Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
3972 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1319


  Reply # 1681270 2-Dec-2016 13:39
2 people support this post
Send private message

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. 

 

 


14533 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1927


  Reply # 1681272 2-Dec-2016 13:43
Send private message

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/


 
 
 
 


14533 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1927


  Reply # 1681274 2-Dec-2016 13:44
Send private message

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.


19060 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5536

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1681277 2-Dec-2016 13:47
Send private message

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. 

 

 

 

 


19060 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5536

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1681281 2-Dec-2016 13:49
Send private message

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. 

 

 


3972 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1319


  Reply # 1681286 2-Dec-2016 13:55
Send private message

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. 


3972 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1319


  Reply # 1681287 2-Dec-2016 13:57
Send private message

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. 


19060 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5536

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1681291 2-Dec-2016 14:07
3 people support this post
Send private message

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

582 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 75


  Reply # 1681292 2-Dec-2016 14:08
Send private message

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.


716 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 218


  Reply # 1681294 2-Dec-2016 14:12
Send private message

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

 

 


12394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4090

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1681297 2-Dec-2016 14:24
Send private message

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. 






19060 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5536

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1681300 2-Dec-2016 14:26
Send private message

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? 

 

 


5369 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2196


  Reply # 1681327 2-Dec-2016 15:19
Send private message

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

558 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 122


  Reply # 1681340 2-Dec-2016 15:26
Send private message

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

582 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 75


  Reply # 1681341 2-Dec-2016 15:27
Send private message

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 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Geekzone Live »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.