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
1261539	2012-02-29 09:03:00	I would acknowledge their superior knowledge of the problem along with their training. Big difference. [/B] Somehow I doubt you have the capacity to do so. The team running the rescue effort would have called upon the highest expertise available and applied it to the issue. You deny all superior knowledge that doesn't suit your delusion.	Metla (12)
1261540	2012-02-29 09:40:00	Your idiotic comparisons don't hold water - excuse the intended pun.	Zippity (58)
1261541	2012-02-29 19:43:00	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.Up to a point, yes. The test is usually "safe enough", i.e. is there a significant risk of injury or death, or is it likely that the rescue can be performed without additional casualties. Correct, and that is why as soon as possible after the explosion is the safest time.Safest, but safe enough? You still haven't provided any evidence that the mine was sufficiently safe to enter without massive risk to the rescuers. 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.I've found a Radio Live link - don't have time to listen to it now, but I'll respond to this point in more detail later after I've heard his claims. I would point out however that neither of the two professions you've cited (army explosives technician, ship captain) would typically be capable of fully assessing a mining situation such as the one we're discussing - so unless his opinion can be backed up by something other than his profession, it's unlikely to carry much weight. 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.That possibility was there from the beginning though; anyone prepared to enter the mine at any time after the first explosion was consenting to undertake a massive risk. Whether they are likely to have changed their mind in the face of that risk becoming slightly more predictable is something neither you nor I can know. Try Common Sense.Common sense would say that we would know more about the risks, and that the risk of a second explosion may be higher. Common sense says nothing about an exponential increase in risk. If you're going to claim an exponential change in risk, you need something to back that up. Not at all, I simply support the experts critical of the non rescue attempt and understand their argument.But you are ignoring any criticism of the position you are supporting, and (mostly) refusing to engage with the facts. That's pretty much a textbook definition of bigotry. Did you not read the link in the head post?I did. It contained no evidence of additional survivors; the only relevant point in that article is that a box containing self-rescue kits was open in a photograph taken after the second explosion. There's no evidence that the box was opened by a human, after the first explosion. There's also no evidence that any of the kits were used. As there are plenty of reasonable alternative hypotheses of how the box came to be open at the time the photo was taken, this on its own cannot be construed as evidence of survival. 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.You are discarding the likelihood of success as a factor in assessing whether a particular risk is reasonable to take, as per your own post: "...but that is not the point." If you weren't intending to discard this factor, then what did you actually mean by that? It was only deemed too risky by a policeman who had no training or experience in mine rescue.It was decreed too risky by him - there was no indication that he was the sole party assessing the known information in order to reach that conclusion. If you have evidence that he was in fact the only party to that outcome, then please by all means link it. Common sense would generally presume that he made that decision after consulting with those who were better qualified than he was to assess the technical aspects of the situation. Nothing at all happened in the days, or more accurately hours, that counted.No rescue occurred. That's not the same as nothing happening. Oh, so for you Red Tape is a consideration. Good grief.Of course it's a consideration. If red tape is an obstacle to getting the appropriate resources to deal with a disaster of this kind as quickly as possible, wouldn't you consider cutting through political obstacles a good thing? You've also tried to twist my quote - I never said red tape was a good thing, I said his position was an effective one to help minimise the potential negative impact of red tape. I’m ignoring that because I support the experts that didn’t believe it was very high risk at all.You still haven't quoted any, and you appear to be ignoring the experts who considered it too dangerous. You can't just blindly support one side of a debate, you need to look at both sides and compare the relative merits of each position, along with the evidence available. Further, had a rescue attempt been undertaken in the timeframe they suggested then it would have been perfectly safe.Based on what? That's an utterly ludicrous statement; you yourself have even agreed in your most recent post that the mine was potentially safer than it was four days later - which is not the same thing as perfectly safe. Suggesting that a mine in unknown condition, with non-working ventilation and known for methane production, would be 'perfectly safe' immediately following a massive explosion is simply deluded. Now you’re being silly if not stupid.No - I am presenting a logical conclusion based on your previous posts. If you wish to contest that, you'll need to do a heck of a lot better than calling me silly or stupid. The way to defend such a position is to rebut your opponent's points logically and with credible evidence, not to personally insult them. You have your opinion, I have mine.Indeed - however while I am prepared to back mine up with logical debate, and will change my mind if presented with sufficiently compelling evidence, you seem utterly unwilling to consider any opinion other than your own. 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.That's still not an answer. The point I'm trying to get at is whether you believe the rescuers could have survived the second explosion, had it occurred while they were in the mine looking for survivors. 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.That, at least, is an answer. Would your answer still be the same if you believed you were allowing them to enter an environment that would probably kill them, and you had the power to prevent that? So... I pose my question for the third time - can you, in fact, actually answer this one? 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?Note that your answer to this one needs to be believable and reasonable given the personnel and equipment on hand - it can't be so far-fetched as to be unfeasible.	Erayd (23)
1261542	2012-02-29 20:02:00	Most importantly what do they think in the pubs of the West Coast when you ask them about a possible rescue attempt?	prefect (6291)
1261543	2012-02-29 21:02:00	Really Eryad I can’t be bothered debating every nit picking little detail with you. Clearly you believe one side and I the other and never the twain shall meet. However, in my view your standard of debate and reasoning highlights the academic BS that has virtually strangled our once great country.	B.M. (505)
1261544	2012-02-29 21:06:00	woooosh. So far over your head you didn't even have to duck. Why am I not surprised that even the ***** slapping from Eryad was deflected by complete stupidity...... BM, the reason you can't debate the points is because your argument doesn't stand up to even slight scrutiny. its weak and its worthless.	Metla (12)
1261545	2012-02-29 21:10:00	However, in my view your standard of debate and reasoning highlights the academic BS that has virtually strangled our once great country. This is Pure Gold. How dare he slay you with logical reasoning and intelligence when you posses neither.	Metla (12)
1261546	2012-02-29 21:18:00	Really Eryad I can’t be bothered debating every nit picking little detail with you. Clearly you believe one side and I the other and never the twain shall meet.They don't have to meet; this was never about agreeing. It was about testing a hypothesis which, on the surface at least, appears extremely dubious. Refusing to engage in any form of rational debate with me, but having happily posted a thread full of unsubstantiated bigotry, would seem to indicate that you can be bothered debating the topic, but do not in fact have any logical grounds for holding the views that you do. I believe that you're abstaining because you can't bear the thought of losing the debate (or admitting you're wrong), and consider such an outcome highly likely. However, in my view your standard of debate and reasoning highlights the academic BS that has virtually strangled our once great country.I'm interested to hear that you consider basic logic to be a bad thing, but I guess this does go some way towards explaining why you have taken such an irrational position. It seems that your hypothesis loses by default, unless you feel like engaging properly :devil. You may also wish to consider reading this (lesswrong.com).	Erayd (23)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9