaeologists to pick their sites from such a list while other sites go plundered by anyone with the wherewithal to do so would be a devastating blow to archaeology.

      As far as looting for "museum pieces" goes, just because something is in a museum doesn't mean one can gather all the useful data from it one could have if it had been recovered in an archaeological project rather than a salvage or looting one. The full informational value of artifacts doesn't come from just having the objects to hold and look at, it comes from information about deposition, soil conditions in which it was buried, etc. If a salvor brings up a trinket without exhaustively recording as much information as possible about its depostion, a huge part of the archaeological significance has been irrevocably destroyed (not to mention the fact that salvors and looters tend to go for "treasure"-type items - the pretty stuff - while ignoring more "ordinary" objects, which are of as much archaeological value as the gold pieces and jewelry, if not more).

      Too many finds of tremendous historical value have had that value annihilated by pothunters interested solely in the monetary value to be had from looting. It's truly sad that so many looters either don't know the real value of what they plunder, or judge it to be unimportant next to their own desire for pretty pieces they can exploit for profit or just use to decorate their homes.

    3. Re:Mmmm...plunder by The+Phantom+Blot · · Score: 1

      Full disclosure: I work for a museum, though not as an archaeologist, and I am biased.

      My proposal is this: How many historical sites/wrecks can be researched in 100 years? Take this number and double it. Now make a list of these sites. These sites would be "off limits" to looters, er treasure hunters. Now if a "new" site is found, in order to add it to the list you must drop an existing site from the list.

      Archaeologists already do this, making educated guesses about the relative potential values of sites in order to most efficiently allocate limited resources. However, one can't judge a site's value fully until after it has been excavated and analyzed. Often, the excavation of one site will provide leads that make previously ignored sites seem suddenly more interesting. To restrict research to a list of particular sites would inhibit the pursuit of such connections, decreasing what could have been learned.

      Compromise measures are in place already to keep less important sites from being tied up in perpetuity. Development can proceed after a quick survey that determines a site is nothing more than another scatter of flakes with nothing new to teach us. This even saves the looters' time and energy!

      And why assume that looters would refrain from digging into the sites on the protected list? Laws protecting public sites and sites on private property don't seem to stop looters now. If anything, a public list of "Almost Certainly Valuable Sites" would encourage more looting of them.

      ...without "looters" many existing museum pieces would not have been found and available for the public to see and researchers to study.

      This is true; many of the objects that are in museum collections were acquired in the past through activities that we would now describe as "looting." Modern museums are more careful to discourage this sort of practice, though. It is considered to be unethical as well as severely damaging to an object's research value. Only a fraction of available information is extracted from the object itself. The rest is provided by the context in which the object is found: location, association, etc. This contextual information is lost unless the site is excavated and reported in a controlled manner.

      --
      Ned Flanders, I mock your value system. You also appear foolish to the eyes of others.
  50. Re:Permits? Actually... by derch · · Score: 1

    I was just about to elaborate on my question. It's a skimpy on the reason why I was asking it.

    I understand that salvage belongs to whomever brings it up. If I had the necessary equipment and personel to anchor in the Hudson and start bringing up salvage, would I need to go to the state or county/city and buy a permit before starting operations?

    Considering that you often need a permit to stop traffic on roads or do major construction work on land, a permit to salvage would make sense. But then, naval law is much different.

    A follow up question: Can a permit be refused for historical or environmental reasons?

    I like you suggestion of making it into an underwater park. I believe some ship wreckage have been made into underwater parks or marine sanctuaries in order to control access and preserve the area. Unfortunately, on a good day in the Hundson you can only see an arm's length.

  51. 200 Shipwreck sites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that'll keep the show "Relic hunter" going for a while...

  52. salvage rights by MacAndrew · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually there's a whole set of rules in admiralty for salvage rights over wrecks. This has come up more and more often as folks like Ballard locate old wrecks like Spanish galleons loaded with gold more easily. The disputes can get a little complicated.

    Think of the ship at the bottom as not lost but in long-term storage. Just because someone can get to it before you can doesn't make it theirs. Access is not ownership. But if someone finds the wreck, they should be able to sell that information to the owner.

    No, I can't justify these ancient rules. Changes may be in the wind.

    1. Re:salvage rights by 2MuchC0ffeeMan · · Score: 2

      yes but i think every wreck has to be considered on a case to case basis, obviously a 10 year old wreck is diffrent than a 100 year old wreck.

      how many people are still getting things in the titanic? i think that there are rightful owners, but those owners can't really go down there for themselves.

      also, who 'owns' the river/ocean? so if i ever wanted to put something into 'longterm storage' i could just dump it in the water? fun fun

      and please, with the viper analogy, how is that even remotely similar to this?

      i think this is more in terms of finding a $100 bill on the street, dated from 1950. with no claims on record since then.

      --
      Runnin' On Empty .... I'm Still Alive
    2. Re:salvage rights by MacAndrew · · Score: 2

      On most of your Q's I have no idea, but I know others have put a lot of thought into them. Every wreck is case-by-case, esp. since the problem is so new, all these ancient wrecks being accessible suddenly.

      how many people are still getting things in the titanic? i think that there are rightful owners, but those owners can't really go down there for themselves.

      I don't knnow, I'd forgotten about it. But if "getting things" is stealing, it's still stealing if they're old and on the ocean floor.

      i think this is more in terms of finding a $100 bill on the street, dated from 1950. with no claims on record since then.

      Sure. But most wrecks are not like that, even ones 500 years old. If a ship sinks with $200 million in gold, the owners remember it.

  53. Does the Dentist know about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Shaftoe had this under wraps.

  54. Trolled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, I get it... troll / bridge joke.

  55. It depends on several factors. by ronmon · · Score: 4, Informative

    I work for the outfit that is doing this survey and a couple others here in the keys plus one each in Portugal and Morocco (RPM, not Mel Fisher's). Putting aside the overseas projects, since that involves several more layers of bureaucracy, and not knowing the laws covering the Hudson, I can only give you an idea of what happens here.

    Just about anything inside the reef is within the Floida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS), so we have to pull a permit from them as well as from NOAA. FKNMS is a joint state / federal authority and NOAA of course is federal. In some areas we are allowed to do non-invasive surveys, such as towing magnetometers, a sidescan sonar or a sub-bottom profiler. Any excavation, which is done scientifically and with respect for the site, requires a separate permit. All data collected, whether from towed surveys or excavation must be shared with the permitting agency but is otherwise proprietary.

    Hey, it's expensive to do this kind of work and there are plenty of treasure hunters that would love to get a hold of some of our "numbers". But as the article points out, those wrecks are mostly the workaday variety and probably of little commercial value. I think they are doing the right thing by holding back until the historically significant sites can be identified and protected even if the Hudson is not exactly a diving hot spot.

  56. Isn't that mud still PCB-laden? by Jedi+Paramedic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know much about salvage rights and admiralty law, but maybe there's a relevant portion of some state statute regulating shipping and commerce on the Hudson and what happens to sunken ships? *shrug

    More interestingly - what about GE and the whole PCB issue? I see a few problems with anybody digging anything up on a large scale:

    a.) Scenic Hudson (or maybe it was another group, I forget) doesn't want anybody stirring up silt in the Hudson for the purposes of GE dredging the PCB-filled mud, so I can't think that they'd think lightly of lots of treasure hunters doing ths same thing.

    b.) GE argued from the start that the biggest harm in removing the silt would be that it stirred up all of the PCBs which, over time, have become more benign (or at least less latent on the surface of the mud). Stirring them up, they said, would put them back into the fish, etc... this might relieve GE from its primary argument against dredging, so I've got to think they'd be considering it carefully.

    c.) No matter what Scenic Hudson and GE think today about the Hudson, it is well-established that the silt is still chock full of PCBs, and as such, would qualify for treatment as a "hazardous material" upon its removal from the Hudson. Part of the dredging issue was figuring out what lucky Upstate NY town was going to host the geomembrane-protected "silt dump" for disposal of the stuff so it wouldn't leach into the ground and contaminate groundwater, etc. The rule of NIMBY has applied thus far, as far as I know... It would therefore follow that anybody trying to dig up ships would run into a big problem of what to do with the dirt they dug through. (Granted, it's not the whole Hudson, but it still creates an issue if you do anything but leave it there.)

    --

    That's my purse! I don't know you! -- Bobby Hill
  57. Brillant idea! by bigdady92 · · Score: 1

    Hey we spent 200mil on a project, why not go down and get some ROI on it? IS the gov't that stupid to just let all that loot lie at the bottom of the river and let someone else take it? Why not go down, get the goodies from the river and sell it and MAKE MONEY!

    wait i forgot this was gov't e-commerce thinking

    1. spend money to map hudson river.
    2. ?????
    3. Make money!

    --
    Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
  58. make the lawyers work for the money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, in any controversial endeavor, there are competing forces:

    1) State does not want Joe Sixpack tearing into PCB laden mud or though historically interesting artificats to "go for the gold".

    2) Joe Sixpack claims he has "the right" to this information; it should be public, and it's no ones business what he does with his tools and diving suit.

    Sounds like a case for a Judge and some expert witnesses to me.

  59. Secretly Mapped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Hemos, which yellow journal do you work for?

    Secretly Mapped? I don't know how you can hide that much equipment and be secret. Not releasing the information, OTOH, warrants a different title, n'est pas?

  60. zerg by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 2

    I'm surprised they aren't trying to pull them off immediately. When the Yacht Club (I know I know, buncha dorks) here at Stevens Tech lost a boat (dinky little thing), the school was planning to leave it at the bottom because it the cost of bringing it up would be too much. Then the Army's Engineer Corp found out and went crazy about all the rules we were violating.

    It's too bad our seniors are too incompetent to get a winning entry in the underwater autonomous submersible competition... It'd be cool to explore the wrecks ourselves...

    --
    [o]_O
  61. too late by lazlo · · Score: 2, Insightful
    'We don't want to ring the dinner bell for people who have ulterior motives and don't behave responsibly,'

    Sorry, you're too late. The people with ulterior motives who don't behave responsibly have already been elected, and were the ones that directed the study to be done. They now have the information, and aren't giving it to the rest of us.

    --
    Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
  62. Argh by blueforce · · Score: 1

    Shiver me timbers - Bring out the booty!

    --
    If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
  63. It's not THAT polluted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been swimming in the Hudson (mid-hudson valley area) for years. It is quite clean.

    Those of you claiming it is dirty and filthy and you'd rather eat your own shit could not find the Hudson on a fucking map. Please, eat your own shit.

    Many people swim, water ski, and jet ski. Hell, there are even beaches, which are packed during the summer.

    The only drawback to the hudson is that the salt line comes up in the summer and you have to wash the salt off after swimming. The horror!

    1. Re:It's not THAT polluted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      friend, I've personally watched a hick from an oil company flush the sludge from his oil truck directly into that river. Now, you feel free to swim wherever you like. Just don't come anywhere near me when you are done.

  64. Re:O2 free Hudson (not!) by tkg · · Score: 1

    Yup. I was there too, until '71. We'd spend summers sailing and canoing along the river, camping along deserted banks. It was generally felt that the Hudson below Albany was a dead river at the time, but the monster carp we found in the coves along the banks were a strong refutation of that lie. And this was just a couple of miles downriver of Albany's Niagra Mohawk and the (then) Sears and Esso tank farms. It did get nasty on occassion though, until they stopped the oil barges from flushing into the river.

  65. Hitch? by mbogosian · · Score: 3, Funny

    The hitch? For the time being the maps - paid for as part of the $186 million Hudson River Estuary Plan - are not being published since state officials are nervous about the prospect of so many shipwrecks suddenly being opened up to salvagers on one of the U.S.'s busiest rivers. 'We don't want to ring the dinner bell for people who have ulterior motives and don't behave responsibly'....

    Geez, with over 200 wrecks, couldn't you just drag an anchor down the river and disturb at least a few? Or would suggesting that make this post a ``troll''?

    1. Re:Hitch? by seann · · Score: 1

      What about the PCBs? (Score:5, Interesting)
      by Eagle7 (111475) on 12:51 Wednesday 18 December 2002 (#4916393)
      (http://www.eagle7.org/)

      Wait... there is a big ass plan to dredge the river to remove PCBs from the riverbed... so it seems that either:

      Dredging the river will decimate the shipwrecks

      or salvaging the shipwrecks will spread PCBs back into the river, which is one of the big problems with dredging

      --
      I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
  66. Poison Mud by MacAndrew · · Score: 2

    Yeah, I was going to mention NY law but decided to keep it generic just to discount "finders keepers." Besides, I don't want to look it up any more than you do.

    On obscure references, for anyone who wonders, NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard

    *

    Funny you should attach this mud Q here -- it was the first thing that crossed my mind because of the GE debate. I thought GE's anti-dredging argument sounded plausible, and I'm an environmentalist, which means that of course if dredging caused more problems I would not be knee-jerk against GE (stereotypes of environmentalist are so ugly :).

    They dredged in Boston Harbor, which has similar issues, to make way for the 3rd harbor tunnel, and put the material called mud on the bottom but toxic waste on the surface into barges. Then the Army Corps of Engineers forbade them from dumping it in Mass Bay as planned. So they had to stop digging with this incredibly expensive rented scoop until they found somewhere to put the muck. Oh yeah, then one of the barges sank at its berth. I think it went to the airport and, ultimately, I don't know. Illustrates how messy this stuff can be.

    Anyway, I assume salvage would not involve that much disturbance of the river bed. Don't worry, if it is an issue someone will raise it.

  67. I'm already there man! by AnonymousCowheard · · Score: 1


    I ammmm tyyppinnng thhis onn myy aggenndaaa vr3 linuxx pdda. I ammmmm RFC-13337 commpliaannt. :::-) (KKlingon happy-face)

    "Hold on to the dynamite outside the boat before lighting it, yarrr sliimmy swaabbb!"

    ii thhinnk itts aaa liee abbouut thiiiiinkking we aare nnot saafee trreassree hunnterrrrs. ii saaayy ooppen thhe shhippinng lannnes whiille wee loook forr thee dabbbloons.

    "Arg, keep the oil lamp next to the dynamite where I can reach it lad!"

    Weeve nott fowndd anny golld yet. Blasted superrr-freightters allways honnkingg theiirrrr foggg hornnss att usss as wee searchhh inn thiss thickkk brittain fog att dusk.

    "Yar, can't you see we're working here? Flabbergast you too! Move your heiniken around our excavation site! I don't worry if you go into water less than 10-midgetmen deep if you needs!"

    Thhe moore pppeeeeoople to loook withhh us the bettttar, I allwayyys saayyy. Arrghh!

    --

    But I'm sure you already Gnu that.
  68. Bring In Cussler! by Maeryk · · Score: 2

    Clive Cussler, on top of writing the really good (to me, anyway) Dirk Pitt books, is an avid hunter/finder of wrecks. This book The Sea Hunters Goes into depth on what he had to go through to find and bring up some of the historic wrecks he was involved in, as well as some quasi-fictional accounts of the ships last hours before sinking. Kinda neat stuff. More interesting is the levels of beurocracy and government meddling and even downright seizure he had to deal with in some cases. I highly reccomend this book to anyone interested in learning what really goes on in finding/salvaging ships. Maeryk

    --
    Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
    1. Re:Bring In Cussler! by grabskipper · · Score: 1

      How 'bout his fiction. Wasn't it Valhalla Rising where they found Viking ships and Caption Nemo's Nautilis in the Hudson River? Maybe that's what they're trying to keep secret.

  69. What I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Note: This is posted as AC because my employer is directly involved.

    What I don't understand is why the City of New York is doing it this way.

    I'm employed by my local city government and within the last several years we've been developing a Geographic Information System. GIS is basically digital photos of the entire city with various meta data attached (street names; water, sewer, & electric lines; zoning info; etc.).

    Long story short - it required photographs taken during VERY expensive fly-overs. Not only is the city going to use the GIS information internally (police, fire, planning, and engineering departments), but in an effort to recoup some of the costs the city is planning on selling the information to local businesses. How do you sell information that is publicly owned? Simple - don't let the public own it.

    What they're doing is leasing access to the GIS data, but allowing a 3rd party (the ones who did the fly-overs) to actually own it. The city is then under no legal obligation to allow the public to get to it for free.

    Why couldn't New York do the same and allow whoever did the sonar scans to own the data?

  70. Re:Screw that give me the friggin maps! by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1

    I agree. Isn't there a freedom of information act? I want a boatload of wet bricks from the 1870s

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

  71. I are coming to america by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am surching for my bride to take back with me to Zemunda. I pick to look in Queens-NY. I am looking for stinky cheap apartment run by old black man, black awareness rally, and barber shop to find bride. I love you. I am royalty. I own all my base. I will be waiting at Mc'Doulds.

  72. isn't it obvious? by waspleg · · Score: 2

    everyone has seen teh footage hell it was used in my highschool physics class to explain resonance.. famous == preservation, failure or not.. hell one of hte parents mentions pearl harbor as a national monument, was that a huge success for us? no but it should be preserved anyway, why? so it doesn't happen again.. maybe those shipwrecks are in hazardous waters and now that they have the locations marked they can keep others away from them, whose to say really but making the river/bottom a national park isn't a bad idea.. it's probably already got aspects of it protected under environmental legislation anyway..

  73. Dredging the hudson by acomj · · Score: 2

    The EPA forcing GE to pay to dredge up part of the hudson because of PCB's.

    I think the decision weighed whether it was better to leave the PCBs there or to remove them. They decided in the long run it was better to remove them as PCBs don't break down naturally and have a nasty habit of moving up the food chain.

  74. New York water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's full of diapers, condomns, needles, bloody stool samples, aborted fetus, ejaculate, flu virus, bile, liver and onions, and elusive trolls the size of the endangered water-coot opposums.

    I fish there everyday with J0n Katz and he and I boil the water verry well before we drink from it. Haven't caught any fish yet, maybe J0n should shit more than 2 yards away from where we drop our sinkers. Old Chinese tradition say, the more chum from your bum the better the wishin when your fishin.

  75. Whoops by Enry · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Hudson is VERY heavily polluted with PCBs dumped by GE over the years. It got to the point where the govt. (EPA) has told GE to dredge the river and clean it out. GE's response is that the PCBs are now 'safely' underneath the bottom of the river, and dredging will do more harm than good, as dredging will stir up all the crap and get it back into the river again.

    On the one hand, you can't fault GE for this line of thinking, as much of the dumping was done before the harm in PCBs were realized. On the other, if you treat an area like a sewer, you should own up to doing some sort of cleanup.

    All that being said, there will be a big ecological impact if you're digging up ships buried for 400 years, well below where the PCBs are.

  76. Re:Public research, private profit. by minitrue · · Score: 1

    What I personally would love to see, but know will never happen, is the recouperation of some of the cost by selling portions of map data to various salvaging companies. That money could then be used to put money -back- in taxpayers' pockets and make the project less wasteful.

    Recovering costs from publicly funded projects is an interesting idea but it seems to be horribly implemented in practice. Time and time again, taxpayers pay for research, the fruits of that research are sold to private industry at bargain basement prices (in the name of recouping costs), private industry makes big profits, and meanwhile the 'recovered' money disappears into government overhead again. The US pharmaceuticals and technology sectors seem to be built on such practices.

    I guess something can be said for the jobs and cash flow that sometimes result from companies formed out of public/private partnerships, but they really seem to be the exception to the rule. Besides, I'm not sure that the project is all that wasteful, anyway.

  77. Except in this case most of the wrecks. . . by kfg · · Score: 2

    weren't insured in the first place, and of those that were most of them are of little or no actual salvage value.

    We aren't talking huge Spanish Galleons loaded with Inca gold here, nor are we, as some other poster suggested, talking about anything worth salvaging for a barge full of steel. Albany is no "El Dorado." Trust me, I know. And Coxsackie is pretty dipshit NOW, let alone 200 years ago.

    For the most part we aren't even talking "ships" in the modern sense, but rather "boats," and wooden ones at that. A few odd "pleasure" vessels maybe, but mostly small trade "ships" ( such as the 90 foot wooden sloop Clearwater) and military vessels of the smaller kind such as might have patroled the river during the Revolutionary War period.

    Most of the trade vessels were carrying cargo such as the average upstate NY farmer of over one hundred years ago might want if they were heading upriver, and food stores if they were heading down. Bolts of cloth, hoes and rakes, pumpkins, things of that nature.

    For all practical purposes no part of these vessels or their cargos would be worth a damn to a salvager or insurer for financial gain, and the military vessels could already be claimed to be the property of the government.

    No, what's valuable on these vessels is simply the information examining the vessels themselves might provide. Like how they were built. How people lived on them. What kind of farm tools and fabric went up the river when, and what kind of food came back down.

    The only "salvage" here, for the most part, is historical knowledge. However, one guy rooting around in SCUBA gear ( and for the most part any of these wrecks would be accessable to an amatuer diver in SCUBA gear, no huge "recovery platform" needed. It's just a river bottom) looking for an 18th century button or something that he can put in a parts drawer and forget about could completely destroy an archeological site beyond recovery by the experts.

    This is what they're worried about, not someone dragging up a 20 year old oil tanker's anchor and selling it for scrap.

    KFG

  78. The shipwreck recovered in Kansas City, MO by rosewood · · Score: 2

    There is a museum of a shipwreck from the 1880s or 1890s. They have all kinds of cool shit that was preserved perfectly in the mud. Really, these ship wrecks can be a historian's wet dream.

  79. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because nothing says non-fiction like a Dirk Pitt novel!

    1. Re:What? by Maeryk · · Score: 2

      Because nothing says non-fiction like a Dirk Pitt novel!

      Its not a Pitt novel. Its about Cussler and NUMA actually finding the wrecks, and diving on them, and in some cases bringing them up. (Things like the Hunley.) Its all based on fact, and is basically a trip report of the expeditions to locate them.

      Maeryk

      --
      Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
  80. sounds like a movie plot by djcatnip · · Score: 1

    Benevolent scientists do something useful that ends up being worth a lot of money(maybe), announce that they have this valuable thing but aren't going to make it available because they realize it's value. Enter the evil foreign terrorist network boss, out to fund their evil terrorist plots. They commission a spy to penetrate the heat-sensoring, lazer beam-protected, ultra high security vault (because that's surely where they're keeping these maps, right?)and steal the maps. City mayor decries the burglary, gets on the $superhero."phone", and commissions the slightly sociopathic secret superhero to "get those maps back!"

    antics ensue...

    --
    I make these: http://beatseqr.com
  81. Yes, I know. by twitter · · Score: 2, Flamebait
    It's very nice of the state of New York, and perhaps the federal government, to take my tax money and not tell me what they did with it or let me enjoy the information collected. I'm glad the government will protect me and my culture this way. It reminds me of the DMCA, another great way my government protects me and my culture by keeping things secret.

    Soon, I hope that they make the whole sea bottom property of the federal government, so that any ship that sinks will be owned by my children forever on the bottom. That way, I know that I'll always be able to get great rewards from today's disasters. As it is, just anyone can go out and riun my heratige. Obviouly, only someone approved by the federal government should be alowed to pick up wrecks from the sea floor. The proceeds can be used to keep me from doing the same thing myself. I know that I'm not special and can't or won't learn how to do things right. It's not like you can simply make a law about how certian wrecks must be documented and share the information about state of the art preservation, now is it? No, I'm sure people will always get around the law if they can for filthy lucre, after all I'm greedy like that and so are so many other posters here who openly say this is such a good thing that New York is doing.

    New York has always been so far advanced in the ways of correct government. Just look at Tamany Hall! Wow, New Yorkers sure know how to co-operate. Exclusive franchises rock, NDAs are wonderful. How else can we maintain such excellence?

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Yes, I know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Your posting history, sig and this comment cement the following fact: you are a tool.

      With that in mind, please die.

  82. Arrr! Avast! Such riches await! by StefanJ · · Score: 4, Funny
    Yes, it's true.

    The bottom of the Hudson is littered with wrecks containing priceless cargo from the Golden Age of industrialism in upstate New York.

    Imagine the riches that await:

    • Fine buggy whips from the fabled Penobscott& Murchison Leather Goods mill (Cohoes, NY).
    • Enamelware basins, "the scullerymaid's friend," from Bleemer & Son's of Schenectady.
    • The finest Adirondack buckwheat.
    • Um, ice. From the pure waters of Blue Lake.
    • Top-quality telegraph line insulators from Port Jervis.
  83. for once, I actually agree.... by hayduke · · Score: 0

    Hey Now...

    As a resident of the Mid Hudson Valley, for once I actually agree with the policos. Leave the wrecks alone.

    --
    ------------------- a man with a good car needs no justification '93 90S 150K
  84. Joe Adventurer Yahoo by SethJohnson · · Score: 2


    ...a good way to get rid of a bunch of Joe Adventurer Yahoo types.

    In no way do I advocate the plundering of these historical treasures. At the same time, I can't help but think the cubicle-dweller who said this needs to shut the hell up about people who are out there trying to do stuff instead of keeping the blinds drawn and the flourescent lights over their desk turned off.

    Seriously, this is a lame use of stereotypes.
  85. Most disgusting thing I've seen by Sabalon · · Score: 2

    Senior year of college I was sitting on a dock on the Hudson when some freshmen came down, stripped down to their undies, jumped in, then got right out, got dressed and left.

  86. Look at the Vasa and Mary Rose. by hughk · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Undisturbed, wrecks can last a very long time. Look at the the Mary Rose or the Vasa. Both ships predate the declaration of independence in the US. There is also a Viking longship in Norway.

    Raising the ships was difficult. Preserving the ships after they were raised has been a major effort (costing a small fortune) and requiring many thousands of man hours. It is wonderful that the wrecks were raised, but I don't think either the UK or Sweden could have coped with more than one every ten years or so.

    Steel and iron ships are actually harder than wood to raise once they are over a certain page where the hull is substantially oxidised and what you end up with is almost impossible to treat (iron oxide crumbles).

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
    1. Re:Look at the Vasa and Mary Rose. by C_nemo · · Score: 1

      >There is also a Viking longship in Norway.
      actually there is two of them, the Oseberg ship (not to be confused with the Oseberg platform ;) ) and the Gokkstad ship. but they where found in graves, ie the viking chiefs got theire favourite long-ships buried with them, so they where not underwater, and as you can tell:
      there ara a lot more old wood buildings than sunken wooeden ships.

      ps. the Vasa survived so long beacuse: it was laying in mud too!

    2. Re:Look at the Vasa and Mary Rose. by hughk · · Score: 2

      After writing I did sort of remember that the ships were 'grave-goods' and I was referring to the Gokkstad ship but had forgotten about Oseberg. However, I seem to remember that at least one of these was found in a flooded area, hence being buried in mud rather than soil (which often tends to be organically more active). From what I remember, there was something about the mud having a low O2 content there too.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    3. Re:Look at the Vasa and Mary Rose. by mpe · · Score: 2

      Undisturbed, wrecks can last a very long time. Look at the the Mary Rose

      But only the part of the hull which was in the mud was preserved, the rest of the ship disappeared long ago.

  87. the title seems a little sensational. by geekoid · · Score: 2

    "Hudson River Shipwrecks Secretly Mapped"
    shouldn't that be:
    "Hudson River Shipwrecks map kept secret"?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  88. Re:PCBs by slackerboy · · Score: 1

    There's a lot of messages going around here about the PCBs in the Hudson River.

    First of all, the vast majority of the PCBs are located just above Troy, behind a dam/locks. The extent of this mapping was from Troy downriver to Manhattan. Therfore, the PCB contamination is not really relevant to any salvage operations.

    Having said that, the PCB cleanup issue is very complicated. The fundamental question came down to whether the dredging (which is only aimed at "hot spots") will resuspend more PCBs than a significant storm event. Over the long-term (~50 years), it's likely that there won't be a significant difference in PCB concentrations for a dredged vs. non-dredged situation.

    I suspect that while GE doesn't want to dredge because it costs them money, the EPA may want to force dredging to look like they're doing something and that little of the remediation action is actually based on concerns for long-term human/ecosystem welfare in the area.

    As an environmental engineer and former part-time resident of Troy, I find the whole thing a little depressing.
    -slackerboy

    --
    Things to do today: See list of things to do yesterday
  89. national parks are not safe by SethJohnson · · Score: 2


    This would ensure that the ships are preserved as long as our country.

    Or until someone finds oil underneath the national park.
  90. Re:O2 free Hudson (not!) by Sebastopol · · Score: 2

    Yeah, there were limits, anytime a bunch of fish or clams etc washed up on the beach dead we couldn't go swimming

    Ha! You just made my point for me! Thanks. Anti-enviromentalists see no limit. That's what environmentalists are for. They ask the question: "When does it stop?"

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  91. Re:I used to fly down the river.... + PCBs in Rive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, a Cessna 172 could bring down what remains of NYC! Look Out! My plane, which is no heavier than a Yugo, is COMING FOR YOU!!!!!

  92. Bodies in NYC waters by perfessor+multigeek · · Score: 3

    Okay, you out-of-towners are starting to get on my nerves.
    Let's get this out of the way once and for all.
    First of all, the only extensively documented case of this kind of thing was with the Irish gangs over in Hell's Kitchen. They had a guy on their crew who was trained (in prison, yet) as a butcher, so when they killed somebody, they would have this guy come in and chop up the body. Then they would take the parts to Ward's Island (where the East River meets the Harlem at the northern tip of Manhattan) and drop the body bits into the stream right by a water treatment plant. This would ensure that what littel was left got ripped up and washed way out to sea. Keep in mind that this would not work as well these days as now the population density of Roosevelt Island (in the middle of the East River at about Midtown) is much higher and people spend more time by the water.
    Yes, people are killed and dumped in the river. This is frequent enough that every spring the NYPD divers prepare for the annual "crop" of bodies that have swollen up over the winter and pop to the surface as the weather warms up.
    The primary variable is how well the large cavities like the lungs and intestines have been punctured. If you do the job "right" and make sure that those are open to the water (and the body weighted down), the gases will tend to bubble out and the body stay submerged. Of course, with DNA testing all bets are off as one floating bit of tissue can be enough; *if* spotted.
    Keep in mind that, contrary to popular misconception, there is quite a lot of sealife around NYC (I used to collect seashells half a block from 23rd street) so if a body is down long enough, it will be GONE.
    Why the East River and not the Hudson? The East has historically been closer to more nasty bits like the Lower East Side and the docks in Brooklyn and Queens. However, given the Mafia action along the old port facilities and institutional sites (Javits anybody?), each side has most likely seen its share of activity.
    There. Now can we get back to arguing about salvage?
    Rustin

    --
    Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
    1. Re:Bodies in NYC waters by perfessor+multigeek · · Score: 2

      BTW, a friend of mine (formerly in low places) called to remind me. Evidently bodies of this sort in general are referred to by the obvious term, "floaters" while the spring crop is referred to as "poppers".
      Ahh, little bitty factoids to brighten your day,
      Rustin

      --
      Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
  93. Oh, please. by perfessor+multigeek · · Score: 2

    Since when have we cared about Jersey? You people actually thought you could get Ellis Island back (after, btw, New York paid the bill for restoring it).

    Jersey. Yeah, right.

    Fourth generation New Yorker,
    -Rustin

    --
    Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
  94. Re:other sites? America has history? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geeeeze amazing.... and there was me thinking it was just us Europeans who had history!

    Now doubt next week Slashdot will featuring a story about all those great historical documentries that are produced in the US, let me see Perl Harbor, Enigma, Private Ryan.....

  95. no shoes. by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

    The shoes and socks are removed before the concrete is applied.

    This is done to ensure that the feet don't slip out after the "dive".

    You wouldn't want that after having gone through the trouble of obtaining the concrete.

    Hey, I'm a NY Italian. I know what I'm talking about. :-)

    --
    Huh?
  96. Screw National Park. by Chris_Stankowitz · · Score: 2

    How about Crime Scene? There should be enough bodies in there to get that inplace.

  97. Hollywood found a treasure... by tired-of-selecting-n · · Score: 0

    Cant wait to see another Titanic.

  98. FOIA??? by TastySiliconWafers · · Score: 1

    IANAL, but it seems to me that this information will only remain secret until somebody files a Freedom of Information Act request to get it. Unless they can come up with some National Security reason to make this data classified I don't see how they can prevent it's release if someone is willing to take them to court. My guess is that this is exactly what the salvage companies will do.

  99. Re:PCBs by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2
    I thought PCB's stick to the soil and take years to wash away. I remember reading in the New York Times that PCB levels have not really dropped that much as expected in the last 25 years since GE stopped poluting the river. The stuff just stays around for ages.

  100. Industrial Archeology by os2fan · · Score: 2

    Suppose prowling around ships that lie in traffic lanes is more dangerous and hazardous than prowling around abandoned railway stations.

    In any case, industrial archeology is an interesting study. Look, don't take.

    --
    OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
  101. Are these shipwrecks recovered? by roalt · · Score: 2
    In Sweden, they lifted an old ship-wreck from 1628, called the Wasa.

    I don't think the ships in the hudson river are that old (or there must be some viking ships?)

    See also (but first disable unrequested pop-up windows):

    http://members.tripod.com/caiman.cv/wreck.html

    1. Re:Are these shipwrecks recovered? by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the Wasa was a spectacular ship-of-the-line, with some of the most beautiful decorations and advanced engineering work of the time.


      And, because the King wanted it, a couple of extra gun decks, which caused it to tip over and sink.
      Sound familiar to any of you working in tech?


      I would imagine that a lot of the Hudson wrecks are garbage scows and lumber freighters and things like that.

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
  102. Hudson River by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live a block away from the hudson river where the east river meets the hudson and let me tell you - shipwreck or no shipwrecks YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE DIVING IN THIS RIVER! You are more likly to find Jimmy Hoffa and friends than a shipwreck! Let alone the radiation and other crap that seems to be floating there.

    1. Re:Hudson River by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Score a ZERO! Now I know that the assholes who run this site don't know dick about comedy. It has to be some geek and a friend in their basement that run this crap off an old PackardBell Computer - KMA to you all!

  103. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    I:
    The best way to make a silk purse from a sow's ear is to begin
    with a silk sow. The same is true of money.
    II:
    If today were half as good as tomorrow is supposed to be, it would
    probably be twice as good as yesterday was.
    III:
    There are no lazy veteran lion hunters.
    IV:
    If you can afford to advertise, you don't need to.
    V:
    One-tenth of the participants produce over one-third of the output.
    Increasing the number of participants merely reduces the average
    output.
    -- Norman Augustine

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...