People who think they're in authoritative positions.

  • Thread starter Holocene
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation was about a person who tried to ship a motorcycle fuel tank that had been completely drained of gasoline, but was stopped by a postal worker who was concerned about residual vapors. The person felt that the worker was abusing their power and that the safety concerns were unfounded. They also discussed the threshold concentration for smelling gasoline and the explosive range of flammable liquids. Overall, the conversation highlighted the tension between following rules and regulations and individual beliefs and experiences.
  • #36
I agree that the postal worker's judgment was sound and she was right in doing what she did. However, I believe it was mostly the smug attitude (as if she is proud to give him a hard time about it) of the postal worker that agitated holocene.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
I think you're lucky it didn't smell like radiation.
 
  • #38
Crosson said:
What is the threshold concentration for smelling gasoline?

"most people can smell gasoline at levels as low as 0.25 ppm." http://dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/chemFS/fs/Gasoline.htm"

Do a basic Conversion: 0.25ppm is .0000025%

Now what does it take for ignition?


http://www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/ehs/handbook/flammabl/firetech.htm"

Caveats:

(minor) One measurement is by ppm, the other is by volume. But these are equivalent under the assumption of the ideal gas law.

(major) The concentration of gasoline in the air that the clerk smelled could have been anything greater then 0.0000025%, since this is only a threshold.

Allowing for the major caveat, we can assume that the air surrounding the gas tank had a 100 times the threshold concentration for smelling, and even then we see that the clerk was being overly safe by a factor of 1,000.

If there was no liquid in the tank (it was dry to the touch) then it could not possible cause an explosion. We could do something like assume a 0.1 mm thick layer that could not be felt to the touch was surrounding the tank, overestimate the inner surface area of the tank as 1m^2 and we would have a single milliliter of gasoline!

I agree with the original poster, this is not an issue of safety, but rather of power abuse and bad science education.
So many problems, I don't know where to begin. :frown:

1. You seem to be taking the best-case scenario as the default assumption, which is almost entirely unreasonable for matters of safety.

2. You don't seem to have actually argued that the package was safe -- you've simply made some meaningless assertions about factors of ppm.

3. You are taking the opening poster at his word that he drained it. That's not reasonable for the clerk to do. (Also, note that the opening poster never claimed to have made the gas tank safe for transport -- I'm quite worried that he is unaware of gasoline safety)

4. You failed to consider that the vapor density inside the package will be much greater than what leaks through the package.

5. You neglected that noxious fumes have risks other than that of explosion.

6. You have the mystifying expectation that post office window clerks should be experts in chemical safety, and should have the authority to override established policies regarding the handling of hazardous materials.

7. You seem to have the mystifying belief that your top-of-your-head opinions and calculations regarding the risks involved in transporting hazardous material carries more weight than the collective institutional experience and expertise of the United States Postal Service and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation combined. (The USPS regulations regarding hazmats, I believe, are based on CFR 49 -- Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
all true, Hurkyl----


I was wondering 'if' it was 'maybe' just a touch of gas on the outside of the box (or maybe what was in the box), that it may have evaporated off by the time he got to the other post office, too ---


Another 'interesting thread'-----the 'example' that was given (incident at the post office)--though, maybe one of discussion, and as maybe not the 'best' example---is being discussed more than the 'topic' of the thread.

"People who think they're in authoritative positions."

Holocene said:
Basically, I really hate people that feel they need to act powerful and throw a wrench into your day over petty issues.
 
  • #40
I remember, not too long ago, about a letter that arrived at a state government office that when opened, a 'substance' was found. It was so important that the building was evacuated and locked down, the haz mat team was called in, the streets were blocked off, the TV programs were interrupted with the 'news' about it and to 'stay away' from the area with a 'so-many-block' area with 'live' coverage that went on for hours.

It turned out to be a 'used' oil smear on a truck title reassignment request.

was it a 'better-safe-than-sorry' , or lack of 'common sense' (and by whom)?

------------------

Holocene ---the next time you mail a gas tank full of gas, add some potpourri in for packing
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Hurkyl said:
1. You seem to be taking the best-case scenario as the default assumption, which is almost entirely unreasonable for matters of safety.

This was addressed in the major caveat.

2. You don't seem to have actually argued that the package was safe -- you've simply made some meaningless assertions about factors of ppm.

Your correct that I did not actually draw the inferences. What I have shown is that the difference between the threshold concentration for smelling and the threshold concentration for combustion are 5 orders of magnitude apart. This does not strictly imply the package was safe, but life does not come with guaranteed safety, and the point is that there is a large range of gasoline concentrations that are perfectly safe but can be smelled, and so there is no reason to be especially alarmed at this package (unless you are paranoid about everything).

3. You are taking the opening poster at his word that he drained it. That's not reasonable for the clerk to do.

I don't have any reason to believe he lied! Can you give me one reason why someone would someone ship a gas tank full of gas? Has there ever been a recorded case of a private citizen sending a dangerous gasoline related package, intentionally or accidentally? What is the base for all this paranoia?

(Also, note that the opening poster never claimed to have made the gas tank safe for transport -- I'm quite worried that he is unaware of gasoline safety)
Anyone who is handling the shipping of a gas tank has at least some practical knowledge about gasoline safety. It might also be reasonable to assume that Holocene has some experience with automotive mechanics, since a non-mechanic would probably ask the person who removed the gas tank from the motorcycle to also handle the packing and shipping.

4. You failed to consider that the vapor density inside the package will be much greater than what leaks through the package.
Even granting this, there is still a range of several orders of magnitude where the package could be safe and yet still cause a smell.

5. You neglected that noxious fumes have risks other than that of explosion.

Are you talking about inhalation and other health risks? I hate the smell of gas, but not everyone does. Some people quite like it.

6. You have the mystifying expectation that post office window clerks should be experts in chemical safety, and should have the authority to override established policies regarding the handling of hazardous materials.

It doesn't take much expertise to know that even micro-quantities of gasoline carry a smell, and that Holocene's explanation is reasonable.

7. You seem to have the mystifying belief that your top-of-your-head opinions and calculations regarding the risks involved in transporting hazardous material carries more weight than the collective institutional experience and expertise of the United States Postal Service and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation combined. (The USPS regulations regarding hazmats, I believe, are based on CFR 49 -- Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations)

You seem to think that the government cares about safety; as an entity it only cares about control. I would rather trust science then the government. I firmly agree with Holocene's original post, that this was a case of a power-hungry government clerk, and I am righteously pleased that he was able to get his packaged shipped by changing clerks.
 
  • #42
Crosson said:
Are you talking about inhalation and other health risks? I hate the smell of gas, but not everyone does. Some people quite like it.

:eek:
 
  • #43
WarPhalange said:
:eek:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
Hurkyl said:
4. You failed to consider that the vapor density inside the package will be much greater than what leaks through the package.

Crosson said:
Even granting this, there is still a range of several orders of magnitude where the package could be safe and yet still cause a smell.

No question. It might be safe. It might be dangerous. Is it your position that the postal clerk should agree to take any package that might be safe? Or is it your position that the postal clerk - who, remember, is not a safety professional - should evaluate the safety of each individual package themselves?

I think it's reasonable for the postal clerks to evaluate packages based on USPS regulations. These regulations say gasoline cannot be mailed. If a package reeks of gasoline, I think it's entirely appropriate that it be refused.
 
  • #45
leright said:
I agree that the postal worker's judgment was sound and she was right in doing what she did. However, I believe it was mostly the smug attitude (as if she is proud to give him a hard time about it) of the postal worker that agitated holocene.
You're assuming she was smug, sounds like she was just doing her job.
 
  • #46
Vanadium 50 said:
No question. It might be safe. It might be dangerous. Is it your position that the postal clerk should agree to take any package that might be safe?

Of course they should accept it, the alternative would be to turn away all the packages that might be dangerous, but since all packages might be dangerous, this is no alternative at all. There is nothing in the world that is guaranteed to be safe, which is why we should assess the risk with science, not fear and rhetoric.

Or is it your position that the postal clerk - who, remember, is not a safety professional - should evaluate the safety of each individual package themselves?

That is exactly what this clerk did, all on her own she evaluated the safety of the package. How dare she do this, since she was not a safety professional!

I think it's reasonable for the postal clerks to evaluate packages based on USPS regulations.

I do to.

These regulations say gasoline cannot be mailed.

Assuming that Holocene told the truth in the original post, we are only talking about trace amounts of gasoline. The regulations might say that gasoline cannot be mailed, but they do not say that "any object which has ever been in contact with a gasoline molecule cannot be mailed." We are talking about mailing a gas tank, we are not talking about mailing gasoline.

If a package reeks of gasoline, I think it's entirely appropriate that it be refused.

I disagree, since I proved that a package can be reeking of gasoline and still be perfectly safe.
 
  • #47
I really beginning to like this thread---

----everybody has 'their own' verdict and everyone 'thinks' they're 'right'
 
  • #48
rewebster said:
I really beginning to like this thread---

----everybody has 'their own' verdict and everyone 'thinks' they're 'right'

They all are just irrational and stubborn :smile:.
 
  • #49
rootX said:
They all are just irrational and stubborn :smile:.

yep---so, it's going to come down to 'who thinks they are MORE right' AND "People who think they're in authoritative positions"
 
  • #50
rewebster said:
I really beginning to like this thread---

----everybody has 'their own' verdict and everyone 'thinks' they're 'right'

I think what you are really saying is that the viewpoints in this thread are incommensurable, that the safety folks and the risky folks have fundamentally different attitudes towards life and government. The reason we cannot agree is because we are starting from different premises.


yep---so, it's going to come down to 'who thinks they are MORE right' AND "People who think they're in authoritative positions"

That's democracy for you, one of the worst forms of government.
 
  • #51
Crosson said:
I think what you are really saying is that the viewpoints in this thread are incommensurable, that the safety folks and the risky folks have fundamentally different attitudes towards life and government. The reason we cannot agree is because we are starting from different premises.




That's democracy for you, one of the worst forms of government.

and, I was trying to be so subtle
 
  • #52
We need an unbiased opinion about people in authoritative positions, let's ask a mortorcycle cop.:cool:
 
  • #53
rewebster said:
yep---so, it's going to come down to 'who thinks they are MORE right' AND "People who think they're in authoritative positions"
If it is their job, then they ARE more right and they ARE in an authoritative position. :rolleyes:

I can't believe that some people are unable to grasp that simple concept. :rolleyes:
 
  • #54
edward said:
We need an unbiased opinion about people in authoritative positions, let's ask a mortorcycle cop.:cool:

I like it!


or a string/MWI theorist
 
  • #55
This thread should have been shut down long ago.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top