18.7.14

And we sink, and we drown.

The problem with PBS' broadcasts are that they have absolutely no budget to access anything really, really cool, so they will take the most mundane of subjects, and try to make it far more interesting that in really is.

Take the Nova series, which features such awesome sounding films as:

NOVA: Why do ships sink?

As the opening credits rolled, I said to myself "Gee, I sure hope the hour long answer to this question isn't 'water'".

So, I watched this whole thing about why the Titanic sank, and why the Concordia sank, and while all these other, lesser ships sank in the early 90s.

Now, I may not be your average PBS viewer, but I thought it was pretty clear within the first three seconds that:

1. The Titanic sank because no one was paying attention and they hit an iceberg.

2. The Concordia sank because the captain was an idiot and seems to have just been curious as to what a sinking ship looks like from the safety of a lifeboat. If you remember that huge train crash that happened a few years ago because the conductor (literally) just wanted to see how fast it would go, then it starts to become clear that Italians should not be in charge of mass transport systems. note, I may be thinking of Spain, but am too lazy to check.

3. The other two ships sunk because they hit really big waves and were poorly designed, and the crew abandoned them instantly without trying to stop leaks or warn the passengers.

Based on these three points, I concluded that most ships sink because of captain error, and that some cruise ships sink because of inherent and easily corrected design flaws. I also concluded that should I ever find myself on one (I'm a sail kinda guy anyway), and should anything seem even remotely wrong, I should get into the closest lifeboat even if people tell me I'm crazy.

But no, that's not at all the documentary was trying to say. Obviously, highly paid captains are simply expected to be inept, so I was treated to a whole hour of low budget tests.

First, we had to see if the steel was at fault. Was it any better than that of the Titanic? After all, it's 2014, we should be able to build ships that can just plow through insignificant things like coral reefs, right?

Well, it turns out that yes, steel is better nowadays, but no, you can't build something that will still float which can withstand plowing it's million-ton bulk into a giant rock at 20 miles an hour. Guess that settles the oh so relevant debate.

Then, we got to hear about how the Titanic sunk because it had a poor bulkhead design. How did new ships stand up to that? Well, after a century of R&D, bulkheads now extend to the top of the ship, so yeah, that particular problem is solved. But unfortunately, water can still pass into the pipes and sink the ship by coming up through the toilets.

And it went on and on.

Finally, in the end, they talked about the two ships that sank because of obvious crew neglect and some really big waves.

"Finally, we'll find out that it's usually crew error that causes these ships to sink!" I thought, "There will be at least some consistent point to all this."

Unfortunately, no, I was wrong. The grand point was indeed that ships sink because they fill with fucking water, and that will always be the way it is.

Anyway, now I'm watching some mining documentary, which is already hilariously fucking horrible. It is kind of fun to hear an Indian dude say the exact words "In the beginning, Canada was private property. All of the western land was owned by the Hudson Bay Company of England".

Thanks, PBS. I'm glad you're free.

I think I will watch that Rock of Ages movie that Lisa was watching the other day. It's pretty terrible too (a musical where they were too lazy to even try to write a couple of shitty songs?), but that's simply because I find the concept kind of dumb. It does make decent background for other things, though.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Don't be an asshole and post anonymously.