|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Was West, Texas explosion a domestic terror attack? (5/12/2013 6:13:31 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Depends on the level of protection they *did* give.
In this case, essentially nothing.
quote:
But, if I don't have my money in my hand, there is some risk that something will happen to it to separate it from me. And, that's completely on me.
No wonder banking is so forgiving over there. Around these parts, we expect more. If we don't get quality, we shut them down. Same thing for other fields. Apple isn't even allowed to advertise their extended warranty programmes, since none of them live up to the minimum warranty provided by law. I note they're still keen on doing business here anyway, and in fact try to uphold a reputation for quality in a market where the minimum standard is higher than the most you even can get in your market. Standards and competition are two sides of the same coin.
It's not unreasonable to impose demands. It's sensible.
Impose demands? Who is imposing demands? We impose demands with our feet. If we don't believe Bank#1 is going give us the best value (you get to determine what makes up value), we go to Bank#2. And so on.
quote:
quote:
I don't know that the stuff was necessarily going to explode at some point.
Then, clearly, you don't work with the stuff. Nitric acid, anhydrous ammonia and the end product, ammonium nitrate, are all volatile substances. Treating them in that way isn't a question of whether or not shit happens, it's a question of when. On an industrial scale, that spells disaster. And not the first time in Texas, either. Which is why the regulations exist.
Really? Have you not read the links that I have put up that state there are specific things that have to be done to ammonium nitrate to make it explode? You know, like mix it with something (like diesel fuel in the case of McVeigh)? The intense heat of the fire is what set the ammonium nitrate off.
quote:
quote:
And I completely agree that the plant is culpable for failing to abide by regulations, and for not having an adequate storage and risk management plans. I have never said otherwise.
I don't disagree.
quote:
I have said all along that they may not be the only ones culpable.
In my world, neither responsibility nor culpability bear any resemblance to splitting the bill in a restaurant.
If there was an arsonist, the arsonist was responsible for his actions. The company is responsible for theirs.
Note, the point where I think you may be misunderstanding is, I never cared to hold the company responsible for a fire occuring (which may be a simple case of "shit happens"), but rather for the actual, problematic things they did, and the lethal consequences that followed from that. An arsonist doesn't change what the company did, or the consequences that followed and wouldn't have followed otherwise.
And, I don't think you understand that I am not attempting to relieve the company of any responsibility for their actions. If it was arson, the arsonist does bear some responsibility for the damages from the explosion. But, the plant still bears the bulk of it, and the plant bears all responsibility for not following the regulations in place.
quote:
quote:
I did bring up the lack of Federal oversight and the non-communication that still exists between Federal Agencies. That wasn't to blame them for the disaster, but to highlight that they still need to make the changes that were exposed after 9/11.
Yeah, I know. I've made similar comments about the work of the Gjørv commission up here, which didn't lead to any sort of improvements, except it has helped further the landslide vote against the Labor Party (which was the party attacked); I note they got power after another landslide against them, anyway, though, so I'm going to hold off on the champagne till they're out of office. Even then, I don't really expect change.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
|
|
|
|
