4 ms·
What is that supposed to mean in this context?
by loeg 3y ago
What is that supposed to mean in this context?
- WorldMaker 3y agoThere were a lot of gas station explosions in early internal combustion engine history. It's a massive testament to technology and design (both car and pump adaptations over the decades) that these aren't so regularly occurring as they once were. But all the compensating technologies and designs don't necessarily mean that the original lessons weren't valid or that gas itself, an incredibly flammable substance, is ever truly "safe".
- loeg 3y agoAny of them in self-pumping states since 1951, which is when Oregon implemented the full service law?
- WorldMaker 3y agoHow is that relevant? The benchmark for Oregon in 1951 was the safety past prior to 1951. Oregon wasn't building regulations based on future data they couldn't possibly have.
- loeg 3y agoThe benchmark for the experiment is the control group. The control group is comprised of states without this law, over the relevant time period (when the law was in effect).
- WorldMaker 3y agoThe context is "regulations are written in blood", not a multi-decade scientific experiment. Oregon doesn't know or care about the "control group" in defining its own laws. How well the "control group" fared following the passing of the law is irrelevant to the spirit behind the law and why the law was passed (the "blood" of the past). (You can easily Google to find out that of course there have been gas station explosions since 1951 in "the control group". Would some portion of them have been prevented by similar laws to Oregon's? Who knows; Oregon probably doesn't know, it was never Oregon's intent to run their regulations as a science experiment. It was Oregon's intent to deal with issues they saw in the past safety record of gas stations as they saw fit.)
- xboxnolifes 3y agoSure, but we have 48 other states who seem to manage fine.
- WorldMaker 3y agoThrough a lot of safety regulations of their own (just ones that made different choices) and a lot of technical development since 1951.
- renewiltord 3y agoGasoline is a dangerous and volatile substance. There are numerous incidents of people being harmed by incorrect use - not just the operator but also bystanders - and millions of dollars in facility damage occurring due to insufficient training. There is a reason why Oregon requires Class C UST Operators and above have training regarding emergencies. We should require more training, not less. Industrial substances need high standards. Within this calendar year we have been reminded of this repeatedly: train fires and derailment, the OceanGate submarine, the recent train bridge collapse carrying hazardous materials. Gasoline can be fatal if consumed, is a known carcinogen, and is harmful to aquatic life so it needs regulation. Here is a safety sheet to warn you of the dangers https://lasierra.edu/fileadmin/documents/risk/safety/safety-data-sheet-training-form.pdf https://lasierra.edu/fileadmin/documents/risk/safety/safety-... It's important that we treat this substance with respect. Licensed operators should be the only ones handling it routinely. But of course, there's no surprise that Big Oil would like to socialize the risks and privatize the profits, speaking nothing of the job losses this will cause.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoBig Oil does not own or operate gas stations, nor do they employ gas station attendants. Therefore, Big Oil is not affected by this change and does not care about requiring or not requiring gas stations attendants.
- renewiltord 3y agoBig Oil interests are in increasing customer demand, while socializing the costs of uncertified, untrained, and unlicensed UST operators posing as self-service customers. Dangerous substances require training.