Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "The $64M Race to Save the Eiffel Tower" video.

Yes, you have to get and keep the moisture out of the iron or it will continue to rust over time the way that cast iron pans will do if you don't maintain the seasoning. Once the rust and moisture is out, then you can hopefully seal it with something that can keep the moisture from getting to it again. At that point, it mostly comes down to whatever damage is being done by vibration and just natural processes over time.
3
@bobbray9666 Easy fix, America can offer to do the work for them.
1
@SanchoPanza-wg5xf Far more people have seen the Eiffel Tower than the Mona Lisa. It's a part of far more people's life experience.
1
Arguably the Golden Gate is even harder to maintain as it's located over salt water and the Eiffel Tower is neither over water nor adjacent to salt water.
1
@Darkk6969 In all fairness, new Coke was more or less knock off Pepsi.
1
@XMysticHerox They shouldn't be, only the GGB is steel, the Eiffel Tower is iron.
1
@JeffY-y3z Also keep in mind that the GGB is built over salt water, which makes comparisons even trickier.
1
@johnkeck I don't know, but that wouldn't surprise me. Building things is often times cheaper than restoring them as you can arrange what you're doing to reduce excess cost. But, if you're got something in place, you have to prioritize not having the stuff that's already there falling down. When I was a kid, the local college football stadium collapsed during renovation because too many supports were removed by somebody that had no idea what they were doing.
1
@felixvaladez6103 Naming one most recognizable building is never going to be agreed upon. Even back in antiquity, we had the 7 wonders of the world, not the 1 wonder of the world for a few reasons. One of which being that the Hanging Gardens of Babylon versus the Colossus of Rhodes would be a really hard contest to have. Similarly, the Egyptian Pyramids versus the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus is also a really hard call.
1
@andmos1001 Yes, there's a difference between something slowly aging over time, versus something that was damaged in a way that could have resulted in a complete loss over the course of a few hours.
1
@danielduncan6806 It probably wouldn't be an issue as they have already been replacing pieces of it for quite some time. Whichever bits of the tower are there when you were young, is probably going to be "The Eiffel Tower" for a particular person, even if 90% of the rest of it has been changed since then and that process can continue indefinitely. Presumably, parts that are taken off from each period could be preserved.
1
@chestnu1 I don't see why not. That's how London Bridge came to be located in Arizona.
1
@BrokenLifeCycle Yes, although the bigger issue are depreciation, maintenance and advancing technology. They could engineer a bridge that will last a thousand years if they wanted to, it just doesn't usually make much sense given the cost of construction and maintenance would be far greater than building a new one a few decades into the future. That new bridge would likely have better designs and better materials and could be built to take the needs of the people into consideration. One of the bridges near me was built long enough ago out of mostly iron, and it was closed to traffic well before I was born due to safety concerns related to modern vehicles. It remains safe for people to walk and bike on, but it wouldn't handle modern vehicles.
1