Letter : Shipyard never said 'unsinkable'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: In regard to Geoffrey Hodgson's article on the Titanic ("Graves, the new destination", 31 August), it is worth noting that the claim that the Titanic was unsinkable came not from Harland and Wolff in Belfast (the designer and builder) or the White Star Line (the owner), but from the press of the day. The ship was described as "practically unsinkable" in a newspaper article.
It was, however, well known in Harland that if a certain number of the bulkheads were breached, the ship would go down.
The lack of lifeboats was due to standard safety practice of the time, not because anyone thought the ship could not sink. The number of lifeboats reflected the number of first- and second-class passengers the ship could carry. Most who went down with the Titanic were steerage.
JOHN KELLY
Gortnacally,
Co Fermanagh
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments