Pike River - Seal or recovery?

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 12

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1681953 4-Dec-2016 06:17

Geektastic:
blakamin:

Personally, I don't understand "closure". Why is moving a body from one place to another going to make anyone feel better?

My view of death is "life is over". The body isn't the person you loved anymore. Stick with your memories.

(and yes, I have lost people close to me.. A brother to suicide, a nephew to a car accident, and many more.)

Agreed. But then I don't get things like the crosses by the side of the road. If your relative dies in Ward C, bed 5 of the local hospital, you won't be putting up a cross there - why is the side of the road somehow worthy of a special marker?

NZ does seem to have a peculiar relationship with death, though.

The modern practice of erecting road side memorials originated in the United States and is practiced in many countries including the UK. Road side memorials have been around for many centuries.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1681965 4-Dec-2016 09:07

Geektastic:

Agreed. But then I don't get things like the crosses by the side of the road. If your relative dies in Ward C, bed 5 of the local hospital, you won't be putting up a cross there - why is the side of the road somehow worthy of a special marker?

NZ does seem to have a peculiar relationship with death, though.

There's a "public service message" function to the roadside crosses. Not sure how much of a public service would be served if there was a memorial cross for deceased patients at the door of hospital wards, however there most certainly are other memorials in hospital wards, furniture, paintings etc donated by families of deceased patients.

I'm not sure what you mean by NZ's "peculiar" relationship with death. Not that what people do for funerals etc is always rational or appropriate in my opinion and to my culture, whatever that means, but there are definitely much odder customs in the world than we typically practice here.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1682011 4-Dec-2016 12:45

Heh, it's not a matter of too hard, it's a matter that their experts are saying it's not safe, and risking more lives is unacceptable. I actually find it pretty surprising that these families would even consider risking someone elses life to

get back bone and ash. I do understand the emotional side of it, but it can and should be overcome.

Boy, this is going to feel like a strange day but I agree with you 100%. I have no idea whether it is safe to enter this place or not, except to note that apparently well-qualified people are disagreeing with one another. I don't think the ongoing highly emotive demands and presentation of the issue by the families of the deceased, in addition to the attention-baiting coverage by the media, is the correct way to determine this issue. Prima facie, Solid Energy is doing what it is legally entitled to do. If the families disagree, the correct action(s) to take in a civilised society is to either go to the courts or lobby for a legislative change. IMO, the government should fund an independent Queens Counsel to investigate this issue and to launch any legal proceedings on behalf of the families if this is deemed necessary. If the families win in court, so be it; if they lose, the media should do the public a favour and ignore them since there are frankly more pressing issues and urgent social problems involving living people to care about. The issue has had a Royal Commission of Inquiry and led to other changes -- society doesn't have infinite resources.

If these people continue to blockade the entry to the mine or commit further illegal acts post the described legal proceedings, they should be arrested and charged like anyone else would.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1682019 4-Dec-2016 13:26

It is something which people are going to be emotional about and that is guaranteed.

There are also many logical aspects to the objections and resistance.

Most of the issues with reentry or further investigation are essentially technical. Technology and techniques improves, sometimes within a short time. Sealing the mine in the way proposed will create a hefty barrier to reentry.

The simplest solution to the current issue is a sealing method that has less barriers to reversal.

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1682021 4-Dec-2016 13:35

gzt: It is something which people are going to be emotional about and that is guaranteed.

There are also many logical aspects to the objections and resistance.

Most of the issues with reentry or further investigation are essentially technical. Technology and techniques improves, sometimes within a short time. Sealing the mine in the way proposed will create a hefty barrier to reentry.

The simplest solution to the current issue is a sealing method that has less barriers to reversal.

that is why I am wondering why there seems to be big rush in sealing it forever. Is it a case of someone wanting to draw a line under it, so it can't be revisited in the future. I think the logical step, is a temporary seal, and that should also keep families happy, as there is the chance to reenter in the future when technology improves. At some stage in the future, I would expect that the mine will be reopened anyway as it becomes economical to do so. But that could be many years in the future due to demand.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1682028 4-Dec-2016 13:50

networkn: Based on what you have said, I can't understand your argument for entering the mine (maybe I misunderstood?).

Thanks for giving the benefit of the doubt, I feel so relieved. Cool use of capitals btw.

Yes, you did misunderstand - exactly as you seem to so often 'misunderstand' anything anyone else writes which falls outside of what appears to be a narrow set of preconceived ideas. Tbh, I'm not really sure why I bother responding to you.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1682061 4-Dec-2016 16:05

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.

Give them the mine with full responsibility and liability. If they send in people and they die, they all go to jail for manslaughter.

Any attempt at recovery is at their expense.

Making the mine safe is at their expense.

Otherwise this has the potential to go on longer than a Treaty Claim.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1682113 4-Dec-2016 19:44

Dratsab:

networkn: Based on what you have said, I can't understand your argument for entering the mine (maybe I misunderstood?).

Thanks for giving the benefit of the doubt, I feel so relieved. Cool use of capitals btw.

Yes, you did misunderstand - exactly as you seem to so often 'misunderstand' anything anyone else writes which falls outside of what appears to be a narrow set of preconceived ideas. Tbh, I'm not really sure why I bother responding to you.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Hopefully expressing yourself in that manner made you feel better.

I am open to change my mind, more so than some people, but as far as I can see, you have confirmed there isn't really much to go into the mine for, yet seem to want to go anyways. I don't get it.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1682182 4-Dec-2016 22:06

I must say, I'm quite unclear in my mind about what the right course of action is. Overall, though, I'm against recovering the bodies.

To some extent, mining has always been a dangerous job, and the risk is always there that you'll be killed AND your body may not be recovered (e.g. the Strongman mine disaster in 1967 where 2 bodies could not be recovered). It seems to me that mining families must accept that risk... miners have traded their family's "right to bury their loved one's remains with dignity" for money. I see no reason why a memorial at the mine entrance cannot serve as "a burial place where they can honour/pray for their lost relatives".

As far as the risks of going back in, and the varying expert opinions: If there are varying opinions, then there's some risk that the pessimists are correct. In today's OSH CYA environment, a rational expert will always give his most pessimistic opinion in case he's wrong. Equally, any Public Servant or Govt Minister who goes ahead despite an expert's warnings would be brave and/or foolish. Somehow, he (a non-expert) would have to figure out that the pessimistic experts were really being excessively pessimistic.

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1682436 5-Dec-2016 12:51

If there is any risk to any body in recovering the bodies then is should not be done.

If I was a family member protesting, the mine was explored to find the bodies and another person died I don't think I could live with myself.

k14

629 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1683912 7-Dec-2016 13:42

I wonder if this has been published because of this thread.... http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11761915

Anyone have a link to the letter?

Edit: Letter is on solid energy website http://www.solidenergy.co.nz/

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1683915 7-Dec-2016 13:45

I think it's a good move by Solid Energy. Interesting Collins has said if she gets to be PM she will continue with sealing of the mine.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1686135 11-Dec-2016 18:12

3News is reporting that the families and their representatives have determined that the access road to the mine is on private land.

The land owner has now given control of access to the families.

The mine will not be sealed.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1686138 11-Dec-2016 18:22

gzt: 3News is reporting that the families and their representatives have determined that the access road to the mine is on private land.

The land owner has now given control of access to the families.

The mine will not be sealed.

More people will get killed...forget the conspiracy theories and emotions....its extremely dangerous. Let it be.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1686149 11-Dec-2016 18:49

Personally I'm not a subscriber to any pike river conspiracy theories. I cannot recall hearing even one.

The decision to seal the mine, or which method to use for that, is entirely different from any decision to re-enter.

Personally I really doubt the safety of human reentry after this period of time, but there is likely to be scope remaining for robotic entry.

So once again, a decison not to seal, or a decision on sealing method, is entirely separate from any decision to enter and how to do that.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 12