Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
I was listening to the news report this morning concerning Buncefield recommendations and could not help but note some similarities and contrasts with the Flixboro recommendations.
All of the previous statements made at Flixboro seem again to come forward such as planning for disaster, location of adjacent premises etc etc. Then came the real change - There needs to be more support of the people affected through such as counselling etc. It began to make me question whether this is simply a sign of the times and has our society become less able to deal with trauma? What is it that now makes counselling the answer to every ill in society? Has there been a professionalisation of everything such that common humanity now has to be administered by a counselling industry that lobbies so effectively that no person can now challenge its supremacy?
33 years on and we seem to live in a different world. I remember finding myself standing on top of a pile of rubble 3 weeks after the explosion only to find one of my friends was beneath. I survived and developed from this event yet now the professionals would seek to make me a victim of such events and one wonders if there is a better way.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steve e ashton
Very heartfelt Robert - and very well expressed. I have to say I agree there is apparently a feeling nowadays that people may 'not be able to cope' without some professional assistance.
I suspect that the money distributed to local authorities following the recent floods may result in the 'victims' getting post-traumatic counselling before there is any chance of more 'immediate' needs (Shelter, food, water power) being met by the authorities.
For what its worth -I often feel there is more scope for cameraderie and 'community self help' than perhaps the 'counselling industry' would have us all believe.
I think the 'Dunkirk spirit' - the ability of most in society to 'pull together in time of hardship' - is still with us. It may not always be visible, and there may be some indicators that society generally is less supportive, but come the the day (at a very mundane level, for example - stranded at an airport following the events in Glasgow recently) its amazing just how supportive and generous many people are.
I've been grateful for counselling following close family loss, but I've been even happier to know that friends, family, colleagues, neighbours and most of the 'guys down the pub' - were 'there for me'.
I agree with your analysis, but think there's hope for us despite that!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
I often wonder about these "councillors" - who are they, where do they come from, what do they do whilst awaiting an emergency, importantly what skills do they possess?
Is there robust research evidence that they are of any benefit?
The cynic in me thinks their "clinical skills" and use might be on par with aromatherapists.
Back to Bob's main point - the similarities suggest to me that we have not learned lessons. What's the betting that the Cumbria train crash inquiry will trot out the same findings from every other train crash inquiry over the past 30 years?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steve e ashton
Jim - I suspect the Cumbria crash may turn out to have been a very different sort of rail incident - the arrest last week may herald that.
And as for not learning leassons between Flixbro and Buncefield? I beg to differ - at least in the planning and technical aspects. The current Land Use Planning Guidelines for Major Accident Hazards sites have been arrived at after many years (and many incidents). Along with CIMAH / COMAH regs etc - and the steady progression of technical knowledge these have helped to prevent major loss of life in the UK from an industrial incident for many years. And I actually believe that we have got much better then we were at controlling things.
Although whether we ever actually learned anything useful specifically from Flixbro is another question (raised recently by one of the forensics guys around at the time). Maybe it wasn't down to a dog leg pipe as we were all lead to believe...
And maybe we are headed down the wrong trousers with Buncefield? - was it a vapour cloud or an aerosol explosion? The proposed revisions to LUP guidance from HSE and the advice to site operators are predicated on it having been a VCE. However, I believe the nature of the event suggests it may have been an aerosol that was involved in the main blast. Getting this ?simple? distinction wrong will be profound in terms of what planning restrictions are being proposed and what technical measures could be useful in preventing recurrence. (Look up information concerning 'fuel air munitions' for an explanation of why aerosol blasts are so much more damaging than vapour cloud explosions. Although be aware that any internet search on this topic may cause a flag to be raised somewhere in spook land at the moment....)
Have we learned anything? well yes - but have we ever learned the right things? hmmmm.
Just a thought...
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
I have a jaundiced view of people who having had their evidence forensically analysed by the RCI now bring it forward as their careers are on the wane.
Film footage taken some minutes after the start of an incident showing fire on a pump immediately below the missing reactor is not evidence the main release started there. The force of such a fire exploding into existence would not have created the damage to the 27inch line that was witnessed. In any event the main explosion was initiated with the catastrophic failure of the 27inch line - nothing else could have released the volume in such a short space of time. I am actually tired of pseudo experts riding on the backs of those affected, including the 28 families and releatives of the victims.
On the learning side - if we had learned why are the findings the same again? Truth is that when it is convenient we tend to work our way around the real issues and bend them to suit our needs at the time. The arrest for Cumbria cannot shift the real focus that rail maintenance is badly managed and shot full of holes in spite of repeated inquiries and reports. Trevor Kletz is absolutely correct concerning corporate memory loss - we do seem to need a disaster periodically to remind us of the dangers.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Allen
Perhaps it might help gentlemen, if we actually had a look at the report issued today?
It’s about emergency preparedness and recovery with recommendations 27-31 specifically referring to the latter. Recovery in this context means economic and structural recovery, getting people back to their homes and people and businesses back to work. Nowhere is the word “counselling” (so abhorred and condemned by earlier respondents on this thread) used, neither does the report suggest causes of the disaster.
In future checking the facts rather than relying on media hearsay might be a wise course of action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Ouch! Not actually read the reports in detail so I will take John's word for fact, even if he is as subtle as a brick in the mouth.
Nevertheless, being a cynic by nature I agree with many of the sentiments in the previous posting. The 'lessons learnt' is a familiar cry in the wake of a disaster, and very often are soon forgotten.
The issue of counselling is another modern trait that I suspect has been born out of the compensation culture. Possibly nothing more than a philosopher's stone.
That's my bit...
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Ray
As I stated my reverie commenced with the BBC report and whilst I take your comments I can see precisely how their reporters arrived at this in the course of reading recommendations 27-32.
The emphasis is on social AND economic recovery and the assessment by LAs of the resources that will be required. However this social recovery aspect is distinctly different from previous reports.
The deja vue of the remainder can hardly be avoided.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Ray
Sorry I meant John
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By LIN If you are interested in any of the products we deal with, please feel free to contact us. We can prepare samples in case you requires. Our principle"SAFETY+ QUALITY+FAST DELIVERY+ GOOD PRICE = PERMANENT CUSTOMER".welcome to our website www.nikejordanmyth.com for more details(email:nikemyth@yahoo.com.cn and msn:nikemyth@hotmail.com)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steve e ashton
And similar from me - I was responding to the thread, not the report...
However, I have now read the report and note with dismay that it again focuses exclusively on the worst credible scenario at fuel storage depots involving vapour cloud explosions despite acknowledging at para 20 that "Before Buncefield a massive vapour cloud explosion at a tank farm was not deemed a credible major incident risk.”
Yet the possibility that this was an aerosol event, that could be prevented from recurrence far easier than a VCE has apparently been missed.
Operators are being told via recommendation 1 to revise their emergency plans based on the idea that a large liquid fuel spill can cause a highly damaging (high pressure short duration) explosion. This despite the scenario never having been seen as a credible risk previously.... And despite knowledge of the damaging nature of AEROSOL explosions.
This alternative explanation for the explosion mechanics would fit more closely with previous perceived wisdom and theory, would explain the visible 'cloud' reportedly tracked at Buncefield via CCTV, and would result in very different precautionary approaches to those now being recommended.
Voice in the wilderness goes quiet again.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
Reading this thread late in the day, may I comment that I am reminded yet again of Lord Dennings remarks of many years ago about "organisations do not have memories, only individuals do". Bobs opening remarks in this thread are a tangible illustration of that observation.
Bending, ignoring or ignorance of the rules will bite, trouble is you can never tell when.
As to post-incident support; I must admit that I cannot see where it is actually mentioned on the report, it is nevertheless a valid comment that is worthy of debate.
Yes, the world is a different place than then, whenever then is for you.
My view is that it is not whether people need it or not but that it should be available for those that do. Our society changes all the time and today is very different from even last year never mind Flixboro' days (yes I heard the explosion from a distance)
There are many social changes e.g closed social communities where neighbours do not know each other, family members spread over long distances, increased mobility that leaves people without long term friends and confidants. Or even just those who would prefer to talk things through with a stranger who arrives with no "baggage".
It is a vital part of social and individual recovery. (IMO)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By jom
Proving that industry does in fact learn from past accidents is difficult. It requires demonstrating that accidents that were going to occur did not occur. Since they did not occur, we might not know that they did not occur.
Perhaps between Flixborough and Buncefield (in time) there were a number of catastophic accidents that did not occur because of learning. How can we ever know?
J.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
jom
I agree it is difficult to know whether any disasters were prevented by lessons learned from the previous disasters. I suspect though that the subsequent investigations of a further disaster giving the same or very similar recommendations only serves to show that we do not actually learn. At least we only learn for as long as the reasons for remembering still confront us.
Perhaps there is a deeper reason in that the recommendations do not actually address the fundamental causes of the accident. Is there in fact a common "human factors" link in disasters that we have not yet uncvered? Is there a belief in the infallibility of the experts to know what to do to keep us safe? Do we really not truly believe the results of an inquiry, ie the recent flurry over Flixboro?
Ultimately we as humans seem to be arriving at a belief system that says we can control all things and thus expect any solution we pose as infallible for all times and expect that solution to be always remembered. Safety is about minimising risks, but we cannot eliminate risk totally. A moment of complacency leads us to the edge of disaster.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By jom
Robert,
>A moment of complacency leads us to the edge of disaster.
Yes, CHANGE + COMPLACENCY = CATASTROPHE
Do we believe that we can control all things? Perhaps to keep our sanity we have to adopt that stance. Could people turn up for work each day wondering "Is today the day the plant blows up?" ?
I too have wondered if there is some factor in play that we haven't quite recognised. Is it frowned upon to give credit to Perrow's notion of the "normal" accident - that our high tech indutries are so complex that the hazards will sometimes beat us? That can be viewed as defeatist or making an excuse to avoid dealing with the causes. I wonder if we might progress if we explored Perrow's notion.
"Do we not truly believe the experts?" I say test and question the experts' explanations. It's important to do this at the earliest possible moment. Wrong but plausible ideas can get traction.
John.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.