Boom!

[BlueHen86]

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.

You're right, it's too hard, let's not do anything. Great response.

Who pays for the funerals and clean up when 15 people die and a town is wiped out?

"We were going to change the zoning, but our actuaries figured it's cheaper for us to assume some risk in exchange for our freedom to put our neighbors in danger. We we're going to put up signs telling the residents to evacuate in case of fire, but signs cost money and we didn't know who should pay."

[JohnStOnge]

We were going to change the zoning, but our actuaries figured it's cheaper for us to assume some risk in exchange for our freedom to put our neighbors in danger

So how far do you think we should make "no habitation" zones on each side of railroad tracks? What about interstate highways? I'm not going to patronize you by going into details. You know what I'm talking about.

I'll just say that I see houses across the street from railroad tracks all the time.

[BlueHen86]

We were going to change the zoning, but our actuaries figured it's cheaper for us to assume some risk in exchange for our freedom to put our neighbors in danger

So how far do you think we should make "no habitation" zones on each side of railroad tracks? What about interstate highways? I'm not going to patronize you by going into details. You know what I'm talking about.

I'll just say that I see houses across the street from railroad tracks all the time.

Great argument John, look for the weakest link in the chain and then regulate downward.

"We were going to put safety precautions in our fertilizer plant, but then we figured why bother, the stuff could blow up while in transport."

[JohnStOnge]

No, Hen, the point is that there is risk associated with what is transported by railroad all the time. Very dangerous things pass within feet of private homes all the time. And at any time something could happen to release them and cause death and destruction.

[BlueHen86]

No, Hen, the point is that there is risk associated with what is transported by railroad all the time. Very dangerous things pass within feet of private homes all the time. And at any time something could happen to release them and cause death and destruction.

Not the same risk though. Most of the time the tracks on front of those homes are empty. A fertilizer plant like the one in West might have explosive fertilizer on site at all times. The neighbors of that plant were in far greater danger than the people living next to railroad tracks.

We have to have fertilizer, we have to transport fertilizer, we don't have to live immediately next to fertilizer plants.

But hey, you've convinced me. No matter what we do there are some risks. Lets not have zoning, regulation or laws. Except for Gay marriage, we have to have a law against that.

[UNI88]

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.

You're right, it's too hard, let's not do anything. Great response.

Who pays for the funerals and clean up when 15 people die and a town is wiped out?

"We were going to change the zoning, but our actuaries figured it's cheaper for us to assume some risk in exchange for our freedom to put our neighbors in danger. We we're going to put up signs telling the residents to evacuate in case of fire, but signs cost money and we didn't know who should pay."

I didn't say let's not do anything, I asked a valid question - whose going to pay for someone else to move? But you ignored the question and portrayed me as a cold-hearted bastard (not that I'm not a cold-hearted bastard but you should get to know me before you make those kinds of portrayals).

I also agreed that having explosive chemical stockpiles in residential areas is stupid but the government can't protect us from everything. People need to make their own decisions and take responsibility for them. Did the residents know about the chemicals? Were they aware of the dangers/risks? Did they chose to live there anyway? Those are valid questions.

[JohnStOnge]

Not the same risk though. Most of the time the tracks on front of those homes are empty.

The risk picture is different in that having a factory close to homes involves a fixed area while the train track risk does not. But there is a lot of area with tracks running through residential area so there is a lot of time during which SOME point is impacted by a train passing through. And a lot of trains on the tracks at any given time. The risk that SOME home may be impacted might actually be greater.

Another thing is that there have been suggestions that the explosion was caused by firefighters using water. An example is at http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/18/42388 ... -explosion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Should the people who made decisions have factored in the possibility that there would be a fire then the firefighters who responded would use water when they shouldn't have?

[JohnStOnge]

People live close to airports. People live close to petrochemical refineries. People live close to liquified petroleum gas tanks. People live close to all sorts of things such that something could happen.

Heck, just the fact that you live close to a street means someone could come crashing through your wall some night and end it for you. Perhaps we should make a rule where nobody can live within 1000 feet of a street and everybody has really long driveways.

[BlueHen86]

Not the same risk though. Most of the time the tracks on front of those homes are empty.

The risk picture is different in that having a factory close to homes involves a fixed area while the train track risk does not. But there is a lot of area with tracks running through residential area so there is a lot of time during which SOME point is impacted by a train passing through. And a lot of trains on the tracks at any given time. The risk that SOME home may be impacted might actually be greater.

Another thing is that there have been suggestions that the explosion was caused by firefighters using water. An example is at http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/18/42388 ... -explosion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Should the people who made decisions have factored in the possibility that there would be a fire then the firefighters who responded would use water when they shouldn't have?

Supposedly the people who prepared the risk assessment report for the facility didn't mention the possibility of an explosion as being the worst case scenario. We'll have to see if that's true or not, but it's pretty damning if true.

[BlueHen86]

You're right, it's too hard, let's not do anything. Great response.

Who pays for the funerals and clean up when 15 people die and a town is wiped out?

"We were going to change the zoning, but our actuaries figured it's cheaper for us to assume some risk in exchange for our freedom to put our neighbors in danger. We we're going to put up signs telling the residents to evacuate in case of fire, but signs cost money and we didn't know who should pay."

I didn't say let's not do anything, I asked a valid question - whose going to pay for someone else to move? But you ignored the question and portrayed me as a cold-hearted bastard (not that I'm not a cold-hearted bastard but you should get to know me before you make those kinds of portrayals).

I also agreed that having explosive chemical stockpiles in residential areas is stupid but the government can't protect us from everything. People need to make their own decisions and take responsibility for them. Did the residents know about the chemicals? Were they aware of the dangers/risks? Did they chose to live there anyway? Those are valid questions.

Sounds like we agree on much. Sorry for being a smart ass, I misinterpreted your post.

[UNI88]

I didn't say let's not do anything, I asked a valid question - whose going to pay for someone else to move? But you ignored the question and portrayed me as a cold-hearted bastard (not that I'm not a cold-hearted bastard but you should get to know me before you make those kinds of portrayals).

I also agreed that having explosive chemical stockpiles in residential areas is stupid but the government can't protect us from everything. People need to make their own decisions and take responsibility for them. Did the residents know about the chemicals? Were they aware of the dangers/risks? Did they chose to live there anyway? Those are valid questions.

Sounds like we agree on much. Sorry for being a smart ass, I misinterpreted your post.

No need to apologize, it's the interwebs. Besides you and I agree most of the time on other issues as well.

[kalm]

When an industrial accident happens in America, you get the anti-government conks immediately rejecting even questions about regulation. In Bangladesh, you get your ass thrown in jail and your assets seized.

SAVAR, Bangladesh — A top Bangladesh court on Tuesday ordered the government to "immediately" confiscate the property of a collapsed building's owner, as thousands of protesters demanding the death penalty for the man clashed with police, leaving 100 people injured.

A two-judge panel of the High Court also asked the central bank to freeze the assets of the owners of the five garment factories in the building, and use the money to pay the salaries and other benefits of their workers.

The order came after police produced the building owner, Mohammed Sohel Rana, and the factory owners in court. The order did not elaborate but it was implied that the salaries of the dead victims would be paid to their relatives.

At least 386 people were killed and 2,500 people escaped with injuries when the illegally constructed eight-story Rana Plaza collapsed on April 24. According to one estimate, about 1,000 people are missing, indicating that the death toll could end up in the neighborhood of 1,400.

The collapse is the deadliest disaster to hit Bangladesh's garment industry, which is worth $20 billion annually and supplies global retailers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/3 ... 84115.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[UNI88]

When an industrial accident happens in America, you get the anti-government conks immediately rejecting even questions about regulation. In Bangladesh, you get your ass thrown in jail and your assets seized.

SAVAR, Bangladesh — A top Bangladesh court on Tuesday ordered the government to "immediately" confiscate the property of a collapsed building's owner, as thousands of protesters demanding the death penalty for the man clashed with police, leaving 100 people injured.

A two-judge panel of the High Court also asked the central bank to freeze the assets of the owners of the five garment factories in the building, and use the money to pay the salaries and other benefits of their workers.

The order came after police produced the building owner, Mohammed Sohel Rana, and the factory owners in court. The order did not elaborate but it was implied that the salaries of the dead victims would be paid to their relatives.

At least 386 people were killed and 2,500 people escaped with injuries when the illegally constructed eight-story Rana Plaza collapsed on April 24. According to one estimate, about 1,000 people are missing, indicating that the death toll could end up in the neighborhood of 1,400.

The collapse is the deadliest disaster to hit Bangladesh's garment industry, which is worth $20 billion annually and supplies global retailers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/3 ... 84115.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's funny Kalm. You're actually comparing US regulations to Bangladesh and trying to make it look like Bangladesh takes safety and regulation more seriously than we do? That building would have been condemned in the US and those workers never would have had to enter it. And if an owner in the US had forced/threatened employees to enter an unsafe workplace that later collapsed I'm pretty sure he/she would have faced criminal and civil charges. Have we gotten the answers to all of the questions about West? Do we know who was responsible? Or should we string someone up because people died and it was obviously the rich taking advantage of the less fortunate?

[GannonFan]

When an industrial accident happens in America, you get the anti-government conks immediately rejecting even questions about regulation. In Bangladesh, you get your ass thrown in jail and your assets seized.

SAVAR, Bangladesh — A top Bangladesh court on Tuesday ordered the government to "immediately" confiscate the property of a collapsed building's owner, as thousands of protesters demanding the death penalty for the man clashed with police, leaving 100 people injured.

A two-judge panel of the High Court also asked the central bank to freeze the assets of the owners of the five garment factories in the building, and use the money to pay the salaries and other benefits of their workers.

The order came after police produced the building owner, Mohammed Sohel Rana, and the factory owners in court. The order did not elaborate but it was implied that the salaries of the dead victims would be paid to their relatives.

At least 386 people were killed and 2,500 people escaped with injuries when the illegally constructed eight-story Rana Plaza collapsed on April 24. According to one estimate, about 1,000 people are missing, indicating that the death toll could end up in the neighborhood of 1,400.

The collapse is the deadliest disaster to hit Bangladesh's garment industry, which is worth $20 billion annually and supplies global retailers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/3 ... 84115.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh goodness, kalm, you didn't just make that post did you? We know why the building in Bangledesh collapsed - it was old, poorly maintained, and was crumbling well before it fell. And the owner was a sadistic pig who ran almost a slave labor operation, which unfortunately is a bit too common in that area of the world. And you compared that to a fertilizer storage facility in Texas exploding, where we don't yet know what went wrong? Standards are falling for you kalm, you can do much better than that.

[AZGrizFan]

Sounds like we agree on much. Sorry for being a smart ass, I misinterpreted your post.

No need to apologize, it's the interwebs. Besides you and I agree most of the time on other issues as well.

Why don't you two lovebirds go get a fucking room?

[kalm]

When an industrial accident happens in America, you get the anti-government conks immediately rejecting even questions about regulation. In Bangladesh, you get your ass thrown in jail and your assets seized.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/3 ... 84115.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh goodness, kalm, you didn't just make that post did you? We know why the building in Bangledesh collapsed - it was old, poorly maintained, and was crumbling well before it fell. And the owner was a sadistic pig who ran almost a slave labor operation, which unfortunately is a bit too common in that area of the world. And you compared that to a fertilizer storage facility in Texas exploding, where we don't yet know what went wrong? Standards are falling for you kalm, you can do much better than that.

I'll meet ya at the next WTO protest Ganny! Bwhahahahaha!

[GannonFan]

Oh goodness, kalm, you didn't just make that post did you? We know why the building in Bangledesh collapsed - it was old, poorly maintained, and was crumbling well before it fell. And the owner was a sadistic pig who ran almost a slave labor operation, which unfortunately is a bit too common in that area of the world. And you compared that to a fertilizer storage facility in Texas exploding, where we don't yet know what went wrong? Standards are falling for you kalm, you can do much better than that.

I'll meet ya at the next WTO protest Ganny! Bwhahahahaha!

You'll have to tell me which ski mask you are wearing and if you're going after store front windows or trash can fires.

[dbackjon]

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.

Death toal is over 500 now, with hundreds still missing.

Walmart, et al had rejected safety regulations for factories that make the clothes they sell.

Enjoy your $3 tshirt next time you buy it - hundreds of women died to make it so you could save 50 cents.

[kalm]

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.

Death toal is over 500 now, with hundreds still missing.

Walmart, et al had rejected safety regulations for factories that make the clothes they sell.

Enjoy your $3 tshirt next time you buy it - hundreds of women died to make it so you could save 50 cents.

The free trade market will fix this...quit jumping to conclusions John.

[Grizalltheway]

Death toal is over 500 now, with hundreds still missing.

Walmart, et al had rejected safety regulations for factories that make the clothes they sell.

Enjoy your $3 tshirt next time you buy it - hundreds of women died to make it so you could save 50 cents.

The free trade market will fix this...quit jumping to conclusions John.

Bangladesh is pretty desperately overpopulated, anyway. Just thinning the herd.

[GannonFan]

Death toal is over 500 now, with hundreds still missing.

Walmart, et al had rejected safety regulations for factories that make the clothes they sell.

Enjoy your $3 tshirt next time you buy it - hundreds of women died to make it so you could save 50 cents.

The free trade market will fix this...quit jumping to conclusions John.

You're right. Government control and state intervention will always result in far safer industries. We just need to realize government intervention and control, and more of it, is always better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

[kalm]

The free trade market will fix this...quit jumping to conclusions John.

You're right. Government control and state intervention will always result in far safer industries. We just need to realize government intervention and control, and more of it, is always better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Perhaps the answer is in the middle...

(Which has been my point from the start)

[GannonFan]

You're right. Government control and state intervention will always result in far safer industries. We just need to realize government intervention and control, and more of it, is always better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Perhaps the answer is in the middle...

(Which has been my point from the start)

I think you lost your own point when you compared and equated regulations and oversight in Texas with the same in Bangladesh. One hyperbole too far.

[houndawg]

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.

The probability of a catastrophic explosion happening at this plant is 100%.

[kalm]

Perhaps the answer is in the middle...

(Which has been my point from the start)

I think you lost your own point when you compared and equated regulations and oversight in Texas with the same in Bangladesh. One hyperbole too far.

Sorry I lost you. Lower regulations have consequences is the big picture point. That's true whether you're comparing Texas to other states or Texas to Bangladesh. Step, chew, step chew...with practice you can learn to do both simultaneously!