Man dies while playing disc golf

[disc qualified]

so, are you suggessting that every community turn off all power after every severe storm "just to be safe"?

should every community shut off all power after every severe storm?
if not, what is your criteria for a community to shut off all the power?

 

[tbird888]

You must really hate to be inconvenienced. Death is pretty inconvenient too.

How many dead kids would be necessary for you to agree with cutting power? Ten? Fifty?

I say zero.

The people who die because they failed to secure a backup power source for their ventilator, or, those who run an intersection with a inoperative stoplight, are taking their own lives. Going for a walk in a park at night is hardly risky behavior.

Cutting power to the entire county would present a logistics nightmare for the police department, not to mention the anarchy that would ensue from the dirtbags who would take advantage of a bad situation. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. A better solution would be to post an off-duty police officer on the scene to CYA. As was said earlier, in an emergency everyone's on call. It not only helps keep those trespassers at bay, but it is also a whole lot cheaper than a lawsuit.

 

[tampora]

What if the power company was still really busy when the 911 call came in. They were told someone just died in the park due to a down power line. They ALREADY knew the line was down, but they also have 30 other downed lines in the county. And, those other 30 lines are feeding peoples homes and not a park.

By using the "customers-first" mentality, they should just ignore it and continue working on those other 30 lines. Then, when they have the free-time to work on the line in the park, they should do so. This is REGARDLESS of how many people die in the meantime.

Or, do you think there is a particular number of casualties that need to be met before this becomes a priority?

Anyone who tries to argue that the convenience of the majority is greater than the existence of a single person, has issues with: the sanctity of life, greed, and ego.

 

[tampora]

Cutting power to the entire county would present a logistics nightmare for the police department, not to mention the anarchy that would ensue from the dirtbags who would take advantage of a bad situation. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. A better solution would be to post an off-duty police officer on the scene to CYA. As was said earlier, in an emergency everyone's on call. It not only helps keep those trespassers at bay, but it is also a whole lot cheaper than a lawsuit.

That's astounding. Our power goes out due to a bad storm on a monthly basis. Even though it's only a community of 220,000 people, we still avoid chaos in the streets when the power goes out.

 

[tbird888]

The world is bigger than just friendly, law-abiding Fargo, ND.

I've spent enough time living in ghettos because I couldn't afford to get out (no longer the case thankfully) to know that you never underestimate the depths of depravity to which some people will stoop. Some people lose their power and think, "I hope everyone's safe", and others think "Hey, I need a new TV."

 

[nyrblue2]

In response to: "Surely it can't take 12 hours to kill all power to the affected areas", Jake wrote:



You mean, there isn't a simple way to cut all power exiting the main station? I'm not talking about going to each downed line and disconnecting it. I'm talking about killing ALL POWER.

You are massively underestimating the volatility of the electrical grid. "Killing all power" in one area can have a cascading effect on MUCH larger areas and cause widespread blackouts (The blackout that knocked out the entire Northeast in 2003 was because some jackass in Ohio left a switch in the wrong position after some tests and one line de-energized that shouldn't have, which caused the next line to go off, which caused the next line to go off, etc.). Disconnecting just one line can cause huge power swings that overload adjacent circuits when they try to support the loads that are still connected when the first line goes out.

I also don't think you appreciate the HUGE nightmare it is to try to restore an area after a blackout, mainly due those power swings noted above, as well as a variety of other reasons. Those restorations can takes days, weeks, etc. and put the peoples lives at stake who are supervising those restorations. A situation like this is never as simply as flipping a switch off and back on when ready.

 

[tampora]

That's sad. Shawnee is barely 30,000 people. That's less than 14% of the Fargo area.

All of a sudden, I'm feeling pretty good about my community.

 

[JC17393]

Anyone who tries to argue that the convenience of the majority is greater than the existence of a single person, has issues with: the sanctity of life, greed, and ego.

I get a kick out of this attitude. You want all these overkill measures to spare this one person's life, even if the overkill measures result in deaths elsewhere.

The person who dies because their ventilator or dialysis machine fails without power isn't important enough to save.

An out of town driver fails to stop at a traffic light gets broadsided and is killed instantly, but that's no big deal because he took his life into his own hands ignoring the traffic signal he couldn't see in the dark.

So much for the "sanctity of life".

 

[Jax11]

I think this whole thing argument is scaling way out of proportion.

Tampora, it seems pretty silly to shut down the whole nations power grid to make sure no one steps on a live wire after a storm in one area. It has also been stated by those involved in the business that sometimes the power companies cannot always tell if a down power line is live or not. There may also have been other downed lines in more populated areas which would make those a higher priority than this specific powerline. We don't have the information we need to assign the blame.

Furthermore, if you look at the greater picture, everyone of our lives is filled with daily dangers, something as simple as driving to work everyday can be life threatening. There is no system or protocol than can protect us from all of these dangers all the time. Unfortunately freak accidents like this happen to innocent people everyday. Assigning blame won't change what happened, I think it would be a better use of our time to send our condolences to the family through thought, prayer, and support as a community rather than argue about who is at fault.

 

[tampora]

I get a kick out of this attitude. You want all these overkill measures to spare this one person's life, even if the overkill measures result in deaths elsewhere.

The person who dies because their ventilator or dialysis machine fails without power isn't important enough to save.

An out of town driver fails to stop at a traffic light gets broadsided and is killed instantly, but that's no big deal because he took his life into his own hands ignoring the traffic signal he couldn't see in the dark.

So much for the "sanctity of life".

The person with the ventilator knows they're in hot water if their power goes out, and thus should have a backup source of power. If they don't, it's no different than playing Russian Roulette with the power company.

Any motorist is taking their own life into their own hands whenever they choose to operate a motor vehicle. Doing so in a city obviously devoid of power only adds to my claim that they are purposefully risking their own life.

Walking in a park at night should not be on par with the risk level of those above examples.

 

[tampora]

Tampora, it seems pretty silly to shut down the whole nations power grid to make sure no one steps on a live wire after a storm in one area

I said county, not country.

Assigning blame won't change what happened, I think it would be a better use of our time to send our condolences to the family through thought, prayer, and support as a community rather than argue about who is at fault.

Providing condolences to the family of the deceased does nothing for the next kid who dies because we refuse to change protocols.

 

[JC17393]

The person with the ventilator knows they're in hot water if their power goes out, and thus should have a backup source of power. If they don't, it's no different than playing Russian Roulette with the power company.

Any motorist is taking their own life into their own hands whenever they choose to operate a motor vehicle. Doing so in a city obviously devoid of power only adds to my claim that they are purposefully risking their own life.

Walking in a park at night should not be on par with the risk level of those above examples.

Hey, you're the one crying "sanctity of life" to argue for inconveniencing the majority to save a life. Why is this guy's life more valuable than the others, regardless of how much risk they are supposedly assuming?

 

[disc qualified]

so, tampora, what criteria would you use to determine when it was necessary to shut off the power to an entire community?

 

[Jax11]

I said county, not country.



Providing condolences to the family of the deceased does nothing for the next kid who dies because we refuse to change protocols.

My bad for the typo.

It seems, unfortunately, you completely missed my point. I regress, there is no use arguing with someone who is not willing to read and comprehend people's posts.

 

[Pwingles]

Hey, you're the one crying "sanctity of life" to argue for inconveniencing the majority to save a life. Why is this guy's life more valuable than the others, regardless of how much risk they are supposedly assuming?

i think the better question is,
why do you feel like an "inconvenience" for the majority, isnt worth saving someones life.

I do not advocate a total shutdown or whatever youre arguing about. But if they did, would it really be that bad? If it meant saving a life?

 

[tampora]

Hey, you're the one crying "sanctity of life" to argue for inconveniencing the majority to save a life. Why is this guy's life more valuable than the others, regardless of how much risk they are supposedly assuming?

Regardless? My viewpoint is directly related the amount of risk they are taking. Why do hospitals have their own backup generators? Because they know relying on the power company for 100% coverage is not wise.

so, tampora, what criteria would you use to determine when it was necessary to shut off the power to an entire community?

My proposed criteria: when there are reports of downed power lines.

My bad for the typo.

It seems, unfortunately, you completely missed my point. I regress, there is no use arguing with someone who is not willing to read and comprehend people's posts.

Assigning blame won't change the past. You are correct. But, it can change the future. I'm not so quick to say, "Oh well. Accidents happen. Sucks to be the parent of that kid."

 

[JC17393]

i think the better question is,
why do you feel like an "inconvenience" for the majority, isnt worth saving someones life.

I do not advocate a total shutdown or whatever youre arguing about. But if they did, would it really be that bad? If it meant saving a life?

Because I think it's more than simply an "inconvenience" to the majority if it puts other people at risk. If shutting down power city-wide saves this guy's life, but results in some person dying elsewhere because they stumbled down a darkened staircase or someone becomes septic and dies because they can't run their dialysis machine, is it worth it? Again, I'd ask why this guy's life is worth more than others?

 

[JC17393]

My proposed criteria: when there are reports of downed power lines.

You realize that power lines come down ALL THE TIME, right? If a car accident takes out a utility pole, everyone has to go dark? A tree limb breaks and knocks a wire down, businesses on the other side of town have to lose power?

Why not just shut down the whole power grid and revert everything back to the 19th century? At least that way, no one will ever be electrocuted again.

 

[tampora]

Why didn't the pioneers die constantly without electricity? Because they weren't putting themselves in harms way if the power were to go out. In fact, they didn't have power at all. We're taking the convenience of electricity and putting ourselves in a position to get hurt or killed if we go without this convenience for a couple days. That's a setup for failure.

Some guy tries to navigate stairs while blind? Sounds like risky behavior to me.
Some guy needs his dialysis machine to live and doesn't have a backup power source? Sounds like risky behavior to me.

Some guy goes for a walk in the park at night? That doesn't sound like risky behavior to me, and it shouldn't be.

 

[tbird888]

Why not just shut down the whole power grid and revert everything back to the 19th century? At least that way, no one will ever be electrocuted again.

People will still find a way...