http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071123/ts_nm/...kdZs5CuP.oE1vAI

I believe the vessel Michael has chartered is a bit more resiliant.

The tour company chartering that ship claims it hit a submerged chunk of ice, not an iceberg. I guess they don't understand basic concepts, such as ice is lighter than water :-) It looks like they're positioning themselves for the inevitible law suits.

Yeah, 'cause you know they went out and tried to hit that damn berg, or someone was asleep on the bridge, or something actionable....

Let's hope they are sailing under the flag of some jurisdiction with a saner legal system than that which oppresses us in the US.

Sometimes sh-- really does happen, and it's nobody's fault. Just like your momma told you.

If traveling by sea was totally safe then ships wouldn't have lifeboats.

Yeap the ship used for the antartica trips (Antarctic Expedition ) is more like a M-1 Tank

Michael uses ex Ice Breakers, I think... the ship that sank was hit by a high-tech submerged ship breaker - the opposite of what Michael uses. I blame the Penguin Liberation Front

Speaking of penguins, how are the Themes river penguins? ^_~

On the boat, maybe they hit a bloated whale carcas from the Japanese whale hunts. >_<

AND HERE IS ANOTHER ICEBERG INCIDENT

The big issue here is not the resilience of ships but rather the resilience of the environment. The Antarctic Tourism industry is fast approaching rush hour as more and more tour operators flock to the area, often bypassing safety and quality service.

Human safety afloat is one issue, but is there any regulation cocnerning the number of tourists who can actually go these areas? And although the landscape is naturally impressive, are al visitors going to get the same POV of these locations producing identical sets of postcards?