Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 123451	2012-02-25 22:23:00	So it’s confirmed!	B.M. (505)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1261529	2012-02-29 02:34:00	Sadly, this thread has been offensive from the first post.	Zippity (58)
1261530	2012-02-29 02:40:00	Personally I'd rather listen to Robsonde's input, obviously a man with actual knowledge and experience. One article I just located, BM - Care to comment, esp the last sentence ? When a borehole was drilled into the area where the miners were thought to be, a level of 95% methane gas was found with the remainder primarily carbon monoxide and it appeared there was little chance of finding any of the miners alive. Although families had held out hope that some of the miners may have survived, it was believed by the rescue team that all had been killed by the initial explosion. The mine had not collapsed and air was blowing freely throughout the tunnels indicating that there were no obstructions to survivors leaving the mine or indicating their presence by tapping on pipes or calling for help. There was no contact from anyone if they were alive. I'm sure if there was some signs of life, then things may have been handled different.	wainuitech (129)
1261531	2012-02-29 03:17:00	Personally I'd rather listen to Robsonde's input, obviously a man with actual knowledge and experience. One article I just located, BM - Care to comment, esp the last sentence ? There was no contact from anyone if they were alive. I'm sure if there was some signs of life, then things may have been handled different. I'm sure you would need to pull your head out of the sand (sans Emu) to be able to read all the signs otherwise you would just be sending in rescuers to to become victims	gary67 (56)
1261532	2012-02-29 03:18:00	Sadly, this thread has been offensive from the first post. I agree completely :(	KarameaDave (15222)
1261533	2012-02-29 03:20:00	I agree completely :( Aww come on feed the troll	gary67 (56)
1261534	2012-02-29 03:34:00	I had intended to stay out of this thread, but I have to admit I'm really curious about this one particular point: B.M. - From your perspective, can you think of any way in which a human could have survived the second explosion in the mine, while simultaneously looking for survivors / bodies? Unless you can answer that, your position has no validity whatsoever, as there is clear evidence of overwhelming risk backed up by an event that you agree occurred (i.e. the second explosion). If you were in charge of the rescue operation, would you have sent rescuers into a situation where there was a strong likelihood that the second explosion would kill them? No problem Erayd. Firstly, it was explained by overseas experts at the time that the safest time to enter a Mine after a gas explosion was as soon as possible after the explosion. This is because the gas and oxygen will be depleted having been burnt in the explosion. Makes sense to me. Naturally, the Rescue Team would both need, and have, breathing apparatus. Now, a further explosion was always on the cards and so it proved 4 days later when the methane / oxygen levels reached the correct ratio to combust again. Interestingly, an explosive expert for the Australian Army claimed that he would expect to survive in the protective gear even if there was a second explosion. Time was of the essence and the Rescue Teams knew that. Had they been given the OK two or three days later I don’t think they would have been so keen to enter knowing the risk had increased exponentially, especially when balanced against the possibility of their being any survivors by then. So in the end, all I am doing is supporting the view of the experts that claim a rescue attempt should have been undertaken immediately and supporting their explanations. I don’t think there is any doubt that there were survivors from the first explosion but whether the Rescue Team could have got to them in time is problematical. But that is not the point. The point is that no attempt was ever made and the Cop who torpedoed any was still waffling on days later that a rescue attempt was being planned not a body recovery attempt. That only served to show how out of touch he was. As I’ve said previously, my concern is there could have been a survivor or survivors not far behind the two that walked out under their own steam. They may have only needed help for the last couple of hundred metres? I guess one day we’ll know. Finally, for supporting the experts I agree with, I make no apology. :)	B.M. (505)
1261535	2012-02-29 03:58:00	Personally I'd rather listen to Robsonde's input, obviously a man with actual knowledge and experience. One article I just located, BM - Care to comment, esp the last sentence ? There was no contact from anyone if they were alive. I'm sure if there was some signs of life, then things may have been handled different. Well, it's a bit difficult if you’re alive but unconscious through asphyxiation.	B.M. (505)
1261536	2012-02-29 04:06:00	No problem Erayd. Firstly, it was explained by overseas experts More dribble, There was no way to know what the conditions were in the mine, The only known fact was that it was proven deadly. The "experts" weren't part of the rescue effort and were put on camera not due to their credentials but because they were prepared to voice a headline worthy view in front of a camera during a tragic event.	Metla (12)
1261537	2012-02-29 05:01:00	No problem Erayd.Really? Rebuttals inline. Firstly, it was explained by overseas experts at the time that the safest time to enter a Mine after a gas explosion was as soon as possible after the explosion. This is because the gas and oxygen will be depleted having been burnt in the explosion.Safest just means "least dangerous", it's not the same thing as safe. There was no evidence that everything combustible had already burned or exploded. Now, a further explosion was always on the cards and so it proved 4 days later when the methane / oxygen levels reached the correct ratio to combust again.Exactly - and nobody was able to tell beforehand what the remaining gases were, and how fast that was changing. Just because it took four days doesn't mean that there was any way to predict a four-day window in advance of the second explosion. Interestingly, an explosive expert for the Australian Army claimed that he would expect to survive in the protective gear even if there was a second explosion.That's a rather dubious claim - can you link to a source please? As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Time was of the essence and the Rescue Teams knew that.Obviously. Had they been given the OK two or three days later I don’t think they would have been so keen to enter...Based on what? ...knowing the risk had increased exponentiallyWhere are you getting your figures - link please? So in the end, all I am doing is supporting the view of the experts that claim a rescue attempt should have been undertaken immediately and supporting their explanations.No - you are cherry-picking hearsay and twisting it to your point of view. There's a very big difference between objectively debating facts, and sheer bloody-minded bigotry. I don’t think there is any doubt that there were survivors from the first explosion...Obviously - after all, two of them got out alive. Whether there were any additional survivors, nobody knows yet (as far as I'm aware - if you have evidence otherwise, please link it). ...but whether the Rescue Team could have got to them in time is problematical. But that is not the point.It's related to the point though, very closely. You can't just discard this aspect of the discussion just because you decide it doesn't work to your advantage. The point is that no attempt was ever made...Indeed - because it was deemed too risky, and proven so within a handful of days. ...and the Cop who torpedoed any was still waffling on days later that a rescue attempt was being planned not a body recovery attempt. That only served to show how out of touch he was.Really? It's much harder to justify massive expense and / or risk if you're just recovering bodies. Attempted rescue of live personnel is vastly more effective at clearing red tape out of the way as fast as possible, so it was a pretty reasonable position to take. As I’ve said previously, my concern is there could have been a survivor or survivors not far behind the two that walked out under their own steam. They may have only needed help for the last couple of hundred metres?That's a valid concern, but makes no difference to the fact that in order to check, rescuers would have needed to enter a mine deemed to be extremely dangerous, and with a very high risk of serious injury or death - you seem to be ignoring this fact. Do you really consider the rescuers lives to be worth nothing? That's certainly the impression you are giving. Finally, for supporting the experts I agree with, I make no apology. :)Except that's not what you're doing at all - you're posting a one-sided rant, and cherry-picking weak paraphrasing to back up your bigotry. Now, with the rebuttals out of the way, you still haven't answered my original questions: Can you think of any way in which a human could have survived the second explosion in the mine, while simultaneously looking for survivors / bodies? If you were in charge of the rescue operation, would you have sent rescuers into a situation where there was a strong likelihood that the second explosion would kill them?All you have done so far is post the second hand opinion of an anonymous army explosives specialist, which doesn't actually address either point. If you can reliably and directly address both points, you'd do a heck of a lot more to shore up your position than all your other posturing above.	Erayd (23)
1261538	2012-02-29 08:54:00	Really? Rebuttals inline . Safest just means "least dangerous", it's not the same thing as safe . There was no evidence that everything combustible had already burned or exploded . Correct, least dangerous is not the same as safe . Problem is that if you belong to any sort of rescue organization, lifesaving, fire service, marine, the list goes on, then it is never safe, that’s why your there . If you’re going to wait for it to be safe, rescue is not for you . Exactly - and nobody was able to tell beforehand what the remaining gases were, and how fast that was changing . Just because it took four days doesn't mean that there was any way to predict a four-day window in advance of the second explosion . Correct, and that is why as soon as possible after the explosion is the safest time . That's a rather dubious claim - can you link to a source please? As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence . He was on one of the Radio Stations whilst we were all waiting for some action . There was a link, posted by someone else on this forum, in the original thread . There was also an interesting interview with a Ships Captain that used to skipper Coal Ships who backed the explosive expert . You may be able to find it but the link may no longer be active . Obviously . Based on what? Based on the fact that it was generally accepted that the Methane and Oxygen were accumulating all the time and there was a possibility of a second explosion . Where are you getting your figures - link please? Try Common Sense . No - you are cherry-picking hearsay and twisting it to your point of view . There's a very big difference between objectively debating facts, and sheer bloody-minded bigotry . Not at all, I simply support the experts critical of the non rescue attempt and understand their argument . Obviously - after all, two of them got out alive . Whether there were any additional survivors, nobody knows yet (as far as I'm aware - if you have evidence otherwise, please link it) . Did you not read the link in the head post? It's related to the point though, very closely . You can't just discard this aspect of the discussion just because you decide it doesn't work to your advantage . No one is discarding anything . The point is we’ll never know if a rescue team could have got to them in time had they been alive . Maybe, maybe not, it will depend where the bodies are eventually found . Indeed - because it was deemed too risky, and proven so within a handful of days . It was only deemed too risky by a policeman who had no training or experience in mine rescue . This point was put to him by an Aussie journalist on TV if you recall . Nothing at all happened in the days, or more accurately hours, that counted . Really? It's much harder to justify massive expense and / or risk if you're just recovering bodies . Attempted rescue of live personnel is vastly more effective at clearing red tape out of the way as fast as possible, so it was a pretty reasonable position to take . Oh, so for you Red Tape is a consideration . Good grief . That's a valid concern, but makes no difference to the fact that in order to check, rescuers would have needed to enter a mine deemed to be extremely dangerous, and with a very high risk of serious injury or death - you seem to be ignoring this fact . I’m ignoring that because I support the experts that didn’t believe it was very high risk at all . Further, had a rescue attempt been undertaken in the timeframe they suggested then it would have been perfectly safe . Do you really consider the rescuers lives to be worth nothing? That's certainly the impression you are giving . Now you’re being silly if not stupid . Except that's not what you're doing at all - you're posting a one-sided rant, and cherry-picking weak paraphrasing to back up your bigotry . You have your opinion, I have mine . Now, with the rebuttals out of the way, you still haven't answered my original questions:All you have done so far is post the second hand opinion of an anonymous army explosives specialist, which doesn't actually address either point . If you can reliably and directly address both points, you'd do a heck of a lot more to shore up your position than all your other posturing above . Can you think of any way in which a human could have survived the second explosion in the mine, while simultaneously looking for survivors / bodies? Possibly, it would depend where you were in relation to the explosion . However, when the second explosion occurred there would have been no point looking for survivors . If you were in charge of the rescue operation, would you have sent rescuers into a situation where there was a strong likelihood that the second explosion would kill them? I wouldn’t have sent rescuers anywhere . However if they wanted to go I wouldn’t have stopped them . I would acknowledge their superior knowledge of the problem along with their training . Big difference . Mind you, if you were drowning I wouldn’t stop a lifesaver rescuing you either, just because I thought it might be dangerous .	B.M. (505)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9