Talk:Double hull

message: This whole article doesn't read as much like a description of the double-hull ship (this is accomplished fairly quickly), but the longer part of the article just reads as a sale of single-hulled ships.  Particularly in light of previous vandalism on the Exxon Valdez oil spillhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/technology/19wikipedia.html, I added a tag to check the neutrality of the article. Tigerhawkvok (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In particular, wording such as "Possibly the most disturbing fact about the double hull is that it does not protect against major, high-energy collisions or groundings which is what causes the majority oil pollution, despite the fact this is why the double hull was put into United States Legislation" fails the "weasel word" test, IMO. Tigerhawkvok (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias?

message: It has been widely reported after the Valdez spill, and many other non-Exxon spills, that double hull tankers are now required world-wide. If that's the international law, there's nothing I can do about it. A criminal is defined as some entity or person who willfully violates a law, or the spirit of a law. That's not my definition of international treaty law. Arguing against a treaty is fine, but denying the treaty obligations already made is criminal.
The main reasons given at the beginning of the article for double hull ships are totally ignored when the section on oil tankers begins. This is illogical and impossible to reconcile. For example, it is stated that double hulling any ship provides another level of structural strength. Why would we not want tankers to have stronger hulls as well? The explosive gas problem of double hulls doesn't exist on anything but tankers, hunh??? Do you guys know that any ship carries more than enough fuel to leak into its double hull, and any other compartment below deck, regardless of whether it's a tanker or not. If explosions on double hull ships were a problem, they wouldn't do that to passenger ships which all have double hulls, now would they? If explosions are a problem, then provide better ventilation to those areas and more frequent inspections, gas monitors, etc.  The reason the industry doesn't want double hulls is because they're not willing to spend the money or maintain the hulls of their ships, and are, technically speaking, criminals. 
Imagine if the FAA starting ordering all the mechanics to stop inspecting the wings spars of all airliners since it's too expensive and difficult. Saving bucks is what they're trying to argue for. Double hull ships are considerably more expensive than single hull ships. Recently, a few river tankers broke up coming from the Ukraine headed for the black sea. I think it was 3 or four in one storm with considerable loss of life. Perhaps double hulling would not have helped those wretched sailers. Perhaps it would've. P5g4xn (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CONTRADITIONS IN ARTICLE 

message: Regarding this section, I don't think the word 'ironic' is used properly. --Bigdavesmith 00:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exxon Valdez 

message: I've got a few points of view on this.  First, it often takes someone threatening to delete something to get something done.  Bottom line is: Get those sources on, before the facts are gone for good.  Sourcing the material in question is hands down the best way to resolve this.  That said, perhaps the deleter could move the information to the talk page, rather than completely deleting.  This would give time to source, and would avoid loss of information, while still encouraging people to cite their sources. Wrad 06:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for stepping in.  You provide a good alternative; for the tagged passages that GWH hasn't provided sources for, I'll start a section on the talk page in case another editor can find them. Alvis 06:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: Is double hull used in merchant ships? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.94.110.108 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Dear All,
I would like to ask some question about benefit convert single hull vessel to double hull vessel.In term of technically I am also not recommended by the way if the job can make profit we can consider.Now I have problem to discus whether we need to convert to the latest MARPOL tanker or just buy a new one.
From My Technical Opinion :
- This converting job still have many job to be done.
- The previous hull plate to be change
- The capacity of that's vessel less
- Strengh of the vessel need to analise same like to design the new design or just get the sister ship
If any relevant description we can disscuss.Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.93.72.54 (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convert Single Hull to Double Hull 

message: The Da Vinci article says that he invented the double hull, yet this is not mentioned in this page. Is it false, or should we give an old man his due? 124.168.163.223 (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The first ship with a double bottom was Brunel's SS Great Eastern  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.91 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Da Vinci 

message: Extensive overlap of content,.  Tagged as unsourced since 2008; if nobody's bothered to find sources in 12 years, it's unlikely they ever will. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal