Huge explosion in Indianapolis destroys 2 homes, damages dozens more

That wasn't what I meant. I read that statement to mean that the local utility does not think that a gas leak caused the explosion.

"Yes, the houses blew up but we didn't find a gas leak afterwards, so as of now, we don't think that that was the cause."

When read that way, you can see why it doesn't make any sense. Once the houses blew up and the pipes were busted everywhere, I'd be very surprised if they found a leak since I assume they would shut the gas off at the nearest (farthest?) point which would prevent any gas from coming out of the busted pipes.

Reply to
DerbyDad03
Loading thread data ...

Um, if you blow the f*ck out of a house, it would stand to reason that some gas supply lines got ripped loose in the blast. Whether the house blew up from a gas leak or a pile of TNT, there *WILL* be a gas leak now.

Maybe. There have been a lot of "mysterious" house explosions across the country lately. Nobody seems to know exactly why they happened. Gas leak is just a guess.

Reply to
dennisgauge

On 11/13/2012 3:51 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: ...

...

Well, I think you're reading far more into it that is there. What are they supposed to say before they have had time to do anything but the most cursory of inspection? That's what's generally wrong w/ reporting--they expect answers immediately on things that are simply not doable immediately.

I think one can safely ignore essentially any press reporting on cause(s) at this point as they simply don't know for sure yet.

Again, let the forensics people do their thing in their own time--it may take some significant time if it isn't completely obvious at the git-go which apparently it isn't.

That there was apparently a furnace malfunction makes one suspicious at a minimum, however that it is pretty likely a culprit. Who know, maybe there was a pile of old unused fertilizer in the basement next to the furnace...

--

Reply to
dpb

I sense that dpb hasn't seen the picture. With the houses exploded, the gas company isn't likely to know what's a new leak, or a previous leak.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

formatting link
.

Use a sniffer---the piping has to still be there. Of course, if it's a small leak and buried under the rubble there may not be enough concentration to have found it (yet).

I'm sure if folks will just calm down and let the forensics folks do their thing they'll find the root cause...

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

We can assign the same people who are investigatiing the deaths in Benghazi?

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

formatting link
.

Maybe. There have been a lot of "mysterious" house explosions across the country lately. Nobody seems to know exactly why they happened. Gas leak is just a guess.

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

You must be thinking of propane.

Natural gas has a relative density range of .58 - .72. Air is considered to be 1.0.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

Certainly a possibility--does sound like some circumstances may have been in play that might lead to foul play if those 'facts' are indeed factual.

Reply to
dpb

"HeyBub" wrote in news:9NCdnR528- O_BT_NnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

No, it's not, and no, it doesn't. Natural gas is just slightly more than *half* as dense as air.

Nonsense.

Reply to
Doug Miller

That's legalese for "We are denying responsibility early." (-:

-- Bobby G.

Reply to
Robert Green

Excellent point. With the gas turned off to the entire area, finding an existing leak would be pretty damn hard. These incidents are bad for the gas company because for the next year or so, anyone near that area getting the slightest whiff of the embedded odor will ride them mercilessly. Speaking of embedding, you've heard the joke about Broadwell being an embedded journalist (by Petraeus)?

(-:

-- Bobby G.

Reply to
Robert Green

That was exactly my point. The statement made no sense...I found it hard to believe that they actually published it.

Reply to
DerbyDad03

Something goes wrong whilst local/foreign terrorists are constructing a bomb? Gas leak from fraccing operation? Petrol store explosion due to "preparing for doom" believers having hundreds of gallons on site in dodgy containers. Leaking propane gas from similar.

Reply to
harry

There has been quite a few natural gas explosions in the UK have leveled buildings.

formatting link

Reply to
harry

It doesn't take much gas to level a house.

Reply to
harry

At least in one of the paper's stories, the next sentence was reminder that the homeowner is responsible after the meter (g)

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

Not really. At that point the gas company was looking for leaks in the mains and laterals.. where they are responsible. The explosion likely wouldn't have damaged them.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

Are you saying that they didn't shut down the gas lines feeding into the area surrounding the blast? That's pretty standard stuff and without gas flowing through the gas pipes in the neighborhood I don't see how they could have said there were no gas leaks. You can only locate leaks when the whole system is pressurized. I think Derby's right when he implies that the statement was way too early in the investigation to be credible.

-- Bobby G.

Reply to
Robert Green

Not at all. They could (and will be able to) pressurize the lines in the area using plain old air or air mixed with the smelly agent or air mixed with a smoke agent and tell if there are leaks. They don't have to pressurize it with gas to check for leaks. YOu can tell just from the pressure responses. They might have had a couple of meters that they needed to cap off to keep the pressure up, but it isn't really rocket science to figure out if a main or the laterals were leaking.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

The conclusion you put into their mouths above wasn't anything at all like what the actual quote was. They didn't say anything about any conclusion as to what caused it; only that there were no apparent leaks at that time.

The quote you posted again--"A local gas utility said an initial inspection found no gas leaks in the area."

It said they found no leaks in an initial inspection. That's fine and was undoubtedly so. Drawing any other conclusions beyond what it says is where the problem lies.

At the point when asked and after an "initial" inspection they didn't have a leak to point a finger at. Doesn't say there wasn't something prior; doesn't say anything at all about probable cause. Period.

It's making assumptions beyond that that doesn't make any sense.

--

Reply to
dpb

Once again, I ask:

What was the point of even making/publishing that statement?

It's akin to the fireman stating - after all of the fires were put out

- "After an initial inspection, nothing was burning" or the electric utility stating "After an initial inspection, there was no sparking".

It was a pointless statement and served no purpose except to cause others to make assumptions about why it was said.

Reply to
DerbyDad03

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.