A few atoms might even be in you! Water is evaporated from the sea and falls as rain. We eat foods and drink water. Perhaps that's why we are Titanic fans.
More seriously, the iceberg may have been rather damaged in the collision. By the time bergs get so far south, they are getting quite fragile. I've seen video of a berg turning over and breaking up in the process. In another case, an attempt to tow a berg away from an oil platform had to be abandoned because the berg was too fragile. We know some of the berg landed on Titanic's deck and it's possible the berg partly broke up. That would hasten its melting.
Speaking of the iceberg, in case anyone hasn't seen a photo of the actual bane of Titanic, the photo is here.
It gives me chills. Especially the right part of the iceberg - you can tell that is where it collided with Titanic!
It's from this article.
Svetlana, I have about 7 - 8 photos of icebergs that supposedly did the deed. Some were taken on the morning of 15 April in the vicinity of the wreck.
None of them can be proved to be the real culprit. The one in the first link you sent is often known as the Rehorek berg. It's discussed in detail on this site. It has the advantage of being a suitable shape, but that's about all. The one from the paper is different berg. It was photographed from Birma on 15 April.
The whole question was confused by the fact that nobody in 1912 knew where Titanic sank, because the CQD position sent by Titanic was wrong. Some photographed bergs that we now know were far from the wreck.
They show two photographs of icebergs with pedigrees as the one that sank the Titanic, including the ships that sighted them, location, etc. The one with the tall peak is the one Walter Lord thought was THE berg! Robert H. Gibbons
Maybe I just need direction to the appropriate discussion site but, If icebergs were seen earlier in the day, as is suggested by some, what would be standard running procedures for a liner such as the Titanic through the remainder of the ice fields and especially at night?
>>what would be standard running procedures for a liner such as the Titanic through the remainder of the ice fields and especially at night?<<
I think that on some level, a very large part of the problem was that there was no standard which everybody abided by. The general approach was to hold course and speed as long as visibility held up. As long as they could see in time to avoid, there was no reason to do otherwise and there was that schedule they were obliged to keep to.
There were some notable exceptions to that. Canadian-Pacific forbade entering an icefield for any reason, which was why the Mount Temple stopped short of same. They were expected to go around it.
Well, anybody was able to see the iceberg melting away, but taking the average water temperature into account you can easily calculate and predict when the iceberg will melt away. I think that late April is a reasonable date, since the iceberg was floating further and further to the south. The increasing warm temperatures and the gulf stream would do their job quite quickly.
Actually I do not think the iceberg floated 'further to the south - the one that killed Titanic or any of the other ones in the vicinity.
Ice bergs either melt before reaching their southernmost limits or reach those limits and then are pushed eastward.
My personal belief is; the ice had reached as far south at is was going to and was sort of 'milling around' if you like. All the sighting evidence and movements of the ships in the area prior to the sinking point to this.