Gas Rage In Staten Island

[Jasper Janssen]

Merely groundless fears?, Like the lemming like faith the people of new
Orleans had in the Levies?

What faith?

Jasper

 

[Jasper Janssen]

I retired from the industry. I used to have to engineer the hypothetical
destruction of such things for specific purposes and would be pleased to
answer fairly specific questions if I can. Be aware though that 'the road
to hell is paved with what-ifs' and 'the conspiracy of ignorance masquerades
as common sense'.

Nuclear bomb on top of trainful of nuke waste transport containers?

FAE bomb right on top of same?

Eschede-disaster style accident with same train (where the first bits of
train derailed a few miles earlier, the third car under the underpass
swung out to the side, knocking out the concrete pillars holding up the
bridge, which promptly fell down on the second half of the fourth car
(where most of the fatalities were) and caused the remaining twenty or so
cars to harmonica into a crash site about as long as a single car)?

Terrorist action using lots of time (guards distracted or dealing with a
hurricane in New Orleans) and a plasma cutter?

Terrorist action using say an Oklahoma City style truckbomb, situated
right beside the track and detonated precisely as the apprpriate
containers pass?

Terrorist action that takes out a bridge over a big ass ravine without
enough warning so that the train falls in?


Jasper

 

[Jasper Janssen]

Oh, and btw, there have been MANY non-nuclear hazmat accidents and spills
over the years, that could just as easily happen to nuclear cargo, no matter
how many precautions are taken.

"just as easily"? Bullshit. Hazmat is treated pretty damn cavalierly. Only
the very worst -- like train cars full of chlorine -- even gets special
crashworthy tanks. Nuclear waste is transported in containers that can
survive any conceivable collision with stationary object or a head on
train, and under considerable guard.

NOTHING is 100% safe. It's just a matter of
acceptable tradeoffs and thresholds.

"nothing is 100%" doesn't mean that 99.99% is the same as 99.9999999999%.

Jasper

 

[Jasper Janssen]

Nuclear is bad. Forget about transport of waste - the major problem
centers around the need to store the waste *safely* for more than
20,000 years....

So what? We do *not* have to build something that can last that time right
now. Besides, the pyramid builders could build something that lasted for
-- at the smallest estimates -- 6 frickin' thousand years. You think we
can't?

In a few centuries at most, we'll have either safe space travel via a
space elevator or something similar, or we'll be dead as a species and
won't care about the nuke waste any more either.


Jasper

 

[Jasper Janssen]

Isn't it difficult for him to get himself and his wheelchair in to
a ridiculus tall vehicle?

That's what hydraulic lifts are for. No, what's difficult is getting his
wheelchair into a vehicle with a roof not much more above the floor than a
regular car. That's why the minivan would be much more useful.

Jasper

 

[Ken M]

But that still does nothing to resolve the mid to long term problem of
refineries and demand. Like the news has reported there hasn't been a
new refinery built in about 30 years. And usage has increased, Thus you
still have a supply issue.

Ken

 

[Ken M]

More hypotheticals. It is impossible to plan for all events. Not too
many people thought a chunk of foam hitting a space shuttle would cause
it to burn up as it re-entered the atmoshpere. Not too many people
thought a group of terrorist would use planes as cruise missles. There
are just to many ' what if ' s to think of them all.

Ken

 

[frkrygow]

Actually, tapping the SPR will make up for the "gap" in imported oil
that would have otherwise come in through the south Atlantic. There
is somewhat less of a need (for the next few weeks) due to the damage
to gulf-area refineries though.

FWIW, I think Bush was exactly right in using some of the reserves for
this event. This seems like precisely the thing the SPR was designed
for: temporary problems.

Whenever we're past this event, though, we still have very serious long
term strategic problems. We have an economy that is addicted to
uninterrupted delivery of oil from foreign powers - powers that are
accepting bids from other eager customers. Seems to me that makes us
very vulnerable to all sorts of disasters, attacks and shenanigans.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[frkrygow]

On 3 Sep 2005 06:33:23 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"


Even so, Art would be a lot better off fuelwise and spacewise with a
minivan than with his SUV.

Agreed. The only benefit Art gets from choosing an SUV over a van is
the ability to conform to a truly stupid trend.

I talked to a 25-year-old today who said "But of course, I've _got_ to
have an SUV. I work nights, and I need it for the snow around here."

Except I've worked days, afternoons and nights in this area for many
decades, and I've never had snow I couldn't drive through. That's with
1960s front engine rear wheel drives, or modern front wheel drives, or
anything in between.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[The Wogster]

Agreed. The only benefit Art gets from choosing an SUV over a van is
the ability to conform to a truly stupid trend.

I talked to a 25-year-old today who said "But of course, I've _got_ to
have an SUV. I work nights, and I need it for the snow around here."

Except I've worked days, afternoons and nights in this area for many
decades, and I've never had snow I couldn't drive through. That's with
1960s front engine rear wheel drives, or modern front wheel drives, or
anything in between.

I'll agree with you on that, I grew up in a city, where if you were not
going uphill, you were going down, and we got some nasty winters, front
wheel drive was rare in those days. I learned the simple trick to
winter driving, don't do anything quickly. Yeah, it's that simple, as
soon as you do something quickly, steer, accelerate or brake, you are
guaranteed to be in trouble.

W

 

[Kovie]

Well the ' what if ' scenerios would not keep me from voting to
transport and store the stuff at Yucca. What if a comet came and hit
Yucca mountain while it had all the spent fuel there? What if some
terrorist hijacked a truck or train with the waste? What if What if. It
all hypothetical.

Ken

Again, it's a matter of what one considers acceptable odds. Obviously,
nothing is or can be absolutely guaranteed in life. But there are acceptable
odds, and unacceptable odds. Actually, it's a lot more complicated than this
(who decides what's acceptable? upon what criteria? how valid is the
odds-making?). The point being that while an inability to attain a 100%
fail-safe system should not, in and of itself, necessarily preclude
potentially risky and dangerous ventures, neither should this lead one to
adopt a cavalier attitude towards risk. But we digress from the original
topic...

Kovie
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Kovie]

"just as easily"? Bullshit. Hazmat is treated pretty damn cavalierly. Only
the very worst -- like train cars full of chlorine -- even gets special
crashworthy tanks. Nuclear waste is transported in containers that can
survive any conceivable collision with stationary object or a head on
train, and under considerable guard.


"nothing is 100%" doesn't mean that 99.99% is the same as 99.9999999999%.

Jasper

I mispoke, not being an expert in hazmat shipping. But while the risks, as
you mention, might be higher for hazmats than nuclear waste, because the
former aren't protected as well, they are nevertheless still not 0% for the
latter. And, given what just happened in NO, I have a bit of a problem with
the "conceivable" qualification above. Clearly, sometimes the inconceivable
(at least for public officials, who continually give us reason to question
their foresight, and thus their judgement) happens, with devastating
consequences. I'm not saying we should all live in caves and minimize all
risk, just that proper risk management is absolutely essential.

 

[Kovie]

That's actually logically inconsistent. Scarcity of fuel only curtails
driving by the mechanism of making price higher. The situation is in flux
right now, but a week or two from now, the demand will be fairly stable
and the supply will also be stable at a lower level than before. You're
unlikely to see "no fuel at any price" situations, since, hello! There is
still fuel. Just less of it.

Jasper

He didn't say no fuel, just less fuel. Thus the word "scarcity". Look it up
sometime. ;-)

Although I do disagree with Campy, that either scarcity OR higher prices are
likely to curtail driving.

 

[Kovie]

More hypotheticals. It is impossible to plan for all events. Not too
many people thought a chunk of foam hitting a space shuttle would cause
it to burn up as it re-entered the atmoshpere. Not too many people
thought a group of terrorist would use planes as cruise missles. There
are just to many ' what if ' s to think of them all.

Ken

Agreed, in priniple, that you've got to draw the line on the "what if's" at
some point. But at what point is that, exactly, and who gets to decide?
Personally, I'd rather err on the side of anal-retentive
obsessive-compulsiveness than throw all caution to the wind (literally, in
fact, in the two horrible examples you cited, both of which likely could
have been prevented with a more intelligent and thorough approach to risk
analysis and mitigation).

 

[Kenny]

You're probably gonna see some DEEP discounts on the whale-size SUVs
(though they'll probably make it up by increasing the price of the
econoboxes).

Hopefully this "crisis" will last long enough to make a real
difference in people's attitude about what constitutes "reasonable
transportation". Maybe some of 'em will actually figure out that
bikes are a good option?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Kenny]

I heard that nuclear power plants were environmental disaster waiting
to happen. I also heard that anybody living within a 100 mile radius of
such a plant had a 90% chance of getting cancer and that their
offspring would be genetic mutants. That's what my local Petroleum
Refiners and Distributors of America rep told me. I believe him.

 

[Ken M]

Big deal so some kids in the future will have 12 fingers, or something
stupid like that. Cheap energy is needed and worth the risk.

Ken

 

[Florian Feuser /FFF/]

Big deal so some kids in the future will have 12 fingers, or something
stupid like that. Cheap energy is needed and worth the risk.

Ken

Apparently some were born without a brain already.

florian /FF/

 

[The Wogster]

"just as easily"? Bullshit. Hazmat is treated pretty damn cavalierly. Only
the very worst -- like train cars full of chlorine -- even gets special
crashworthy tanks. Nuclear waste is transported in containers that can
survive any conceivable collision with stationary object or a head on
train, and under considerable guard.

Until it actually happens, who really knows, even crash testing doesn't
guarantee success, maybe you have and older tank, and there is a
microscopic crack, and the guy looking for it, broke up with his
girlfriend before the shift started and isn't paying as much attention
as he should. Maybe you have another guy driving a cement truck while
drunk (his boyfriend left him, for a girl), hits a bridge support, and
the bridge needs maintenance, but budget cuts at the railroad have put
it off until next year, and the bridge collapses just as that train is
passing overhead. The cracked tank, hits whats left of the cement truck
at just the right angle, and explodes, which overwhelms the protective
ability of the other tanks, causing a chain reaction explosion, just
outside a major city, and 5,000,000 people are now feeling the effects
of a dirty bomb.

People will be saying it can't happen, until it does.

W

 

[Doug Huffman]

Of course their addiction to video-gaming and 'keyboarding' has nothing to
do with it. Where better to put their corpulence than in extra fat fingers
(you put the hyphen where you will).