"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Michel Boucher wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Seeing as you think that, I'm putting you in charge of spreading
>> >> the good word. Your first task, let the families of the victims of
>> >> the Texas fertilizer plant explosion know that without the
>> >> invisible hand preventing safety regulations, their family members
>> >> would still be alive.
>> >
>> > The fertilizer warehouse explosion (not actually a plant) was not a
>> > safety regulation issue. The issue was the encroachment of a
>> > residential
>> > area into an industrial one. The fertilizer warehouse was there first.
>>
>> And in defiance of the law it stored more than 250 tons of ammonia
>> nitrate
>> which is a fertilizer and also a potent explosive. They were required to
>> report any quantity over 400 pounds. They vioilated the law because they
>> were trying to maximize profit and public safety be damned. You don't
>> get a
>> free pass because of a zoning law you don't agree with.
>
> They complied with every single state and local law as well as EPA
> regulations. The only thing they didn't comply with was DHS reporting,
> which has nothing to do with zoning or safety.

That's still in doubt. EPA is all about safety as environmental regulations
are often crafted with public safety in mind. Such as you can't dump oil in
a lake because people drink the water etc etc etc.

>> > Some years back there was similar blame and whining when there was a
>> > fire at a warehouse full of pool chemicals in CT. The usual fuss about
>> > why it was allowed in a residential area, when the real question was
>> > why
>> > was residential building allowed in an industrial area. The pool
>> > chemical warehouse again was there long before the residential
>> > development around it.
>>
>> And it could havhe operated and made a profit by following regulations.
>> They chose to skirt regulations to make more profit. Would your same
>> argument hold water if the criminally negligent company set up shop in a
>> pre-existing residential area?
>
> WTF are you talking about? There was a fire at a warehouse, there was
> not even any accusation about negligence or not following regulations.
> The whining was about the location and the warehouse was there first in
> an area zoned industrial and in compliance with every single regulation.
> The blame lies 100% with the city government that allowed the
> residential development to encroach on an industrial area.

Your argument fairly quickly falls apart since you cannot deny they hid the
fact that they were storing massive amounts of explosives from the people
who lived nearby. Why keep it a secret? If they were so forthcoming as you
allege what was with the secrecy? You can hardly use the "informed consent"
defense when those affected were never informed.