Welcome to Evil Captor’s world. When the government does something idiotic, it’s the fault of conservatives and libertarians and thus we have proof that big-government liberals are always right.
I also join John Mace is requesting evidence that what Rachel Maddow said was anything more than her usual hokum.
I blame it on the lack of enforcement of regulations. The company self-reported that “the worst case scenario is that of a ten minute release of ammonia gas which would injure no one.”
Well, that was clearly completely wrong. And whenever companies self-report, there is constant pressure to under-report, because that means less safety precautions and that means less money spent. The companies will always go for the short-term saving on money because, as we have REPEATEDLY heard from our conservative and libertarian brethren, the ONLY responsibility a company has is to its stockholders.
The rest of us can die in a fire, apparently. Or an explosion.
I DON’T trust our current government, it’s a corporate oligarchy. I WISH we had an actual government that would enforce safety laws, but increasingly, we do not.
Sure, feel free not to trust me, but Saint Rachel rarely does bad reporting. We’re not talking Faux News here.
Fine, here’s a quote from a CBS news report. Primary source appears to be the Dallas Morning News:
Is it actually uncommon for schools to be a quarter of a mile from something that is not a school?
The claim that they self-reported “no danger” does not mean anyone let anything “slide.” The plant would be been subject to a long list of safety regulations that would have been enforced as they are anywhere else. The fact that West Fertiziler wrote something on one form doesn’t prove the regulators overlooked it, ignored the risk, or even believed it. Unless Maddow has gone over a lot of documentation she doesn’t, to the best of my knowledge, have the qualifications to even understand, she’s just talking out of her ass. (You sort of toss your own credibility by sainting a TV talking head. Her job is to be interesting, not right.)
That’s not to say there might not have been some shady goings-on here; frankly, there is absolutely no excuse for it. Someone failed spectacularly. Might I point out, however, that this is noteworthy because it’s so rare. Workplace safety regulations as they currently exist are in fact remarkably successful as opposed to the way things used to be.
“The fertilizer plant had little or nothing in the way of safety features.”
One of you two is a bad reporter. If you were quoting her, she is. If not, it’s you. That is a meaningless statement. Which specific safety features, required by law, did they not have?
I better spoiler this; it’s in pretty bad taste, even eighteen years later.
I wonder if, when the fertilizer bomb went off, the building said “I’m gettin’ too old for this shit.”
Murrah.
Regulation is one thing and enforcement is another.
No, because everything that is not a school, is not a school. There were undoubtedly rocks and trees and birds and things one quarter mile from the school, and they were not schools. What’s your point?
“No risk” and “54,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia” are not terms that normally go together. And there’s that failure of West Fertilizer to get that permit in 2006 that got it cited. I do not believe it did not get that permit.
This is probably the sort of thing that once is too many of. I mean, the TV is nothing but coverage of the Boston bomber search, but this blast killed at least a dozen people at last report and injured about as many as the Boston bombers did … at current numbers. Betcha they rise.
I’m not a bad reporter, I just didn’t include the basis for my assertions. Here’s a USA Today report:
No sprinklers. Imagine that. Because, no danger of a fire. Really!
Just curious: why would there be a mine field in Iceland? Who put down the mines? When? Who were they using the mines to defend against?
ETA: I see this has already been addressed.
It seems that the crucial thing here is skepticism. Skepticism of the claim that companies will never do anything wrong leads to regulations in the first place, and skepticism that companies will abide by regulations leads to enforcement.
I’m interested in what came first - the plant of the school. But you don’t need specific zoning regulations to know that putting a school next to something that may blow up is a bad idea. Believing these clowns when they said the plant had no risk shows lack of skepticism (as well as stupidity.)
You need to remember that fire fighting techniques vary with chemical fires. Standard sprinklers are not a good idea for a fire involving anhydrous ammonia.
Yes, anhydrous ammonia is flammable. It requires a NFPA 704 placard showing flammability category 1. That means it “…require[s] considerable preheating, under all ambient temperature conditions, before ignition and combustion can occur.” When being shipped, anyhydrous ammonia carries a placard of “non-flammable gas” in conformance with government regulation.
However anhydrous ammonia can react with strong oxidants, acids, halogens, and many heavy metals. Anhydrous ammonia dissolves in water in an exothermic (heat releasing) process. It can become explosive when mixed with air and/or other gases.
Well, color me surprised. It looks like that detail was correct.
Nonetheless, as the link that Algher posted demonstrates, the company got a generally clean bill of health from federal and state regulators. Likewise you got duped into believing that there was something wrong with the facility not having sprinklers, and it obviously didn’t occur to you to investigate what the government’s own standards for the situation were. Thanks to Iggy, we know now.
Likewise your claim that “this is what small government advocates are all about” is nasty and immature. Actually we do not drum our fingers and cackle maniacally with glee while enjoying the prospect of people getting killed. Instead we intelligently investigate regulation, what it’s supposed to accomplish, and what it actually accomplishes. Read up.
well, good point. Water on anhydrous ammonia, bad idea. But IIRC there was a big fire at the plant well before the explosion. Presumably, the fire preheated the ammonia and that’s what made it explode. Or the first responders used water on the fire, causing the explosion. Still, if you have no sprinklers because “anhydrous ammonia + water = kaboom!” then that’s what you should say on the form. Much more convincing than “no danger of fire.”
Indeed it was the pre-existing fire that resulted in this disaster. I am not sure it will ever be determined exactly what the cause of that fire was.
On its own you have to heat anhydrous ammonia to 1,204°F before it will self-ignite. That is indeed significant preheating. But that does not mean it will not burn it it is exposed to fire at a much lower temperature.
As usual, strawman.
When I hear most Libertarians/Republicans talk about deregulation it usually refers to cases like one of our dopers that bought land and some huge concrete monument was put (probably illegally) in the middle of the creek. Since it is in Maine, the regulations to get it out and return the creek to its natural state are onerous.
I don’t think anyone is advocating having explosive buildings next to schools or unsafe chicken farms spreading salmonella. Now we could argue if the regulations are being enforced when a fertilizer plant can report “All safe. Nothing to see here.”
[typo fixed: “of” changed to “or”]
Me too. Upthread, I documented that the plant was built in 1962. I visited the website of West Middle School, but couldn’t find any history section. Nor was it obvious from the brick architecture when the time of construction was. http://www.westisd.net/
And they’re very very fat.