Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 7 Nov 2010 17:20:19 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Concrete with rebar produces galvanic corrosion which in turn produces collapse of load bearing concrete. That's 1930's-60's technology and is a problem that the various DOT's are facing regarding historic concrete bridges. How much acreage is involved that would need to be covered? Seems like a UNESCO problem that could be solved for at least another generation by an adequate covering over the entire open area, even if it is hundreds of acres. But the alternative is that dozens if not hundreds of buildings face eventual collapse.
Or do we get into one of these inane debates about the covers ruining the view and in the end we do nothing and periodically bemoan the loss. Hard times require hard choices.
Lyle Browning, RPA
On Nov 7, 2010, at 4:48 PM, geoff carver wrote:
> Yep. And if nothing else, if it was transparent, we could all learn from it,
> too. I heard a lecture about some of the problems with Pompeii at the EAA a
> few years back: use of reinforced concrete was a problem, since the steel
> rods eventually rust and the concrete crumbles, etc.
> On the one hand, it's a vicious cycle: the site brings tourists & money, but
> on the other hand they don't have the money to maintain what has already
> been exposed (and this problem has been commented upon since the days of
> William Hamilton).
> But if a site this famous, and this important for the history of archaeology
> (and/or historical archaeology) can't do it, what can the rest of us expect?
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> We are all facing this
> issue, and it continues to be a challenge.
|
|
|