PG&E Contains Gas Leak That Caused San Francisco Explosion
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
“PG&E unable to contain gas leak that caused explosion for over 2 hours”
Just as true, just as biased. Yours is biased towards “just the current state only”, mine is biased towards “they are incompetent”.
Bias is unavoidable. Simply stating facts makes it easier to disguise bias, and does not guarantee a lack thereof.
Edit: now that I reread the original article title, I think it sounds much better than the current HN title.
[1]https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/24/cal-fire-private-equipment-n...
(A pox upon the house of the one person who downvoted a maliciois redirect notice, though.)
"It was revealed that PG&E had done pipeline replacement work on Line 132 along parts of the San Andreas Fault zone, near this area, to reduce the likelihood of the pipeline failing from an earthquake. However, the replacement was stopped short of the area that failed in 2010.[48]
On January 13, 2012, an independent audit from the State of California issued a report stating that PG&E had illegally diverted over $100 million from a fund used for safety operations, and instead used it for executive compensation and bonuses.[49]"
So basically, if there's a gas-related fire, regardless of cause, you can point at PG&E and say "deferred maintainence".
- CA law requires that any digging near a gas main/asphalt to be done by hand, which required the workers to manually trench out the line to squeeze the pipe/shut it off.
- SF has been cold recently, and it was determined that shutting off gas for the wider area would negatively impact the health of nearby residents (more so than the fire).
- The fire was contained, but not under control.
- The closest shutoff was rumored to be right under/near the gas break/fire.
Link 1: https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/2014/01/11/enka-exp... (search for pictures, it was a massive fountain of flames for several hours)
Link 2: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/12/regulator-ties-pipeline-work...
Link 3: https://www.wpri.com/news/local-news/east-bay/national-grid-...
If it were considered normal or commonplace major news outlets wouldn't be covering it.
>but we over-react at even the hint of non-lethal nuclear contamination.
I'll agree with that.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/PL...
Gas company accidentally over pressurized the service line, and destroyed just about everyone's equipment in the area. IIRC they only recently got everyone back online, and it's cold up here in the Northeast.
But I’m quite confident that the only reason people tolerate the idea is because it’s old. If it were a new idea, arguments such as yours would never be enough to win people over.
With nuclear contamination, it stays around for a very long time.
I am the only one slightly annoyed with this writing style? I often see things like this, an it feels they want to be a bit more sensationalist but getting 'bars and restaurants' as close to the 'engulfing in flames' phrase as possible. This seems to trigger me as a reader to subconsciously tie the two together (engulfing bars and restaurants in flames) when that's not actually the case. Is there a term for this method of writing?
For context, “workers strike pipeline and cause explosion” is so common that there’s annually-divided lists on Wikipedia.
However, this uncovers a critical flaw in PG&E’s deployment: the nearest automated shutoff valve feeds the entire city, because – presumably to skimp on spending – no closer shutoff valve existed. It took them hours to close 7 pipes before they ceased the flow of fuel to the fire.
PG&E may not be at fault for causing the strike, but they are at fault for the bad design that fed the fire afterwards.
Of course, bankruptcy is probably the best way to resolve this, so every creditor can be paid his fair share (and by fair share I mean maybe 1% of what they are owed). But at least everyone is going to get paid something versus a majority being paid nothing.