|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 24, 2009 7:38:46 GMT -6
He is free to post whenever he wants. His account has always been active. News articles show the ACTUAL dangers of the site hazards. They cite ACTUAL incidents, especially 2 notable ones in the past year, of pipelines that had recently been tested and deemed SAFE but still exploded. Other things I have posted showed that at the federal level they KNOW the formulas used to do the data analysis of the pipelines from these tests conclude they are safer than they actually are... they predict a failure time frame too far out into the future. It's a documented known problem, documented back in 10/2008 and prior by the PHMSA. These are the same tests and formula that are used by Kinder Morgan to deem the pipes at the MVHS site as 'safe'. These are not hypotheticals and have nothing to do with miles of pipeline all over the country, they have to do with actual data collected, analyzed and then 'projected' to reach a conclusion as to whether the line is 'safe' or not and for how long. It's a buggy formula... and we are hanging out hat on a known bad formula for our safety assurances. Now, had they done what was suggested and actually dug up, replaced the lines and installed ACV's off both edges of the property we would have BRAND NEW, KNOWN GOOD CONDITION pipe at the site and devices that would cut fuel flow in the event of an unforeseeable accident, allowing only the most minimum amount to escape and run the risk of ignition. A blowout on its own is a bad problem for those right near it, but it won't damage the building structure or anyone in it. I would feel bad for anyone practicing right on top of it though... IGNITION of the fuel is the major danger there at the site. The ACVs, if installed, would minimize the amount of fuel that could escape and ignite and could probably burn off relatively quickly and probably save the building. Without them, if you have an ignition, you can pretty much kiss the building and its occupants good bye just due to the time of thermal exposure at those temperatures. What is the district's worst case scenerio plan? Do they even have one? Judging by the silence on the topic from them over the past year I would guess it will fall into the off-campus conduct category and they might address it months later if it were to ever happen and be needed. God help the kids and faculty in that case. no one is debating that if there was an accident that would be a bad thing. to say it is just a matter of time and that all pipelines will eventually blow is incorrect though right? I agree with you that new pipes and the valves would rest the minds of some. the news article issue I brought up because every day something bad happens somewhere in the world. let's not base our fears on that because then we would never leave the house. BUT - you do not purposely increase your odds when you leave the house. Do you walk down the middle of the street all the way to work ? Do you blindfold your5self when you drive ? THIS is the point.... Ever watch the History channel show on Life after People ? Eventually everything goes...it is a matter of when - tempting fate is stupid, and illegal in some states- and for damn good reason. |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Jun 24, 2009 12:05:11 GMT -6
Steckdad, If the risk is so small, why is it illegal in some states to build schools on such property? Are those states "nincompoops"? Or %^&* liars? which states? how many? a majority? some states it is ok to marry your cousin too...  |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 24, 2009 12:06:42 GMT -6
The new trend is to wait for something bad to happen then wait for a Govt bailout to make safety improvements after the fact.
Comforting...
Look at the DC Train accident.... Now Washington's probably going to toss them a few billion to make the upgrades and safety improvements they were told they should make 5 years ago...
*Rolls*
Craps!
|
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Jun 24, 2009 12:10:03 GMT -6
no one is debating that if there was an accident that would be a bad thing. to say it is just a matter of time and that all pipelines will eventually blow is incorrect though right? I agree with you that new pipes and the valves would rest the minds of some. the news article issue I brought up because every day something bad happens somewhere in the world. let's not base our fears on that because then we would never leave the house. BUT - you do not purposely increase your odds when you leave the house. Do you walk down the middle of the street all the way to work ? Do you blindfold your5self when you drive ? THIS is the point.... Ever watch the History channel show on Life after People ? Eventually everything goes...it is a matter of when - tempting fate is stupid, and illegal in some states- and for damn good reason. your examples given are not the equivilent to MHVS. You can not prove there is a greater chance of an accident at MV vs. the other schools in the district IE: fire, drown in pool, natural disaster, etc.. I get your point but it a step too far to prove it. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 24, 2009 12:12:47 GMT -6
Steckdad,
This question, still unanswered, was on the previous page.. I'll bring it over here:
Does the metal in the pipes get weaker or stronger with time, or remain constant?
|
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Jun 24, 2009 12:15:06 GMT -6
Steckdad, This question, still unanswered, was on the previous page.. I'll bring it over here: Does the metal in the pipes get weaker or stronger with time, or remain constant? weaker. I will ask you a question. what is the policy of the gas line companies? change them only after a failure? how many years will a pipe last? I had 85 year old pipes in my last house....as well as every house in the neighborhood. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 24, 2009 12:25:46 GMT -6
Steckdad, This question, still unanswered, was on the previous page.. I'll bring it over here: Does the metal in the pipes get weaker or stronger with time, or remain constant? weaker. I will ask you a question. what is the policy of the gas line companies? change them only after a failure? how many years will a pipe last? I had 85 year old pipes in my last house....as well as every house in the neighborhood. When was the last time you saw them replacing pipes before an accident? Pipes lifetime depends on rate of both internal and external corrosion as well as stress fractures along with pressure, cycling of pressure and even the contents of what is being transported (some being more corrosive than others). Where is the report that shows the exact status of the pipes at MVHS? By Status we are talking Starting thickness, current thickness, rate of internal corrosion and rate of external corrosion and their estimates of when failure will occur (even using the faulty formula mentioned prior) ? Do they even have it? Have they even asked? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 24, 2009 12:31:31 GMT -6
BUT - you do not purposely increase your odds when you leave the house. Do you walk down the middle of the street all the way to work ? Do you blindfold your5self when you drive ? THIS is the point.... Ever watch the History channel show on Life after People ? Eventually everything goes...it is a matter of when - tempting fate is stupid, and illegal in some states- and for damn good reason. your examples given are not the equivilent to MHVS. You can not prove there is a greater chance of an accident at MV vs. the other schools in the district IE: fire, drown in pool, natural disaster, etc.. I get your point but it a step too far to prove it. what is the chance of a main feeder gas line explosion at Naperville Central ? Neuqua ? BB property ? -- the same ? How do you calculate MV not being a higher risk ? Are any of the other schools next to a peaker plant ? Do any of the other schools have documented hazardous leaks on property ? All the other common odds are even - granted - drowning etc... so adding this real danger in does not increase the chances- even everyday math doesn't come up with that answer. how is that not proof ? If one plays in a minefield it increases their odds that a mine will blow up - over someone who does not enter the minefield.. this is simple math, not conjecture. Yes, the odds are higher. Why do insurance companies charge more for some areas than others-- if you live in Florida you have a chance of a hurricane - if you live in Illinois you do not. Check out house insurance rates. Seems like everyone else can do the math... |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Jun 24, 2009 12:46:45 GMT -6
Why take the risk at all? Isn't that what all 5 board members (who took part in both land selection votes) originally said in 05 prior to the 06 referendum, but thereafter flipped after the referendum was approved? Especially considering the wisdom of the decision has many many years to be questioned should something happen...
|
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on Jun 24, 2009 14:04:27 GMT -6
That was one of my main concerns when these boneheads were going to actually build a SCHOOL on the midwest gen site (quite frankly, any teacher/student who developed cancer could try to sue the District and there certainly would be a question as to whether the land contributed to the illness).
And,despite outright lies by the Board and Dr. whatshisname to the contrary. Midwest Gen confirmed prior to pulling out of the deal that these boneheads agreed (on behalf of you, me and every other D204 taxpayer) to assume full liability for any future damages that may result due to pollution on the land (they were going to hold Midwest Gen completely harmless!!).
The Ames land appears to be safer than the Midwest Gen land, but as we all know and as MCrockett points out, the District and Board previously eliminated the AMES land for safety reasons. Steckdad, I agree that there is no way to eliminate every hazard (for example you are correct that there are many schools built near RR tracks and the likelihood of having a derailment right near a school is low). However, the RR tracks combined with the pipelines combined with the electrical wires combined with the fact the AMES land is adjacent to the Midwest Gen site combined with...... (etc., etc.) has to make one wonder whether the safety of the students was as important to the Board as their wanting to bring the land circus to an end.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Jun 24, 2009 16:20:50 GMT -6
...or "bring the land circus to an end"...here.
|
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Jun 24, 2009 16:49:26 GMT -6
weaker. I will ask you a question. what is the policy of the gas line companies? change them only after a failure? how many years will a pipe last? I had 85 year old pipes in my last house....as well as every house in the neighborhood. When was the last time you saw them replacing pipes before an accident? Pipes lifetime depends on rate of both internal and external corrosion as well as stress fractures along with pressure, cycling of pressure and even the contents of what is being transported (some being more corrosive than others). Where is the report that shows the exact status of the pipes at MVHS? By Status we are talking Starting thickness, current thickness, rate of internal corrosion and rate of external corrosion and their estimates of when failure will occur (even using the faulty formula mentioned prior) ? Do they even have it? Have they even asked? not sure if they asked, I am not on the board. would that info even be released by the gas company? I can't comment on the replacement of pipes, because I don't look for it, or would even know it if I saw it. |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Jun 24, 2009 17:03:37 GMT -6
your examples given are not the equivilent to MHVS. You can not prove there is a greater chance of an accident at MV vs. the other schools in the district IE: fire, drown in pool, natural disaster, etc.. I get your point but it a step too far to prove it.
How do you calculate MV not being a higher risk ?Are any of the other schools next to a peaker plant ? Do any of the other schools have documented hazardous leaks on property ? All the other common odds are even - granted - drowning etc... so adding this real danger in does not increase the chances- even everyday math doesn't come up with that answer. how is that not proof ? If one plays in a minefield it increases their odds that a mine will blow up - over someone who does not enter the minefield.. this is simple math, not conjecture. Yes, the odds are higher. Why do insurance companies charge more for some areas than others-- if you live in Florida you have a chance of a hurricane - if you live in Illinois you do not. Check out house insurance rates. Seems like everyone else can do the math... a gas line could leak and explode at the any of the schools listed. smaller likely but still deadly. peaker is going away or gone. the "hazardous material" is a very weak argument. there were no radioactive or materials dangerous to the touch on site. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 24, 2009 19:01:54 GMT -6
what is the chance of a main feeder gas line explosion at Naperville Central ? Neuqua ? BB property ? -- the same ?
How do you calculate MV not being a higher risk ?Are any of the other schools next to a peaker plant ? Do any of the other schools have documented hazardous leaks on property ? All the other common odds are even - granted - drowning etc... so adding this real danger in does not increase the chances- even everyday math doesn't come up with that answer. how is that not proof ? If one plays in a minefield it increases their odds that a mine will blow up - over someone who does not enter the minefield.. this is simple math, not conjecture. Yes, the odds are higher. Why do insurance companies charge more for some areas than others-- if you live in Florida you have a chance of a hurricane - if you live in Illinois you do not. Check out house insurance rates. Seems like everyone else can do the math... a gas line could leak and explode at the any of the schools listed. smaller likely but still deadly. peaker is going away or gone. the "hazardous material" is a very weak argument. there were no radioactive or materials dangerous to the touch on site. small gas feeder line vs 36" mains under much higher pressure concentration and for those in reverse flow- no scent/warning -- sorry that is a very weak comparison, one has the potential for mass casualities on a very large scale... you can drive past that area and tell me the power line concentration there is not an issue - look up man.. As far as hazardous materials - did the EPA do a complete test of the area ? There were areas not even sampled.. I guess the landfill would have worked for you also if this board would have chosen it ? there's a reason why some land is worth $x and some worth $XXXX - for the money we pissed away on expediting we could have opened at BB next year and had a capital investment worth much more - even though we didn't need to spend the money on either. If they had realtors & buyers with that kind of trust - they'd still be selling houses @ Love Canal, NY. ironic that it was the decision to build a school on a lousy site that triggered that fiasco also. And when the first site was said to be unfit for a school - they moved it like 90 feet... I realize Love Canal is an extreme example ( before that gets pointed out) , however the same blind eye to red flag issues cost big time eventually.. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 25, 2009 8:23:18 GMT -6
Perfect point on the Gas smell on the delivery/use end of it... Transmission lines do not have odorization put in so if there is a leak (even a slow mild one into the ground that can permeate into the building) you'll never smell it.
|
|
