Pike River - Seal or recovery?

Forums › Off topic › Pike River - Seal or recovery?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 12

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2158

#1681270 2-Dec-2016 13:39

Geektastic:

Not that I want to offend anyone, but I do find it odd that the people concerned want to offer options to the mine owner.

The mine owner has made a decision. Not to be unkind, but other people's options are of not the slightest relevance. They won't be the ones charged under health and safety laws etc if the mine collapses during the rescue, for a start.

Of course, they could buy the mine and then do as they please.

They have relevance because their loved ones bodies have not been recovered. Surely you get that?

I say, let them put their lives at risk if they wish to do so. It is not my place (nor the governments) to say otherwise.

mattwnz

20259 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4524

#1681272 2-Dec-2016 13:43

gzt:

Agree that it is not worth risking lives to achieve this.

There is risk with anything though. Even going to work and crossing the road, there is a risk you will get hit by a car, and it is probably many times higher than winning lotto. However it is all about managing and minimizing risks. That is why some jobs have to pay higher ACC premiums than other jobs, because they are higher risk. Forestry is anohter potentially high risk job. This article has two experts saying it can be done. But it is expensive as it needs airlocks every 150 metres to be built, and the biggest risk will be rockfall. http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/bayleys-early-edition/audio/dr-murry-cave-pike-river-re-entry-risky-but-possible/

mattwnz

20259 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4524

#1681274 2-Dec-2016 13:44

surfisup1000:

They have relevance because their loved ones bodies have not been recovered. Surely you get that?

I say, let them put their lives at risk if they wish to do so. It is not my place (nor the governments) to say otherwise.

I agree. However I am not sure if our new health and safety laws allow that though.

networkn

Networkn
32446 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 14982

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1681277 2-Dec-2016 13:47

This is a very tragic situation but as someone else mentioned, while there is no consensus that it is safe, there can be no option but to seal it.

I'd like to think I'd feel the same way if my Son was in there (I felt sick even writing that), because putting other lives at ANY risk to get a dead body, seems grossly unfair. Putting another family in there, no matter how willing said person was, isn't an acceptable situation, for me.

A memorial would be a fitting way to mark the area. The families somehow need to find a way to move on without the bodies being returned to them. I am unsure, but I feel grief counsellors were made available to anyone who wanted, but if not, that should be offered too. Moving on without a body to mourn I believe is harder, but there are specific coping mechanisms that help some people.

I really honestly feel for those families, it's a tragic and terrible thing.

networkn

Networkn
32446 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 14982

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1681281 2-Dec-2016 13:49

mattwnz:

gzt:

Agree that it is not worth risking lives to achieve this.

There is risk with anything though. Even going to work and crossing the road, there is a risk you will get hit by a car, and it is probably many times higher than winning lotto. However it is all about managing and minimizing risks. That is why some jobs have to pay higher ACC premiums than other jobs, because they are higher risk. Forestry is anohter potentially high risk job. This article has two experts saying it can be done. But it is expensive as it needs airlocks every 150 metres to be built, and the biggest risk will be rockfall. http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/bayleys-early-edition/audio/dr-murry-cave-pike-river-re-entry-risky-but-possible/

If cost was to be the only impediment but the cost was to be huge (Into the millions or tens of millions) this is an acceptable cost?

If I had been killed in that tragedy, I myself feel it would be bad to spend that kind of money when the same money could be put toward something with longer benefits like Education or better healthcare.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2158

#1681286 2-Dec-2016 13:55

mattwnz:

surfisup1000:

They have relevance because their loved ones bodies have not been recovered. Surely you get that?

I say, let them put their lives at risk if they wish to do so. It is not my place (nor the governments) to say otherwise.

I agree. However I am not sure if our new health and safety laws allow that though.

I don't really care about bad laws, only about what is right. Politicians can easily sort the legal issues (like they did for the kaikoura earthquake, passing a law enabling the landslide debris to be pushed into the sea).

Generally my attitude is people should be allowed to do what they want so long as they are not harming others.

Over zealous health and safety laws are another debate.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2158

#1681287 2-Dec-2016 13:57

networkn:

If I had been killed in that tragedy

But you were not involved, so you should not have the right to tell those who are what they can or cannot do.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32446 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 14982

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1681291 2-Dec-2016 14:07

surfisup1000:

networkn:

If I had been killed in that tragedy

But you were not involved, so you should not have the right to tell those who are what they can or cannot do.

This is a public OPINION forum? Were you involved? Did you state an opinion? Is this thread only for those directly involved? No! It's a chance for everyone to share their thoughts.

k14

630 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 94

#1681292 2-Dec-2016 14:08

mattwnz:

surfisup1000:

They have relevance because their loved ones bodies have not been recovered. Surely you get that?

I say, let them put their lives at risk if they wish to do so. It is not my place (nor the governments) to say otherwise.

I agree. However I am not sure if our new health and safety laws allow that though.

The new health and safety laws don't prohibit anything happening. They just place higher emphasis and culpability on any person conducting business to ensure that their employees are kept safe. If they don't take these steps then they will be potentially in breach of the law. It is hard to know exactly how far is required though, as of yet no one has been prosecuted under the new law. Entering the mine is so fraught with difficulty I could understand no one wanting to send experts under there.

sen8or

1797 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1254

#1681294 2-Dec-2016 14:12

I don't think cost is much of a factor here, lets face it, no one knows how to waste money like a Government (local or central), plus the political return for doing everything possible (regardless of cost) to get them out would be huge (that is why afterall Angry Andrew gets his noggin on the tv at any opportunity questioning events / actions after a disaster).

The downside though is an action taken by the Government that results in more lives lost (in the event that something went wrong) would spell political disaster, ministerial heads would roll, we'd have "inquiries" up the whazoo and any political capital would fall right into the hands of the opposition.

The Government has done the only thing it can do really, pass it back to the owners.

Crap situation? absolutely

Geektastic

17960 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8377

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1681297 2-Dec-2016 14:24

surfisup1000:

Geektastic:

Not that I want to offend anyone, but I do find it odd that the people concerned want to offer options to the mine owner.

The mine owner has made a decision. Not to be unkind, but other people's options are of not the slightest relevance. They won't be the ones charged under health and safety laws etc if the mine collapses during the rescue, for a start.

Of course, they could buy the mine and then do as they please.

They have relevance because their loved ones bodies have not been recovered. Surely you get that?

I say, let them put their lives at risk if they wish to do so. It is not my place (nor the governments) to say otherwise.

No, I don't.

networkn

Networkn
32446 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 14982

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1681300 2-Dec-2016 14:26

surfisup1000:

Geektastic:

Not that I want to offend anyone, but I do find it odd that the people concerned want to offer options to the mine owner.

The mine owner has made a decision. Not to be unkind, but other people's options are of not the slightest relevance. They won't be the ones charged under health and safety laws etc if the mine collapses during the rescue, for a start.

Of course, they could buy the mine and then do as they please.

They have relevance because their loved ones bodies have not been recovered. Surely you get that?

I say, let them put their lives at risk if they wish to do so. It is not my place (nor the governments) to say otherwise.

And who wears the associated costs for a failure or further disaster? Who covers the costs if rescue gear is required for the rescuers?

MikeAqua

7787 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3623

#1681327 2-Dec-2016 15:19

As much as the families understandably want their loved ones remains back to bury, I don't believe it's rational or ethical to risk living people to recover dead people.

If I was Solid Energy I wouldn't let it happen. It is a risky operation and regardless of who does the recovery, as the owner of the site they are ultimately responsible.

It seems unfair that legislation which in part resulted from the Pike Tragedy is stopping recovery efforts.

Mike

WyleECoyoteNZ

1049 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 366

#1681340 2-Dec-2016 15:26

richms:

Seal it or let them cover the costs. I don't want to see tax being used to pay for it.

It's a bit hard for them to cover costs when the parent company 'Solid Energy' went into voluntary administration.

And as a SOE, why shouldn't the taxes be used? When\if Solid energy made any money, they would have more than likely paid a dividend to the government.

Anyway, back on topic, the mine must\needs to be sealed. I imagine this must be deeply distressing for the families with loved ones trapped\entombed inside, as they won't get the closure they so desperately want.

However, as far as I am aware, no one can give a 100%, nuts on the table, guarantee that it is absolutely safe to go back in.

Imagine the outcry\fallout if people were to go in, after being told it is safe to do so, then more people dying.

k14

630 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 94

#1681341 2-Dec-2016 15:27

MikeAqua:

As much as the families understandably want their loved ones remains back to bury, I don't believe it's rational or ethical to risk living people to recover dead people.

If I was Solid Energy I wouldn't let it happen. It is a risky operation and regardless of who does the recovery, as the owner of the site they are ultimately responsible.

It seems unfair that legislation which in part resulted from the Pike Tragedy is stopping recovery efforts.

The recovery would have been just as marginal under the former legislation. But I do agree it is slightly ironic.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 12