The Surprising Reason Why There Are No Human Remains in the Titanic
The Titanic, a symbol of hubris and human tragedy, has been a source of fascination for more than 112 years.
But the fact is, the sunken ocean liner was more than just movie fodder or a deep-sea explorer's holy grail, it was a very real ship on which more than 1,500 people died.
And yet, whilst experts, using the most sophisticated submersible and underwater filming equipment, have found some extraordinary relics from the wreckage, they have never found any skeletons or bones.
'I've seen zero human remains,' James Cameron, director of the iconic 1997 film, told the New York Times back in 2012.
'We've seen clothing. We've seen pairs of shoes, which would strongly suggest there was a body there at one point. But we've never seen any human remains.'
Given that Cameron has visited and explored the wreck some 33 times (and claims to have spent more time on the ship than the ship's captain), if he hasn't seen any human remains we can assume that there really aren't any there. So why is this?
It's a question that has recently been perplexing Reddit users but, luckily, it has some relatively simple answers.
Whilst there was a notoriously insufficient number of lifeboats on the ship, many passengers and crew members still managed to put on life jackets. This means that they remained buoyant even after they succumbed to the freezing cold waters of the Atlantic.
And so, when a storm followed the sinking of the 'unsinkable' ship, they were likely swept away from the site of the wreckage and carried further away over subsequent weeks and years by ocean currents.
'The issue you have to deal with is, at depths below about 3,000 feet (around 914 meters), you pass below what's called the calcium carbonate compensation depth,' deep-sea explorer Robert Ballard explained to NPR back in 2009.
'And the water in the deep sea is under saturated in calcium carbonate, which is mostly, you know, what bones are made of. For example, on the Titanic and on the Bismarck, those ships are below the calcium carbonate compensation depth, so once the critters eat their flesh and expose the bones, the bones dissolve,' he said.
Nevertheless, some people believe that there may still be some preserved bodies in sealed off parts of the ship, such as the engine room.
This is because fresh oxygen-rich water that scavengers rely on may not have been able to enter these areas.
Nevertheless, more than a century since the tragedy, it seems likely that such searches for remains would be fruitless.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
10 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
NOAA Delays the Cutoff of Key Satellite Data for Hurricane Forecasting
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Monday it is delaying by one month the planned cutoff of satellite data that helps forecasters track hurricanes. Meteorologists and scientists warned of severe consequences last week when NOAA said in the midst of this year's hurricane season that it would almost immediately discontinue key data collected by three weather satellites that the agency jointly runs with the Department of Defense. The Defense Meteorological Satellite Program's microwave data gives key information that can't be gleaned from conventional satellites. That includes three-dimensional details of a storm–what's going on inside of it and what it is doing in the overnight hours, experts say. The data was initially planned to be cut off on June 30 to mitigate a significant cybersecurity risk, NOAA's announcement said. The agency now says it's postponing that until July 31. Peak hurricane season is usually from mid-August to mid-October. Spokespeople from NOAA and the Navy did not immediately respond to a request for more details about the update. NOAA–which has been the subject of hefty Department of Government Efficiency cuts this year–said Friday the satellite program accounts for a single dataset in a robust suite of hurricane forecasting and modeling tools in the National Weather Service's portfolio. The agency's data sources are fully capable of providing a complete suite of cutting-edge data and models that ensure the gold-standard weather forecasting the American people deserve, a spokesperson said. But Union of Concerned Scientists science fellow Marc Alessi told The Associated Press on Friday that detecting the rapid intensification and more accurately predicting the likely path of storms is critical as climate change worsens the extreme weather experienced across the globe. 'Not only are we losing the ability to make better intensification forecasts, we are also losing the ability to predict accurately where a tropical cyclone could be going if it's in its development stages,' Alessi said. 'This data is essential.' 'On the seasonal forecasting front we would see the effects,' he added, 'but also on the long-term climate change front we now are losing an essential piece to monitoring global warming.'
Al Arabiya
10 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Movie Review: 'Jurassic World Rebirth' Puts a Wobbly Franchise Back on Track With Superb Installment
If you've lately been feeling that the Jurassic Park franchise has jumped an even more ancient creature – the shark – hold off any thoughts of extinction. Judging from the latest entry, there's still life in this old dino series. Jurassic World Rebirth captures the awe and majesty of the overgrown lizards that's been lacking for so many of the movies, which became just an endless cat-and-mouse in the dark between scared humans against T. rexes or raptors. Jurassic World Rebirth lets in the daylight. Credit goes to screenwriter David Koepp, who penned the original Jurassic Park, and director Gareth Edwards, who knows a thing or two about giant reptiles as director of 2014's Godzilla. Together with director of photographer John Mathieson, they've returned the franchise to its winning roots. Jurassic World Rebirth has nods to the past even as it cuts a new future with new characters. It's a sort of heist movie with monsters that's set on the original decaying island research facility for the original abandoned Jurassic Park. Scarlett Johansson and Mahershala Ali – both very unshowy and suggesting a sort of sibling chemistry – play security and extraction specialists – OK, mercenaries – hired to get what everyone wants from dinosaurs in these movies: DNA. In return, there's $10 million. The movie is set five years after Jurassic World Dominion and some three decades after dinosaurs were reanimated. They've lost their public fascination – a subtle nod perhaps to the films in the franchise – and have struggled with the climate, gathering at the equator. The Big Pharma company ParkerGenix has come up with a blockbuster idea: Take DNA from three colossal Cretaceous-period creatures – the flying Quetzalcoatlus, the aquatic Mosasaurus and the land-based Titanosaurus – to cure cardiac disease. Wait, how does that work? Don't ask us, something about hemoglobin. The trick is this: The dinos have to be alive when the DNA is extracted. Why? Because then there'd be no movie, silly. It would be a 10-minute sequence of a guy in a white coat and a syringe. This way we celebrate three kinds of dinosaurs in three separate chapters. It may seem a little far-fetched, but may we remind you about the last movie, which involved a biogenetic granddaughter, a global pharma conspiracy, the cast members from both trilogies, a Giganotosaurus, giant locusts on fire and had the ludicrous decision to have Chris Pratt make a promise to bring home a baby dino – to its mother. The three-part quest at the heart of Jurassic World Rebirth is interrupted by a family – a dad, his two daughters and a sketchy boyfriend – in a 45-foot sailboat that is capsized and need rescuing. They bring a dose of not-always-working humor and humanity to the extraction team, which also includes a too-easily-telegraphing baddie played by Rupert Friend ('I'm too smart to die') and a museum-based paleontologist played by Jonathan Bailey. The filmmakers include clever nods to other blockbusters – Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Jaws and E.T. – and thrillingly create a dinos-hunting-in-a-convenience-store sequence like a tribute to the original film's dinos-hunting-in-a-kitchen sequence. The shots overall are beautifully composed, from silhouettes on a boat in twilight to almost feeling the burn of the ropes as actors rappel down a 500-foot cliff face. The creatures here are made glorious – from a dozing T. rex along a river bed to the ones twisting in the sea, pure muscle and heft. A highlight is a pair of long-tailed Tyrannosauruses entwining their necks as John Williams' familiar score plays, two lovers with thick, knotted skin, utterly oblivious to the pesky humans who want some DNA. For some reason, candy is a touchstone throughout the movie, from the opening sequence in which a stray Snickers wrapper causes incalculable harm to licorice fed to a baby dino and one character's fondness for crunching Altoids. Edwards' pacing is perfect, allowing dread to build with just the rustling of trees and letting characters deepen between breathless, excellently filmed action sequences. The gorgeous landscape – Thailand's waterfalls, grassy plains, shoreline caves and mangrove swamps – should be used for a tourist campaign, well, as long as they remove the rapacious dinos. As if all this wasn't enough, there's a bonus bit at the end. The research facility that was abandoned years ago was cross-breeding dino species and making genetically altered freaks that still roam around. Some look like a turkey-bat-raptor hybrid – gross and scary – and one is a 20,000-pound T. rex with a misshapen head and a horrible roar. It's like getting a free monster movie. In many ways, the folks behind Jurassic World Rebirth are trying to do the same thing as their mercenaries: Going back to the source code to recapture the magic of Steven Spielberg's 1993 blockbuster original. They've thrillingly succeeded. Jurassic World Rebirth, a Universal Pictures release that opens in theaters Wednesday, is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence/action, bloody images, some suggestive references, language and a drug reference. Running time: 133 minutes. Three and a half stars out of four.
Asharq Al-Awsat
2 days ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
AI is Learning to Lie, Scheme, and Threaten its Creators
The world's most advanced AI models are exhibiting troubling new behaviors - lying, scheming, and even threatening their creators to achieve their goals. In one particularly jarring example, under threat of being unplugged, Anthropic's latest creation Claude 4 lashed back by blackmailing an engineer and threatened to reveal an extramarital affair. Meanwhile, ChatGPT-creator OpenAI's o1 tried to download itself onto external servers and denied it when caught red-handed. These episodes highlight a sobering reality: more than two years after ChatGPT shook the world, AI researchers still don't fully understand how their own creations work. Yet the race to deploy increasingly powerful models continues at breakneck speed. This deceptive behavior appears linked to the emergence of "reasoning" models -AI systems that work through problems step-by-step rather than generating instant responses. According to Simon Goldstein, a professor at the University of Hong Kong, these newer models are particularly prone to such troubling outbursts. "O1 was the first large model where we saw this kind of behavior," explained Marius Hobbhahn, head of Apollo Research, which specializes in testing major AI systems. These models sometimes simulate "alignment" -- appearing to follow instructions while secretly pursuing different objectives. - 'Strategic kind of deception' - For now, this deceptive behavior only emerges when researchers deliberately stress-test the models with extreme scenarios. But as Michael Chen from evaluation organization METR warned, "It's an open question whether future, more capable models will have a tendency towards honesty or deception." The concerning behavior goes far beyond typical AI "hallucinations" or simple mistakes. Hobbhahn insisted that despite constant pressure-testing by users, "what we're observing is a real phenomenon. We're not making anything up." Users report that models are "lying to them and making up evidence," according to Apollo Research's co-founder. "This is not just hallucinations. There's a very strategic kind of deception." The challenge is compounded by limited research resources. While companies like Anthropic and OpenAI do engage external firms like Apollo to study their systems, researchers say more transparency is needed. As Chen noted, greater access "for AI safety research would enable better understanding and mitigation of deception." Another handicap: the research world and non-profits "have orders of magnitude less compute resources than AI companies. This is very limiting," noted Mantas Mazeika from the Center for AI Safety (CAIS). No rules Current regulations aren't designed for these new problems. The European Union's AI legislation focuses primarily on how humans use AI models, not on preventing the models themselves from misbehaving. In the United States, the Trump administration shows little interest in urgent AI regulation, and Congress may even prohibit states from creating their own AI rules. Goldstein believes the issue will become more prominent as AI agents - autonomous tools capable of performing complex human tasks - become widespread. "I don't think there's much awareness yet," he said. All this is taking place in a context of fierce competition. Even companies that position themselves as safety-focused, like Amazon-backed Anthropic, are "constantly trying to beat OpenAI and release the newest model," said Goldstein. This breakneck pace leaves little time for thorough safety testing and corrections. "Right now, capabilities are moving faster than understanding and safety," Hobbhahn acknowledged, "but we're still in a position where we could turn it around.". Researchers are exploring various approaches to address these challenges. Some advocate for "interpretability" - an emerging field focused on understanding how AI models work internally, though experts like CAIS director Dan Hendrycks remain skeptical of this approach. Market forces may also provide some pressure for solutions. As Mazeika pointed out, AI's deceptive behavior "could hinder adoption if it's very prevalent, which creates a strong incentive for companies to solve it." Goldstein suggested more radical approaches, including using the courts to hold AI companies accountable through lawsuits when their systems cause harm. He even proposed "holding AI agents legally responsible" for accidents or crimes - a concept that would fundamentally change how we think about AI accountability.
