Boom!

[Grizalltheway]

In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?

Montana really needs to get you all on a reading level of 5th grade or higher.

I'd rather read binary code than one of St Onge's long-winded dissertations.

[Ibanez]

Montana really needs to get you all on a reading level of 5th grade or higher.

I'd rather read binary code than one of St Onge's long-winded dissertations.

I read the first sentence of each paragraph in his posts.

[BlueHen86]

In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?
In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?

No.

[grizzaholic]

In this thread has anyone ever thought of quoting a post less than 40 sentences long?

Montana really needs to get you all on a reading level of 5th grade or higher.

[grizzaholic]

BH86...do I need to peruse your posts and HI54UNI you?

Spoiler: show

[kalm]

That depends on what the actual risk is. I'm talking about putting a number on it. Once something happens the tendency is to say "that was a big risk" because it was realized. It's kind of like assuming there is a big "risk" of winning the lottery because somebody wins the lottery.

I don't know what an honest assessment of the probability of that explosion happening would have come up with before the explosion happened. But it's very possible the people in that neighborhood would've been seen as being far more at risk of being injured or dying from many other things that they accepted as part of their everyday lives.

And I don't know if anybody in the nearby neighborhood was killed. A quick Google search didn't answer the question for me. Just see that 11 of the 14 killed were firefighters. Chances are reasonable that, all other things being equal, those 11 would've been killed whether there was a neighborhood nearby or not.

I don't think we as a culture think rationally about risk. It's never zero and sometimes we act as though we think that's what it should be. We also gladly accept levels of risks associated with some things while trying to stamp out much smaller levels of risk associated with other things. The rational approach would be to always try to put an estimate of risk level on a situation or activity being considered in order to put it into objective context. The decision should be based on that risk level; not on how big a splash realization of the risk would make on the news. And there should always be some level at which we say, "You know what? We're not going to try to make it smaller. It's just not worth imposing the regulation it would take on people trying to go about their lives to do so."

We need to get rid of that "If it only saves even ONE life it's worth it" crap.

The actual risk is that if there is a fire the plant might blow up and kill anyone who is nearby. In this case that was the first responders.

Texas is a big state, there has to be a better place to store highly explosive materials. I know that they are proud of their lack of regulation and zoning, but this situation was caused by recklessness and stupidity, no matter how you try and excuse it.

And Boom!!!...in rides the 86 calvary to shore up Kalm's flank!

In your face UNI88! Put that logic in your pipe and smoke it!

(I actually never took logic, but I do like common sense! )

But I digress. In response to Gannon, most of what he said was correct. That doesn't change my original charge or the cartoon's notion that a strong deregulatory/government-is-bad meme persists...and it has consequences. For instance, a garment factory collapsed in Bangladesh last week killing a 100 or so and injuring a 1000. I wonder how their regulatory codes, enforcement, and zoning stack up? I wonder about the risk assessment value of cheaply produced garment dyed skinny jeans from United Colors of Bennetton.

[BlueHen86]

The actual risk is that if there is a fire the plant might blow up and kill anyone who is nearby. In this case that was the first responders.

Texas is a big state, there has to be a better place to store highly explosive materials. I know that they are proud of their lack of regulation and zoning, but this situation was caused by recklessness and stupidity, no matter how you try and excuse it.

And Boom!!!...in rides the 86 calvary to shore up Kalm's flank!

In your face UNI88! Put that logic in your pipe and smoke it!

(I actually never took logic, but I do like common sense! )

But I digress. In response to Gannon, most of what he said was correct. That doesn't change my original charge or the cartoon's notion that a strong deregulatory/government-is-bad meme persists...and it has consequences. For instance, a garment factory collapsed in Bangladesh last week killing a 100 or so and injuring a 1000. I wonder how their regulatory codes, enforcement, and zoning stack up? I wonder about the risk assessment value of cheaply produced garment dyed skinny jeans from United Colors of Bennetton.

I agree, much of what GF says makes sense. That said, unless it is determined that some incredible act of God caused the explosion (highly doubtful), my guess is that it will be determined that the explosion was caused by a series of human failures. Failures that should have been avoided with little effort.

[YoUDeeMan]

kalm, 86 didn't ride in with anything but a finger pointing at the wind.

We don't know where the failure is...but people want to cast blame on someone for everything.

San Diego has one of the largest homeless populations in this country...and many of the homeless don't make it much past 50. Where are California's regulations against homeless people? It might not be as spectacular as an explosion, so people won't complain about their deaths...but damn it, someone should put up a cartoon that has homeless people dying in front of California's clueless political leaders.

[YoUDeeMan]

Montana really needs to get you all on a reading level of 5th grade or higher.

I'd rather read binary code than one of St Onge's long-winded dissertations.

Understandable...logic and facts are not your strong point.

[BlueHen86]

kalm, 86 didn't ride in with anything but a finger pointing at the wind.

We don't know where the failure is...but people want to cast blame on someone for everything.

San Diego has one of the largest homeless populations in this country...and many of the homeless don't make it much past 50. Where are California's regulations against homeless people? It might not be as spectacular as an explosion, so people won't complain about their deaths...but damn it, someone should put up a cartoon that has homeless people dying in front of California's clueless political leaders.

Here we go again. Lets link two completely unrelated things and then argue that since we can't fix one there is no use addressing the other.

You're right, lets not place any blame here. Let's not even look for the problem. People in Texas blow up because someone stored explosive material next to their homes. No big deal, there are homeless people in San Diego.

[BlueHen86]

I'd rather read binary code than one of St Onge's long-winded dissertations.

Understandable...logic and facts are not your strong point.

Says the guy who can't differentiate between homeless people in Southern California and explosion victims in Texas.

[UNI88]

The actual risk is that if there is a fire the plant might blow up and kill anyone who is nearby. In this case that was the first responders.

Texas is a big state, there has to be a better place to store highly explosive materials. I know that they are proud of their lack of regulation and zoning, but this situation was caused by recklessness and stupidity, no matter how you try and excuse it.

And Boom!!!...in rides the 86 calvary to shore up Kalm's flank!

In your face UNI88! Put that logic in your pipe and smoke it!

(I actually never took logic, but I do like common sense! )

But I digress. In response to Gannon, most of what he said was correct. That doesn't change my original charge or the cartoon's notion that a strong deregulatory/government-is-bad meme persists...and it has consequences. For instance, a garment factory collapsed in Bangladesh last week killing a 100 or so and injuring a 1000. I wonder how their regulatory codes, enforcement, and zoning stack up? I wonder about the risk assessment value of cheaply produced garment dyed skinny jeans from United Colors of Bennetton.

First Cluck is right, it's way too early to say this was a regulatory failure. Second, as long as we're making assumptions about what happened, when it happened. who is to blame, etc. What if the plant did provide the fire department with the information and they didn't read it, didn't remember it? Why does this have to be the plant owner's fault? And so we shouldn't allow plants storing dangerous chemicals like this near populated areas? What if the plant was there first? Who is responsible? The plant owner or the people who built houses nearby? If we say the plant owner, who should be responsible for the cost of moving the plant?

The U.S. has a pretty good regulatory system. It isn't perfect but adding more regulations in order to protect people from every possible catastrophe is going to have a huge impact on economic development and job growth. It might be cold but there is a cost/benefit calculation involved. Life isn't always safe and sometimes people get hurt or killed. We should mourn their loss and honor their accomplishments. We shouldn't start pointing fingers until we have enough factual evidence to back it up otherwise we're just a lynch mob.

[Grizalltheway]

Understandable...logic and facts are not your strong point.

Says the guy who can't differentiate between homeless people in Southern California and explosion victims in Texas.

He's enrolled in Analogies 100 with Professor Z.

[HI54UNI]

If the fire department had any professionalism at all they knew what was in the plant. They probably also had walk throughs at the plant. In a town that size I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of them worked at the plant. The problem could be something as simple as adrenaline kicking in and they are going to go in there, fight the fire, and try and save people that might be their family or friends.

Why did firemen go into the twin towers to try and save people when they knew the situation was very grim?

[BlueHen86]

And Boom!!!...in rides the 86 calvary to shore up Kalm's flank!

In your face UNI88! Put that logic in your pipe and smoke it!

(I actually never took logic, but I do like common sense! )

But I digress. In response to Gannon, most of what he said was correct. That doesn't change my original charge or the cartoon's notion that a strong deregulatory/government-is-bad meme persists...and it has consequences. For instance, a garment factory collapsed in Bangladesh last week killing a 100 or so and injuring a 1000. I wonder how their regulatory codes, enforcement, and zoning stack up? I wonder about the risk assessment value of cheaply produced garment dyed skinny jeans from United Colors of Bennetton.

First Cluck is right, it's way too early to say this was a regulatory failure. Second, as long as we're making assumptions about what happened, when it happened. who is to blame, etc. What if the plant did provide the fire department with the information and they didn't read it, didn't remember it? Why does this have to be the plant owner's fault? And so we shouldn't allow plants storing dangerous chemicals like this near populated areas? What if the plant was there first? Who is responsible? The plant owner or the people who built houses nearby? If we say the plant owner, who should be responsible for the cost of moving the plant?

The U.S. has a pretty good regulatory system. It isn't perfect but adding more regulations in order to protect people from every possible catastrophe is going to have a huge impact on economic development and job growth. It might be cold but there is a cost/benefit calculation involved. Life isn't always safe and sometimes people get hurt or killed. We should mourn their loss and honor their accomplishments. We shouldn't start pointing fingers until we have enough factual evidence to back it up otherwise we're just a lynch mob.

Correct. If the plant was there first then don't build a school and a nursing home next door. If the town was there first then don't store explosive chemicals there. If, for some reason, the two do have to coexist then make sure everyone there knows exactly what the risks are.

[JohnStOnge]

The actual risk is that if there is a fire the plant might blow up and kill anyone who is nearby.

I think you know that I was referring to the level of risk; the probability beforehand that the conditions necessary for having an event happen all occur and the risk is realized. The fact that a risk is realized does not mean that we should impose regulation to keep it from happening again. If the level of risk was very low beforehand and is still very low afterwards it could be that we should leave the situation alone.

I don't know if that was'/is the situation with that explosion or not. I'm just saying that as a general matter the fact that something bad happens is not prima facie evidence that additional regulation is needed.

[GannonFan]

Like anything else, it's a cost-benefit analysis. What would be useful is to first find out what happened at this plant and how this tragedy actually ocurred. Talking about increasing regulations or inspections is a bit premature until we find out what happened and why. Heck, maybe the place needed a better sprinkler system (or needed one, not sure if they had one). Maybe that's the regulation that comes out of this. But we should probably take the first step and determine why this happened before we jump to the next step of preventing this from happening again.

There is no cost in telling the local fire department what is there and what the chemical properties are. Material Data Safety Sheets for many chemicals are readily available on the internet, and any decent test lab can get them for ones that aren't.

If the local fire department knew that the materials stored there were highly explosive when exposed to flame, and still rushed to the scene, then much of the tragedy falls on them.

If they didn't know, then it falls squarely on the owners of the fertilizer plant. Either way, this should not have come down to cost/benefit.

The cost benefit comment was in regards to the idea of increasing inspections as a way to prevent this from happening. I don't know what the local fire department knew or not, neither do you. Yes, they should have known that ammonium nitrate was stored there and they should've known that it is highly flammable and explosive. Of course, the storage facility should also have had NIOSH signs on all their perimeter doors showing that material inside was flammable (not sure if they did or not). And the facility had clearly filed numerous forms detailing to state and federal officials what they had on site so it wasn't really a secret that ammonium nitrate was there. So until we know some of those details, my point still remains that it's hard to drum up more regulations or more actions (i.e. more frequent inspections) to prevent this type of tragedy from happening again.

[GannonFan]

But I digress. In response to Gannon, most of what he said was correct.

Wait, most? What did I say that was wrong?

[YoUDeeMan]

Here we go again. Lets link two completely unrelated things and then argue that since we can't fix one there is no use addressing the other.

You're right, lets not place any blame here. Let's not even look for the problem. People in Texas blow up because someone stored explosive material next to their homes. No big deal, there are homeless people in San Diego.

The actual risk is that if there is a fire the plant might blow up and kill anyone who is nearby. In this case that was the first responders.

Texas is a big state, there has to be a better place to store highly explosive materials. I know that they are proud of their lack of regulation and zoning, but this situation was caused by recklessness and stupidity, no matter how you try and excuse it.

Here we go yet again...wanting everyone else to stay on point and work with facts, but not holding oneself to the same standard.

You have no idea if regulations or zoning had anything to do with the explosion or the resulting casualties, yet you are on the warpath to remove chemicals/change zoning/blame Texas and whatever else you want to throw in to make a point.

Sure the explosion needs to be investigated. Imagine that. And if something was done incorrectly, there will be hell to pay. But having a hissy fit and, without facts, placing the blame on Texas, its Governor, and poor regulations at this point is ridiculous...and the work of a partisan playa'.

[kalm]

Here we go again. Lets link two completely unrelated things and then argue that since we can't fix one there is no use addressing the other.

You're right, lets not place any blame here. Let's not even look for the problem. People in Texas blow up because someone stored explosive material next to their homes. No big deal, there are homeless people in San Diego.

The actual risk is that if there is a fire the plant might blow up and kill anyone who is nearby. In this case that was the first responders.

Texas is a big state, there has to be a better place to store highly explosive materials. I know that they are proud of their lack of regulation and zoning, but this situation was caused by recklessness and stupidity, no matter how you try and excuse it.

Here we go yet again...wanting everyone else to stay on point and work with facts, but not holding oneself to the same standard.

You have no idea if regulations or zoning had anything to do with the explosion or the resulting casualties, yet you are on the warpath to remove chemicals/change zoning/blame Texas and whatever else you want to throw in to make a point.

Sure the explosion needs to be investigated. Imagine that. And if something was done incorrectly, there will be hell to pay. But having a hissy fit and, without facts, placing the blame on Texas, its Governor, and poor regulations at this point is ridiculous...and the work of a partisan playa'.

Of course it's a political point. Take a deep breath now Cluckster...less regulation increases risks. No one is arguing to increase regs yet, but this is a possible example of what can happen. I'll say it again, decreased regulations also have consequences .

[GannonFan]

Of course it's a political point. Take a deep breath now Cluckster...less regulation increases risks. No one is arguing to increase regs yet, but this is a possible example of what can happen. I'll say it again, decreased regulations also have consequences .

Less regulation does no necessarily increase risk, that's an erroneous stepping off point. As with most things, there is a law of diminishing returns - if I have federal agents inspect a facility every day of the year it wouldn't necessarily be any safer than the same facility inspected every other day, or once a week, or once a month, or so on. If you have too many regulations that end up being redundant, decreasing them does not necessarily increase risk.

And the quality of the inspections matter - most OSHA visits these days, unless they are called out by a complaint or a statistical reason (i.e. accident trends) are to look at one or two very specific things (machine guarding and fire extinguisher access are two of the hot button items right now) - an inspection is often very light compared to a full audit.

[BlueHen86]

Here we go again. Lets link two completely unrelated things and then argue that since we can't fix one there is no use addressing the other.

You're right, lets not place any blame here. Let's not even look for the problem. People in Texas blow up because someone stored explosive material next to their homes. No big deal, there are homeless people in San Diego.

The actual risk is that if there is a fire the plant might blow up and kill anyone who is nearby. In this case that was the first responders.

Texas is a big state, there has to be a better place to store highly explosive materials. I know that they are proud of their lack of regulation and zoning, but this situation was caused by recklessness and stupidity, no matter how you try and excuse it.

Here we go yet again...wanting everyone else to stay on point and work with facts, but not holding oneself to the same standard.

You have no idea if regulations or zoning had anything to do with the explosion or the resulting casualties, yet you are on the warpath to remove chemicals/change zoning/blame Texas and whatever else you want to throw in to make a point.

Sure the explosion needs to be investigated. Imagine that. And if something was done incorrectly, there will be hell to pay. But having a hissy fit and, without facts, placing the blame on Texas, its Governor, and poor regulations at this point is ridiculous...and the work of a partisan playa'.

Sure I do. Set up the zoning so that facilities can't store ammonium nitrate in a residential neighborhood, and tell the local responders that you are storing ammonium nitrate and the risk of fatalities decreases.

And yes, I want to remove explosive chemical stockpiles from residential areas. Texas allows it and I think they are stupid because of it.

[BlueHen86]

There is no cost in telling the local fire department what is there and what the chemical properties are. Material Data Safety Sheets for many chemicals are readily available on the internet, and any decent test lab can get them for ones that aren't.

If the local fire department knew that the materials stored there were highly explosive when exposed to flame, and still rushed to the scene, then much of the tragedy falls on them.

If they didn't know, then it falls squarely on the owners of the fertilizer plant. Either way, this should not have come down to cost/benefit.

The cost benefit comment was in regards to the idea of increasing inspections as a way to prevent this from happening. I don't know what the local fire department knew or not, neither do you. Yes, they should have known that ammonium nitrate was stored there and they should've known that it is highly flammable and explosive. Of course, the storage facility should also have had NIOSH signs on all their perimeter doors showing that material inside was flammable (not sure if they did or not). And the facility had clearly filed numerous forms detailing to state and federal officials what they had on site so it wasn't really a secret that ammonium nitrate was there. So until we know some of those details, my point still remains that it's hard to drum up more regulations or more actions (i.e. more frequent inspections) to prevent this type of tragedy from happening again.

Other than zoning, I haven't called for any specific regulation changes. My opinion that storing large amounts of explosive chemicals in a residential area is a dumb idea will not change pending the outcome of any investigation.

[BlueHen86]

There is no cost in telling the local fire department what is there and what the chemical properties are. Material Data Safety Sheets for many chemicals are readily available on the internet, and any decent test lab can get them for ones that aren't.

If the local fire department knew that the materials stored there were highly explosive when exposed to flame, and still rushed to the scene, then much of the tragedy falls on them.

If they didn't know, then it falls squarely on the owners of the fertilizer plant. Either way, this should not have come down to cost/benefit.

The cost benefit comment was in regards to the idea of increasing inspections as a way to prevent this from happening. I don't know what the local fire department knew or not, neither do you. Yes, they should have known that ammonium nitrate was stored there and they should've known that it is highly flammable and explosive. Of course, the storage facility should also have had NIOSH signs on all their perimeter doors showing that material inside was flammable (not sure if they did or not). And the facility had clearly filed numerous forms detailing to state and federal officials what they had on site so it wasn't really a secret that ammonium nitrate was there. So until we know some of those details, my point still remains that it's hard to drum up more regulations or more actions (i.e. more frequent inspections) to prevent this type of tragedy from happening again.

Thanks for clearing that up Captain Obvious.

[UNI88]

Here we go yet again...wanting everyone else to stay on point and work with facts, but not holding oneself to the same standard.

You have no idea if regulations or zoning had anything to do with the explosion or the resulting casualties, yet you are on the warpath to remove chemicals/change zoning/blame Texas and whatever else you want to throw in to make a point.

Sure the explosion needs to be investigated. Imagine that. And if something was done incorrectly, there will be hell to pay. But having a hissy fit and, without facts, placing the blame on Texas, its Governor, and poor regulations at this point is ridiculous...and the work of a partisan playa'.

Sure I do. Set up the zoning so that facilities can't store ammonium nitrate in a residential neighborhood, and tell the local responders that you are storing ammonium nitrate and the risk of fatalities decreases.

And yes, I want to remove explosive chemical stockpiles from residential areas. Texas allows it and I think they are stupid because of it.

So if you change the zoning who pays for:
- the homeowners to move (if the factory was there 1st)?
- the factory (if the homes were there 1st)?

And shouldn't we apply the same type of rules to those living in flood or hurricane prone areas? Why should we allow someone to live somewhere that is dangerous?

I agree that having explosive chemical stockpiles in residential areas is stupid but I also think too many people think the government can make people safe from every boogeyman. There is a cost/benefit analysis in just about everything and you have to factor in the risk to lives, the cost to change and the impact on our freedom of the government trying to legislate the risk out of our lives. Personally, I'm willing to take responsibility for my own safety as well as accept some risk in exchange for more freedom.