Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Protestors blocking oil trains:

http://www.socialistalternative.org/2014/08/01/candidate-jess-spear-arrested-protesting-oil-trains-in-seattle/

I hope they get hit by one. Proclaiming that 2 bombs on wheels go through here everyday and then sitting in front of a bomb on wheels is not a smart move
That said, I do love to read the socialist alternative bill posters that are posted up on my way to work. ALways gives me a smile.

Annoying hippies have made me want to destror the environment

 Bullockist wrote:
I hope they get hit by one. Proclaiming that 2 bombs on wheels go through here everyday and then sitting in front of a bomb on wheels is not a smart move
That said, I do love to read the socialist alternative bill posters that are posted up on my way to work. ALways gives me a smile.

I remember seeing on the news a group of protestors trying to stop a weapons train in the same way. They were crowded around it and the thing just bulled on through, running one of them over and severing one of his legs. Seriously, with the whack jobs and potential for terrorism out there you can't blame a crew operating a train if they do something like that.

Is this the time to mention trains carrying petroleum have literally destroyed large sections of towns?

The means of protest is stupid, but the general sentiment is understandable.

 dogma wrote:
Is this the time to mention trains carrying petroleum have literally destroyed large sections of towns?

The means of protest is stupid, but the general sentiment is understandable.

You're not telling me anything I don't already know. The amusement I find here is that these are the same type of people that were protesting the Keystone.

Relapse wrote:

You're not telling me anything I don't already know. The amusement I find here is that these are the same type of people that were protesting the Keystone.

And what type of people are they? The arrested state congresswomen clearly expressed her fear regarding the transportation petroleum through the town.

The same kind of people that don't give a thought to how they are able to stay warm in the winter, drive their car, etc.

Aren't trains safer than trucks, though?

 kronk wrote:
Aren't trains safer than trucks, though?

Yes until you realize that the difference between a truck exploding and a train exploding is quite large.

A train tanker car has a maximum capacity of 34,000 gallons. A tanker truck has a maximum capacity of about 12,000 gallons.

So a train tanker car has ~3 times as much. I suppose that a train might have 10-50 of these cars, but it's not like they'll all explode at once (very often). It's still a relatively safe means of transport.

 kronk wrote:
A train tanker car has a maximum capacity of 34,000 gallons. A tanker truck has a maximum capacity of about 12,000 gallons.

So a train tanker car has ~3 times as much. I suppose that a train might have 10-50 of these cars, but it's not like they'll all explode at once (very often). It's still a relatively safe means of transport.

You're not simply worrying about the explosions though. A train derailing is scary in and of itself as to how much potential damage it can cause.

I guess. A super tanker spilling is contents is also pretty scary. But they are still very safe.

I guess this just sounds like rabble-rousing and scare tactics to me. But I've been in industry for 15 years, so I suppose I'm jaded or biased.

Relapse wrote:
The same kind of people that don't give a thought to how they are able to stay warm in the winter, drive their car, etc.

That's not necessarily true. I imagine many of those people give thoughts to those, but also don't like petroleum trains or pipelines near the place they live.

NIMBY syndrome, i suppose. Understandable.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
The same kind of people that don't give a thought to how they are able to stay warm in the winter, drive their car, etc.

That's not necessarily true. I imagine many of those people give thoughts to those, but also don't like petroleum trains or pipelines near the place they live.

I'm guessing you haven't read the social alternative viewpoint dogma, I don't think someone from the US could understand how left it is. I think they call Cuba "splitters".
Point is , don't want 2 bombs going through your town, find how to fund it not going through your town, before next political meeting when you are declaring that the patriarchal state is raping women via speech.

Socialist alternative

Are we doing the other thread again and pretend that the pipelines don't explode or leak all over the place?

 d-usa wrote:
Are we doing the other thread again and pretend that the pipelines don't explode or leak all over the place?

Isn't pipelines safer as a whole? (ie, less potential bombs on the roads) But, riskier to the environment?

 Bullockist wrote:

I'm guessing you haven't read the social alternative viewpoint dogma, I don't think someone from the US could understand how left it is. I think they call Cuba "splitters".
Point is , don't want 2 bombs going through your town, find how to fund it not going through your town, before next political meeting when you are declaring that the patriarchal state is raping women via speech.

I don't care, I'm interested in actual discussion, not someone who habitually trolls in an awkward manner.

We could be doing the thread where we think the socialist alternative doesn't leak intelligence at every turn whilst trying to appear oh so smart.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

I'm guessing you haven't read the social alternative viewpoint dogma, I don't think someone from the US could understand how left it is. I think they call Cuba "splitters".
Point is , don't want 2 bombs going through your town, find how to fund it not going through your town, before next political meeting when you are declaring that the patriarchal state is raping women via speech.

I don't care, I'm interested in actual discussion, not someone who habitually trolls in an awkward manner.

Have you read socialist alternative literature? read it.

How many of these bombs pose any kind of realistic threat to anyone other than the guy driving it?

Of course if any of this was more than lip-service and they actually gave a real gak about these bombs people would push for alternative fuels instead of screaming "these damn hippies make us build bombs on trains!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

I'm guessing you haven't read the social alternative viewpoint dogma, I don't think someone from the US could understand how left it is. I think they call Cuba "splitters".
Point is , don't want 2 bombs going through your town, find how to fund it not going through your town, before next political meeting when you are declaring that the patriarchal state is raping women via speech.

I don't care, I'm interested in actual discussion, not someone who habitually trolls in an awkward manner.

So I can't cite Conservapedia?

The sad thing is the socialist alternative are like the gutter press of socialism, get an extreme viewpoint then ride it with no thought to practicality. The don't supply solutions they just have meetings where they whine (with 40 people attending in Sydney by the account of my friend)

 d-usa wrote:

So I can't cite Conservapedia?

Well, you can, but not in an authoritative manner.

 Bullockist wrote:

Have you read socialist alternative literature? read it.

Which "socialist alternative literature"? You're not being very clear, just a troll; across several threads.

 d-usa wrote:
How many of these bombs pose any kind of realistic threat to anyone other than the guy driving it?

Of course if any of this was more than lip-service and they actually gave a real gak about these bombs people would push for alternative fuels instead of screaming "these damn hippies make us build bombs on trains!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

I'm guessing you haven't read the social alternative viewpoint dogma, I don't think someone from the US could understand how left it is. I think they call Cuba "splitters".
Point is , don't want 2 bombs going through your town, find how to fund it not going through your town, before next political meeting when you are declaring that the patriarchal state is raping women via speech.

I don't care, I'm interested in actual discussion, not someone who habitually trolls in an awkward manner.

So I can't cite Conservapedia?

whoa what? Maybe I am missing something here.I never realised there was a conservapedia before today, I shall give it a read.
err in Australia I may be regarded on certain viewpoints as conservative, but on the most part I am left. WHen we do the dakka viewpoint servey I'm considered left of Ghandi.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

So I can't cite Conservapedia?

Well, you can, but not in an authoritative manner.

 Bullockist wrote:

Have you read socialist alternative literature? read it.

Which "socialist alternative literature"? You're not being very clear, just a troll; across several threads.

The socialist alternative, the group we are discussing from the OP

may as well complain about planes falling from the sky,

sure its understandable to be afraid of trains derailing and their contents exploding,

same way its "reasonable" to be afraid a meteorite will hit you in the head,

or be hit by lightning, and so on, and so forth,


the risk of driving to the protest, crossing the street, ect and being involved in a fatal motor accident are far greater risks, yet I dont see these peopel being "reasonably" afraid of autos in a "reasonable" proportion to their "understandable" freak out over trains asplodin

 Bullockist wrote:

The socialist alternative, the group we are discussing from the OP

Oh, you meant the website. That wasn't clear from your posts. I assumed you were referring to something in Australia or New Zealand; hard to tell the difference when the flags are small.

As to the article, it seems the relevant rail company is making poor choices:

In addition, BNSF (Burlington Northern Santa Fe) is attempting to make these trains less safe by moving to 1-man crews on their trains, which means only 1 person would be on these mile long trains.
I was proud to stand with railroad workers yesterday to protest this dangerous and reckless policy pushed by BNSF in their quest for profits.

That is a legitimate concern, given the potential consequences. The environmentalist crap can be thrown out.

1-man crew (Engineer I'm assuming the article is referring to) is typical in the industry from what I understand.

 easysauce wrote:

same way its "reasonable" to be afraid a meteorite will hit you in the head,

That's a nonsensical analogy. You have no potential control over where a meteor falls, but you do have potential control over where a train passes through, if it passes through, and how it is operated.

 whembly wrote:
1-man crew (Engineer I'm assuming the article is referring to) is typical in the industry from what I understand.

I believe it varies according to the size of the train and distance to be traveled. With larger crews for larger trains and larger distances.

 easysauce wrote:

the risk of driving to the protest, crossing the street, ect and being involved in a fatal motor accident are far greater risks, yet I dont see these peopel being "reasonably" afraid of autos in a "reasonable" proportion to their "understandable" freak out over trains asplodin

People are afraid of cars, reasonably so. And the significance in the media is obviously due to disproportionate effect.

 dogma wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

same way its "reasonable" to be afraid a meteorite will hit you in the head,

That's a nonsensical analogy. You have no potential control over where a meteor falls, but you do have potential control over where a train passes through, if it passes through, and how it is operated.
.

I agree with you there, although we do have to consider where the new train line will go....how is it kept outside of future city limits to prevent this happening again? Who pays for it?

The Socialist Alternative is regarded as a flying rodent gak crazy group in Australia , their views are kinda far out here, and in the US would be considered communist or worse...much worse..that's why i was asking you to read them.

 dogma wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

same way its "reasonable" to be afraid a meteorite will hit you in the head,

That's a nonsensical analogy. You have no potential control over where a meteor falls, but you do have potential control over where a train passes through, if it passes through, and how it is operated. .

and yet there are ways to mitigate the risk of metorites, lightning, and so on,.

granted, I could have used other examples like underground gas lines, petrol stations underground containers, naturally occuring natural gas deposits, and so on, but the point still stands.

my point, its not about controlling the event, its about peoples dispropotionant reactions to the risk, which are based on lack of information, misinformation, and so on.

I actually was involved in repairs after the train explosion in july last year in quebec,

from wiki
" More than 30 buildings in the town's centre, roughly half of the downtown area, were destroyed.[2] Initial newspaper reports described a 1 km blast radius.[9]

It is the fourth deadliest rail accident in Canadian history"


They can be quite destructive, and OBS safety measures need to constantly be improved tweaked and so on.

but this kind of agressive, dangerous, risk incresing protest is most certainly not the way to go about it, and it is a bit silly to get all worked up about something deadly and rare, then other things that are just as deadly but common.

human nature is silly in many ways unfortunately.