On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:55:23 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Richard Casady" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:23:47 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

It doesn't require a mighty leap of logic for one to
then assume that you are opposed to the idea of requiring containers to
sink. Ipso facto, you are in favor of them remaining afloat, where they
can
do harm. If you have a better solution to the problem, post it.

I would like topoint out that the boxes are not watertight. If the
stuff in the container is dense, it will sink. If it is filled with a
lot of foam packing, It won't sink.

Casady

Yes, this has been pointed out. Which is why I proposed requiring ballast
(or otherwise adjusting the buoyancy) so the container would sink if the
cargo would otherwise prohibit sinking.


I posted some figures(I thought to this thread) a while ago and
according to the insurance companies, that insure containers, the loss
per year is from 2 - 10,000 containers per year. The port of
Singapore, for example, handled some 23.2 million containers in 2005.

If you apply loss of containers ONLY to Singapore shipping then some
0.043 % of the containers passing through Singapore are lost.

The next question would be to determine how many boats are sunk by
collisions with containers each year and off set this figure by how
many vessels are sunk by collisions with other kind of floating
debris.

My suspicion is that the sinking of boats by hitting containers is
infinitesimal.


Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)