Lee, did you read my article? The flurry of news articles last month referencing Ballard and Noah's Flood were, I repeat, publicity for "an ABC News special in which Christiane Amanpour plays tourist in biblical places, incidentally interviewing Ballard about Noah’s flood". He was not reporting anything new, and the hype predictably focused on "scientific evidence for the Bible" rather than any of the genuine contributions Ballard's expeditions have made in terms of shipwrecks and mapping the sea floor. In the interview, Ballard gives the strong impression that the Black Sea Deluge hypothesis is still viable (whereas it's hardly even controversial any more) and spends much of his time talking about post-glacial rises in sea level.

And by the way, AFAIK, "Site 82" was the totality of the evidence for Neolithic (ie, antediluvian) habitation on the seabed. It was much hyped at the time of its discovery; to learn that it was later reclassified as a geological feature, you have to wade through later expedition reports, which I did.

Note that the interview you linked to with Katy Croff Bell does not mention Noah or his flood, post-glacial marine transgression, the Deluge Hypothesis, or sunken prehistoric habitations - just shipwrecks and mapping changes linked to tectonic activity. But how many of the myriad news reports focused on those, as opposed to Noah's Flood?

I'm not disputing that Ballard's expeditions are valuable and exciting. But I am saying that Ballard's ill-advised remarks last month gave rise to a stupid and predictable flap of pseudonews and even pseudoarchaeology. He should have known better.