|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 25, 2008 8:29:32 GMT -6
Sometimes the older stuff is better built. Either one is fine by me. You honestly believe 6 older pipelines are better built than one newer one? Let alone, one newer one that has no documentation/source to even say it will exist. Here's the crude oil one out by the tracks, a little further up the line in MN. minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/11/28/28explosion/See how safe those old ones can be? Provide a link to this unsafe non existant new one Hillmom spoke of. THose polls make my head hurt so I avoid them any more - let me know which group is fudging the results at what time. I also believe we need a 3rd high school. I also believe it should be build on the safest piece of land possible and just like M2 was quoted before - you pay a premium to do that. You do that for your house, why not your school ? I believe it should serve the largest % of population possible in a decent distance to not increase travel m,iles ( as this one does) and increase those fixed costs I believe we should get as much benefit out of $150M as we can - not settle for anything call me crazy - I would like the ROI on this to be positive |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 25, 2008 8:29:38 GMT -6
You honestly believe 6 older pipelines are better built than one newer one? Let alone, one newer one that has no documentation/source to even say it will exist. Here's the crude oil one out by the tracks, a little further up the line in MN. minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/11/28/28explosion/See how safe those old ones can be? Provide a link to this unsafe non existant new one Hillmom spoke of. You asked-I answered. Sorry you did not like my answer. The question was about safety and you did not answer that but instead provided an apathetic opinion about personal preference or lack thereof. Have a link to this 'new' pipeline though? I would love to read about it. |
|
|
|
Post by rural on Mar 25, 2008 8:39:00 GMT -6
Arch, they were working on the pipeline at the time of the explosion. Hopefully, none of the HS kids will be digging up and banging around the oil pipelines by the RR tracks.  ETA: But who knows, it could happen, right, Arch? |
|
|
|
Post by magneto on Mar 25, 2008 8:46:09 GMT -6
You asked-I answered. Sorry you did not like my answer. The question was about safety and you did not answer that but instead provided an apathetic opinion about personal preference or lack thereof. Have a link to this 'new' pipeline though? I would love to read about it. No link for the new pipeline. That was the 1st I heard of it too. I am not worried about any pipelines. So I answered your question - 6 old or 1 new. Makes no difference to me. Both would be equally safe, or in your world "Equally unsafe". |
|
|
|
Post by hillmom on Mar 25, 2008 9:19:12 GMT -6
Hillmom, Interesting - and point well taken - there are these gas lines and EMFS (per earlier emails) and such EVERYWHERE! The fact of the matter is , I believe, car accidents kill more students per year -so we would be better off home schooling and not transporting them at all! You have done a nice job showing us how we take common things that exist in our lives and 'catastrophize' them when it suits us? I'll think twice ... Thanks! Answer the question: Which is safer, 1 new line or 6 old ones? Patience Arch - I don't live on this site! It's a commercial grade distribution line - one that would service the mall and the site that NSFOC is demanding be purchased - it is a larger line and yes would have to travel thru the property. In theory once the lines are inspected which is prior to the school being occupied in 2009 the lines are considered safe. Some would argue older cars that were built more sturdy are safer than some of the newer plastic cars. I believe that gas lines can be and are safe - I am feel comfortable that the safety features on the lines at the Eola site are great. I don't have a problem with gas lines. My question was simple - with the examples the NSFOC group is siting how can they then tell me a gas line is safe on any school site - regardless of age and size. This arguement doesn't work anymore - its all or none. They are either safe or not safe. No qualifiers - well its okay if we like the location better and our kids get to attend. To me scare tactics are unexcuseable and in my opinion it is shameful to manipulate people with fear for personal gain. If it is not okay for one site then it is not okay for another - period. I am a realist Arch and know that on any given day my child comes in harms way of a million possible disaterous scenarios. Some of which I allow and even sign them up to participate in. I have almost lost a child unexpectedly and know first hand the paralyzing fear that results from the potential of that loss. But what I absolutly refuse is to not live my life or not let my kids live their life because of every possible scenario that may cut life short. I would never be able to get in a car, cross or get near a train track, send my child to college for fear they will get shot in class and for that matter never let them set foot in a high school on any school site. |
|
|
|
Post by swimmom on Mar 25, 2008 9:36:59 GMT -6
You go HillMom. Come on Arch! I think you are missing what she was trying to say. She and many others don't have a problem with the lines. If FSFOC is so concerned with the safety issue, then BB isn't safe either.
|
|
|
|
Post by swimmom on Mar 25, 2008 9:37:52 GMT -6
Oops. Sorry for the typo: NSFOC!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 25, 2008 9:56:56 GMT -6
Hill and Swim Mom,
I believe the math to figure out which is safer is similar to figuring failure of anything with multiple components where any failure on any single piece causes a catastrophic event.
In that math, the number of elements in the set increases the calculated probability of failure.
Look up RAID 0 failure rates if you want the actual math. It works the same way.
1 is safer than 6.
Site safety is choosing the site with the LEAST amount of hazards and potentials for hazards. Some exist inherently at all sites but they vary in degrees and intensities. It's not an all or none, it's about having a site for children with the LEAST potential for BAD things to happen to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by JB on Mar 25, 2008 10:01:12 GMT -6
In my mind, this has always been about increased baseline risk. The facts are that MWGEN has increased risk factors - people can argue all day about what the probability of an accident is, but you really can't argue the presence of pipes, railroad tracks, soil contamination, EMF, increased RR crossings, and increased transportation times/distances. All these factors are higher at MWGEN than they are at BB.
Does anyone know if the distruct carries insurance? It would be interesting seeing quotes on 2 identical buildings, where only the site location is different. That would be a nice, unbiased source of risk, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by hillmom on Mar 25, 2008 10:20:24 GMT -6
Hill and Swim Mom, I believe the math to figure out which is safer is similar to figuring failure of anything with multiple components where any failure on any single piece causes a catastrophic event. In that math, the number of elements in the set increases the calculated probability of failure. Look up RAID 0 failure rates if you want the actual math. It works the same way. 1 is safer than 6. Site safety is choosing the site with the LEAST amount of hazards and potentials for hazards. Some exist inherently at all sites but they vary in degrees and intensities. It's not an all or none, it's about having a site for children with the LEAST potential for BAD things to happen to them. My advice would then be that the NSFOC might want to stop siting incidents where there is only one gas line present. Their examples should also be for exact like situations then if we want to mathmatically figure likely probability. Try the 6 foot deep factor as opposed to a distribution line that is not as deep or a feed line to a building that is above ground that statistically have more incidents! The bottom line is scare tactics can back fire and in this instance have and will - they have documented case after case on their website of explosion after explosion. They didn't consider that all their one line examples would be or could be compared to what will be on the BB site. There is a critical error on what they are attempting to do and that is they are building case after case against there own argument. This has become a double edged sword. You may use your mathmatic formula to pick what you consider the lesser of 2 evils. Not everyone will agree with your willingness to "gamble" with your childs life. You can't adamently argue the danger of something and then say but using this mathmatic formula the risk to your child is now okay because I am comfortable with that risk so you too should be comfortable with it. Scare tactics are very dangerous when fighting a legal battle - they often develop a life of their own and are often used to defeat the very people that have raised the argument. I am amazed at the lack of sound strategy this group exhibits. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 25, 2008 10:24:53 GMT -6
It's about time for our weekly "warning." Wait for it - wait for it ... to pass the time I'll go vote on the latest Sun poll  |
|
|
|
Post by swimmom on Mar 25, 2008 10:26:04 GMT -6
I personally am enjoying this back and forth. Nothing like a good intelligent argument
|
|
|
|
Post by cornholio on Mar 25, 2008 10:26:28 GMT -6
JB....I think "distruct" was a typo, but I think it's appropriate....
Indian Prairie School Destruct 204
|
|
|
|
Post by hillmom on Mar 25, 2008 10:37:52 GMT -6
hey swim mom - nice avatar!
|
|
|
|
Post by swimmom on Mar 25, 2008 10:42:15 GMT -6
You too Hill mom. I tried for a better one, but to no avail
|
|
