Been watching the teevee nooz coverage of the San Bruno [San Francisco
peninsula] gas main explosion and conflagration. Wow.

I used to live about a mile away from that spot, across Skyline Blvd.;
used to shop at the Lunardi's just across the road.

The news reported lots of people saying they'd been smelling gas in the
neighborhood for the last week or so. One can only hope that PG&E (Pure
Greed & Extortion) gets raked over the coals, literally, for this one.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On 2010-09-10, David Nebenzahl wrote:
Been watching the teevee nooz coverage of the San Bruno [San Francisco
peninsula] gas main explosion and conflagration. Wow.

Only one dead. That's fortunate, considering the locale.

These incidents are not rare in SFBA. Lotta gas, lotta poeple. There
was another one a few years back, just off hwy 680 North near San
Ramon/Danville area. Only took out the backhoe operator who ruptured
the gas line.

I moved from SFBA 3 yrs ago. Don't miss it one bit.

nb

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Been watching the teevee nooz coverage of the San Bruno [San Francisco
peninsula] gas main explosion and conflagration. Wow.

I used to live about a mile away from that spot, across Skyline Blvd.;
used to shop at the Lunardi's just across the road.

The news reported lots of people saying they'd been smelling gas in the
neighborhood for the last week or so. One can only hope that PG&E (Pure
Greed & Extortion) gets raked over the coals, literally, for this one.

A few comments on this:

- People said they had smelled gas for a week, did any of those people
bother to report it?

- 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.

- Gas detectors are pretty inexpensive, they're included in every RV.
Various technologies exist to allow the gas monopolies to install gas
monitors in the areas where they pipe their dangerous product. It would
not be especially expensive to install remote gas detectors in the area
that would not rely on some person actually calling the monopoly to
report a possible gas leak. The gas detectors also are more sensitive
than human noses so they could detect a small leak blowing past.

On Sep 10, 6:58*am, "Pete C." wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Been watching the teevee nooz coverage of the San Bruno [San Francisco
peninsula] gas main explosion and conflagration. Wow.

I used to live about a mile away from that spot, across Skyline Blvd.;
used to shop at the Lunardi's just across the road.

The news reported lots of people saying they'd been smelling gas in the
neighborhood for the last week or so. One can only hope that PG&E (Pure
Greed & Extortion) gets raked over the coals, literally, for this one.

A few comments on this:

- People said they had smelled gas for a week, did any of those people
bother to report it?

- 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.

- Gas detectors are pretty inexpensive, they're included in every RV.
Various technologies exist to allow the gas monopolies to install gas
monitors in the areas where they pipe their dangerous product. It would
not be especially expensive to install remote gas detectors in the area
that would not rely on some person actually calling the monopoly to
report a possible gas leak. The gas detectors also are more sensitive
than human noses so they could detect a small leak blowing past.

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.



Natural gas safety came up another time in AHR.
Per some of our knowledgeable contributors, Nat Gas doesn't cause a
huge number of injuries or property damage.

I googled Nat Gas explosions and fires then and again today.

Natural gas has a pretty decent safety record. A fair number of the
large explosion / fires are caused human error (damaging pipeline with
backhoe).

The NJ incident happened in 1994, one fatality (heart attack)

The was another deadly explosion in NM in 2000, 6 killed instantly,
6 died of burns & smoke


check this out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents

Yes, of course, these are pipeline accidents but most large scale
explosions appear to correlate with pipeline problems rather than mere
low pressure leaks.

I did a quick scan....... looks like LPG (propane) causes a lot more
problems than Nat Gas and confirms my gut feeling, propane is way more
dangerous than Nat Gas


High pressure nat gas pipelines are the only affordable way to
transport large amounts.

cheers
Bob

On 9/10/2010 6:58 AM Pete C. spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Been watching the teevee nooz coverage of the San Bruno [San Francisco
peninsula] gas main explosion and conflagration. Wow.

I used to live about a mile away from that spot, across Skyline Blvd.;
used to shop at the Lunardi's just across the road.

The news reported lots of people saying they'd been smelling gas in the
neighborhood for the last week or so. One can only hope that PG&E (Pure
Greed & Extortion) gets raked over the coals, literally, for this one.

A few comments on this:

- People said they had smelled gas for a week, did any of those people
bother to report it?

Yes. They also reported that PG&E trucks had been seen in the area, some
that very day. So apparently the company took the reports seriously; how
seriously remains to be seen. (I'm just now hearing reports that the gas
smell was reported WEEKS before, not just one week.)

- 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.

It should be allowed, but only if much more stringent safety measure are
put in place. And the really infuriating aspect of this incident was
just how long it took the utility company to shut off the gas pipeline
after the explosion. I was watching the live coverage, on four local TV
news channels, with spectacular views of this gigantic fireball spouting
out of the ground in this neighborhood. That fireball burned for about
TWO ****ING HOURS. How the hell could it have taken them that long to
locate the nearest accessible valve and close it? (I understand that
it's more than just a matter of shutting a valve; it has to be done
carefully, so that the fireball doesn't extinguish itself with gas still
coming out, which could lead to another catastrophic explosion.)

Even last night, before camera crews could get in for good shots of the
area, they showed this incredible scene that looked like something out
of Dante or Hieronymous Bosch; what used to be a residential street was
a huge hole in the ground, now filled with water from firehoses,
surrounded by rubble and debris. The street itself had, in some places,
completely burned--BURNED!--down to dirt. ****ing incredible.

- Gas detectors are pretty inexpensive, they're included in every RV.
Various technologies exist to allow the gas monopolies to install gas
monitors in the areas where they pipe their dangerous product. It would
not be especially expensive to install remote gas detectors in the area
that would not rely on some person actually calling the monopoly to
report a possible gas leak. The gas detectors also are more sensitive
than human noses so they could detect a small leak blowing past.

Tell that to PG&E, who never fail to cut a corner if they can get away
with it.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

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

- People laugh at me when I say Nat. Gas is *not* safe and should not be
allowed in residential areas,

With good reason. I've lived in areas with natural gas heat for over half a
century and seen damn few accidents, and many of those were caused by morons
who didn't heed the Call Before You Dig warnings or who couldn't be trusted
to light a water heater according to the simple instructions stuck to the
side.

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

Documentation please.

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:58:23 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:

- 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.

That laughter you speak of may be due to your humor.

There are annually over 33,000 traffic fatalities in the U.S., and
that the lowest in about 60 years. Do you also believe we should
eliminate automobiles?

DGDevin wrote:

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

- People laugh at me when I say Nat. Gas is *not* safe and should not be
allowed in residential areas,

With good reason. I've lived in areas with natural gas heat for over half a
century and seen damn few accidents, and many of those were caused by morons
who didn't heed the Call Before You Dig warnings or who couldn't be trusted
to light a water heater according to the simple instructions stuck to the
side.

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 (CNN.com, local TV
station sites, newspapers, etc.) for "explosion" and then filter out the
few explosions that were not due to nat. gas. Don't search on "gas
explosion" since often the story title is "house explosion" "business
explosion" or the like and you have to read the story to find that it
was a gas leak that caused it. You will find thousands of reports from
across the country. Many are without fatalities due to folks at work,
got out in time, etc., but plenty of fatalities as well, and of course
the less frequent big ones like the CA explosion or one I recall in the
northeast that leveled and apartment building.

Gordon Shumway wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:58:23 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:

- 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.

That laughter you speak of may be due to your humor.

There are annually over 33,000 traffic fatalities in the U.S., and
that the lowest in about 60 years. Do you also believe we should
eliminate automobiles?

I frequently get that nonsensical argument. The fact is that we do not
have a reasonable alternative to automobiles, while we have a number of
reasonable and much safer alternatives to nat. gas.

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



I frequently get that nonsensical argument. The fact is that we do not
have a reasonable alternative to automobiles, while we have a number of
reasonable and much safer alternatives to nat. gas.

You still haven't given any verified data indicating the danger you
are so sure is happening. Until then I would remind you that anecdote is
not the singular of data. And Google and CNN random news accounts
certainly don't fit that bill.
What are the more safer alternatives?

--
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:


I frequently get that nonsensical argument. The fact is that we do not
have a reasonable alternative to automobiles, while we have a number of
reasonable and much safer alternatives to nat. gas.

You still haven't given any verified data indicating the danger you
are so sure is happening. Until then I would remind you that anecdote is
not the singular of data. And Google and CNN random news accounts
certainly don't fit that bill.

I'm not aware of any central nat. gas explosion clearing house, so
you'll just have to rely on the thousands of news reports of such
explosions for your proof, unless of course you think CNN and all the
various other TV stations and newspapers are faking those reports.

What are the more safer alternatives?

In no particular order: Oil, wood, solar, coal, electric (resistive or
heat pump) none of which have ever caused a house explosion and killed
people. Yes, some of those heating sources have been known to cause
house fires, but those are slow and escapable unlike nat. gas
explosions. Requiring gas detectors ($50 or so) in homes with nat. gas
would go a long way towards improving safety, and indeed the generally
required CO detectors are available in dual CO / gas detectors for about
$60.

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


I'm not aware of any central nat. gas explosion clearing house, so
you'll just have to rely on the thousands of news reports of such
explosions for your proof, unless of course you think CNN and all the
various other TV stations and newspapers are faking those reports.

I don;'t have to rely on anything. You are the one making all of
the great pronouncements that you can't back up with facts. I also don't
find "thousands" of individual reports on CNN, etc. I see a few
explosions reported many times over.

--
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:


I'm not aware of any central nat. gas explosion clearing house, so
you'll just have to rely on the thousands of news reports of such
explosions for your proof, unless of course you think CNN and all the
various other TV stations and newspapers are faking those reports.

I don;'t have to rely on anything. You are the one making all of
the great pronouncements that you can't back up with facts. I also don't
find "thousands" of individual reports on CNN, etc. I see a few
explosions reported many times over.

Here are some statistics for you:

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

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

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

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

What are the more safer alternatives?

In no particular order: Oil, wood, solar, coal, electric (resistive or
heat pump) none of which have ever caused a house explosion and killed
people. Yes, some of those heating sources have been known to cause
house fires, but those are slow and escapable unlike nat. gas
explosions. Requiring gas detectors ($50 or so) in homes with nat. gas
would go a long way towards improving safety, and indeed the generally
required CO detectors are available in dual CO / gas detectors for about
$60.

No comment on all the readily available safer alternatives to nat. gas?
Unlike the often cited auto deaths, we do have plenty of viable
alternatives to dangerous nat. gas.

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:48:35 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

DGDevin wrote:

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

- People laugh at me when I say Nat. Gas is *not* safe and should not
be allowed in residential areas,

With good reason. I've lived in areas with natural gas heat for over
half a century and seen damn few accidents, and many of those were
caused by morons who didn't heed the Call Before You Dig warnings or
who couldn't be trusted to light a water heater according to the simple
instructions stuck to the side.

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 (CNN.com, local TV
station sites, newspapers, etc.) for "explosion" and then filter out the
few explosions that were not due to nat. gas. Don't search on "gas
explosion" since often the story title is "house explosion" "business
explosion" or the like and you have to read the story to find that it
was a gas leak that caused it. You will find thousands of reports from
across the country. Many are without fatalities due to folks at work,
got out in time, etc., but plenty of fatalities as well, and of course
the less frequent big ones like the CA explosion or one I recall in the
northeast that leveled and apartment building.

I live close to New London, Texas where the school had a big gas
explosion in 1937. The school had free gas from the oilfield. Someone
told me they installed the wrong regulator (made for lower inlet
pressure) and it failed open. There were a lot of fatalities from that.

Supposedly, that explosion is why they started adding something smelly to
gas.

--
105 days until The winter celebration (Saturday December 25, 2010
12:00:00 AM).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

In cocktail lounge: "Ladies are requested not to have children in the
bar."

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 20:31:21 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
[snip]

What are the more safer alternatives?

In no particular order: Oil, wood, solar, coal, electric (resistive or
heat pump) none of which have ever caused a house explosion and killed
people.

They're also more polluting.

[snip]

Gary H wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 20:31:21 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
[snip]

What are the more safer alternatives?

In no particular order: Oil, wood, solar, coal, electric (resistive or
heat pump) none of which have ever caused a house explosion and killed
people.

They're also more polluting.

[snip]

Solar is most certainly not more polluting, nor is electric depending on
the generation source. In any case, pollution isn't much of a concern
vs. getting blown up.

Mark Lloyd wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:48:35 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

DGDevin wrote:

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

- People laugh at me when I say Nat. Gas is *not* safe and should not
be allowed in residential areas,

With good reason. I've lived in areas with natural gas heat for over
half a century and seen damn few accidents, and many of those were
caused by morons who didn't heed the Call Before You Dig warnings or
who couldn't be trusted to light a water heater according to the simple
instructions stuck to the side.

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 (CNN.com, local TV
station sites, newspapers, etc.) for "explosion" and then filter out the
few explosions that were not due to nat. gas. Don't search on "gas
explosion" since often the story title is "house explosion" "business
explosion" or the like and you have to read the story to find that it
was a gas leak that caused it. You will find thousands of reports from
across the country. Many are without fatalities due to folks at work,
got out in time, etc., but plenty of fatalities as well, and of course
the less frequent big ones like the CA explosion or one I recall in the
northeast that leveled and apartment building.

I live close to New London, Texas where the school had a big gas
explosion in 1937. The school had free gas from the oilfield. Someone
told me they installed the wrong regulator (made for lower inlet
pressure) and it failed open. There were a lot of fatalities from that.

Supposedly, that explosion is why they started adding something smelly to
gas.

Yep, many many fatalities due to dangerous nat. gas use over the years.
Swept under the rug by the nat. gas monopolies of course.

Per the NFPA documents I posted the link to, 2000-2004 averaged 2,410
home structure fires due to nat. gas per year. That works out to an
average of 6.6 such nat. gas caused fires each and every *day*. If you
include the 1,390 LP gas residential fires per year, that makes 10.41
residential fires caused by unsafe gaseous fuel use every day.

Yes, 3,800 incidents and the resulting 66 fatalities and 404 injuries
per year are much lower than auto fatalities and injuries, however these
fatalities and injuries could be prevented by eliminating the unsafe
gaseous fuel use, or at least substantially reduced by mandating the
inexpensive gas detectors in every home using gaseous fuels, just like
CO detectors are mandated.

"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.

"Pete C." wrote in
ster.com:


David Nebenzahl wrote:

Been watching the teevee nooz coverage of the San Bruno [San
Francisco peninsula] gas main explosion and conflagration. Wow.

I used to live about a mile away from that spot, across Skyline
Blvd.; used to shop at the Lunardi's just across the road.

The news reported lots of people saying they'd been smelling gas in
the neighborhood for the last week or so. One can only hope that PG&E
(Pure Greed & Extortion) gets raked over the coals, literally, for
this one.

A few comments on this:

- People said they had smelled gas for a week, did any of those people
bother to report it?

- 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.

- Gas detectors are pretty inexpensive, they're included in every RV.
Various technologies exist to allow the gas monopolies to install gas
monitors in the areas where they pipe their dangerous product. It
would not be especially expensive to install remote gas detectors in
the area that would not rely on some person actually calling the
monopoly to report a possible gas leak. The gas detectors also are
more sensitive than human noses so they could detect a small leak
blowing past.

With properly maintained facilities, natural gas is safe. Considering
the number of households and commercial establishments of all kinds that
use NG, the number of accidents and fatalities is small. Gasoline etc
probably have at least as many (BP well blowing up).

Now as far as proper maintenance, I don't understand the use of a 54"
inch main gas line only 3 feet under a residential area. In an
earthquake prone region. I bet that it will turn out that the residents
have warned many times (probably crying wolf too many times, as far as
PG&E was concerned), and that the line was NOT inspected often enough
and recently enough. Wouldn't want to have shares in that company ...

But, mismanagement by 1 company shouldn't condemn the whole concept.

Of course, it is OT, and YMMV!!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"A. Baum" wrote in
news
Was the 54" main there when the allotment was created or installed
after?

The community dates from the 60s. I don't know who was first. I don't
think it matters at this moment.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 14:08:30 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

Gary H wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 20:31:21 -0500, Pete C. wrote: [snip]

What are the more safer alternatives?

In no particular order: Oil, wood, solar, coal, electric (resistive
or heat pump) none of which have ever caused a house explosion and
killed people.

They're also more polluting.

[snip]

Solar is most certainly not more polluting,

Consider the manufacture and disposal of solar cells.

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.

In any case, pollution isn't much of a concern
vs. getting blown up.

I said nothing about relative concerns before, but it is. Maybe less
immediate but no less serious.

"A. Baum" wrote in newsan.2010.09.11.22.07.07@
50kilotons.net.not:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 21:40:08 +0000, Han wrote:

"A. Baum" wrote in
news
Was the 54" main there when the allotment was created or installed
after?

The community dates from the 60s. I don't know who was first. I don't
think it matters at this moment.

Sure it matters. Maybe not to the explosion victims so much but rather
that you seemed to place PG&E at fault for placing the 54" 3 feet under
the community. Can't quote you exactly since you snipped that part out.

The only thing I heard/read was a 54" main gas line that was 3' underground
in a residential community.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Gary H wrote:


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.
Natural gas is the most widely used less polluting source of
electricity.

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

On 9/11/2010 4:25 PM Han spake thus:

"A. Baum" wrote in newsan.2010.09.11.22.07.07@
50kilotons.net.not:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 21:40:08 +0000, Han wrote:

"A. Baum" wrote in
news
Was the 54" main there when the allotment was created or installed
after?

The community dates from the 60s. I don't know who was first. I don't
think it matters at this moment.

Sure it matters. Maybe not to the explosion victims so much but rather
that you seemed to place PG&E at fault for placing the 54" 3 feet under
the community. Can't quote you exactly since you snipped that part out.

The only thing I heard/read was a 54" main gas line that was 3' underground
in a residential community.

Pretty sure that it is a 24" line. That's what I've been hearing from
the teevee nooz the last couple days here.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

DGDevin wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.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.

Wayne Whitney wrote:

On 2010-09-11, Pete C. wrote:

In any case, pollution isn't much of a concern vs. getting blown
up.

Well, let me first say that I found the statistics you referenced to
be informative and eye-opening. But I have to disagree with the above
statement. Pollution kills people, too. For example, burning wood
releases particulates, and particulates interfere with lung function
and can lead to premature death. I don't have the statistics
involved, but it may well be the case that burning wood causes as many
deaths due to pollution (per unit energy delivered) as natural gas
does through explosions.

Cheers, Wayne

There is a notable difference between being blown up in a nat. gas
explosion at say 25 vs. dying "prematurely" at 85 due to pollution.

Gary H wrote:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 14:08:30 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

Gary H wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 20:31:21 -0500, Pete C. wrote: [snip]

What are the more safer alternatives?

In no particular order: Oil, wood, solar, coal, electric (resistive
or heat pump) none of which have ever caused a house explosion and
killed people.

They're also more polluting.

[snip]

Solar is most certainly not more polluting,

Consider the manufacture and disposal of solar cells.

Who said anything about solar cells? We're talking about safer
alternatives to nat. gas, which is primarily used for heating.
Manufacture and recycling of solar thermal collectors (air or water) is
pretty non-polluting and they are very recyclable.


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.


In any case, pollution isn't much of a concern
vs. getting blown up.

I said nothing about relative concerns before, but it is. Maybe less
immediate but no less serious.

If I die at 85 vs. 90 due to pollution, I don't much care since quality
of life at those ages tends to be rather low. If I get blown up at 30
due to a nat. gas leak I'd be rather more upset.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Gary H wrote:


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.

Natural gas is the most widely used less polluting source of
electricity.

Nuclear is also a significant percentage of our "green" power
generation.

At any rate, I never said that nat. gas shouldn't be used in carefully
controlled industrial applications like power generation, I said it
should not be used in residential applications, or at the very least gas
detectors should be mandatory just like CO detectors.

Han wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in
ster.com:


David Nebenzahl wrote:

Been watching the teevee nooz coverage of the San Bruno [San
Francisco peninsula] gas main explosion and conflagration. Wow.

I used to live about a mile away from that spot, across Skyline
Blvd.; used to shop at the Lunardi's just across the road.

The news reported lots of people saying they'd been smelling gas in
the neighborhood for the last week or so. One can only hope that PG&E
(Pure Greed & Extortion) gets raked over the coals, literally, for
this one.

A few comments on this:

- People said they had smelled gas for a week, did any of those people
bother to report it?

- 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.

- Gas detectors are pretty inexpensive, they're included in every RV.
Various technologies exist to allow the gas monopolies to install gas
monitors in the areas where they pipe their dangerous product. It
would not be especially expensive to install remote gas detectors in
the area that would not rely on some person actually calling the
monopoly to report a possible gas leak. The gas detectors also are
more sensitive than human noses so they could detect a small leak
blowing past.

With properly maintained facilities, natural gas is safe. Considering
the number of households and commercial establishments of all kinds that
use NG, the number of accidents and fatalities is small. Gasoline etc
probably have at least as many (BP well blowing up).

Some 6.6 residential nat. gas fires and/or explosions (they tend to go
together) per *DAY* (NFPA statistics) may be small relative to the total
number of residential nat. gas installations, but it is unacceptably
high given the many safer alternatives, and at the very least the
availability of inexpensive gas detectors (every RV has one).


Now as far as proper maintenance, I don't understand the use of a 54"
inch main gas line only 3 feet under a residential area. In an
earthquake prone region. I bet that it will turn out that the residents
have warned many times (probably crying wolf too many times, as far as
PG&E was concerned), and that the line was NOT inspected often enough
and recently enough. Wouldn't want to have shares in that company ...

A nat. gas transmission line that blew in the northeast (NJ I believe)
was *under* and apartment building. What ****-for-brains allowed that,
and how much were they bribed?

aemeijers wrote:

On 9/11/2010 6:07 PM, A. Baum wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 21:40:08 +0000, Han wrote:

"A. wrote in
news
Was the 54" main there when the allotment was created or installed
after?

The community dates from the 60s. I don't know who was first. I don't
think it matters at this moment.

Sure it matters. Maybe not to the explosion victims so much but rather
that you seemed to place PG&E at fault for placing the 54" 3 feet under
the community. Can't quote you exactly since you snipped that part out.


Pretty sure they don't put subdivisons, or at least the house
footprints, DIRECTLY on top of major gas transmission lines like that.
I've seen them cut across the corners of subdivisions, but the easement
always said there had to be a clear zone with no permanent structures
directly above, and instant access when needed, for sniffer trucks and
the big yellow things. The pipeline companies try real hard to lay them
out based on 30+ years of undisturbed usage. Almost always they go
through farm fields.

There was a nat. gas transmission line that blew in the northeast that
was directly *under* an apartment building and completely leveled it.


I've never seen a neighborhood distribution line bigger than 6-8 inches
or so.

The line appears to be a high pressure transmission line (~600 PSI I
believe), not a distribution line to service homes.

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 9/11/2010 4:25 PM Han spake thus:

"A. Baum" wrote in newsan.2010.09.11.22.07.07@
50kilotons.net.not:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 21:40:08 +0000, Han wrote:

"A. Baum" wrote in
news
Was the 54" main there when the allotment was created or installed
after?

The community dates from the 60s. I don't know who was first. I don't
think it matters at this moment.

Sure it matters. Maybe not to the explosion victims so much but rather
that you seemed to place PG&E at fault for placing the 54" 3 feet under
the community. Can't quote you exactly since you snipped that part out.

The only thing I heard/read was a 54" main gas line that was 3' underground
in a residential community.

Pretty sure that it is a 24" line. That's what I've been hearing from
the teevee nooz the last couple days here.

The pictures seem to show something in the 24" range. It also appears to
be a high pressure transmission line, not a distribution line.

I own some property that has one of those transmission lines crossing it
way back on the property. I heard that some years back it had a blowout
which never ignited, but did blow a 10' crater in the frozen ground (was
winter). They apparently traced the failure to a scrape by a backhoe
tooth when burying the pipeline years earlier.

On Sep 11, 10:00*pm, "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.

cheers
Bob

On Sep 11, 10:07*pm, "Pete C." wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
*Gary H wrote:

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.
* *Natural gas is the most widely used less polluting source of
electricity.

Nuclear is also a significant percentage of our "green" power
generation.

At any rate, I never said that nat. gas shouldn't be used in carefully
controlled industrial applications like power generation, I said it
should not be used in residential applications, or at the very least gas
detectors should be mandatory just like CO detectors.

Pete-

You're clearly WAY out of your depth.

How do you suggest we heat the homes now currently being served by
natural gas?
Switch them all over to propane? Wood pellets?

btw natural gas is way too valuable a resource to use for generating
electricity, think chemical feedstock.

The average human already comes with a residential natural gas ......
their nose.
CO is odorless & colorless, that's why CO detectors make more sense
(but examining one's thumb nail color will do in a pinch)

cheers
Bob

"Pete C." wrote in news:4c8c627e$0$14815
:

There was a nat. gas transmission line that blew in the northeast that
was directly *under* an apartment building and completely leveled it.


I've never seen a neighborhood distribution line bigger than 6-8 inches
or so.

The line appears to be a high pressure transmission line (~600 PSI I
believe), not a distribution line to service homes.

That was a natural gas major transmission line too close to the building
(s), not under it/them. There was 1 fatality, but the fault lay with
people digging there, and with inadequate inspection and maintenance. For
details see (on 1 line, with comma):
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edison,_New_Jersey_natural_gas_explosion".

The lesson is that you should find out what is in the area where you want
to live before moving there.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Pete C." wrote in news:4c8c61cf$0$14815
:

A nat. gas transmission line that blew in the northeast (NJ I believe)
was *under* and apartment building. What ****-for-brains allowed that,
and how much were they bribed?

See my other answer - it was NEXT to an apartment building and inadequate
inspection and maintenance was responsible.

Also, I said above that one should examine what might be in the area that
you contemplate moving to.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

"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.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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.

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