How Fast Did Titanic Decay

Not open for further replies.
Jan 31, 2001

I am obsessed with the Titanic's wreck, but don't know a great deal about what condition it's in or anything. I was wondering: would decay have set in quicker on the Titanic, with it setting on the bottom of the North Atlantic, than a piece of iron lying on the bottom of a pond?

Also, how long did it take decay to begin to set in? Like I said, I don't know a great deal about the ocean or the wreck. I know I've saw normal pieces of metal setting in the water for only two days and rust has all ready become apparent. Would the wreck have decayed at this same rate? If so, it appears to me that it would be in even worse condition than it is after 89 years of that.

Any thoughts on this subject?

Looking forward to responses.

Jul 9, 2000
Easley South Carolina
Any decay in a shipwreck will depend on a number of environmental factors such as the temperature of the water, salinity, and levels of oxygen. The deeper, colder and less oxygen there well as destructive marine life, the longer the ship lasts.

The Titanic rests in over 12,000ft of water, in near freezing conditions, but the presence of iron eating bacteria is slowly causing the wreck to deteriorate. There is an artical in Titanic Research by Dr. Roy Cullimore and Lori Johnston on the subject which may be of interest to you. It's title is Biodeterioration of the RMS Titanic.

Check it out!

Michael H. Standart
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads