Fortunately, nobody was under this load.....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a94_1322497254

......it looks like a monumentally expensive screw up.
Dave

On 2011-11-29, lid wrote:
Fortunately, nobody was under this load.....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a94_1322497254

.....it looks like a monumentally expensive screw up.
Dave

Reminds me of a comparator that I was moving with a forklift...

Expensive. Like the film said, each of the blades can cost
$10,000 each.

I don't know enough about hoisting, they did show broken
parts, but I'm not sure what broke. Something high up over
the rotor, I guess.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
news Fortunately, nobody was under this load.....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a94_1322497254

......it looks like a monumentally expensive screw up.
Dave

In article , cayoung61
says...

Expensive. Like the film said, each of the blades can cost
$10,000 each.

I don't know enough about hoisting, they did show broken
parts, but I'm not sure what broke. Something high up over
the rotor, I guess.

I'm reminded for some reason of the fellow I used to work with who
decided to shoot video from the target zone during one of the tests of
the 60K system (that's a parachute system that delivers 30 tons). Well,
he wasn't supposed to be in the drop zone and the RSO told him that if
he didn't get out of there he'd be banned from the site. While he's
arguing with the RSO, he hears "WHAM" and the ground moves. Turns
around and it seems something had gone bust in the rig and it had dumped
the whole load right where he had been standing from about 1000 feet up.

On 11/29/2011 07:57 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Expensive. Like the film said, each of the blades can cost
$10,000 each.

I don't know enough about hoisting, they did show broken
parts, but I'm not sure what broke. Something high up over
the rotor, I guess.

Looks like possibly a gearbox or brake in the hoist. Might not
have been any obvious outward signs of a crack developing there until it
let loose.

Jon

wrote in message
news
Fortunately, nobody was under this load.....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a94_1322497254

.....it looks like a monumentally expensive screw up.
Dave

I love the part where it says OSHA requires daily inspection. Like the US
standards are better. And are complied with. Yeah, right.

A post mortem will be interesting, but I suspect they will find some old
cracking that finally got to the failure point.

Steve

Ignoramus12504 wrote:

On 2011-11-29, lid wrote:
Fortunately, nobody was under this load.....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a94_1322497254

.....it looks like a monumentally expensive screw up.
Dave

Reminds me of a comparator that I was moving with a forklift...

All those people standing around with out eye protection.

As to the lift, I have a feeling it was a freak accident, I'm not sure what the safety
factor is but it should be sustantial for something that is land based as opposed to
aviation where the factor is trimmed a bit.

Wes.

On 11/30/2011 5:59 PM, Wes wrote:
wrote:

On 2011-11-29, lid wrote:
Fortunately, nobody was under this load.....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a94_1322497254

.....it looks like a monumentally expensive screw up.
Dave

Reminds me of a comparator that I was moving with a forklift...

All those people standing around with out eye protection.

As to the lift, I have a feeling it was a freak accident, I'm not sure what the safety
factor is but it should be sustantial for something that is land based as opposed to
aviation where the factor is trimmed a bit.

Wes.

Well, in the beginning they state that the rotor weighs 75 tons.. Then
towards the end, they show the placard that clearly states the crane is
rated for 60,000 KG, which equals ~ 66.14 tons.. Or maybe that was just
the support bar.. either way, someone somewhere made a mistake.
Freak accidents should not happen with something that weighs that much.

On 2011-12-01, tnik wrote:
On 11/30/2011 5:59 PM, Wes wrote:
wrote:

On 2011-11-29, lid wrote:
Fortunately, nobody was under this load.....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a94_1322497254

.....it looks like a monumentally expensive screw up.
Dave

Reminds me of a comparator that I was moving with a forklift...

All those people standing around with out eye protection.

As to the lift, I have a feeling it was a freak accident, I'm not sure what the safety
factor is but it should be sustantial for something that is land based as opposed to
aviation where the factor is trimmed a bit.

Wes.

Well, in the beginning they state that the rotor weighs 75 tons.. Then
towards the end, they show the placard that clearly states the crane is
rated for 60,000 KG, which equals ~ 66.14 tons.. Or maybe that was just
the support bar.. either way, someone somewhere made a mistake.
Freak accidents should not happen with something that weighs that much.

60,000 KG is 60.000 tons.

Good eye on the placards.

i

Wes wrote:
wrote:

On 2011-11-29, lid wrote:
Fortunately, nobody was under this load.....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a94_1322497254

.....it looks like a monumentally expensive screw up.
Dave

Reminds me of a comparator that I was moving with a forklift...

All those people standing around with out eye protection.

As to the lift, I have a feeling it was a freak accident, I'm not sure what the safety
factor is but it should be sustantial for something that is land based as opposed to
aviation where the factor is trimmed a bit.

Back in my youth in the army, we moved missile sections
around with an overhead crane. As I recall, we load-
tested *everything* - crane, lifting jigs, straps, every
six months.

A load test on this crane before the lift would have
prevented the accident unless it was a *real* freak
event.

On 12/1/2011 1:19 PM, Ignoramus19744 wrote:
On 2011-12-01, wrote:
....

Well, in the beginning they state that the rotor weighs 75 tons.. Then
towards the end, they show the placard that clearly states the crane is
rated for 60,000 KG, which equals ~ 66.14 tons.. Or maybe that was just
the support bar.. either way, someone somewhere made a mistake.
Freak accidents should not happen with something that weighs that much.

60,000 KG is 60.000 tons.

60k kg -- 60 tonnes (2200-lb tons), not 60 (2000-lb) tons.

1 tonne==1000 kg, 1 ton==2000 lb

--

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:19:33 -0600, Ignoramus19744
wrote:

On 2011-12-01, tnik wrote:
On 11/30/2011 5:59 PM, Wes wrote:
wrote:

On 2011-11-29, lid wrote:
Fortunately, nobody was under this load.....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a94_1322497254

.....it looks like a monumentally expensive screw up.
Dave

Reminds me of a comparator that I was moving with a forklift...

All those people standing around with out eye protection.

As to the lift, I have a feeling it was a freak accident, I'm not sure what the safety
factor is but it should be sustantial for something that is land based as opposed to
aviation where the factor is trimmed a bit.

Wes.

Well, in the beginning they state that the rotor weighs 75 tons.. Then
towards the end, they show the placard that clearly states the crane is
rated for 60,000 KG, which equals ~ 66.14 tons.. Or maybe that was just
the support bar.. either way, someone somewhere made a mistake.
Freak accidents should not happen with something that weighs that much.

60,000 KG is 60.000 tons.

Close, within 10%, but no cigar. KG = 2.2 pounds, T = 2,000 pounds.

--
Intuition isn't the enemy, but the ally, of reason.
-- John Kord Lagemann

On 12/1/2011 22:23, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:19:33 -0600, Ignoramus19744
On 2011-12-01, wrote:
Well, in the beginning they state that the rotor weighs 75 tons.. Then
towards the end, they show the placard that clearly states the crane is
rated for 60,000 KG, which equals ~ 66.14 tons.. Or maybe that was just
the support bar.. either way, someone somewhere made a mistake.
Freak accidents should not happen with something that weighs that much.
60,000 KG is 60.000 tons.
Close, within 10%, but no cigar. KG = 2.2 pounds, T = 2,000 pounds.

In the metric system, 1 ton = 1000kg. That is a definition.

Kristian Ukkonen.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:00:26 +0200, Kristian Ukkonen
wrote:

On 12/1/2011 22:23, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:19:33 -0600, Ignoramus19744
On 2011-12-01, wrote:
Well, in the beginning they state that the rotor weighs 75 tons.. Then
towards the end, they show the placard that clearly states the crane is
rated for 60,000 KG, which equals ~ 66.14 tons.. Or maybe that was just
the support bar.. either way, someone somewhere made a mistake.
Freak accidents should not happen with something that weighs that much.
60,000 KG is 60.000 tons.
Close, within 10%, but no cigar. KG = 2.2 pounds, T = 2,000 pounds.

In the metric system, 1 ton = 1000kg. That is a definition.

You're right. Since the accident happened in Metricville, I sit
corrected. FWIW, we call that a "metric ton" over here.

--
Intuition isn't the enemy, but the ally, of reason.
-- John Kord Lagemann

On 2011-12-01, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:00:26 +0200, Kristian Ukkonen
wrote:

On 12/1/2011 22:23, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:19:33 -0600, Ignoramus19744
On 2011-12-01, wrote:
Well, in the beginning they state that the rotor weighs 75 tons.. Then
towards the end, they show the placard that clearly states the crane is
rated for 60,000 KG, which equals ~ 66.14 tons.. Or maybe that was just
the support bar.. either way, someone somewhere made a mistake.
Freak accidents should not happen with something that weighs that much.
60,000 KG is 60.000 tons.
Close, within 10%, but no cigar. KG = 2.2 pounds, T = 2,000 pounds.

In the metric system, 1 ton = 1000kg. That is a definition.

You're right. Since the accident happened in Metricville, I sit
corrected. FWIW, we call that a "metric ton" over here.


I just call it a ton, and I call 2000 lbs 2000 lbs.

"Kristian Ukkonen" wrote in message
...
On 12/1/2011 22:23, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:19:33 -0600, Ignoramus19744
On 2011-12-01, wrote:
Well, in the beginning they state that the rotor weighs 75 tons.. Then
towards the end, they show the placard that clearly states the crane is
rated for 60,000 KG, which equals ~ 66.14 tons.. Or maybe that was
just
the support bar.. either way, someone somewhere made a mistake.
Freak accidents should not happen with something that weighs that much.
60,000 KG is 60.000 tons.
Close, within 10%, but no cigar. KG = 2.2 pounds, T = 2,000 pounds.

In the metric system, 1 ton = 1000kg. That is a definition.

Kristian Ukkonen.

Nope! 1 tonne= 1000kg
There is no ton in the metric system

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:41:49 -0600, Ignoramus19744
wrote:

On 2011-12-01, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:00:26 +0200, Kristian Ukkonen
wrote:

On 12/1/2011 22:23, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:19:33 -0600, Ignoramus19744
On 2011-12-01, wrote:
Well, in the beginning they state that the rotor weighs 75 tons.. Then
towards the end, they show the placard that clearly states the crane is
rated for 60,000 KG, which equals ~ 66.14 tons.. Or maybe that was just
the support bar.. either way, someone somewhere made a mistake.
Freak accidents should not happen with something that weighs that much.
60,000 KG is 60.000 tons.
Close, within 10%, but no cigar. KG = 2.2 pounds, T = 2,000 pounds.

In the metric system, 1 ton = 1000kg. That is a definition.

You're right. Since the accident happened in Metricville, I sit
corrected. FWIW, we call that a "metric ton" over here.


I just call it a ton, and I call 2000 lbs 2000 lbs.

Yabbut, you grew up in Metricville and we grew up in Poundville.

--
Intuition isn't the enemy, but the ally, of reason.
-- John Kord Lagemann

On 2011-12-02, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:41:49 -0600, Ignoramus19744
wrote:

On 2011-12-01, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:00:26 +0200, Kristian Ukkonen
wrote:

On 12/1/2011 22:23, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:19:33 -0600, Ignoramus19744
On 2011-12-01, wrote:
Well, in the beginning they state that the rotor weighs 75 tons.. Then
towards the end, they show the placard that clearly states the crane is
rated for 60,000 KG, which equals ~ 66.14 tons.. Or maybe that was just
the support bar.. either way, someone somewhere made a mistake.
Freak accidents should not happen with something that weighs that much.
60,000 KG is 60.000 tons.
Close, within 10%, but no cigar. KG = 2.2 pounds, T = 2,000 pounds.

In the metric system, 1 ton = 1000kg. That is a definition.

You're right. Since the accident happened in Metricville, I sit
corrected. FWIW, we call that a "metric ton" over here.


I just call it a ton, and I call 2000 lbs 2000 lbs.

Yabbut, you grew up in Metricville and we grew up in Poundville.


When I think about how "short tons" are used, it is always the
equivalent of "Sears horsepower".

i

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:41:49 -0600, Ignoramus19744
wrote:

On 2011-12-01, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:00:26 +0200, Kristian Ukkonen
wrote:

On 12/1/2011 22:23, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:19:33 -0600, Ignoramus19744
On 2011-12-01, wrote:
Well, in the beginning they state that the rotor weighs 75 tons..
Then
towards the end, they show the placard that clearly states the crane
is
rated for 60,000 KG, which equals ~ 66.14 tons.. Or maybe that was
just
the support bar.. either way, someone somewhere made a mistake.
Freak accidents should not happen with something that weighs that
much.
60,000 KG is 60.000 tons.
Close, within 10%, but no cigar. KG = 2.2 pounds, T = 2,000 pounds.

In the metric system, 1 ton = 1000kg. That is a definition.

You're right. Since the accident happened in Metricville, I sit
corrected. FWIW, we call that a "metric ton" over here.


I just call it a ton, and I call 2000 lbs 2000 lbs.

Yabbut, you grew up in Metricville and we grew up in Poundville.


Nope wrong again! I grew up in Canada in the 1950-60's which was very much
Poundville.
Went through the joys of metrification in Australia, then again in Fiji.
I'm now retired and work as a volunteer at a Science museum where I
refurbish ancient machinery. Most of it is Imperial sizes again.
No wonder I keep a conversion chart as close as possible.

--
Intuition isn't the enemy, but the ally, of reason.
-- John Kord Lagemann

On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 23:40:12 +1100, "Grumpy"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:41:49 -0600, Ignoramus19744
wrote:

On 2011-12-01, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:00:26 +0200, Kristian Ukkonen
wrote:

On 12/1/2011 22:23, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:19:33 -0600, Ignoramus19744
On 2011-12-01, wrote:
Well, in the beginning they state that the rotor weighs 75 tons..
Then
towards the end, they show the placard that clearly states the crane
is
rated for 60,000 KG, which equals ~ 66.14 tons.. Or maybe that was
just
the support bar.. either way, someone somewhere made a mistake.
Freak accidents should not happen with something that weighs that
much.
60,000 KG is 60.000 tons.
Close, within 10%, but no cigar. KG = 2.2 pounds, T = 2,000 pounds.

In the metric system, 1 ton = 1000kg. That is a definition.

You're right. Since the accident happened in Metricville, I sit
corrected. FWIW, we call that a "metric ton" over here.


I just call it a ton, and I call 2000 lbs 2000 lbs.

Yabbut, you grew up in Metricville and we grew up in Poundville.


Nope wrong again! I grew up in Canada in the 1950-60's which was very much
Poundville.

Yabbut, -you're- not Iggy, whom I was quoting there.
Silly wabbit. Kicks are for Trids.


Went through the joys of metrification in Australia, then again in Fiji.
I'm now retired and work as a volunteer at a Science museum where I
refurbish ancient machinery. Most of it is Imperial sizes again.
No wonder I keep a conversion chart as close as possible.

With that background, you should already know the conversions by
heart, having memorized them 3 or 4 decades ago.

--
Intuition isn't the enemy, but the ally, of reason.
-- John Kord Lagemann

Grumpy wrote:

Nope wrong again! I grew up in Canada in the 1950-60's which was
very much Poundville.
Went through the joys of metrification in Australia, then again in
Fiji.
I'm now retired and work as a volunteer at a Science museum where I
refurbish ancient machinery. Most of it is Imperial sizes again.
No wonder I keep a conversion chart as close as possible.


Learning metric so many times is why you're so grumpy? ;-)


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 23:40:12 +1100, "Grumpy"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:41:49 -0600, Ignoramus19744
wrote:

On 2011-12-01, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:00:26 +0200, Kristian Ukkonen
wrote:

On 12/1/2011 22:23, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:19:33 -0600, Ignoramus19744
On 2011-12-01, wrote:
Well, in the beginning they state that the rotor weighs 75 tons..
Then
towards the end, they show the placard that clearly states the
crane
is
rated for 60,000 KG, which equals ~ 66.14 tons.. Or maybe that
was
just
the support bar.. either way, someone somewhere made a mistake.
Freak accidents should not happen with something that weighs that
much.
60,000 KG is 60.000 tons.
Close, within 10%, but no cigar. KG = 2.2 pounds, T = 2,000 pounds.

In the metric system, 1 ton = 1000kg. That is a definition.

You're right. Since the accident happened in Metricville, I sit
corrected. FWIW, we call that a "metric ton" over here.


I just call it a ton, and I call 2000 lbs 2000 lbs.

Yabbut, you grew up in Metricville and we grew up in Poundville.


Nope wrong again! I grew up in Canada in the 1950-60's which was very
much
Poundville.

Yabbut, -you're- not Iggy, whom I was quoting there.
Silly wabbit. Kicks are for Trids.


Went through the joys of metrification in Australia, then again in Fiji.
I'm now retired and work as a volunteer at a Science museum where I
refurbish ancient machinery. Most of it is Imperial sizes again.
No wonder I keep a conversion chart as close as possible.

With that background, you should already know the conversions by
heart, having memorized them 3 or 4 decades ago.

--
Intuition isn't the enemy, but the ally, of reason.
-- John Kord Lagemann

I do know most of the conversions by heart including pressure a lot of the
others, but a metric/fractional imperial/ decimal imperial char is a lot
quicker.

On 12/1/2011 7:36 AM, tnik wrote:
On 11/30/2011 5:59 PM, Wes wrote:
wrote:

On 2011-11-29, lid wrote:
Fortunately, nobody was under this load.....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a94_1322497254

.....it looks like a monumentally expensive screw up.
Dave

Reminds me of a comparator that I was moving with a forklift...

All those people standing around with out eye protection.

As to the lift, I have a feeling it was a freak accident, I'm not sure
what the safety
factor is but it should be sustantial for something that is land based
as opposed to
aviation where the factor is trimmed a bit.

Wes.

Well, in the beginning they state that the rotor weighs 75 tons.. Then
towards the end, they show the placard that clearly states the crane is
rated for 60,000 KG, which equals ~ 66.14 tons.. Or maybe that was just
the support bar.. either way, someone somewhere made a mistake.
Freak accidents should not happen with something that weighs that much.


At the end of the video it said that in the U.S. cranes are inspected
daily. That is the kind of thing the government forces businesses to do.
It's regulation. Without it you see the kinds of things that can happen.
When you want a smaller government and deregulation of business this is
the kind of thing that happens far more frequently. So after seeing this
does it make sense to have a smaller government that isn't big enough to
ensure this kind of work is done safely?

In addition, I saw today that the mine company that was in charge of
that mine that had the disaster a year ago or so just got hit with a 200
million dollar fine because it didn't follow the safety regulations.
Everyone knew the company was not following the rules and was cited many
times for violations but didn't do what it should have. The net result
was a mine accident, dead miners, and a 200 million dollar fine for the
operator. I think it would have been a lot cheaper to have just followed
the government safety regulations.

Hawke

On Dec 6, 3:00*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 12/1/2011 7:36 AM, tnik wrote:









On 11/30/2011 5:59 PM, Wes wrote:
wrote:

On 2011-11-29, wrote:
Fortunately, nobody was under this load.....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a94_1322497254

.....it looks like a monumentally expensive screw up.
Dave

Reminds me of a comparator that I was moving with a forklift...

All those people standing around with out eye protection.

As to the lift, I have a feeling it was a freak accident, I'm not sure
what the safety
factor is but it should be sustantial for something that is land based
as opposed to
aviation where the factor is trimmed a bit.

Wes.

Well, in the beginning they state that the rotor weighs 75 tons.. Then
towards the end, they show the placard that clearly states the crane is
rated for 60,000 KG, which equals ~ 66.14 tons.. Or maybe that was just
the support bar.. either way, someone somewhere made a mistake.
Freak accidents should not happen with something that weighs that much.

At the end of the video it said that in the U.S. cranes are inspected
daily. That is the kind of thing the government forces businesses to do.
It's regulation. Without it you see the kinds of things that can happen.
When you want a smaller government and deregulation of business this is
the kind of thing that happens far more frequently. So after seeing this
does it make sense to have a smaller government that isn't big enough to
ensure this kind of work is done safely?


Actually it said that Osha requires annual , periodic, and daily
inspections of cranes. The daily inspections required by Osha are
probably checks made by the operator and would not have found whatever
caused this accident.

Dan

In addition, I saw today that the mine company that was in charge of
that mine that had the disaster a year ago or so just got hit with a 200
million dollar fine because it didn't follow the safety regulations.
Everyone knew the company was not following the rules and was cited many
times for violations but didn't do what it should have. The net result
was a mine accident, dead miners, and a 200 million dollar fine for the
operator. I think it would have been a lot cheaper to have just followed
the government safety regulations.

Hawke

On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 17:58:39 -0800 (PST), the renowned
" wrote:


Actually it said that Osha requires annual , periodic, and daily
inspections of cranes. The daily inspections required by Osha are
probably checks made by the operator and would not have found whatever
caused this accident.

Dan

Yes. I'd be extremely surprised if the regulations were substantially
different between the US and the Netherlands on gantry crane safety
inspections.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owad...ards&p_id=9830

A complete inspection might involve partial disassembly, certification
with signatures etc. Not practical to perform too frequently.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Dec 6, 9:38*pm, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:

Yes. I'd be extremely surprised if the regulations were substantially
different between the US and the Netherlands on gantry crane safety
inspections.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owad..._table=standar....

A complete inspection might involve partial disassembly, certification
with signatures etc. Not practical to perform too frequently.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

The last place I worked paid a lot of attention to cranes and slings.
Cranes were load tested as part of certification. They had a group of
4 or 5 engineers in the crane group that kept the drawings for the
cranes updated. And they had a sling test tower to load test all the
slings. There was one or two people testing slings full time. The
test procedures were maintained by yet another group.

Dan

On 12/7/2011 7:33 AM, wrote:
On Dec 6, 9:38 pm, Spehro
wrote:

Yes. I'd be extremely surprised if the regulations were substantially
different between the US and the Netherlands on gantry crane safety
inspections.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owad..._table=standar...

A complete inspection might involve partial disassembly, certification
with signatures etc. Not practical to perform too frequently.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

The last place I worked paid a lot of attention to cranes and slings.
Cranes were load tested as part of certification. They had a group of
4 or 5 engineers in the crane group that kept the drawings for the
cranes updated. And they had a sling test tower to load test all the
slings. There was one or two people testing slings full time. The
test procedures were maintained by yet another group.

Dan


That's great that your experience was with companies that were
responsible. But we know that all companies don't act that way. The mine
where 29 people got killed is a good example. So would you rather leave
the safety of people to the businesses themselves or have the government
make sure they followed the rules?

Hawke

On Dec 8, 2:36*pm, Hawke wrote:



That's great that your experience was with companies that were
responsible. But we know that all companies don't act that way. The mine
where 29 people got killed is a good example. So would you rather leave
the safety of people to the businesses themselves or have the government
make sure they followed the rules?

Hawke

My reply was in response to you misrepresenting the OSHA
requirements.

Here you are seeing black and white again. To you it is either the
businesses themselves or the government.

Dan

On 12/8/2011 2:34 PM, wrote:
On Dec 8, 2:36 pm, wrote:



That's great that your experience was with companies that were
responsible. But we know that all companies don't act that way. The mine
where 29 people got killed is a good example. So would you rather leave
the safety of people to the businesses themselves or have the government
make sure they followed the rules?

Hawke

My reply was in response to you misrepresenting the OSHA
requirements.

Here you are seeing black and white again. To you it is either the
businesses themselves or the government.

Dan



Okay then, who else is there to ensure the safety of the workplace if
not business or the government?


Hawke

On Dec 8, 8:22*pm, Hawke wrote:

Okay then, who else is there to ensure the safety of the workplace if
not business or the government?

Hawke

Obviously there is business and the government. Less obvious is the
workers. Or the workers and businesses. Or the workers and the
government. Or the workers and the businesses and the government.
And then there are the agencies as the UL lab. which is neither the
businesses nor the government. And we do not want to forget the
insurance companies.

I live in a grey world.


Dan

On 2011-12-09, wrote:
On Dec 8, 8:22?pm, Hawke wrote:

Okay then, who else is there to ensure the safety of the workplace if
not business or the government?

Hawke

Obviously there is business and the government. Less obvious is the
workers. Or the workers and businesses. Or the workers and the
government. Or the workers and the businesses and the government.
And then there are the agencies as the UL lab. which is neither the
businesses nor the government. And we do not want to forget the
insurance companies.

I live in a grey world.

Since I started working for myself, and have an employsee, I have
resolved to find out what are the benefits of govt regulations on
safety. For now, I am not making any conclusions, but I am trying to
learn all I can about it.

i

On Dec 8, 9:59*pm, Ignoramus12911 ignoramus12...@NOSPAM.
12911.invalid wrote:


Since I started working for myself, and have an employsee, I have
resolved to find out what are the benefits of govt regulations on
safety. For now, I am not making any conclusions, but I am trying to
learn all I can about it.

i

I would encourage you to have a safety meeting at least once a month
and write up and retain minutes of the meetings. It will help
convince your employee that you are serious about safety. Your
employee may bring up something that you had not considered. And if
you do have an accident, you will be less likely to be sued.


Dan

On 12/8/2011 6:59 PM, Ignoramus12911 wrote:
On 2011-12-09, wrote:
On Dec 8, 8:22?pm, wrote:

Okay then, who else is there to ensure the safety of the workplace if
not business or the government?

Hawke

Obviously there is business and the government. Less obvious is the
workers. Or the workers and businesses. Or the workers and the
government. Or the workers and the businesses and the government.
And then there are the agencies as the UL lab. which is neither the
businesses nor the government. And we do not want to forget the
insurance companies.

I live in a grey world.

Since I started working for myself, and have an employsee, I have
resolved to find out what are the benefits of govt regulations on
safety. For now, I am not making any conclusions, but I am trying to
learn all I can about it.

i


I think you'll find that some make good sense and others are bull****.
You will have to figure out what the percentages are according to the
kind of business you have. My experience is that for most business
regulation is not that onerous. It depends on what you are doing. Sell
men's clothing, regulations aren't too bad. Make uranium rods for
nuclear reactors, the regulations will be hell. But I see nothing wrong
with that.

Hawke