3 ms·
That fires would happen for other reasons is completely inconsequential to me in this case. This tower was criminally neglected even in basic maintenance. Such
by _ph_ 6y ago
That fires would happen for other reasons is completely inconsequential to me in this case. This tower was criminally neglected even in basic maintenance. Such a tower should not exist in any place, and if only the consequence would be long power outages without forwarning.
Separately, everyone responsible for the failing tower to be able to light such a disastrous fire, should be prosecuted as well. PG&E certainly isn't solely responsible for the fire, but they are completely responsible for the tower failing.
- DuskStar 6y agoAnd to me, the fact that the fires would happen for other reasons is the most important thing in the case. Blame should fall on the people with the power to prevent an accident from happening, and PG&E did not have that power. (They instead had the power to prevent the accident from happening in one specific way, but it still would have happened in another way)
- _ph_ 6y agoI don't claim that blame for the fires rests on PG&E. My point was rather, that the towers were in an unacceptable state of maintenance. Any kind of accident or disaster could happen any time from towers in that state. And a disaster did happen. That others greatly contributed greatly or even mainly to the disaster taking its scale, is a question for the precise liability and punishment split.
- DuskStar 6y agoAnd what I'm saying is that if every tower in the forest was in a similar state of maintenance, or had a flamethrower pointing off the side that went off every week, the number of deaths would be lower.