Gas Tax: Still Not (Apparently) The Culprit
By Mitch Berg
The Pioneer Press is apparently a tool of Tim Pawlenty; evidence apparently suggests that metal fatigue isn’t the culprit for the Bridge collapse (emphasis added):
In the days after the collapse, reports drawing on past inspections immediately singled out seemingly alarming cracks in the bridge’s steel. The Minnesota Department of Transportation came under fire for what appeared to be shoddy bridge oversight.
But a closer look at the record throws into question the idea MnDOT could have prevented the collapse by reinforcing the Minneapolis bridge, as an outside consultant recommended. The record also casts doubt on the theory that fatigue cracks made the bridge fall.
Here’s why:
— The cracks were repaired in the 1990s. And they were never found in the main I-35W river span, which appeared to fall first on video of the collapsing bridge captured by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers surveillance camera.
— The cracks were on the approach spans, which were not “fracture critical.” That designation signals a risk of total collapse if one key part of the bridge fails. The fracture critical area of the bridge was in the main span.
— A proposal to strengthen the steel beams in the bridge’s main span by adding steel plates dealt with a speculative problem – potential cracks. The reinforcement also would not have guaranteed against a total collapse.
— Fatigue cracks are more likely to occur and spread in cold weather, when steel is less flexible. The I-35W bridge collapse came after several days of 90-degree-plus weather.
Unlike certain commentators, I would never replace science with my opinion. I’ll await actual conclusions by real engineers.
But if I may wax fantastic for a moment – that moment when some people are gonna have to apologize for accusing the Governor and David Strom of complicity in murder might seem to be creeping closer.
November 21st, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Good luck with that. Those most likely to throw around reckless and disgusting charges have already made their bargain with the devil, and aren’t about to apologize for anything. If pushed, they’ll simply deny ever having said such a terrible thing.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Gee Mitch, leap to conclusions about cause much while bitching about leaping to conclusions about cause much?
November 21st, 2007 at 3:18 pm
You: leap to conclusions
Me: “I would never replace science with my opinion. I’ll await actual conclusions by real engineers”
FAIL
November 21st, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Hey Peev:
You made a comment back on November 15th questioning Mitch which I see no one responded to:
They were sitting in class taking calculus and learning the scientific method – Mitch – is that the same ’scientific method’ you call junk science when it is used to support evolution, or human causation of Global Climate change?
Evolution will soon be on the ash heap of history, because tons of new data (like the Cambrian explosion, the refutation of the Galapagos finches) that the evoutionists ignore or outright lie when questioned.
Global Climate Change is junk science, because they don’t use the scientific method. If they did, they woud be no such thing as The Consensus(tm).
November 22nd, 2007 at 7:35 am
Paul,
On top of that…:
Mitch – is that the same ’scientific method’ you call junk science
Wrong, again, Peeve. Do you ever get tired of distorting?
I’ve never called it junk science. Since I DO care about science, I take care to say that it’s a theory with some supporting evidence and (thought the media and those who stand to benefit from a global scare don’t like to acknowledge it) plenty of evidence against it. It’s not conclusive.