The Aberdeen Three Case
In 1989, when three high level civilian chemical engineers and managers at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland (an army chemical weapons facility) were indicted, tried, and convicted of criminal felony after investigation showed they were illegally handling, storing, and disposing of hazardous wastes.
This case emphasizes the role and responsibilities of professional engineer's being there to secure the safety and well being of the public and the safety of their workers as well as the impact of chemicals on the environment. It also stresses the obligation of a manager-engineer to oversee the actions of their subordinates.
All three managers were chemical engineers in charge of the development of chemical weapons. These violations occurred between 1983 and 1986 where they illegally handled, stored, and disposed of hazardous wastes in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The purpose of the act was to provide technical and financial assistance for the development of management plans and facilities for the recovery of energy and other resources from discarded materials and for the safe disposal of discarded materials, and to regulate the management of hazardous waste.
As professional engineers they should have known better when it comes to obeying rules and making the right judgments and in their managerial skills but they failed.
What is also very sad and unprofessional of their actions were that, all three engineers involved in the case were experts in the chemical weapons field, and Dee was responsible for developing the binary chemical weapon. The U.S. Army has used the Aberdeen Proving Ground to develop, test, store, and dispose of chemical weapons since World War II. Periodic inspections between 1983 and 1986 revealed serious problems at the
facility, known as the Pilot Plant, where these engineers worked. These problems included:
flammable and cancer-causing substances left in the open
chemicals that become lethal if mixed were kept in the same room
drums of toxic substances were leaking. There were chemicals everywhere - misplaced, unlabeled or poorly contained. When part of the roof collapsed, smashing several chemical drums stored below, no one cleaned up or moved the spilled substance and broken containers for weeks
Periodic inspections between 1983 and 1986 revealed serious problems at Aberdeen's "Pilot Plant," where the engineers worked but they failed to take action. Flammable and cancer-causing substances were left in the open; chemicals, lethal if mixed, were kept in the same room; and drums containing toxic substances were leaking.
When an external sulfuric acid tank leaked 200 gallons of acid into a nearby river, state and federal investigators arrived and discovered that the chemical retaining dikes were unfit, and the system designed to contain and treat hazardous chemicals was corroded and leaking chemicals into the ground. The three engineers maintained that they did not believe the plant's storage practices were illegal, and that their job description did not include responsibility for specific environmental rules. They were chemical engineers; they practiced good "engineering sense," and had never had an incident. They were just doing things the way they had always been done at the Pilot Plant.
On June 28, 1988, the three chemical engineers, Carl Gepp, William Dee, and Robert Lentz, now known as the "Aberdeen Three," were criminally indicted for storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous wastes in violation of RCRA at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland after about two years of investigation. Six months following the indictment, the Federal Government took the case of the "Aberdeen Three" to court. Each defendant was charged with four counts of illegally storing and disposing of waste. In 1989, the three chemical engineers were tried and convicted of illegally storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous waste. William Dee was found guilty on one count, and Lentz and Gepp were found guilty on three counts each of violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Although they were not the ones who were actually performing the illegal acts, they were the managers and allowed the improper handling of the chemicals. No one above them knew about the extent of the problems at the Pilot Plant. They each faced up to 15 years in prison and up to $750,000 in fines, but were sentenced only to three years probation and 1000 hours of community service.
The action of the three engineers brings to mind an important question. These engineers were knowledgeable about the effects of hazardous chemicals on people and the environment (they developed chemical weapons), so why were they so seemingly unconcerned about the disposal of hazardous chemicals? It is interesting to note that even after they were convicted the three engineers showed no apparent remorse for their wrongdoing. They kept insisting that the whole case was blown out of proportion, and that they had done nothing wrong.
As engineers test designs for ever-increasing speeds, loads, capacities and the like, they must always be aware of their obligation to society to protect the public welfare. After all, the public has provided engineers, through the tax base, the means for obtaining an education and, through legislation, the means to license and regulate themselves. In return, engineers have a responsibility to protect the safety and well-being of the public in all of their professional efforts. This is part of the implicit social contract all engineers have agreed to when they accepted admission to an engineering college.
The engineers were also unaware that their experiments and their handling of waste products had social impact, even though they considered themselves to be far removed from the outside world.
As students in the engineering field and future professional engineers , we should learn from the mistakes of these three expect professional engineers and do what is good for the safety and well being of the public but not to think that we are untouchable just because we have finished college and that we are above the law.
Posted by Benjamin Yaw Atsem.
References:
Harris Charles E., Pritched Michael S., Rabins Michael J.
“Engineering Ethics –Concepts and Cases”
Thompson/Wadsworth.2005: [Page 301. Case # 1 The Aberdeen Three]
Texas A&M University Engineering Ethics Cases
http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/aberdeen/aberdee1.htm
http://www.onlineethics.diamax.com/CMS/profpractice/ppcases/texindex/aberdeen.aspx
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
FOUNDATION DESIGNS
Foundation designs
We all do agree that foundations are the bedrock of any construction or building project be it a small house and large complex structures like underground rail lines , tunnels , airports , Harbours and bridges.
A large condominium project was being built in six phases, spread out over several years. For Phases I through III the soils engineer gave the recommendation that the foundation was to be of certain a drilled pier type, and that the piers should be 4 feet deep.
When construction of Phase IV started, he again recommended 6 feet deep piers. Later, during construction of Phases V and VI, the structural engineer went back to 4 feet piers. All the buildings in all six phases were of the same design, based on the same soils report. The soils were similar in all Phases. Was the structural engineer negligent in not carrying forward the soils engineer's Phase IV recommendations?
Management and control of information is part of diligent engineering practice. It was argued that the structural engineer's failure to carry forward the revised soils engineering parameters represented an error inconsistent with the standard of care.
Major engineering failures are often cited in engineering education as archetypes of engineers' negligence.
Professional Engineers have a duty of care to provide their services in a manner consistent with the "standard of care" of their profession which they practice.
Any time it comes to the attention of a professional that there is a mistake in his drawings or calculation, he or she should accept them in good fate and make changes before it reaches the point of he or she being sued.
The story is told of a professional land surveyor who did not set the property corners at the right location on a property.
After a neighbor to the property who had lived there for his entire life had informed him of the mistake to his survey drawings and where he had set the corner markers , he said and I quote “We shall cross the Bridge when we get there” meaning when the time comes we will solve the matter.
He refused to listen to very vital evidence and he was later sued and had to pay for a very heavy sum. If he had listened and corrected the error he would not have found himself in that situation.
The fact that an engineer makes a mistake that causes injury or damage is not sufficient to lead to professional liability on the part of the engineer.
In order for there to be professional liability, it must be proven the services were professionally negligent, that is, they fell beneath the standard of care of the profession. When one hires an engineer, one accepts the risk, and the liability, of that professional making a mistake similar to mistakes other normally competent engineers make, using reasonable diligence and their best judgment.
Some errors are bound to happen but like I said we should not wait as professional engineers and land surveyors before the harm is done.
We should be able to save the situation as soon we told before you are held liable for a stupid mistake which could have been corrected.
In performing professional services for our clients, Engineers (structural engineer) has the duty to have that degree of learning and skill ordinarily possessed by reputable (structural engineers), practicing in the same or similar locality and under similar circumstances.
The question of a structural engineer's performance relative to the standard of care arises when errors are made, or when there is a failure of a constructed facility to achieve its intended safety, durability, serviceability or utility.
Posted by Benjamin Yaw Atsem.
References:
Joshua B. Kardon, SE
“The Structural Engineer's Standard of Care”
http://www.onlineethics.diamax.com/CMS/profpractice/ppessays/standard_of_care.aspx#section3
"Suspended Engineer's Lesson: Never Wait Until It Is Too Late." Engineering News Record, page 12, June 24, 1996.
We all do agree that foundations are the bedrock of any construction or building project be it a small house and large complex structures like underground rail lines , tunnels , airports , Harbours and bridges.
A large condominium project was being built in six phases, spread out over several years. For Phases I through III the soils engineer gave the recommendation that the foundation was to be of certain a drilled pier type, and that the piers should be 4 feet deep.
When construction of Phase IV started, he again recommended 6 feet deep piers. Later, during construction of Phases V and VI, the structural engineer went back to 4 feet piers. All the buildings in all six phases were of the same design, based on the same soils report. The soils were similar in all Phases. Was the structural engineer negligent in not carrying forward the soils engineer's Phase IV recommendations?
Management and control of information is part of diligent engineering practice. It was argued that the structural engineer's failure to carry forward the revised soils engineering parameters represented an error inconsistent with the standard of care.
Major engineering failures are often cited in engineering education as archetypes of engineers' negligence.
Professional Engineers have a duty of care to provide their services in a manner consistent with the "standard of care" of their profession which they practice.
Any time it comes to the attention of a professional that there is a mistake in his drawings or calculation, he or she should accept them in good fate and make changes before it reaches the point of he or she being sued.
The story is told of a professional land surveyor who did not set the property corners at the right location on a property.
After a neighbor to the property who had lived there for his entire life had informed him of the mistake to his survey drawings and where he had set the corner markers , he said and I quote “We shall cross the Bridge when we get there” meaning when the time comes we will solve the matter.
He refused to listen to very vital evidence and he was later sued and had to pay for a very heavy sum. If he had listened and corrected the error he would not have found himself in that situation.
The fact that an engineer makes a mistake that causes injury or damage is not sufficient to lead to professional liability on the part of the engineer.
In order for there to be professional liability, it must be proven the services were professionally negligent, that is, they fell beneath the standard of care of the profession. When one hires an engineer, one accepts the risk, and the liability, of that professional making a mistake similar to mistakes other normally competent engineers make, using reasonable diligence and their best judgment.
Some errors are bound to happen but like I said we should not wait as professional engineers and land surveyors before the harm is done.
We should be able to save the situation as soon we told before you are held liable for a stupid mistake which could have been corrected.
In performing professional services for our clients, Engineers (structural engineer) has the duty to have that degree of learning and skill ordinarily possessed by reputable (structural engineers), practicing in the same or similar locality and under similar circumstances.
The question of a structural engineer's performance relative to the standard of care arises when errors are made, or when there is a failure of a constructed facility to achieve its intended safety, durability, serviceability or utility.
Posted by Benjamin Yaw Atsem.
References:
Joshua B. Kardon, SE
“The Structural Engineer's Standard of Care”
http://www.onlineethics.diamax.com/CMS/profpractice/ppessays/standard_of_care.aspx#section3
"Suspended Engineer's Lesson: Never Wait Until It Is Too Late." Engineering News Record, page 12, June 24, 1996.
Friday, April 11, 2008
"Ethical Issues Concerning the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster"
“Ethical Issues Concerning Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster”
I am sure most of us heard of the greatest Nuclear Disaster that occurred in Chernobyl of the former Soviet Union (USSR) in 1986. This disaster was the world’s worst nuclear disaster which was located 80 miles north of Kiev, capital of Ukraine (formerly in Soviet Union). The nuclear plant had four Reactors and the safety procedures were disregarded. At exactly 1:23 the chain reaction was unable to control creating explosion and fire blew the reactor’s heavy steel and concrete lid.
This disaster killed more than 30 people at the place of accident and because of its radiation level in the surrounding 20-mile radius, almost 1,35,000 people were evacuated. The effects of this nuclear disaster is still being felt today with children and the elderly having serious medical conditions such as cancer , breathing problems , skin disease just to mention a few. Six people per million suffered from cancer before the accident had happened. But the statistics from 1986 – 1997 showed a rise to 45 accidents per million.
The lack of safety culture resulted in the inability to remedy design weakness despite being known before the accident. There were many construction failings at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant and its inadequate monitoring. According to the data in the possession of the KGB of the USSR design deviations and ventilation of construction are occurring at various places in the construction. The pillars of generator room were erected with a deviation of up to 100mm from the reference axis and the horizontal connections were absent. Also there was a deviation in the wall panels of up to 150mm. In a report, the Deputy Head of the construction directorate said the backfill of the foundation in many places where waterproofing were damaged. So this damage lead to ground water seepage into the station and radioactive contamination of the environment.
The head of Chernobyl did not show any proper attention to the foundation. Even the cement plant operates erratically and also its output is bad. There were obstacles during the pouring of cement, so it gaps and laying in the foundation. There is no third high voltage transmission lane, which caused limitation in the using of second lane. Due to minor safety equipment in 1978, 170 individuals suffered work related
injuries. This caused the loss in the work time also.
A lot of safety procedures were being violated. They used only 6 rods for the test discipline but the minimum number of rods to be used was 30. Actually they were performing an experiment. In any case they were not under the normal regime of operation, and no usual rules applied.
They were well-experienced engineers who believed thy new exactly what was going on
What we all know as Groupthink was totally missing. There was no proper communication between the team in charge and personal responsible for the operation of nuclear reactor.
There were Sequences of events that caused the accident to occur .
The need for routine maintenance of the reactor four; it was shut down on 25th April 1986. They wanted to take advantage of this reactor to make a test. To make the test the reactor must have a temperature of 1000 MW before shut down, but because of operational error the power fell down to 30 MW due to positive void co-efficient. Finally they stabilized at 1:00 on the 26th of April at 200 MW.
An increase in coolant flow and a drop in stream pressure occurred which made the reactor to become very unstable. This caused less cooling to reactor; it also added an
additional problem. Then the sudden increase in temperature made fuel to rupture and lead to an explosion. After the accident the radioactive material was widely spread.
With in 10 K.M of the area ecosystems lethal doses were reached particularly for coniferous trees and small mammals.
Concerning the ethically issues, the duty of every engineer involved in experimenting with nuclear power reactor is to assure safe operation. Engineers in Chernobyl however believed that they had enough experience and knowledge about the reactor so that they can perform their experiment in a safe way. Unfortunately enough their judgment was wrong. They totally lost control over reactor and caused this great nuclear disaster. They neglected their duty to place public safety and the well being of people within the area as highest priority. Also the safety systems and routines of the reactor were deficient which means that the management of the site has neglected their duty to provide
Safety for public. Even when it comes to information the management of the site have neglected their duty to accurately and timely inform the people.
Also the basic duty of the company is to provide safe equipment.
Also the people with no training were in leading roles, clearly stating the fact that the company was negligent towards its duty. There were so many corrupt practices going on at the plant that even the company lacked its duty in proper maintenance of the plant. Initially the company was in the intension that their staff has sufficient knowledge to prevent large-scale disasters. But unfortunately the staff was unable to detect the defect, which caused the leak. The workers were unable to perform their duty because they have no proper knowledge of operation of technical equipment. The company lacked its duty not by putting up emergency measures to make life a little better for people.
People had the rights to be properly informed about the hazards of nuclear power. They had rights to be accurately informed about the accident that was going on without any
notice in media. Also the management had right to give proper technical knowledge to workers.
The experiment was designed to gain more knowledge about the behavior of the reactor under extreme conditions if it was rightly performed successfully. This could have lead to the benefit for the society. However the fact that they failed in such a catastrophic way means that in spite of their possible good intention, from utilitarian point of view, taking unreasonable risks was not motivated.
The staff was not acting in an egoistic way. They never benefited under any circumstances by the actions they performed leading to disaster. It ended up in a very big
disaster. So they never showed up to be egoistic.
In 1989 a settlement of 470 million US. Dollars was agreed upon and they only paid $350 per victim. Ethical issues arise because of the lack of safety standards and maintenance in Bhopal plant. There were no emergency procedures to deal with large-scale disasters. There was more risk because of the establishment of slum colonies near the
plant. Long before disaster the routine pollution released by the plant led to the
accumulation of several thousand tonnes of toxic waste with led to the abandoned of the area near the areas of factory. The soil and ground water in and around the plant remain
contaminated.
References
Balaji Abhinav Nellore, Artur Jaroszewski.
“Ethical Issues Concerning Risks in Science and Technology - Case Studies”
Mälardalen University Mälardalen University 16-3-97, 2nd Lane, Ramalingapuram, Marynarska 37, 76-150 Darlowo,
Nellore-524003, Andhra Pradesh, India Zachodniopomorskie, Poland.
0091-8615518529, 0091-8612327445 0048-943142171, 0048- 505352852
bne03001@student.mdh.se aji03001@student.mdh.se
<http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/cd5590/07_11/Examples-Papers_LectureNotes/RisksScienceTechnology.pdf>
Harris Charles E., Jr., Pritchard Michael S., Rabins Michael J.
“Engineering Ethics-Concepts & Cases”
Thomson.2005: Case 3-Aftermath of Chernobyl
I am sure most of us heard of the greatest Nuclear Disaster that occurred in Chernobyl of the former Soviet Union (USSR) in 1986. This disaster was the world’s worst nuclear disaster which was located 80 miles north of Kiev, capital of Ukraine (formerly in Soviet Union). The nuclear plant had four Reactors and the safety procedures were disregarded. At exactly 1:23 the chain reaction was unable to control creating explosion and fire blew the reactor’s heavy steel and concrete lid.
This disaster killed more than 30 people at the place of accident and because of its radiation level in the surrounding 20-mile radius, almost 1,35,000 people were evacuated. The effects of this nuclear disaster is still being felt today with children and the elderly having serious medical conditions such as cancer , breathing problems , skin disease just to mention a few. Six people per million suffered from cancer before the accident had happened. But the statistics from 1986 – 1997 showed a rise to 45 accidents per million.
The lack of safety culture resulted in the inability to remedy design weakness despite being known before the accident. There were many construction failings at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant and its inadequate monitoring. According to the data in the possession of the KGB of the USSR design deviations and ventilation of construction are occurring at various places in the construction. The pillars of generator room were erected with a deviation of up to 100mm from the reference axis and the horizontal connections were absent. Also there was a deviation in the wall panels of up to 150mm. In a report, the Deputy Head of the construction directorate said the backfill of the foundation in many places where waterproofing were damaged. So this damage lead to ground water seepage into the station and radioactive contamination of the environment.
The head of Chernobyl did not show any proper attention to the foundation. Even the cement plant operates erratically and also its output is bad. There were obstacles during the pouring of cement, so it gaps and laying in the foundation. There is no third high voltage transmission lane, which caused limitation in the using of second lane. Due to minor safety equipment in 1978, 170 individuals suffered work related
injuries. This caused the loss in the work time also.
A lot of safety procedures were being violated. They used only 6 rods for the test discipline but the minimum number of rods to be used was 30. Actually they were performing an experiment. In any case they were not under the normal regime of operation, and no usual rules applied.
They were well-experienced engineers who believed thy new exactly what was going on
What we all know as Groupthink was totally missing. There was no proper communication between the team in charge and personal responsible for the operation of nuclear reactor.
There were Sequences of events that caused the accident to occur .
The need for routine maintenance of the reactor four; it was shut down on 25th April 1986. They wanted to take advantage of this reactor to make a test. To make the test the reactor must have a temperature of 1000 MW before shut down, but because of operational error the power fell down to 30 MW due to positive void co-efficient. Finally they stabilized at 1:00 on the 26th of April at 200 MW.
An increase in coolant flow and a drop in stream pressure occurred which made the reactor to become very unstable. This caused less cooling to reactor; it also added an
additional problem. Then the sudden increase in temperature made fuel to rupture and lead to an explosion. After the accident the radioactive material was widely spread.
With in 10 K.M of the area ecosystems lethal doses were reached particularly for coniferous trees and small mammals.
Concerning the ethically issues, the duty of every engineer involved in experimenting with nuclear power reactor is to assure safe operation. Engineers in Chernobyl however believed that they had enough experience and knowledge about the reactor so that they can perform their experiment in a safe way. Unfortunately enough their judgment was wrong. They totally lost control over reactor and caused this great nuclear disaster. They neglected their duty to place public safety and the well being of people within the area as highest priority. Also the safety systems and routines of the reactor were deficient which means that the management of the site has neglected their duty to provide
Safety for public. Even when it comes to information the management of the site have neglected their duty to accurately and timely inform the people.
Also the basic duty of the company is to provide safe equipment.
Also the people with no training were in leading roles, clearly stating the fact that the company was negligent towards its duty. There were so many corrupt practices going on at the plant that even the company lacked its duty in proper maintenance of the plant. Initially the company was in the intension that their staff has sufficient knowledge to prevent large-scale disasters. But unfortunately the staff was unable to detect the defect, which caused the leak. The workers were unable to perform their duty because they have no proper knowledge of operation of technical equipment. The company lacked its duty not by putting up emergency measures to make life a little better for people.
People had the rights to be properly informed about the hazards of nuclear power. They had rights to be accurately informed about the accident that was going on without any
notice in media. Also the management had right to give proper technical knowledge to workers.
The experiment was designed to gain more knowledge about the behavior of the reactor under extreme conditions if it was rightly performed successfully. This could have lead to the benefit for the society. However the fact that they failed in such a catastrophic way means that in spite of their possible good intention, from utilitarian point of view, taking unreasonable risks was not motivated.
The staff was not acting in an egoistic way. They never benefited under any circumstances by the actions they performed leading to disaster. It ended up in a very big
disaster. So they never showed up to be egoistic.
In 1989 a settlement of 470 million US. Dollars was agreed upon and they only paid $350 per victim. Ethical issues arise because of the lack of safety standards and maintenance in Bhopal plant. There were no emergency procedures to deal with large-scale disasters. There was more risk because of the establishment of slum colonies near the
plant. Long before disaster the routine pollution released by the plant led to the
accumulation of several thousand tonnes of toxic waste with led to the abandoned of the area near the areas of factory. The soil and ground water in and around the plant remain
contaminated.
References
Balaji Abhinav Nellore, Artur Jaroszewski.
“Ethical Issues Concerning Risks in Science and Technology - Case Studies”
Mälardalen University Mälardalen University 16-3-97, 2nd Lane, Ramalingapuram, Marynarska 37, 76-150 Darlowo,
Nellore-524003, Andhra Pradesh, India Zachodniopomorskie, Poland.
0091-8615518529, 0091-8612327445 0048-943142171, 0048- 505352852
bne03001@student.mdh.se aji03001@student.mdh.se
<http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/cd5590/07_11/Examples-Papers_LectureNotes/RisksScienceTechnology.pdf>
Harris Charles E., Jr., Pritchard Michael S., Rabins Michael J.
“Engineering Ethics-Concepts & Cases”
Thomson.2005: Case 3-Aftermath of Chernobyl
Monday, March 31, 2008
Minneapolis Bridge Termed a Death Trap in 1990
Minneapolis Bridge Termed a Death Trap in 1990
The Minneapolis the Interstate 35W Steel Arch Deck Truss Interstate 1,907 feet long, 458 feet arch Bridge, 108 feet (8 lanes) wide was built and opened in 1967. It is 64feet above the Mississippi River. It was Minneapolis State’s busiest roadway and carried an average of about 140,000 vehicles a day according to the state transportation department. It was classified by engineering expects as “structurally deficient” in a federal report.
Somewhere last year we all head of the fatal collapse of the Interstate 35W Bridge which killed some people.
What experts said about the Interstate 35W Bridge in Minneapolis before it crashed down was that it was “structurally deficient."
In 1990, the U.S. government rated the bridge as "structurally deficient," citing corrosion in its bearings. The designation means some portions of the bridge need to be scheduled for repair or replacement. Inspectors did not believe the corrosion was a major problem and such didn’t need maximum attention. How sad this is /
In a 2005 inspection, the 40-year-old bridge was rated 50 on a scale of 100 for structural stability and was classified as "structurally deficient."
In another report experts again said they “didn't mean that the bridge was unsafe," the Transportation Secretary Peters said -- "We thought we had done all we could," Minnesota state bridge engineer Dan Dorgan said near the mangled remains of the span. "Obviously something went terribly wrong." According to federal data based on a June 2005, inspection, the bridge compared poorly with others:
To me it appeared some of the so-called engineers instead of thinking about the safety of the general public were rather thinking of their jobs. How unethical and insensitive they were to the people they had sworn to do the good of the people using the bridge.
The ill-fated I-35W bridge collapse seems to have been a prime example of the age and neglect that plagues many U.S. bridges now face.
Must we wait for fatal accidents to happen before people who have been trusted to prevent such things know the civic duties to their fellow human beings?
We all remember the 1987 collapse of a New York State Thruway bridge, in which 10 people died, where officials alerted to the problem of scouring on underwater bridge supports. That's when swirling water erodes sediment in which the supports are sunk. I am sure some the experts have also forgotten about the fall of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa Bay in 1980, after it was rammed by a ship, focused attention on the threat to bridges from water traffic.
"Sometimes it takes a tragedy to get decision-makers to pay attention," Andrzej Nowak said, who teaches civil engineering at the University of Nebraska.
He thinks the biggest thing to come out of this will be that, as a nation, we should spend more money replacing and maintaining these older bridges.
"Everything isn't perfect, we all know that, and it's hard to find the right word for what it is," Maggard says. "Reasonably safe? Yeah. Generally safe? Yeah. Not every inspector catches every flaw on every bridge, but at least we've got someone out there looking."
The ill-fated I-35W bridge seems to have been a prime example of the age and neglect that still plagues many U.S. Bridges.
In the aftermath of the incident, federal officials alerted states to immediately inspect all bridges similar to the Minneapolis Bridge. Questions about the cause of the collapse and whether it could have been prevented arose as authorities shifted from rescue efforts to a recovery operation, searching for bodies that may be hidden beneath the river's swirling currents.
The time has come for professionals to perform their functions without first considering the positions they occupy but rather to uphold the truth and to render an expert opinion that will help the users of such roadways a save trip .
Posted By: Benjamin Yaw Atsem
Sources:
“Dozens Missing as Minneapolis Search Efforts Are Halted”
The New York Times
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/us/02cnd-bridge.html>
Keen, Judy
“Minneapolis Bridge warning issued in 1990”
USA TODAY
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-02-minneapolis-bridge_N.htm>
Rick Hampson, Dennis Cauchon and Paul Overberg
“Officials see new urgency to improve USA's bridges”
USA TODAY
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-02-bridge-cover_N.htm>
The Minneapolis the Interstate 35W Steel Arch Deck Truss Interstate 1,907 feet long, 458 feet arch Bridge, 108 feet (8 lanes) wide was built and opened in 1967. It is 64feet above the Mississippi River. It was Minneapolis State’s busiest roadway and carried an average of about 140,000 vehicles a day according to the state transportation department. It was classified by engineering expects as “structurally deficient” in a federal report.
Somewhere last year we all head of the fatal collapse of the Interstate 35W Bridge which killed some people.
What experts said about the Interstate 35W Bridge in Minneapolis before it crashed down was that it was “structurally deficient."
In 1990, the U.S. government rated the bridge as "structurally deficient," citing corrosion in its bearings. The designation means some portions of the bridge need to be scheduled for repair or replacement. Inspectors did not believe the corrosion was a major problem and such didn’t need maximum attention. How sad this is /
In a 2005 inspection, the 40-year-old bridge was rated 50 on a scale of 100 for structural stability and was classified as "structurally deficient."
In another report experts again said they “didn't mean that the bridge was unsafe," the Transportation Secretary Peters said -- "We thought we had done all we could," Minnesota state bridge engineer Dan Dorgan said near the mangled remains of the span. "Obviously something went terribly wrong." According to federal data based on a June 2005, inspection, the bridge compared poorly with others:
To me it appeared some of the so-called engineers instead of thinking about the safety of the general public were rather thinking of their jobs. How unethical and insensitive they were to the people they had sworn to do the good of the people using the bridge.
The ill-fated I-35W bridge collapse seems to have been a prime example of the age and neglect that plagues many U.S. bridges now face.
Must we wait for fatal accidents to happen before people who have been trusted to prevent such things know the civic duties to their fellow human beings?
We all remember the 1987 collapse of a New York State Thruway bridge, in which 10 people died, where officials alerted to the problem of scouring on underwater bridge supports. That's when swirling water erodes sediment in which the supports are sunk. I am sure some the experts have also forgotten about the fall of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa Bay in 1980, after it was rammed by a ship, focused attention on the threat to bridges from water traffic.
"Sometimes it takes a tragedy to get decision-makers to pay attention," Andrzej Nowak said, who teaches civil engineering at the University of Nebraska.
He thinks the biggest thing to come out of this will be that, as a nation, we should spend more money replacing and maintaining these older bridges.
"Everything isn't perfect, we all know that, and it's hard to find the right word for what it is," Maggard says. "Reasonably safe? Yeah. Generally safe? Yeah. Not every inspector catches every flaw on every bridge, but at least we've got someone out there looking."
The ill-fated I-35W bridge seems to have been a prime example of the age and neglect that still plagues many U.S. Bridges.
In the aftermath of the incident, federal officials alerted states to immediately inspect all bridges similar to the Minneapolis Bridge. Questions about the cause of the collapse and whether it could have been prevented arose as authorities shifted from rescue efforts to a recovery operation, searching for bodies that may be hidden beneath the river's swirling currents.
The time has come for professionals to perform their functions without first considering the positions they occupy but rather to uphold the truth and to render an expert opinion that will help the users of such roadways a save trip .
Posted By: Benjamin Yaw Atsem
Sources:
“Dozens Missing as Minneapolis Search Efforts Are Halted”
The New York Times
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/us/02cnd-bridge.html>
Keen, Judy
“Minneapolis Bridge warning issued in 1990”
USA TODAY
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-02-minneapolis-bridge_N.htm>
Rick Hampson, Dennis Cauchon and Paul Overberg
“Officials see new urgency to improve USA's bridges”
USA TODAY
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-02-bridge-cover_N.htm>
Monday, March 3, 2008
Are Electronics Manufacturing Companies Ignoring Safety Rules
Are Electronics Manufacturing Companies Ignoring Safety Rules?
I am really sure we all feel very happy when you move to your new home and as such the family has also paid for new electronic gadgets ranging from games, televisions, sound system, fridges etc to be installed in your new home.
Finally, when move to your new home and then your parents go into the TV room and there stand a new Plasma LCD TV with sound speakers installed near a fire heating place. The first question, your parents will ask, is this Plasma TV safe? Is the product made from good products and chemicals?
In a Greenpeace report which targeted electronics manufacturing companies that use brominated flame retardants (BFRs).
Preventing fires in electronics is particularly very important as most of these electronics gadgets often contain heat sources and good amounts of very high flammable plastics and as such placing a plasma TV. Near fire place in your room is very dangerous.
We have also heard of situations where computer batteries and game consoles had burst into flames. It is therefore vital that consumers of electronics products especially plasma which most of us want get also comes with great danger with not used well.
Just as computer first came, they were very expense and as such companies made lots of money through the sale of computers without considering the safety of the general public. The same can be said of Plasma TVs, Video and Computer Games and Iphones.
The Greenpeace decided to conduct investigations, bringing in game manufacturers like Apple, Microsoft and Nintendo and come out with a final report.
The lack of research brought the credibility of the report into question concerning the use of chemicals during manufacturing.
The ethical judgment of Greenpeace was put into question since their research was made in a lazy manner. The evaluation report didn’t only encourage the use of replacements for some chemicals with known health and safety problems.
Unfortunately, Greenpeace didn’t provide any indication of whether these replacement chemicals are also currently available, or whether they did pass the precautionary principle standard test.
Much as there so many importations of goods from China, the time has come for the United States from toys to food, the safety concern of the entire public and consumers should be the main concern of the government. Electronics gadgets that are found to defective should quickly be sent to the manufacturer for proper disposal.
Also the Brominated Flame Retardants (BFRs) commonly used in electronic devices should be made sure that it is safe and reliable to use with respect to both the environment and more importantly to human health.
Even though most manufacturers are there to make profit gain in this capital economy, their primary aim should center on the safety of the public and the consumer.
Any manufacturing company found doing contrary should be made to pay a heavy fine once all the rules and regulations have been applied.
Posted By: Benjamin Yaw Atsem
Sources:
Gamet, Jeff
“Chemical Group Critical of Greenpeace iPhone Report”
Monday, October 22nd, 2007
<http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/33442>
Timmer, John
“Greenpeace report bashing Nintendo and Apple undermined by flawed research”
Published: November 28, 2007 - 08:30AM CT
<http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071128-greenpeaces-green-electronics-guide-undermined-by-minimal-research-effort.html>
I am really sure we all feel very happy when you move to your new home and as such the family has also paid for new electronic gadgets ranging from games, televisions, sound system, fridges etc to be installed in your new home.
Finally, when move to your new home and then your parents go into the TV room and there stand a new Plasma LCD TV with sound speakers installed near a fire heating place. The first question, your parents will ask, is this Plasma TV safe? Is the product made from good products and chemicals?
In a Greenpeace report which targeted electronics manufacturing companies that use brominated flame retardants (BFRs).
Preventing fires in electronics is particularly very important as most of these electronics gadgets often contain heat sources and good amounts of very high flammable plastics and as such placing a plasma TV. Near fire place in your room is very dangerous.
We have also heard of situations where computer batteries and game consoles had burst into flames. It is therefore vital that consumers of electronics products especially plasma which most of us want get also comes with great danger with not used well.
Just as computer first came, they were very expense and as such companies made lots of money through the sale of computers without considering the safety of the general public. The same can be said of Plasma TVs, Video and Computer Games and Iphones.
The Greenpeace decided to conduct investigations, bringing in game manufacturers like Apple, Microsoft and Nintendo and come out with a final report.
The lack of research brought the credibility of the report into question concerning the use of chemicals during manufacturing.
The ethical judgment of Greenpeace was put into question since their research was made in a lazy manner. The evaluation report didn’t only encourage the use of replacements for some chemicals with known health and safety problems.
Unfortunately, Greenpeace didn’t provide any indication of whether these replacement chemicals are also currently available, or whether they did pass the precautionary principle standard test.
Much as there so many importations of goods from China, the time has come for the United States from toys to food, the safety concern of the entire public and consumers should be the main concern of the government. Electronics gadgets that are found to defective should quickly be sent to the manufacturer for proper disposal.
Also the Brominated Flame Retardants (BFRs) commonly used in electronic devices should be made sure that it is safe and reliable to use with respect to both the environment and more importantly to human health.
Even though most manufacturers are there to make profit gain in this capital economy, their primary aim should center on the safety of the public and the consumer.
Any manufacturing company found doing contrary should be made to pay a heavy fine once all the rules and regulations have been applied.
Posted By: Benjamin Yaw Atsem
Sources:
Gamet, Jeff
“Chemical Group Critical of Greenpeace iPhone Report”
Monday, October 22nd, 2007
<http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/33442>
Timmer, John
“Greenpeace report bashing Nintendo and Apple undermined by flawed research”
Published: November 28, 2007 - 08:30AM CT
<http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071128-greenpeaces-green-electronics-guide-undermined-by-minimal-research-effort.html>
Friday, February 8, 2008
Oil Spill in San Francisco as a result of Ship collision with the Oakland Bay Bridge
I am sure sometime ago we all read in the news media and on also saw on TV. Where a container ship which was traveling through dense fog bumped into a tower supporting the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge spilling thousands of gallons of oil into the sea.
The accident caused no structural damage to the span but the ship's hull suffered a large gash that poured about 58,000 gallons of fuel in the bay. The leak prompted the closures of five San Francisco beaches an official said, Several people who were at the Port of San Francisco reported getting headaches and feeling nauseated from inhaling oil fumes, but the city's public health department said no one was at risk from long-term health effects.
The Cosco Busan ship, which was heading from Oakland to South Korea, struck a tower west of Yerba Buena Island. The ship later anchored north of Treasure Island, outside the channel. A veteran bay pilot who was the captain of the massive ship, guiding it out of the Bay at the time of the collision.
"The vessel did not actually contact the bridge," he said. "We have a fender system that is on the outside of the bridge that acts as a bumper…It served its purpose…We lost about 100 feet of the fender system in the collision. There are several beams that are 8x10x14 feet and weigh 400 pounds apiece that have to be replaced."
The Coast Guard as it appears to me were late in getting to the spill site rendering a massive oil spill into the sea beaches thereby polluting an entire area.
The marine inspectors conducted several investigations into the cause of the accident, while an Army Corps of Engineers crew collected large wooden chunks from the bridge fender system that broke off into the water. Even though Hanjin Shipping the owners of the ship will pay for the cost of the bay clean-up. There was some unethical practice.
The port was posting signs warning people not to fish in certain areas near the spill.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management Board also monitored the safety of the air.
The San Francisco police and the Coast Guard also enforced a 100-foot safety zone around the leaked fuel and the ship, docked north of Treasure Island, according to the Coast Guard.
On the whole there were some ethical violations on the part of the ship owners and the coast guard.
Posted By: Benjamin Yaw Atsem
Sources:
“Oil Spilled in Bridge Collision closes San Francisco Beaches”
POSTED: 9:49 am PST November 7, 2007
UPDATED: 11:58 pm PST November 7, 2007
<http://www.ktvu.com/news/14532288/detail.html>
“Ship Types 101 - San Francisco Bay Bridge Oil Tanker Collision”
Gcaptain . November 12th, 2007
<http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/ship-types-101-san-francisco-bay-bridge-oil-tanker-collision/>
I am sure sometime ago we all read in the news media and on also saw on TV. Where a container ship which was traveling through dense fog bumped into a tower supporting the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge spilling thousands of gallons of oil into the sea.
The accident caused no structural damage to the span but the ship's hull suffered a large gash that poured about 58,000 gallons of fuel in the bay. The leak prompted the closures of five San Francisco beaches an official said, Several people who were at the Port of San Francisco reported getting headaches and feeling nauseated from inhaling oil fumes, but the city's public health department said no one was at risk from long-term health effects.
The Cosco Busan ship, which was heading from Oakland to South Korea, struck a tower west of Yerba Buena Island. The ship later anchored north of Treasure Island, outside the channel. A veteran bay pilot who was the captain of the massive ship, guiding it out of the Bay at the time of the collision.
"The vessel did not actually contact the bridge," he said. "We have a fender system that is on the outside of the bridge that acts as a bumper…It served its purpose…We lost about 100 feet of the fender system in the collision. There are several beams that are 8x10x14 feet and weigh 400 pounds apiece that have to be replaced."
The Coast Guard as it appears to me were late in getting to the spill site rendering a massive oil spill into the sea beaches thereby polluting an entire area.
The marine inspectors conducted several investigations into the cause of the accident, while an Army Corps of Engineers crew collected large wooden chunks from the bridge fender system that broke off into the water. Even though Hanjin Shipping the owners of the ship will pay for the cost of the bay clean-up. There was some unethical practice.
The port was posting signs warning people not to fish in certain areas near the spill.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management Board also monitored the safety of the air.
The San Francisco police and the Coast Guard also enforced a 100-foot safety zone around the leaked fuel and the ship, docked north of Treasure Island, according to the Coast Guard.
On the whole there were some ethical violations on the part of the ship owners and the coast guard.
Posted By: Benjamin Yaw Atsem
Sources:
“Oil Spilled in Bridge Collision closes San Francisco Beaches”
POSTED: 9:49 am PST November 7, 2007
UPDATED: 11:58 pm PST November 7, 2007
<http://www.ktvu.com/news/14532288/detail.html>
“Ship Types 101 - San Francisco Bay Bridge Oil Tanker Collision”
Gcaptain . November 12th, 2007
<http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/ship-types-101-san-francisco-bay-bridge-oil-tanker-collision/>
Sunday, January 27, 2008
The Ethical Issue of Animal Testing for Research
While we all do understand that we can’t progress in science, engineering, economics, mathematics, nursing, medicine and in life as human beings without the need for research. There is the need to do research for good purposes but not for the making of nuclear weapons and toxic chemicals to destroy our environment. Break through in science and engineering has lead the United States and Russia to be at the fore front of Space Science. Scientific research has lead major companies to discover vaccines and drugs for diseases such as Polo, TB.There is also now the talk about the moral and ethical concerns about stem cell research especially the cloning of human parts and animals.Currently most medical and scientific research is done using mice. Researches have found a gene, Par-4, in the prostate of mice, which actually suppresses the growth of tumors. The study found that mice born with this gene do not develop tumors. They grow normally, have no defects and actually live a few months longer than the control animals. The gene can also be found in other cells within mice. Scientists injected the gene into eggs, and then implanted them into surrogate mothers. With this after sometime there is a mice offspring, which possess enough carbon copy of the gene to resist cancer growth. How nice it will be if we develop treatment through this technique to cure people with the various forms of cancer. However, it is not yet known if this same gene exists in humans, or if another version from mice can be transplanted into humans to create the same cancer-resistant behavior.This will greatly be a cure for traditional cancer treatments like chemotherapy. This will therefore need an extensive animal as well as human testing to fully observe the benefits and side effects of the gene. This is basically genetic engineering or gene splicing. With all these research activities comes with the ethical debate and concerns again? In this vein some animal and human subjects have to die in the process of researching a cure. This has given rise to the sale of human parts and the abduction of humans or human trafficking in certain countries, though this practice is cruel and evil.If we can save the lives of millions of people on our planet especially those suffering from HIV/AIDS, Cancer, Stroke, Alzheimer’s, Spinal Cord Injuries and others at the cost of just a relatively few, then that would indeed be the greatest benefit for civilization and mankind.
Posted By: Benjamin Yaw Atsem
Sources:
Myers, Lauren“Animal testing necessary in medical research”Issue date: 11/6/07
Section.http://media.wildcat.arizona.edu/media/storage/paper997/news/2007/11/06/Opinions/Animal.Testing.Necessary.In.Medical.Research-3080864.shtml
“Researchers Say They Have Created Cancer-Resistant 'Super Mouse”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313461,00.html
“Animal testing a necessary research tool, for now”
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0903poste0903.html
Posted By: Benjamin Yaw Atsem
Sources:
Myers, Lauren“Animal testing necessary in medical research”Issue date: 11/6/07
Section.http://media.wildcat.arizona.edu/media/storage/paper997/news/2007/11/06/Opinions/Animal.Testing.Necessary.In.Medical.Research-3080864.shtml
“Researchers Say They Have Created Cancer-Resistant 'Super Mouse”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313461,00.html
“Animal testing a necessary research tool, for now”
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0903poste0903.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)