Pike River - Seal or recovery?

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

5369 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2196

Reply # 1681344 2-Dec-2016 15:35

surfisup1000:

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-one has the right to put their lives at risk in a commercial premises - it's illegal to do so. Workers can now be prosecuted and fined for doing so.

If they were my family members I'd be eager to recover them as well.

But .... I wouldn't be thinking rationally and that's why such a decision would need to be taken out of my hands.

Mike

surfisup1000

3972 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1319

Reply # 1681345 2-Dec-2016 15:44

One person supports this post

networkn:

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.

I never said you didn't have a right to have an opinion. That is fine.

But, when one's opinion infringes on the rights of others, then there is a problem.

Which is what is happening. The governments opinion is that people must be protected from themselves, so they made this the law.

surfisup1000

3972 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1319

Reply # 1681347 2-Dec-2016 15:48

MikeAqua:

surfisup1000:

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-one has the right to put their lives at risk in a commercial premises - it's illegal to do so. Workers can now be prosecuted and fined for doing so.

If they were my family members I'd be eager to recover them as well.

But .... I wouldn't be thinking rationally and that's why such a decision would need to be taken out of my hands.

You did not read what i said in my other post. Which addresses the legal issue.

surfisup1000

3972 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1319

Reply # 1681348 2-Dec-2016 15:49

networkn:

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?

Noone. They go in at their own peril. There will be no tax payer funded rescue.

Fred99

7744 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4124

Reply # 1681350 2-Dec-2016 15:56

One person supports this post

Having been down to the end of the main drift of a similar mine (Mt Davy - just before it was abandoned), I don't underestimate how bloody frightening it would be to go down there on a recovery mission. I think that drift was about 1.5km at the time, at about a 1:5 gradient. Walking down a steep slope, with small rocks and lots of water dropping from the roof of the shaft, then at the end a pond where they were drilling, methane bubbling through the water, I was glad as hell to walk back out alive, probably the scariest place I've ever been and not something I could ever get used to. The miners who work in those conditions are a special breed I think. Extremely brave to volunteer to go on a retrieval mission, perhaps with that in mind then some allowance should be made to let them try. We let people climb Mt Cook "for fun" and that's claimed 300 lives.

With the number of bodies/remains that would have to be located and wrapped then removed, then it wouldn't be a quick mission. I can understand how the families want the remains for "closure". There's no easy answer. If it had been me working and killed in such circumstances, I'd not have wanted anybody to risk their lives to collect my bones - but I can't speak for anyone else.

MikeAqua

5369 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2196

Reply # 1681352 2-Dec-2016 16:05

One person supports this post

surfisup1000:

You did not read what i said in my other post. Which addresses the legal issue.

Saying a piece of legislation is a 'bad law' does not negate it.

Sure, parliament could consider special legislation providing some sort of immunity from prosecutions. But .... how many MPs would want to be responsible for passing law that could lead to a failed rescue attempt and more loss of life? I wouldn't.

I understand the atmosphere inside the mine is now mostly methane ....

Mike

JimmyH

2606 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1276

Reply # 1681384 2-Dec-2016 16:47

3 people support this post

The situation is tragic, and awful for the families.

However, on balance, I think the correct answer is to seal the mine. It's not about dollar cost.

Firstly, while it's understandable that they want the bodies back, it seems most unlikely that there is anything resembling a body there to be recovered. That mine burned for weeks. The sad reality is that they would likely be lucky to find even a few unidentifiable fragments of charred bone.

Secondly, part of me thinks that the families or volunteers should be allowed to enter the mine at their own risk. However, even if that happened, the mine was badly damaged. It's not just the volunteers that could be killed or injured if there was another explosion or cave in - if they were trapped or killed then the pressure to risk more lives to rescue (or recover the remains of) the erstwhile recovery volunteers would be irresistible, and we we would have the same sorry saga all over again.

With deepest sympathy to the families, I think Solid Energy has made the only sensible decision here.

surfisup1000

3972 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1319

Reply # 1681417 2-Dec-2016 17:45

MikeAqua:

Saying a piece of legislation is a 'bad law' does not negate it.

Sure, parliament could consider special legislation providing some sort of immunity from prosecutions. But .... how many MPs would want to be responsible for passing law that could lead to a failed rescue attempt and more loss of life? I wouldn't.

I understand the atmosphere inside the mine is now mostly methane ....

Who said bad laws are somehow automatically negated? Any law can be ignored, but you might get punished for it.

One thing I don't get, is the completely opposite views of the experts. Surely if both sides have experts reaching opposite conclusions then some of them cannot really be considered experts.

mattwnz

14533 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1927

Reply # 1681435 2-Dec-2016 18:32

surfisup1000:
MikeAqua:

Saying a piece of legislation is a 'bad law' does not negate it.

Sure, parliament could consider special legislation providing some sort of immunity from prosecutions. But .... how many MPs would want to be responsible for passing law that could lead to a failed rescue attempt and more loss of life? I wouldn't.

I understand the atmosphere inside the mine is now mostly methane ....

Who said bad laws are somehow automatically negated? Any law can be ignored, but you might get punished for it.

One thing I don't get, is the completely opposite views of the experts. Surely if both sides have experts reaching opposite conclusions then some of them cannot really be considered experts.

It is quite normal for different experts to have totally different conclusions.

Dratsab

3210 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1008

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1681450 2-Dec-2016 19:25

3 people support this post

MikeAqua: I understand the atmosphere inside the mine is now mostly methane...

Paul Henry had Nick Smith on his show 18 Nov. The minister said the atmosphere in the mine was "basically 98%" methane now. If that's correct it's a little more than 6 x above the upper explosive limit for methane (which is around a 15% mix in 'normal' air) so a crucial part of fire triangle simply doesn't exist. The only real reason to deny recovery teams equipped with appropriate re-breathing equipment access to the the mine would be potential rock face instabilities.

The minister cited experts stating there were still heat sources in the mine and these experts worrying about another explosion if oxygen were to get in there. It would take one helluva lot of normal atmosphere to get in there to bring that methane down to an explosive level. There's a bit of fud going on here.

Edit
Disclamer: Over the last 15 years I've had extensive training in confined spaces, irrespirable/explosive atmospheres. I'm BA certified and up until recently was an approved explosives handler - that particular ticket will be getting renewed reasonably soon. I've explosively (real) booby trapped vehicles and houses to help train others in hazard awareness/risk mitigation when searching for and locating IED's and have been involved in a number of post-blast investigation exercises. In other words I can work (and have worked) in dark closed-in areas and am well aware of both toxic and explosive atmosphere risks. I'm also DVI trained and have been involved in a number of DVI exercises, both training and real life. On the information that is currently publicly available, I would enter that mine.

alasta

4214 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 788

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1681728 3-Dec-2016 14:23

surfisup1000:

One thing I don't get, is the completely opposite views of the experts. Surely if both sides have experts reaching opposite conclusions then some of them cannot really be considered experts.

It is unfortunate that there appears to have been no attempt to reconcile these two 'expert opinions'. i.e. what was the logic and assumptions applied in each case, and where exactly do they differ?

blakamin

Murray River
4435 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1356
Inactive user

Reply # 1681733 3-Dec-2016 14:46

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.)

MikeB4

13720 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6445

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1681737 3-Dec-2016 15:11

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.)

You cannot tell people how to grieve. Closure is about starting over without the love one, it means many things to many folks.

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

A Tiger in Africa, probably escaped from the Zoo.

blakamin

Murray River
4435 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1356
Inactive user

Reply # 1681739 3-Dec-2016 15:22

MikeB4:

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.)

You cannot tell people how to grieve. Closure is about starting over without the love one, it means many things to many folks.

And I didn't.. That's why I started with "personally..."

MikeB4

13720 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6445

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1681743 3-Dec-2016 15:28

One person supports this post

blakamin:

MikeB4:

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.)

You cannot tell people how to grieve. Closure is about starting over without the love one, it means many things to many folks.

And I didn't.. That's why I started with "personally..."

I am sorry I should have been clearer, I didn't mean you were it was a general statement.

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

A Tiger in Africa, probably escaped from the Zoo.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11