Archive for the ‘Safety’ Category

TMQ watch: October 23, 2012.

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2012

Before we start in on this week’s TMQ, we want to note a story from today’s New York Times that bothers us. We think it is appropriate to talk about here, as it deals with things TMQ has been hammering on as well. After the jump, we’ll get started…

(more…)

Quote of the day.

Tuesday, October 16th, 2012

I am not an authority on lightning safety. I am a guy who draws pictures on the internet. I like when things catch fire and explode, which means I do not have your best interests in mind.

XKCD

How many rules were broken here?

Thursday, September 13th, 2012

The Saturday evening mock cannon fight was meant to simulate the spectacle of a historic battle on the high seas. This year, however, a crew member inadvertently veered from the script, which called for the Amazing Grace to fire blanks at the schooner Bill of Rights.

(Insert obvious joke about shooting at the Bill of Rights here.)

Onward. According to the LAT, one of the crew members accidentally “grabbed a box of buckshot ammunition after the Amazing Grace ran out of blanks”.

Two people were injured, apparently not critically.

So off the top of my head:

This appears to be the Amazing Grace’s website. I was trying to figure out what kind of guns it had, and how they worked; it kind of sounds like they may use commercial shotgun cartridges, instead of muzzle loaders like you’d see in the movies. The site isn’t helpful, but the “Ship’s Log” is good for a chuckle.

It sounds like this was part of the Toshiba Tall Ships Festival. “Back by popular demand again this year, children can take part in Cap’n Jack’s School for Scallywags. Watch as your young buccaneers learn to walk, talk, and sing like a pirate!” That sounds like it would get annoying. Fast.

Hillsborough.

Thursday, September 13th, 2012

This was covered some on FARK yesterday, but I kind of feel like it is important enough to mention here.

On April 15, 1989, at the Hillsborough Stadium (located in Sheffield), 96 people were crushed to death. The initial inquiry on the deaths basically blamed the fans for what happened; that was a controversial verdict.

The British government agreed to a new inquiry in December of 2009. The results of that inquiry were issued yesterday.

Prime Minister David Cameron formally apologized on Wednesday to the victims’ families, saying their “appalling deaths” were compounded by an attempt by the police, investigators and the news media to depict the victims as hooligans and to blame them for the disaster.

More:

Quoting from the new report, Mr. Cameron said: “The Liverpool fans were not the cause of the disaster. The panel has quite simply found no evidence in support of allegations of exceptional levels of drunkenness, ticketlessness or violence among Liverpool fans, no evidence that fans had conspired to arrive late at the stadium, and no evidence that they stole from the dead and dying.”

And further:

The report also concluded that 116 witness statements presented by the police to previous inquiries had been amended by the police “to remove or alter comments unfavorable to the police,” and that police officers conducted computer checks on those who had died in an attempt “to impugn the reputations of the deceased.” In addition, the report said the coroner measured blood-alcohol levels in all who died, including children, only to discover — a fact withheld from previous inquiries — that the levels of alcohol consumption were “unremarkable and not exceptional for a social or leisure occasion.”

Additionally, the report suggests that at least some of the people who died may have lived, if they had been given prompt medical treatment:

The report said autopsy findings showed there were 41 victims who did not have the traumatic asphyxia that caused most of the deaths, and Dr. Bill Kirkup, a physician on the panel, said they might have survived if they been taken swiftly to a hospital.

This is for Andrew.

Sunday, September 9th, 2012

An article from this week’s NYT Magazine:

How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

Unfortunately, the article isn’t about couches with knife-like edges on the underside, but rather about the alleged dangers of flame retardant chemicals used in couch foam.

Since 1975, an obscure California agency called the Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation has mandated that the foam inside upholstered furniture be able to withstand exposure to a small flame, like a candle or cigarette lighter, for 12 seconds without igniting. Because foam is highly flammable, the bureau’s regulation, Technical Bulletin 117, can be met only by adding large quantities of chemical flame retardants — usually about 5 to 10 percent of the weight of the foam — at the point of manufacture. The state’s size makes it impractical for furniture makers to keep separate inventories for different markets, so about 80 percent of the home furniture and most of the upholstered office furniture sold in the United States complies with California’s regulation.

The big problems are:

  • These chemicals apparently don’t stay bound to the foam, but migrate into the environment.
  • These chemicals allegedly have negative side effects on human health.
  • And these fire retardants may not be doing a damn bit of good in any case.

In Babrauskas’s view, TB 117 is ineffective in preventing fires. The problem, he argues, is that the standard is based on applying a small flame to a bare piece of foam — a situation unlikely to happen in real life. “If you take a cigarette lighter and put it on a chair,” he says, “there’s no naked foam visible on that chair unless you live in a horrendous pigsty where people have torn apart their furniture.” In real life, before the flame gets to the foam, it has to ignite the fabric. Once the fabric catches fire, it becomes a sheet of flame that can easily overwhelm the fire-suppression properties of treated foam. In tests, TB 117 compliant chairs catch fire just as easily as ones that aren’t compliant — and they burn just as hot. “This is not speculation,” he says. “There were two series of tests that prove what I’m saying is correct.”

One question sort of implied, but not explicitly asked, by this article: many of these standards, like TB 117, were implemented at a time when far more people smoked, and smoke detectors were far less common. The idea was to keep Grandpa’s cigarette from setting the couch on fire if he dozed off in front of the TV set. Now that smoking has decreased dramatically, and smoke detectors are everywhere, do these standards continue to make sense? And shouldn’t this be a consumer choice? If you have kids, buy a couch with all natural fabric and stuffing. If you smoke and drink in front of the TV set and frequently doze off, get a couch that you couldn’t set on fire with a blowtorch and napalm.

Just a couple of random thoughts…

Friday, August 24th, 2012

Zamora ran toward the wrecked SUV and stepped into an electrified pool of water. She was immediately –- and fatally — electrocuted, struck by what firefighters estimate was 48,000 volts of electricity.

  1. Your safety is important. You’re not helping the first responders if you give them two casualties to work on instead of one. I know Ambulance Driver has brought this up repeatedly, especially in the Confessions of an EMS Newbie podcast, but: make sure the scene is safe, or at least as safe as you can get it, before you go rushing in trying to save people.
  2. After the Northridge earthquake, Stewart Brand did a piece about his experiences for the old Whole Earth Quarterly. Something he said has always stuck with me. Brand talked about the earthquake hitting, getting out of his car, and trotting off down the street with the intent of helping people. He then went on to list all the potentially useful stuff (like a jack) that he left behind in the car. Brand’s Rule: “First, collect your thoughts. Then, collect your tools.”

Important safety tip. (#12 in a series)

Tuesday, June 5th, 2012

This one’s a quickie: if you’re going to steal a car, you probably shouldn’t steal an art car.

Important safety tip. (#11 in a series)

Wednesday, March 14th, 2012

This has been covered on FARK, and my angle on it may be more of a legal tip than a safety one.

However.

While I am opposed to drinking and driving, it helps your court case if you can say you drank something reasonable and innocent sounding. “I had a Grasshopper.” Grasshopper. How threatening does that sound? “I had two Sidecars.” Nice, mellow, classic drink. Gentlemen drink Sidecars. Even “I had two Manhattans” or “I had three Negronis” doesn’t sound too bad.

But when the testimony in court is that you ordered eight of something called a “Mind Eraser”, that doesn’t look so good. Just a suggestion. If you plan to get your s–t f–ked up, you should consider a designated driver and something that doesn’t sound threatening. A nice Long Island Iced Tea or eight, perhaps.

Important safety tip (#10 in a series).

Friday, March 2nd, 2012

If you’re going to have cosmetic procedures done on your body, I recommend you seek out someone qualified to do so.

Generally, I think you’re best off with someone who has a degree from a medical school you’ve at least heard of (probably a member of the Association of American Medical Colleges) and ideally a board certification from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.

I know, you’re thinking I’m just a tool of Big Plastic Surgery, and there’s nothing wrong with getting your cosmetic enhancements at a bargain price. Hey, it’s your body, you can make your own decisions.

But I think we can all agree that getting your cosmetic enhancements from “a self-described hip-hop/goth/pop and funk musician” or your beautician is a bad idea. I’d also suggest that, if you’re going in for cosmetic enhancements, and you see your doctor using the same kind of superglue you can buy off the shelf at Walgreens: run.

Important safety tip (#9 in a series).

Wednesday, February 29th, 2012

Let us say, just for the sake of argument, that you are a police officer.

Let us say, also just for the sake of argument, that you like to go to bars in your off-duty hours and meet women (or men, depending on your particular gender bias).

Let us also say that you are at a bar one night, meet an attractive person of the appropriate gender, and you’d like to get their phone number and address.

Now, as a police officer, you have extraordinary access to look this kind of thing up. You may be tempted to make use of that access. You might want to wait until your next shift and then run your subject through police databases, the way the Mafia Cops did. If you’re desperate enough, you may think you can call up someone who is on duty, tell them you’re investigating a crime, and get information that way.

Julie Fisher told The Spokesman-Review that she was working as a waitress at Sullivan Scoreboard the night Edwards came in. She described his actions as “crazy.”
Fisher said Edwards made advances on almost every woman in the business. She said she found him in the women’s bathroom harassing “a woman trying to use the toilet” at closing time.

Yeah, that kind of desperate. Anyway, all of this may sound like a good idea at the time. It isn’t.

Because when the police department gets a complaint from the woman whose door you were banging on early in the morning, they are going to fire your ass.

Extra bonus point 1: It also doesn’t help if you’ve spent 10 months on suspension, with pay, while the police department looks into your relationship with an “unlicensed bounty hunter”.

Extra bonus point 2: Guess the city and police department. Go on, guess.

I’m not generally a big fan of Justice Department supervision of police departments, but Spokane is starting to look like a place that needs adult supervision for their police department. Or maybe they just need to fire everyone and let the National Guard police the city while they rebuild the department from scratch?

Quotes of the day.

Monday, February 20th, 2012

“The best way not to die in an avalanche is to stay out of one in the first place,” [John Snook of the Colorado Avalanche Information Center] said.

“…if you make any changes to a backup without a good backup, you’re not only inviting disaster, you’re making it dinner and cocktails and naming your first born ‘epic fail’.”

Brain buckets.

Wednesday, December 28th, 2011

I mentioned this in passing in this week’s TMQ thread, but for all of those who don’t read it: my sister has a new post up at the Park City Snowmamas site.

Why you should wear a f–king helmet when skiing or snowboarding or engaged in other activities of that ilk.

Of course, that’s just my paraphrase of what she’s actually saying. My sister never uses the word “f–k” in conversation. Except for maybe when one of her boys tries to sneak a box of Pop-Tarts or a case of Monster energy drink into the house….