On Sep 12, 9:23*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , DD_BobK wrote:





On Sep 11, 10:00=A0pm, "Pete C." wrote:
DGDevin wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
nster.com...

I expect you'll consider the NFPA a reputable source.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that nearly every day a
house blows up because of a natural gas leak, because in case you didn'=
t
notice the stats you just linked to discuss fires, not explosions, and =
they
point to cooking fires as the leading cause.

Apparently you didn't read those reports, or you just want to play
stupid. Those reports clearly indicate residential fires originating
from Net. Gas (and LP gas), at a rate of 6.6 pre *day* for nat. gas
alone, over 10 per *day* when you add the LP gas stats. And no, that are
not cooking fires, they are gas leak fires, often associated with
kitchens since that is a common gas appliance location. The NFPA reports
clearly support my claim.

Your claim was

- People laugh at me when I say Nat. Gas is *not* safe and should not =
be
allowed in residential areas, yet nearly every day there is a house
explosion due to a nat. gas leak, and every year or two a big incident
like this one. I recall an apartment building in the northeast (NJ?)
being leveled by one of these nat. gas transmission lines exploding
under it.



your supplied data does not support it.

Of course it doesn't. And of course people laugh at him for it. He's obsessed
with the idea that natural gas is horribly dangerous, and claims that
electricity is much safer. It's not. *Far* more people die every year in fires
caused by faulty wiring than die from any causes related to natural gas. I
posted links to the numbers the last time he started ranting about this
particular obsession, probably about six months ago.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

His own data reference says that those incidents resulted in a
whopping 43 deaths per year. In a country of 350 mil. Plus, the
gas being the source of the fire says little about what really caused
it. For example, let's say I leave a pan on a gas stove and it
catches fire and burns the house down. Does that get counted?
Compare that death total to those that die from electrical fires, or
even kerosene heaters for a start.

In . com, Pete C. wrote
in part:

DGDevin wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

yet nearly every day there is a house
explosion due to a nat. gas leak,

Documentation please.

Just do some searching on your favorite news site

Here's how it works--you made the claim, you back it up.

Here are some statistics for you:

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF...sFactSheet.pdf

That does work out to about 6.6 fires per day as you claimed.

However, that one says that leading causes of fires with material
originally ignited being natural gas is stoves in kitchens.

That sounds to me like most of those fires was caused by presence
of flame, combined with doing something else wrong such as leaving cooking
unattended. The fires were notably caused mostly by operating equipment.

Unattended cooking causes fires even when the heat source is an electric
stove or a microwave oven. A few years ago, I was temporarily burned out
of my apartment by a neighbor going to sleep with something cooking on an
electric stove. And unattended microwaving of microwave popcorn is a
significant cause of fires.
--
- Don Klipstein )

Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
news
In article . com,
"Pete C." wrote:


I expect you'll consider the NFPA a reputable source.

So you would agree with the NFPA's stats on total fires?
Using those stats and saying 500,000 home fires in the US every year (I
rounded this down to keep the math manageable). This means that around
.75% of all fires in the US are NG or LP gas. However, half of the
homes in the US use NG for cooking (and that doesn't include LP gas for
grilling, I'll "give" that to you). So, to say the LP gas fires and
explosions are grossly underrepresented in the fire incidence in the US
is itself a gross understatement.

Sorry, I don't follow your logic, prbably my fault.

However, the claim was 6.6 fires/day due to NG or LP.

No, the statistic as reported by the NFPA is 6.6 explosions / fires per
day due solely to nat. gas. The incidents related to LP gas are separate
in the NFPA statistics and if you add them in the total residential
gaseous fuel incidents per day rises to 10.4.

That compares to
almost 20 fires/day due to electricity-connected "mishaps".

Gaseous fuel incidents may be 10.4 per day, to electrical near 20, but
those incidents are far different since electricity can ignite a fire,
but does not fuel a fire like the gaseous fuels do. This means no
explosions with the electrical incidents vs. nearly every gaseous fuel
incident beginning with at least a mid sized explosion when the
accumulating gas reaches an ignition source. It also means that without
a fuel source being pumped in as with gaseous fuels, the electrically
ignited fires also progress more slowly.

Don Klipstein wrote:

In . com, Pete C. wrote
in part:

DGDevin wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

yet nearly every day there is a house
explosion due to a nat. gas leak,

Documentation please.

Just do some searching on your favorite news site

Here's how it works--you made the claim, you back it up.

Here are some statistics for you:

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF...sFactSheet.pdf

That does work out to about 6.6 fires per day as you claimed.

However, that one says that leading causes of fires with material
originally ignited being natural gas is stoves in kitchens.

That sounds to me like most of those fires was caused by presence
of flame, combined with doing something else wrong such as leaving cooking
unattended. The fires were notably caused mostly by operating equipment.

Unattended cooking causes fires even when the heat source is an electric
stove or a microwave oven. A few years ago, I was temporarily burned out
of my apartment by a neighbor going to sleep with something cooking on an
electric stove. And unattended microwaving of microwave popcorn is a
significant cause of fires.
--
- Don Klipstein )

I believe it indicated gas leaks were involved, not cooking fires.
Stoves typically have flexible gas lines to be strained and damaged, so
not surprising that leaks there would be most common.

"A. Baum" wrote:

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 13:23:10 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:

In article
,
DD_BobK wrote:
On Sep 11, 10:00=A0pm, "Pete C." wrote:
DGDevin wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
nster.com...

I expect you'll consider the NFPA a reputable source.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that nearly every
day a house blows up because of a natural gas leak, because in case
you didn'=
t
notice the stats you just linked to discuss fires, not explosions,
and =
they
point to cooking fires as the leading cause.

Apparently you didn't read those reports, or you just want to play
stupid. Those reports clearly indicate residential fires originating
from Net. Gas (and LP gas), at a rate of 6.6 pre *day* for nat. gas
alone, over 10 per *day* when you add the LP gas stats. And no, that
are not cooking fires, they are gas leak fires, often associated with
kitchens since that is a common gas appliance location. The NFPA
reports clearly support my claim.




Your claim was

- People laugh at me when I say Nat. Gas is *not* safe and should
not =
be
allowed in residential areas, yet nearly every day there is a house
explosion due to a nat. gas leak, and every year or two a big incident
like this one. I recall an apartment building in the northeast (NJ?)
being leveled by one of these nat. gas transmission lines exploding
under it.




your supplied data does not support it.

Of course it doesn't. And of course people laugh at him for it. He's
obsessed with the idea that natural gas is horribly dangerous, and
claims that electricity is much safer. It's not. *Far* more people die
every year in fires caused by faulty wiring than die from any causes
related to natural gas. I posted links to the numbers the last time he
started ranting about this particular obsession, probably about six
months ago.

Around here over the past say 40 years I've heard or read about 3, maybe
4 houses leveled by gas explosions. But I've read or heard of dozens of
homes burnt to the ground from electric fires, candles, cigarettes,
chimney fires, gasoline, kerosene fires. Yes natural gas is dangerous if
not treated properly or taken for granted. I lived for 20 years on a
property boarding a natural gas well. My home was heated by raw methane
from the well. It came from the well through a filter/dries and then two
pressure regulators. The home had a methane detector in the basement as
methane is orderless. I was vigilant about the maintenance of the
equipment, after all I was getting free heat for the home, for cooking
and water. I also had to sign a waiver that myself or family would not
hold the supplier of the gas responsible in case of an explosion. I have
since moved because of a job change and the home is still standing. The
bottom line is all forms of home power have the potential of being lethal
if not respected.

Recall that I have indicated that gas detectors (~$50) should be
mandated like CO detectors are, which would be an inexpensive way to
significantly reduce the risk of using gaseous fuels. Every RV has a gas
detector as standard equipment, and the newer ones often control a
solenoid valve at the LP tank to automatically shutoff the supply if a
leak is detected. This setup is $200, it is not unreasonable to expect
at least the $50 gas detector, and strongly recommend the marginally
more expensive automatic shutoff. Heck, people put water detectors with
automatic shutoff valves in, and water leaks generally don't kill anyone
or level a house.

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Han wrote:
"Pete C." wrote in news:4c8ce218$0$8795
:

Sorry, but you are simply wrong. 6.6 nat. gas residential fires /
explosions per *day* is simply unacceptable.

That's BS. Check
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/citizens/all.../electrical.sh
tm
"During a typical year, home electrical problems account for 67,800 fires,
485 deaths, and $868 million in property losses. Home electrical wiring
causes twice as many fires as electrical appliances."

That's almost 20 fires/day, or 3 times the number you claim for natural
gas.

And of course his number for natural gas is completely invented.

Give it up, Han. He's delusional, and no amount of facts or reason will shake
his delusions.

You are delusional, if you think I somehow fabricated the entire NFPA
site and their statistics that clearly show 6.6 residential nat. gas
fires every single day, and 10.4 if you include residential LP gas
fires.

You are a moron.

"Pete C." wrote in news:4c8dbcda$0$8779
:

Irrelevant, there is no practical alternative to electricity, but there
are many practical alternatives to nat. gas. I'll also note, that such
safety devices as ground fault circuit interrupters and arc fault
circuit interrupters are required by electrical codes, but yet virtually
no safety devices are required on nat. gas systems, not even $50 gas
detector alarms.

Pete, the fact that the mercaptans added to all gas fuels have very
penetrant and obnoxious smells is sufficient. But, of course, denying that
people can act stupidly is very stupid.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in news:4c8dbcda$0$8779
:

Irrelevant, there is no practical alternative to electricity, but there
are many practical alternatives to nat. gas. I'll also note, that such
safety devices as ground fault circuit interrupters and arc fault
circuit interrupters are required by electrical codes, but yet virtually
no safety devices are required on nat. gas systems, not even $50 gas
detector alarms.

Pete, the fact that the mercaptans added to all gas fuels have very
penetrant and obnoxious smells is sufficient. But, of course, denying that
people can act stupidly is very stupid.

Gas detectors can detect gas at lower levels than the human nose, and
those gas detectors can also be located in the service areas with the
gas appliances, while the human nose is often some distance away. Those
gas detectors can also be connected to a central alarm and/or a gas
shutoff valve so they can act when the humans are not present.

nor is electric depending on
the generation source.

That (less polluting source) is likely to be unavailable to you. Most
electricity is made from coal.

I can purchase 100% wind generated power where I am. Folks in other
places can get 100% hydro.




you do realize that you are getting the EXACT same electricity as
everyone else..

the only thing you can choose is where your money goes to pay for it.

Mark

On Sep 13, 1:48*am, "Pete C." wrote:

Recall that I have indicated that gas detectors (~$50) should be
mandated like CO detectors are,

They are? Not here. In new construction, yes, but nobody is
required to retrofit an existing house with one.

Here's the statute:

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 125.1504d

Requires newly constructed boarding houses, hotels, motels and other
residential buildings where occupants are primarily transient in
nature to install an operational carbon monoxide device in each area
where a mechanism is present that provides a common source of heat
from a fossil-fuel-burning furnance, boiler or water-heater.

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 125.1504f

Authorizes the Director of the Department of Consumer and Industry
Services to provide for the installation of at least one carbon
monoxide device in the vicinity of bedrooms within newly constructed
or renovated single-family or mulitfamily dwellings.


That renovation paragraph doesn't seem to apply to minor renovations.
In fact,
I don't know how long the above law has been in effect, but when we
installed
a new gas furnace (to replace an older propane furnace), the plumbing/
heating
inspector said nothing about a CO detector.

I have one, of course.

Elsethread, you talked about alternative heat sources such as wood,
oil,
coal (and others). I doubt you'd find anyone who'd trade clean-
burning
gas for those filthy fuels.

Electricity rates are too high for me to consider electric heat, and
electric stoves are for people who don't like to cook.

You may as well give up; you're not going to persuade anybody
of your position.

Cindy Hamilton

"Pete C." wrote in message
ter.com...


No, the statistic as reported by the NFPA is 6.6 explosions / fires per
day due solely to nat. gas. The incidents related to LP gas are separate
in the NFPA statistics and if you add them in the total residential
gaseous fuel incidents per day rises to 10.4.

Can you quote the part that says, "explosions"?

DGDevin wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ter.com...


No, the statistic as reported by the NFPA is 6.6 explosions / fires per
day due solely to nat. gas. The incidents related to LP gas are separate
in the NFPA statistics and if you add them in the total residential
gaseous fuel incidents per day rises to 10.4.

Can you quote the part that says, "explosions"?

No, you'll need to take some science classes to understand that part.

On Sep 14, 8:38*pm, "Pete C." wrote:
DGDevin wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

No, the statistic as reported by the NFPA is 6.6 explosions / fires per
day due solely to nat. gas. The incidents related to LP gas are separate
in the NFPA statistics and if you add them in the total residential
gaseous fuel incidents per day rises to 10.4.

Can you quote the part that says, "explosions"?

No, you'll need to take some science classes to understand that part.

Say what? His point is that the while you are trying to associate
the NFPA statistics with frequent explosions, all they actually
indicate is that NG was the fuel associated with the fires counted.
Which to me would suggest that a lot of those fires could have started
on gas ranges for example, were not explosions, your NG detectors
would have made no difference, etc. In fact, I'd bet many of those
fires would have started without regard to fuel. For example, leave a
pan of oil unattended on an electric range.

In article .com,
"Pete C." wrote:

DGDevin wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ter.com...


No, the statistic as reported by the NFPA is 6.6 explosions / fires per
day due solely to nat. gas. The incidents related to LP gas are separate
in the NFPA statistics and if you add them in the total residential
gaseous fuel incidents per day rises to 10.4.

Can you quote the part that says, "explosions"?

No, you'll need to take some science classes to understand that part.

Actually this is a valid question. The NFPA fact sheets discuss
fires. You can fires w/o explosions.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article .com,
"Pete C." wrote:

DGDevin wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ter.com...


No, the statistic as reported by the NFPA is 6.6 explosions / fires per
day due solely to nat. gas. The incidents related to LP gas are separate
in the NFPA statistics and if you add them in the total residential
gaseous fuel incidents per day rises to 10.4.

Can you quote the part that says, "explosions"?

No, you'll need to take some science classes to understand that part.

Actually this is a valid question. The NFPA fact sheets discuss
fires. You can fires w/o explosions.

You can indeed have fires w/o explosions, however we are talking about
gaseous fuels here, and the vast majority of those fires are the result
of a nat. gas leak so in most of them there is some gas buildup before
it reaches an ignition source so most of them involve at least a small
explosion upon ignition.

In article . com,
"Pete C." wrote:


You can indeed have fires w/o explosions, however we are talking about
gaseous fuels here, and the vast majority of those fires are the result
of a nat. gas leak so in most of them there is some gas buildup before
it reaches an ignition source so most of them involve at least a small
explosion upon ignition.

You have no data to back-up that assertion. Besides, no matter how
you parse it, Natural and LP Gas incidents (according to NFPA stats)
result in less than 1% (0.76% to be more or less exact) of all
residential fire runs and even less than commercial/industrial runs.
Hard to suggest that something is such a major worry when it is less
than 1% of total runs.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

DGDevin wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ter.com...


No, the statistic as reported by the NFPA is 6.6 explosions / fires per
day due solely to nat. gas. The incidents related to LP gas are
separate
in the NFPA statistics and if you add them in the total residential
gaseous fuel incidents per day rises to 10.4.

Can you quote the part that says, "explosions"?

No, you'll need to take some science classes to understand that part.

In other words you're imposing your interpretation on those statistics
because you can't back up your claim that most every day a house blows up
due to a natural gas leak.

In article ,
Gary H wrote:

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:47:14 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

[snip]

Hard to suggest that something is such a major worry when it is less
than 1% of total runs.

When you're in the hospital being treated for major burns over 90% of
your body (burns coming from being in a NG explosion), realize that this
is nothing serious because of the above. Also, that $250,000.00 hospital
bill is a figment of your imagination.

:-)

Which of course is beside the point. Under your scenario, then you
should not have a computer because someone else may get carpal tunnel
syndrome and have a bad reaction to the medication during surgery. You
can't stop every bad thing from happening.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

Gary H wrote:

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:47:14 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

[snip]

Hard to suggest that something is such a major worry when it is less
than 1% of total runs.

When you're in the hospital being treated for major burns over 90% of
your body (burns coming from being in a NG explosion), realize that this
is nothing serious because of the above. Also, that $250,000.00 hospital
bill is a figment of your imagination.

:-)

Yep, and a $50 gas alarm may well have given you enough warning to have
escaped injury. A $200 or so gas alarm with shutoff valve might have
prevented the entire incident, and based on the NFPA data the average
loss in one of those fires was about $20,000.

DGDevin wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

DGDevin wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ter.com...


No, the statistic as reported by the NFPA is 6.6 explosions / fires per
day due solely to nat. gas. The incidents related to LP gas are
separate
in the NFPA statistics and if you add them in the total residential
gaseous fuel incidents per day rises to 10.4.

Can you quote the part that says, "explosions"?

No, you'll need to take some science classes to understand that part.

In other words you're imposing your interpretation on those statistics
because you can't back up your claim that most every day a house blows up
due to a natural gas leak.

Nope, I'm imposing my understanding of the physics of a fire resulting
from a gas leak, and most of them do indeed involve at least a small
explosion since the gas leak rarely finds an ignition source before a
fair amount of gas has leaked.

In article . com,
"Pete C." wrote:

Gary H wrote:

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:47:14 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

[snip]

Hard to suggest that something is such a major worry when it is less
than 1% of total runs.

When you're in the hospital being treated for major burns over 90% of
your body (burns coming from being in a NG explosion), realize that this
is nothing serious because of the above. Also, that $250,000.00 hospital
bill is a figment of your imagination.

:-)

Yep, and a $50 gas alarm may well have given you enough warning to have
escaped injury. A $200 or so gas alarm with shutoff valve might have
prevented the entire incident, and based on the NFPA data the average
loss in one of those fires was about $20,000.


Okay. Given 4,000 LP/NG residential gas fires and around 100
fatalities (both rounded up) and 130,000,000 million residential units
in the US (per 2009 Census bureau figures). Even assuming that the $200
shut off valve alarm saved each and every one of them, it would at a
cost of $650 million per life saved.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article . com,
"Pete C." wrote:

Gary H wrote:

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:47:14 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

[snip]

Hard to suggest that something is such a major worry when it is less
than 1% of total runs.

When you're in the hospital being treated for major burns over 90% of
your body (burns coming from being in a NG explosion), realize that this
is nothing serious because of the above. Also, that $250,000.00 hospital
bill is a figment of your imagination.

:-)

Yep, and a $50 gas alarm may well have given you enough warning to have
escaped injury. A $200 or so gas alarm with shutoff valve might have
prevented the entire incident, and based on the NFPA data the average
loss in one of those fires was about $20,000.

Okay. Given 4,000 LP/NG residential gas fires and around 100
fatalities (both rounded up) and 130,000,000 million residential units
in the US (per 2009 Census bureau figures). Even assuming that the $200
shut off valve alarm saved each and every one of them, it would at a
cost of $650 million per life saved.

I'm worth it. And yes, I do have a combo CO/Gas alarm and the only gas I
use is LP for my stove top burners (ovens are electric), and they are
supplied by a 20# LP tank (limited supply).

On Sep 15, 7:02*pm, "Pete C." wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article . com,
*"Pete C." wrote:

Gary H wrote:

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:47:14 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

[snip]

Hard to suggest that something is such a major worry when it is less
than 1% of total runs.

When you're in the hospital being treated for major burns over 90% of
your body (burns coming from being in a NG explosion), realize that this
is nothing serious *because of the above. Also, that $250,000.00 hospital
bill is a figment of your imagination.

*:-)

Yep, and a $50 gas alarm may well have given you enough warning to have
escaped injury. A $200 or so gas alarm with shutoff valve might have
prevented the entire incident, and based on the NFPA data the average
loss in one of those fires was *about $20,000.

* *Okay. Given 4,000 LP/NG residential gas fires and around 100
fatalities (both rounded up) and 130,000,000 million residential units
in the US (per 2009 Census bureau figures). Even assuming that the $200
shut off valve alarm saved each and every one of them, it would at a
cost of $650 million per life saved.

I'm worth it. And yes, I do have a combo CO/Gas alarm and the only gas I
use is LP for my stove top burners (ovens are electric), and they are
supplied by a 20# LP tank (limited supply).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OMG! You can't be serious. You need to apply some cost/benefit
analysis, not just go off randomly attacking perceived problems. You
could save orders of magnitude more lives with that $650mil in so many
other ways. Better child healthcare for the poor would be one way.
Even paying for lifeguards at beaches to extend the hours that they
are on duty would save far more lives for a lot less money. We've had
about 6 deaths this summer here at the NJ shore from drownings at the
beach. Almost all of them were people swimming at the beaches when
there were no lifeguards, typically because the municipalities only
pay for them until 5PM. Yet, no one is running around demanding that
the hours be extended. I personally think it would be a good idea.

BTW, I haven't seen one report this summer of NG killing anyone here.

On Sep 15, 4:02*pm, "Pete C." wrote:
DGDevin wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
nster.com...

DGDevin wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
nster.com...

No, the statistic as reported by the NFPA is 6.6 explosions / fires per
day due solely to nat. gas. The incidents related to LP gas are
separate
in the NFPA statistics and if you add them in the total residential
gaseous fuel incidents per day rises to 10.4.

Can you quote the part that says, "explosions"?

No, you'll need to take some science classes to understand that part.

In other words you're imposing your interpretation on those statistics
because you can't back up your claim that most every day a house blows up
due to a natural gas leak.

Nope, I'm imposing my understanding of the physics of a fire resulting
from a gas leak, and most of them do indeed involve at least a small
explosion since the gas leak rarely finds an ignition source before a
fair amount of gas has leaked.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How many times must we tell you that you have no data to support hoe
many explosions are involved. All the NFPA data says is that NG was
the fuel involved in the fire. Unless you have proof that shows
otherwise, I'll say it again: Without knowing how the data was
classifed, that could include kitchen fires where there was no
explosion and there wasn't even a leak. Someone left a pot of oil
on the stove and it caught fire. Do you know that they didn't
include gas dryer fires, where the dryer caught fire because the vent
was blocked? It could be that it gets recorded and counted because NG
was the fuel source for the device that started the fire.

Also, you advocated switching to coal, heating oil, or wood as
alternates. How can you make that recommendation without first
having the data on how many fires, deaths, etc result from those
fuels?

On Sep 16, 7:39*am, wrote:
On Sep 15, 4:02*pm, "Pete C." wrote:



DGDevin wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
nster.com...

DGDevin wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
nster.com...

No, the statistic as reported by the NFPA is 6.6 explosions / fires per
day due solely to nat. gas. The incidents related to LP gas are
separate
in the NFPA statistics and if you add them in the total residential
gaseous fuel incidents per day rises to 10.4.

Can you quote the part that says, "explosions"?

No, you'll need to take some science classes to understand that part.

wrote in message
...

Also, you advocated switching to coal, heating oil, or wood as
alternates. How can you make that recommendation without first
having the data on how many fires, deaths, etc result from those
fuels?

Try switching to a wood-burning stove as your heat source without informing
your insurance company, and then file a claim if there is a fire--see how
much money they give you. If natural gas is so damned dangerous, why do
insurance companies charge more to cover homes with wood-burning heat? Do
they not know what they're doing?