Another chemical plant explosion, just reported on the CBS radio network : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

This is getting to be "trendy" i'd say....oil refineries and chem plants...hmmm....Bruce? What did you say about "unknowns" in dem dere chips? hmmm

This one is in Pa. I think...

Guess they don't like to be "tested"...

-- gotitlongago@garynorth. (vacajohn@(nospam), April 20, 1999




Not much else...will keep looking.


-- Roland (, April 20, 1999.


I don't know what you've got, but see a doctor and get rid of it. I read an article on the explosion on Yahoo News. There is no mention of embedded chips or testing.

Why not skip the innuendo and post something Y2K related when you have reasonable information regarding so.

-- CJS (, April 20, 1999.


We are noting a "trend" over the past two months ... with oil refineries and chemical plants. It is outside the "norm."

None of us honestly think if it actually was Y2K related, the companies would admit it. Do you?

Sometimes the "timing" of a trend can be telling.


-- Diane J. Squire (, April 20, 1999.

BTW, CJS (a.k.a Cecilia from Sharjah, United Arab Emirates),

If youre not concerned with timing why does your web-site only contain the picture of a watch and nothing else?



-- Diane J. Squire (, April 20, 1999.

Dearest Huntress;

Might be time to give up on the softer Artemis and just go with the variant spelling, the one with the trailing 'a'. That WAS a nice catch, by the way.

Chuck, who will have to think about anonymity some more

-- chuck, a Night Driver (, April 20, 1999.


-- That time? (high@tea.maybe), April 20, 1999.

Well Chuck,

On another thread CJS also used a different e-mail pointing to Computron USA in Lake Jackson, TX at ...

Andon Specialties is a manufacturers' representative/distributor for process control instrumentation, instrument hardware, valves, fittings, steam equipment and samplers..

I just wonder ... why the switch .. and whats the agenda? Ive noticed a lot of CJSs recent dont pay attention comments.

BTW, Chuck, I doubt, on the internet, there is such a thing as anonimity. (1- sp?)


-- Diane J. Squire (, April 20, 1999.


Why are you so sure that the recent chem. plant and refinery incidents are outside the "norm?" Do you have some evidence to support that claim?

-- Peanut Gallery (just@question.forall), April 20, 1999.

Peanut Gallery,

Read the archived threads and do your own research ... going back to January 1, 1999 and looking at the "accidents" since then.

I also live in the land of PG&E and the San Francisco blackout last December. In none of the "documentation" did they EVER refer to Y2K (even the latest PUC report). However, because I was just outside the event and still had power, I was able to watch the PG&E press conference on Television that day -- regular programming was preempted in Silicon Valley for the duration. I noticed one reporter during the tail-end of Q&A for the PG&E President ask were you or are you doing Y2K testing at this time? There was a "yes" answer and then a public, and quite corporate waffle on the topic.

So, that is partly why, I watch, and remain skeptical until proven otherwise.


-- Diane J. Squire (, April 20, 1999.

Yeah CJS. Its called a trend. Like the late night deliveries of pizza to the Pentagon that started a couple months ago. Get it asshole?

-- Little Ceasar (late nite pizza@for the.war planners), April 20, 1999.

Think it behooves all of us to keep an eagle eye on that which pertains to the critical infrastructure or HAZMAT (Hazardous Materials) genre.

Especially because Y2K "incidents" can have such an impact on both areas. The dot gov's watch those trends too. So do lot's of other "intel" organizations.


Tuesday April 20 2:31 PM ET

Chemical Plant Blast Kills Two In Pennsylvania story.html?s=v/nm/19990420/ts/explosion_1.html

Or ...


TAMAQUA, Pa. (Reuters) - An explosion tore through a Pennsylvania chemical plant Tuesday killing two workers, authorities said.

In the area's second deadly plant explosion in as many months, Copperhead Chemical Co. said the blast rocked its mixing and packing facility at around 7 a.m. EDT in Tamaqua, a small industrial city 30 miles northwest of Allentown. Details remained sketchy by mid- afternoon. But a sobbing company spokeswoman said no casualties or injuries were reported aside from the two workers killed. Their identities were withheld pending notification of next of kin. Copperhead, a small locally based company, bought the facility recently from a U.S. subsidiary of Britain's Imperial Chemical Industries Plc.

Federal officials are still investigating a massive February explosion that killed five people and injured more than a dozen at a Concept Sciences Inc. chemical plant in nearby Allentown. That blast was thought to have been caused by a combination of the chemicals hydroxylamine and potassium hydroxide.

Copperhead purchased a Tamaqua glyceryl trinitrate plant from ICI Explosives USA in 1997. Earlier this year, the company also bought a wastewater treatment plant, a denitration unit and maintenance facilities from ICI.

-- Diane J. Squire (, April 20, 1999.

From a quick read at

there doesn't seem to be a greater than normal trend in these types of incidents.

-- Peanut Gallery (.@...), April 20, 1999.


A Historical Overview

Within a five-year period in the mid-1980's

10,933 chemical accidents having acute hazard potential

135 resulted in fatalities

1,020 resulted in injuries

500 resulted in evacuations

Over five-year period 1987 through 1991

453 deaths at fixed facilities due to chemical accidents

1,576 injuries at fixed facilities due to chemical accidents

55 deaths in chemical-related transportation accidents

1,252 injuries in chemical-related transportation accidents

Over five-year period 1988 through 1992

more than 34,500 accidents involving toxic chemicals

average of 6,900 per year

over 500 chemical accidents per month

average of 19 accidents each day

2,070 accidents resulted in immediate death, injury and/or evacuation

average of two chemical-related injuries every day

In 1992 alone

3,500 fatal highway accidents involved chemicals

6,500 railroad accidents involved chemicals

Numbers could be significantly higher

Over three-year period 1988 through 1990

New York recorded 3,496 accidents involving toxic chemicals while USEPA listed only 466: federal government identified only 13% of New York accidents

New York recorded 675 injuries while USEPA listed only 32 injuries: New York identified 21 times more chemical accident injuries than did federal government

Comparing dates within six-year period 1987 through 1992

from 1988 through 1992, USEPA recorded 100 chemical accident deaths

from 1987 through 1991, USOSHA recorded 453 chemical accident deaths

Comparing dates within two-year period 1991 through 1992

for 1991 and 1992, USEPA reported total of 27,000 people evacuated due to chemical accidents

in 1992, 40,000 people evacuated due to one single accident

1992 NTSB aviation accident statistics

2,443 investigations undertaken

2,194 (89.8 percent) investigations were aviation accidents

2,194 aviation accident investigations comprised the entire universe of 1992 aviation accidents

1988 - 1992 chemical accident statistics

6,900 (minimum) annual chemical accidents: over 300% greater than the average number of aviation accidents

1996 NTSB major aviation accident statistics

5 major air carrier accidents

350 people killed in flight

30 people killed on ground

1,070 people total killed in aviation accidents

1995 NTSB major aviation accident statistics

962 people total killed in aviation accidents

1990 NTSB major aviation accident statistics

6 major air carrier accidents

39 people killed in flight

1985 NTSB major aviation accident statistics

7 major air carrier accidents

526 people killed in flight

-- Here's your research Diane (research@int.alwaysenough), April 20, 1999.

Could you please do a statistical comparison to a comparable four month time period?

Or is there a "comparable" time period?


-- Diane J. Squire (, April 20, 1999.

 For those that never read it here is the link to an edited report on the Chemical Industry and Y2K.

****Industrial Chemical Safety Report****


-- Brian (, April 20, 1999.

Chemical Safety & Y2K

Y2K Report Cites Significant Gaps

Washington, D.C. -- Citing 'significant gaps' in awareness, surveillance and communications, members of the CSB presented their report on potential Y2K problems among chemical manufacturers, handlers and users to the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem. Details ... 1999/news/n9919.htm

The following findings were presented in the CSB report:

 Large chemical companies with sufficient awareness, leadership, planning and resources to address the Y2K problem are unlikely to experience catastrophic failures - unless there are widespread power failures.

 There is a lack of information about small and medium-sized chemical businesses, but readiness efforts appear to be "less than appropriate."

 Current federal safety rules provide valuable guidance for risk management, but no specific Y2K guidelines for the chemical industry have been provided by the federal agencies, and there are no plans to do so.

The CSB recommended that the administration convene an urgent meeting of federal agencies to plan public awareness campaigns, develop local and state emergency response and preparedness plans, and contingencies for emergency shutdowns and manual operation of chemical facilities. The report also stresses the importance of preserving the national power grid and local utility continuity.

Complete Report, an Adobe PDF document, 2.14 MBytes (Or at the above link as a Complete Report an MS Word file, 7.95 MBytes) y2k01.pdf

[Havent had time to read it yet]

Or ...

Association Reaffirms Commitment to Help Smaller-sized Members with Y2K Problems by Launching New Web Page

(Washington, D.C. -- SOCMA News Release) -- In a report released Monday (3/15/99), The CSB claimed that educating chemical industry small to mid-sized enterprises (SME) on Y2K issues is the "number 1 priority." SMEs have the highest potential of catastrophic process plant accidents resulting from Y2K-related failures," according to the board.

"SOCMA has long been working to educate its members about the Y2K problem," says SOCMA President Edmund H. Fording Jr. "We have provided assistance guides through the association's publications, our Web site and invited Y2K experts to meetings. CSB recommends in their report that trade associations begin this type of member outreach. We're already many steps ahead." More ... 1999/news/n9920.htm

... SOCMA is the leading trade association representing the batch and custom chemical industry. SOCMA's 300+ member companies make the products and refine the raw materials that make our standard of living possible. From pharmaceuticals to cosmetics, soaps to plastics and all manner of industrial and construction products, SOCMA members make materials that save lives, make our food supply safe and abundant, and enable the manufacture of literally thousands of other products. ...

The SOCMA web-page (from there you can click on their Y2K links) ...

-- Diane J. Squire (, April 20, 1999.

Thanks for the summary link Brian ... will read that now.

(PDF file takes awhile to download).


-- Diane J. Squire (, April 20, 1999.


my e-mail address was meant to be fake- I am not related to any website in any way, nor am I Cecilia whatever from the United Arab Emirates. I will change my phony e-mail address. You may want to be careful before making incorrect assumptions- As you apparently did when mentioning the trend in chemical plant explosions. And even if they are up for this four month period, how will that prove that that is due to Y2K. What basis will you be working off of? If you are going to do statistical analysis, make damn sure that you have relevant data and can back it up. There will be a lot to do, and it may take months of research for you to come up with some reasonable numbers.

Secondly, I haven't made any "don't pay attention comments". I am just cutting through some of the BS that you people post. This thread is a perfect example. Because there is a chemical explosion, you automatically assume that it may be Y2K related without ANY pertinent background information because you PERCEIVE that there is a trend.

In the past, I would bet that you weren't attuned to chemical explosions. Now, with Y2K, you are most likely much more aware of what is going on with telephones, chemicals, power, etc. So, for you, when there is a blackout of scale, it will most likely be Y2K related. If they don't say anything tying it to Y2K, they are probably lying.

CEO's can no longer retire or sell their stock without it being Y2K related. Negative changes in the stock market, even though it is well over-valued and overdue to drop, are instantly tied to Y2K.

There is quite a difference between concern and paranoia.

Little Caesar- I assume that your post was meant as a joke. If however, you were being smug, I would assume that late night pizza deliveries to the Pentagon may have something to do with activities in Kosovo and Iraq. Have you heard about those places?

-- CJS (, April 20, 1999.

Additionally Diane,

You want accurate, verifiable information from government, corporations, and utilities. You say that you are searching for the truth, and want to help people prepare for Y2K.

Are you willing to operate by those same standards? Or do you actually want others to rely on your perceptions and assumptions rather than the truth.

Already today, on this forum, I have seen posters tie Y2K to the shooting in Colorado, a chemical plant blast, and the President of the Toronto Stock Exchange retiring. Although I don't believe so, we may find that none, some, or all of these are tied to Y2K. Personally, I'll wait. I don't want to mislead people with shot in the dark assumptions.

-- CJS (, April 20, 1999.


right now it might be best, since you are waiting for answers, to perhaps wait a bit more quietly?


-- Arlin H. Adams (, April 20, 1999.


I'm sure that is what you'd like. Dissenting opinion or pointing out BS is not really welcome on this forum. I'm sure it bothers some when people point out the double standards that exist on this forum.

-- CJS (CJS@CJS.COM), April 20, 1999.


no actually what I was getting at was the hypocrisy of your attempts to claim neutrality while consistently downing any reports of problems.


-- Arlin H. Adams (, April 20, 1999.


Arlin is correct. Instead of telling us why we are wrong, why don't you tell us why you are right? We do have bad news here. Do you have any good news to show us? You tell us that Beach is a nut, and not to "put words in your mouth", that the power companies are in great shape, and on and on. You accuse Diane of not doing her reasearch. Where is yours? Show us your facts man! If you don't, we will consider you just another troll. Maybe nice and polite, but a troll none the less. <:)=

-- Sysman (, April 21, 1999.


Do you have information that ties this chemical plant explosion to Y2K?

Do you have new information that a trend exists?

I'm sorry that I don't share your opinion. I don't subscribe to the groupthink that exists on this forum. When a problem happens, and someone attributes something to Y2K with zero evidence, that is misleading and irresponsible.

There are problems, no doubt. But CEO's step down and sell large amounts of stock every year. Chemical plant problems have been occurring for years as pointed out on this thread.

If you can provide some evidence or a tie-in, I'll listen.

What you want me to do is to take incidences such as this at face value as Y2K-related, without even a shred of proof.

Of course, you want supportive evidence from Dan the Power Man, otherwise you don't want to believe that he works for the utilities.

Who's the hypocrite?

-- CJS (, April 21, 1999.


While you're answering my last post, let me tell you about Dan. He's another nice enough guy, that seems to know what he's talking about. But he struts in here, tell us that he has found virtually no problems, and not to worry about it. We know him only as "Dan".

We also know Rick Cowles, and Robert Cook. And I mean we KNOW them. We know where they work, what their experience is, and why they beleive that we will have problems. We also know the Senate, and the GAO. Who should we believe? <:)=

-- Sysman (, April 21, 1999.

Also Arlin,

My Y2K preps are based upon the uncertainty of the situation. I have a lot of concerns. This forum used to have decent information. Over the past few months, it has degraded into unsubstantiated reckless speculation like the post that started this thread.

-- CJS (, April 21, 1999.


First, re-read this thread.

Second, I have never, ever called Beach a nut, nor have I posted to any thread regarding him. If I did, please show me. I don't really have the technical knowledge to respond to him.

Third, I never said that the power companies were in great shape. I know as much as you do.

Fourth, you're putting words in my mouth again.

Fifth, if someone states that there is a trend in something, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate it.

I don't have any good news right now, at least that can stand up to your stringent requirements. At the same time, the requirements for bad news are simple. Opinions work as good as facts, and if it is negative, it is acceptable.

This thread is an example. This chemical explosion, until proven otherwise, has nothing to do with Y2K. However, the innuendo is pretty much accepted without question.

Clearly, a double standard exists. I could show you Commonwealth Edison's Status Chart, complete with graphs and charts, showing them 92% complete. I also know 2 people who are pretty high up at ComED. Then you and 10 others will simply say that they are lying. I simply don't have the documentation to prove that they are right.

I could also tell you my conversations with two friends who are running Y2K programs at their banks, but I can't give their names or provide documentation.

If the ground rules were even, it would be more possible to present good news, but it is held to such a more difficult standard of proof than negative information. That is obvious.

Bottom line- This forum is conducive to bad news, not good news.

As far as Dan goes, who knows whether to believe him or not. But in Arlin's case, he wants to believe that the chemical plant explosion is somehow tied to Y2K (even though he has no evidence), and then asks for evidence from Dan?

That's hypocrisy at its best.

And if these things make me a troll and you find it necessary to label me, go right ahead. It won't dissuade me.

-- CJS (, April 21, 1999.

Lemma 1 Assume that the current rate of serious powerplant accidents is normal. Given the uncertainty still residing in the Y2K readiness of systems in these plants, would it be reasonable to assume that this rate may accelerate after rollover?

Lemma 2 Assume that the current rate of serious powerplant accidents is above normal. Given the intense ongoing activity reported at these plants directed at ensuring Y2K readiness, including testing, would it be reasonable to assume that the higher rate may be due to glitches encountered during testing?

Lemma 3 Assume that all is well, and all will be well, sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Would this be reasonable?

Maybe there's a tiger behind every door.... (but that wouldn't be fair.)

-- Tom Carey (, April 21, 1999.


Sometime ago, in the last several months, there was an engineer from a West Coast power company (with a PhD) who made a pretty intelligent case that his company was in good shape. He gave his both his name and company where he worked at. And he was ripped pretty good. People were asking him for documentation, etc.

Maybe you remember the thread. I looked for it in the "utilities" area. Couldn't find it.

My point is that people knew where he was, where he worked, he spoke with intelligence, and then his PhD was questioned, he was called a fraud, etc. He never had a chance.

-- CJS (, April 21, 1999.


No need to label you... you've done a very nice job of that on your own!

-- (, April 21, 1999.


No, you do the labeling. That way it is easier to categorize and dismiss.

If you had an open mind, you would see that my assessments are not outrageous, and are actually true.

But since I am not aligned with you, you will discount anything almost anything that I say.

-- CJS (, April 21, 1999.


First of all, I owe you a BIG APOLOGY on a couple of the above points. I went back to find your comments on Beach, and it WAS NOT YOU, it was RMS! >>> I AM SORRY <<< I hate these sound alike "names" @, a, A... Not your fault, mine. Given that, I take back the troll remark.

However, I still must disagree with you on the good/bad news issue. Yes, some threads, like this one, have no evidence, and really should not be related to Y2K until, and if ever proven. But if you look at the number of chemical, refinery and power plant explosions over the last few months, I think it is a trend.

As for Dan, I do respect his opinion. But I also respect Rick, Robert, and the verifyable Senate and GAO. I hope it is all a legal issue, but I'm starting to wonder. Today we had a bank announce 100% compliance. This really is good news. If you read the thread, people here want to move their money there! We need more of this. Much, much more of this. And time is running short.

And again, please accept my apology on the ID. I'll be more careful in the future! <:)=

-- Sysman (, April 21, 1999.


"No, you do the labeling. That way it is easier to categorize and dismiss."

Show me what label I placed on you or be kind enough to retract your accusal.

"If you had an open mind, you would see that my assessments are not outrageous, and are actually true."

You have precisely "no clue" as to the state of my mind regarding an open or closed position. Furthermore, I made no reference to your "assessments" in any way, shape or form. I cannot certify your "assessments" to be "actually true", but (suprise) I did consider some of your statements to be valid.

"But since I am not aligned with you, you will discount anything almost anything that I say."

The above statement reeks with the same "unsubstantiated reckless speculation" you have so condesendingly accused others on this forum of using. My perception is that you are a pot calling some kettles black.

-- (, April 21, 1999.

Diane never said that she KNEW power plant problems were Y2K related. Since she did not claim this as an unarguable fact, she has no reason to defend it like a fortress. She said only that she was "skeptical" due to a major blackout around her possibly being a Y2K testing result, and knowing the media won't say much even if it is.

Even industry experts themselves have said (and experienced has proved) that testing cycles themselves can result in problems and unexpected, unpleasant surprises. So it is not out of bounds for anybody with a brain to be open to the same idea.

We will never know if something is a result of a Y2K test unless the companies tell us. The companies may or may not (but based on history, probably will not) tell us. For those curious about trends, indications of the future et al., the only thing to do is keep up with the news and note anything that seems to be "anomalous."

These anomalies may be noted because we are only finally paying attention. Or because they are being reported more for whatever reason. Or because there truly is a relationship to modern events such as Y2K and the anomaly in question (in this case, anomalies being not just a 'thing' but a reading or tendency outside the 'norm').

But we'll never know if we don't inquire, and we'll never learn if we don't study, and we'll never make the connections if we don't go out on a limb and hypothesize -- sometimes without much data -- waiting to see the results of our findings.

At some point in every discovery, somebody has to be the one to say, "See that thing in the sky?" And someone else has to go out on a limb and say, "It's a bird! It's a plane!" before somebody else goes, "IT'S SUPERMAN!" Had everybody been afraid to mention anything, lest they be considered paranoid, lest they be demanded of proof which they don't yet have, it would never have been discovered.

It's called discussion. People do it.

You can't rant on Diane and research, good grief, she posts more 'real' tidbits gleaned from Net research than everybody here put together.

Now that we have spent this ENTIRE thread bitching at each other, with ONE post of actual facts (which were difficult to compare as it seemed like all the numbers varied, the sources varied, the types of measure varied, so it was impossible for me to compare one set of years to this one), and accomplished very little, it might be considered that knee- jerk polly responses gain nothing.

It's one thing to provide an argument, a debate, a differing opinion, a different perspective. It's another to have nothing more to do with your life than spend time ranting at people you don't agree with over a topic you don't believe in about things they never even said on subjects they have no reason to need to "prove" themselves on. Gods, get a life already. If this is not your bag, take your ball and go home.

I didn't see the earlier stuff on the PhD you said got hassled out of the forum so I can't comment on that.

PJ in TX

-- PJ Gaenir (, April 21, 1999.

Just so you know, CJS did not post the info from I did.

-- Another big bad troll (ungotit@garynorth.y2k), April 21, 1999.

Is the thread your looking for about Murray Jennex?

NERC reporting requirements

even if not, it is still a good example of what CJS points out. Without even bothering to do a simple net search of Dr. Jennex, to verify who he is, Hardtimer jumps down his throat because he points out the buffoonary of his "hero" Rick Cowles. Starts threating him with libel etc.

Typical, predictable response of the pessimists. "Bad news? hey, come on in... Good news? why, only a complete moron believes such "spin" you are soooooo naive to believe such things. Don't you know they are all lying?" etc.

Look at the acceptance of Beachnut/moleboy. Even CH (the quintessential pessimist) doesn't buy his BS. But the people who want it to be bad, or who have the MEME real bad swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Why? BECAUSE BEACHNUT IS A PESSIMIST.

-- Mutha Nachu (, April 21, 1999.

Mutha Nachu,

That is the thread. Thanks.

-- CJS (, April 21, 1999.

Thanks PJ & Sysman, and other Y2K observers,

A possible TREND is just that. A POSSIBLE trend.

What we DO know, as stated on the Chem Safety web-site is they ARE concerned enough to state before a Senate subcommittee, ...

"SMEs have the highest potential of catastrophic process plant accidents resulting from Y2K-related failures," according to the board."

Is there anything about that statement, in Congressional Testimony, within the public record, that does NOT say they have a valid concern?

Well, ANY chemical plant anomalies bear watching ... THIS YEAR!

Got reading glasses?


-- Diane J. Squire (, April 21, 1999.

Thank you Diane, you are wonderful. The point being missed is that in the context of y2k, everything automated in a complex manner is suspect, end of story. That is pure objectivity, only problem subjective behaviour can never be satisfied by definition.

-- Will (, April 22, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ