Filling Pre-88 Tanks

Of course, that's true, but the operator takes risks in everything he
does. His reaction in the case of the pre-88 tanks is illogical, in my
view. If you're going to measure risk, measure probability. There have
been a total of less than a dozen explosions of pre-88 tanks during
fills. How many millions of fills of pre-88 tanks have gone without
incident? Tens of millions? Hundreds of millions? I don't know, but I
would suspect that the probability of having a pre-88 tank blow up
during fill is lower than the probability that the operator's boat is
going to have a fatal mishap on any given day. Or that he'll be struck
by lightning. Or get whacked by a drunk driver on the way home from the
dock. He and you and I know we are at risk of all those things every
day, but we do them willingly.

For what it's worth, I always stay nearby when my tanks are being
filled, because I want to be sure I'm going to get 3,000 pounds, so I am
willing to take the same risk I'm asking the operator to take.

gc

Lee Bell wrote:

>
>There is that, but you also have to admit that the operator is the one at
>risk if one of those tanks proves to be unsafe. I think there's enough
>distrust available for both of you.
>
>
>Lee
>
>

--
George Cathcart
Director, University Communications
University of Maryland
301.405.4621

"George" <gcathcar@nospamaccmail.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:3F310162.6090106@nospamaccmail.umd.edu...
> Of course, that's true, but the operator takes risks in everything he
> does. His reaction in the case of the pre-88 tanks is illogical, in my
> view. If you're going to measure risk, measure probability. There have
> been a total of less than a dozen explosions of pre-88 tanks during
> fills. How many millions of fills of pre-88 tanks have gone without
> incident? Tens of millions? Hundreds of millions? I don't know, but I
> would suspect that the probability of having a pre-88 tank blow up
> during fill is lower than the probability that the operator's boat is
> going to have a fatal mishap on any given day. Or that he'll be struck
> by lightning. Or get whacked by a drunk driver on the way home from the
> dock. He and you and I know we are at risk of all those things every
> day, but we do them willingly.
>
> For what it's worth, I always stay nearby when my tanks are being
> filled, because I want to be sure I'm going to get 3,000 pounds, so I am
> willing to take the same risk I'm asking the operator to take.

Those tanks are all getting older and older... and most of them are gone.
Why take an unnecessary risk? I wouldn't. Driving to the dock for the boat
is sort of necessary, and you can do a lot to prevent yourself from getting
hit by lightning.

These risks are all mostly controlled and there are steps you can (and most
people do) to prevent them. This bears no relation to, say, a plane
crashing into your house, which you have no control over whatsoever.

Jon

> These risks are all mostly controlled and there are steps you can (and most
> people do) to prevent them. This bears no relation to, say, a plane
> crashing into your house, which you have no control over whatsoever.

No control whatsoever? Why just last weekend I was up painting over
that giant bullseye the previous owners had on the roof....