Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Remember the bridge?

It was a heart wrenching story with much sorrow, but some miracles of survival. Truthfully, it was a miracle that more didn't perish.

But the pundits were so quick to exclaim a political fault. Why, of course it had to be the fault of Bush and his budget cuts that allowed the bridge to fall into disarray! Barring that, then it , of course, had to be the fault of the state political leadership who didn't allocate funding for upkeep! And when I suggested we wait for answers, those who claimed to be for freedom (play on word there bulletin board fans) shouted me down for being contentious.

Well, throw the crap in your own face. It was a design flaw and had nothing to do with the repairs that were needed OR GW.

Read it here

I don't like George Bush. I think he will be on record as the worst president in our history, but he's not evil incarnate. When your hyperbole drowns out common sense and the ability to look at any situation objectively, YOU are what you decry.

3 Comments:

At 9:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I really don't think it's as simple as you'd like to make it out.


From the New York Times article:

Controversy Dogs Inquiry on Bridge Collapse - Jan 30 - 2008 -- which might be the article you are trying to link to in your post -- except the link didn't work for me.

The board chairman specifically said that they had not yet reached a definitive decision on all the factors that lead to the bridges collapse.

In fact, the board’s chairman, Mark V. Rosenker, noted in announcing the recommendations that it had not yet reached a definitive finding as to all factors in the collapse.

Also, there are serious concerns that the boards preliminary findings are politically motivated.

When the board’s chairman said this was a problem that field inspectors could not have been expected to find, a senior Minnesota congressman, James L. Oberstar, the Democrat who heads the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, accused him of jumping to conclusions. Mr. Oberstar, whose committee oversees the safety board, said dismissing the idea that rust had played a role was “inappropriate” at this stage, months before the board’s final report on the collapse,

Perhaps what you are seeing was a report of a prelinary judgement that the initial specification for the Gusset plates was too thin.

But even Mr. Rosenker, the Republican chariman of the safety board, has been careful to point out, that despite the board’s judgment about the plates, “it was not our intent to imply that we were eliminating other contributing factors from our continued analysis."

All in all -- this would say to me that the matter is much less settled than you want to make it out.

Dont' mean to rain on your parade.

 
At 10:10 PM, Blogger Senihele said...

You're not raining on anyone's parade and you're also not reading the same article that this post was based on some weeks ago. Yahoo has moved the article so no, this late it no longer works but the determination was made that the fault was a DESIGN FLAW. Those were the words used IN THE ARTICLE, they're not mine.

But if you read my post I directed my comments to those who sought to somehow lay blame on Bush for the bridge collapse, which is ludicris.

 
At 5:35 PM, Blogger Senihele said...

Dear anon

I hadn't bothered with you again but allow me to educate you with information on the ntsb website.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2008/080115.html


"During the wreckage recovery, investigators discovered that gusset plates at eight different joint locations in the main center span were fractured. The Board, with assistance from the FHWA, conducted a thorough review of the design of the bridge, with an emphasis on the design of the gusset plates. This review discovered that the original design process of the I-35W bridge led to a serious error in sizing some of the gusset plates in the main truss."

Undersized gusset plates were found at 8 of the 112 nodes (joints) on the main trusses of the bridge. These 16 gusset plates (2 at each node) were roughly half the thickness required and too thin to provide the margin of safety expected in a properly designed bridge.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home