It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What's more dangerous to America: two-bit terrorists or poorly regulated industries?

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:42 AM
link   
So where was the most carnage this week in America? Boston? No, try west Texas. A fertilizer plant storing thousands of tons of ammonium nitrate (the stuff used in the OKC bombing) was allowed to be built on the edge of a small town, within 2,000 feet of a hospital, a middle school, a high school, a retirement home and a fair number of residential structures, including an apartment complex. 24 people killed, including 12 first responders and over 160 persons wounded and taken to hospitals.

Why was this factory allowed to be built next this town, or why was the town allowed to be built up around the factory? This is like the case of a nuclear plant being built in the middle of a town in Iran. This factory was fined last year -- for all of $5,000-10,000 for some safety violations. It was allowed to be where it is because the factory owners claimed that nothing in it was flammable. Even though, as another such explosion of such a factory killed nearly 600 people back in the mid 1940's. And we know ammonium nitrate is quite explosive -- just ask the survivors of the OK City bombing.

Here's a link to an article about the explosion; check out the picture at the bottom that shows an aerial view of the town and factory, along with various distance radii:

RT article on Texas fertilizer factory explosion

In this article there is this fun fact:


Among other chemicals, the West Fertilizer Plant was using anhydrous ammonia, a colorless toxic gas, which is liquid under pressure. When concentrated it is corrosive to tissues upon contact. Its safety service guide reads that exposure to ammonia in sufficient quantities can be fatal.
Anhydrous ammonia becomes highly explosive when mixed with gas and/or air. Containers with anhydrous ammonia are prone to explosions when heated, while ruptured cylinders may rocket.
The plant reportedly stored about 25 tons of the chemical.


So clearly the factory owners lied when they got local/state officials to allow the placement of this plant. It does deal with highly flammable/explosive materail

There's a political ideology in this country that claims the US already has too much regulating of industry. This incident is exhibit A, proving the obverse.

So this incident, which claimed 8 times as many lives and more wounded than the Boston Marathon bombing, and surely could have been prevent received how much attention? Not much. I haven't seen more than one article about it at any US media websites, while there have been dozens of articles on the BMB on each and every "news" website. And the same goes for the amount of coverage of this in the threads here at ATS.

And the article I found on this topic is from RT.com, a Russian news site. They have better news on significant American stories than do the corporatized US news media.

In another RT story, it turns out that Exxon has gotten the FAA to put a no-fly zone into effect over the Arkansas oil spill. This is obviously to keep people and the media from taking pictures of the spill, although the FAA claims it is a hazard warning. Yes, it may be hazardous to fly overhead -- you might catch that oil on fire. But then one has to ask why cars are being allowed to drive around near -- or in -- the oil-filled streets.

Also heard a person from the area call into the Diane Rehm show, telling about how he and a friend, on private property, were given tickets by police -- who were being rented by Exxon -- for taking pictures of the spill. The tickets were for interfering with law enforcement or some such made-up infraction. And what fine has Exxon had to pay so far for its negligence?

RT article on FAA no-fly zone over Exxon spill

Better news about the US can be found from a Russian website than from American "news" media??? PATHETIC.

So not only is the government not regulating companies, thereby protecting the citizenry; but worse yet, the government is acting as the stooge of these corporations, using its authority to protect the companies against the people.

Romney said corporations are people. I'd say corporations are treated better than people. They are treated as Demigods.

There are many other instances of such out-of-control corporate behavior, whether they be too-big-to-jail bankers who are laundering drug money or Monsanto getting exempted from lawsuits having to do with their GMO products.

In a related matter, a political activist in CA recent used the HOV lane with only himself and the papers for a corporation of his in the passenger seat. He was fined for not having a second person in the car with him while traveling in the HOV lane. He fought the case and the court decided against him. So even the US justice system is having it two ways when it comes to corporations. Big corporations have more rights than people, but little people without political power cannot make use of corporate entitlements, such as treating a corporation as a person.

Don't expect to hear anything about such matters from the corporate MSM or even NPR or PBS, because they are run by yet another corporation, The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is a multi-million-dollar organization.

This site likes to talk about fanciful conspiracies ad nauseum, but when it comes to patently obvious conspiracies with all the evidence you'd ever need, and conspiracies that directly affect your health, safety and finances, not a lot of people seem to care about them. I'm much, much more worried about food products, industrial pollutants and industrial hazards in my and others' communities than I am worried about a couple of two-bit punks playing terrorist.
edit on 21-4-2013 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-4-2013 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:45 AM
link   
I agree with the rants against the terrible explosion in Texas. Yes, it was an accident. However, it could have been prevented. Just my two cents against what happened in Texas.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


regulate industry...I'm13 mile\s away from the feed that fed oklahoma



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 

I can appreciate the point you are trying to make but to be honest, neither.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


What blew up in the 40's was a ship, not a factory.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix267
I agree with the rants against the terrible explosion in Texas. Yes, it was an accident. However, it could have been prevented. Just my two cents against what happened in Texas.


Any a cident could have been prevented and it's easy to Monday morning quarterback, but it was a very very rare event, just an accident.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Wait what? Well. yes it could have been prevented. But rare or not. We still lost of lives and damage. We should have more responsibility.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Wait what? Well. yes it could have been prevented. But rare or not. We still lost of lives and damage. We should have more responsibility.


But from an economic standpoint, regulation and taxes greatly hurts the free market. And there needs to be a cost/benefit analysis of whether that makes sense when such events are both accidental and very rare. And no amount of regulation will prevent every accident, that just isn't realistic.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I have to admit I do not know much about economics. Currently I'm learning. But I do understand it is always an issue that has more than one opinion. Yeah it could be that taxes and what not could effect production. But I feel there should some way to lessen terrible accidents. You know what I'm saying?



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I have to admit I do not know much about economics. Currently I'm learning. But I do understand it is always an issue that has more than one opinion. Yeah it could be that taxes and what not could effect production. But I feel there should some way to lessen terrible accidents. You know what I'm saying?


There are many ways, and industry generally places a strong emphasis on safety for both economic reasons as well as public safety. But the point I'm trying to make is no amount of regulation will prevent every accident, they happen. But on the other hand, heavy regulation and taxes hurts business quite a bit, diminishes investment in new tech, job growth and expansion, and at the end of the line it just makes goods and services cost a lot more for us the consumer.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
From other sources I have read, it was NOT the anhydrous ammonia, but rather, the ammonium nitrate.....the stuff bombs are made out of that was of bigger concern. They had 1,350 times the amount that would normally trigger a safety oversight by Homeland Security. During the last seven years, 2012 was the only time the company brought it into their facility. The sudden appearance of this much should have raised red flags. They had 270 TONS of it!!

Who decided in 2012 to bring in this much ammonium nitrate to this facility and WHY....for what purpose? At whose order?

Is it possible to determine if any went missing prior to the explosion?

Are the records available, or were those blown up, too?


edit on 21-4-2013 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenofswords
From other sources I have read, it was NOT the anhydrous ammonia, but rather, the ammonium nitrate.....the stuff bombs are made out of that was of bigger concern. They had 1,350 times the amount that would normally trigger a safety oversight by Homeland Security. During the last seven years, 2012 was the only time the company brought it into their facility. The sudden appearance of this much should have raised red flags. They had 270 TONS of it!!

Who decided in 2012 to bring in this much ammonium nitrate to this facility and WHY....for what purpose? At whose order?

Is it possible to determine if any went missing prior to the explosion?

Are the records available, or were those blown up, too?


edit on 21-4-2013 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)


Well, spring just got here, it's farming season right now.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Explanation: S&F!

Embedding the aerial view picture ...



Personal Disclosure: May all the victims r.i.p. and may all other casualties recover asap!



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Wait what? Well. yes it could have been prevented. But rare or not. We still lost of lives and damage. We should have more responsibility.


But from an economic standpoint, regulation and taxes greatly hurts the free market. And there needs to be a cost/benefit analysis of whether that makes sense when such events are both accidental and very rare. And no amount of regulation will prevent every accident, that just isn't realistic.


Regulation can also be very beneficial to a free market, free market does not mean to be without rules and
jumbo shrimp cannot wrestle a dog.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You're right, I stand corrected. It was a cargo ship loaded with ammonium nitrate in Texas City. I had read briefly an article on similar such incidents and hadn't read the fine print. None the less, the bottom line is that ammonium nitrate has a history of bad industrial accidents/explosions and this company willfully for thirty years hid this danger from the community and the authorities, in no small part to evade the monitoring and regulation of what the owners/managers knew to be very hazardous materials.

Doing this so close to a town is criminal. Not letting first responders, i.e. fireman, know the risks of trying to contain such a fire are negligent homicide at best. This company is no better than the creeps that call up the fire department and then shoot the firemen when they come.

As for you claim that regulation is a drag on the economy, tell me what monumental disasters such as the BP Gulf Spill, the Exxon Valdez, the current spill in Arkansas, the Love Canal hazardous waste site and various other hazardous waste sites, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima have done for the economy. Guess they're good for the medical profession and haz-mat clean-up companies, but they wreak havoc on the local economy as well as on the health and safety of the locals.

The argument that regulation hinders business/the economy is just an excuse for business/corporate criminals to make money hand of fist and then take the money and run once they cause a monumental disaster. There are any number of cases of this that are on the record. There is a reason that the government over the years -- until lately have increased such regulations: it is because of the horrors produced by unfettered capitalism.

@OmegaLogos, Thanks for imbedding the picture from the article I linked. I tried using the image button to do this with my OP, but couldn't figure it out.
edit on 23-4-2013 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


Add to that an underfunded and undermanned SEC to oversee Wall Street and the number of bankers in DC calling the shots.

The bombers have nothing on these financial terrorists



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
But from an economic standpoint, regulation and taxes greatly hurts the free market.


How can we have a free market when Big Finance and Corporations have a stranglehold on our government to tailor policies beneficial to them?

www.cnbc.com...


Windfalls for Wall Street Executives Taking Jobs in Government


People usually say they go into government to perform public service. If they came from Wall Street, however, their former employers often provide another service.

Banks, including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, all have provisions that allow acceleration of payments owed to senior executives if they take government jobs, a new study finds.

Such a benefit was highlighted recently during the confirmation hearing for Jacob J. Lew as Treasury secretary. His previous employer, Citigroup, had guaranteed him preferential financial treatment if he were to leave to take a job in the government. When Mr. Lew left Citigroup he held stock that he could not immediately cash worth as much as $500,000, according to a government filing.

"These companies seem to be giving a special deal to executives who become government officials," says the study, to be released Thursday by the Project on Government Oversight. "In exchange, the companies may end up with friends in high places who understand their business, sympathize with it, and can craft policies in its favor."



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Our regulatory system is comparable to everything else in our economic system, convoluted. The more money you have the less the rules apply to you, the less money you have the stricter those same rules become. If that had been some small mom and pop fertilizer company they'd have been inspected as often as possible with the slightest things labeled gross negligence and fined up the ass. Rich corporations treat regulatory agencies like personal enforcers that eliminate any competition.

We do need regulations, but we need a government that can't be bought just as much. To answer your question though, both are equally dangerous but we seem to have more fallout from corporate cronyism.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jacobe001
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


Add to that an underfunded and undermanned SEC to oversee Wall Street and the number of bankers in DC calling the shots.

The bombers have nothing on these financial terrorists


No kidding. The financial aspect is just one more face of the beast.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


My point is that the existential threat posed by threats like these two marathon bombers pales in comparison to that posed and affected by corporations and the government, being in their hands, allowing them to get away with more murder, literal and figurative.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join