[HN Gopher] Stay Calm and Stay in the Cab (2002) [video] (1999)
___________________________________________________________________
Stay Calm and Stay in the Cab (2002) [video] (1999)
Author : bookofjoe
Score : 30 points
Date : 2021-05-27 16:11 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
| dang wrote:
| Can anybody track down the year? A web page is mentioned at the
| end, so that places a lower bound on it.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Worldcat also says 1999, based on the publication number:
|
| https://www.worldcat.org/title/stay-calm-and-stay-in-the-cab...
| RankingMember wrote:
| 1999 based on https://archive.org/details/gov.msha.dv544.e
| dang wrote:
| Nice! Added above.
| flemhans wrote:
| The video itself mentions an incident from 2002.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| I've watched 3 times without seeing or hearing this. At
| what timestamp?
| dang wrote:
| Thanks, I'll tentatively update to 2002.
|
| Where does it say that?
| bellyfullofbac wrote:
| Seems like GP is talking about a different video, that
| plays next on YouTube:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Flq-zl1CAb0 . At 0:08 it
| has text that mentions an incident in 2002.
|
| Assuming archive.org is accurate, surely the video
| couldn't have been published in 1999 and be talking about
| an accident in 2002? Unless the coal industry invented a
| time machine...
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Given a random uncited YouTube attribution and two
| catalogue-oriented organisations (Worldcat and
| Archive.org), I'd go with the catalogues and their 1999
| date.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| Uploaded to YouTube July 5, 2008
| [deleted]
| ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote:
| I used to watch failure analysis reports from some US agency on
| Youtube a few years back where they identified the causes and
| possible remediation of catastrophic accidents that resulted in
| loss of life. It surprised me how often the workers would find
| refuge in some enclosed working space after the initial event
| (explosion, release of toxic fumes, etc...) and still end up
| dying because the space wasn't rated to survive enough time for
| the emergency services to reach them. That and alarm fatigue
| seemed to come up almost every time.
| oogali wrote:
| US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board -
| https://www.youtube.com/user/USCSB
|
| Another good one is our friends up north: WorkSafeBC -
| https://www.youtube.com/user/WorkSafeBC
| gugagore wrote:
| Today I learned about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-
| contained_self-rescue_dev... from this video.
| mjlee wrote:
| At sea they use a similar thing - Emergency Escape Breathing
| Devices - https://www.maritimejournal.com/news101/industry-
| news/eebd_m...
|
| About the only time you should pull a plastic bag over your
| head.
| inetsee wrote:
| I read that article and another article about EEBDs [1], and
| one thing wasn't quite clear to me. Unless I'm really
| misunderstanding what I read, it sounds as if there could be
| fewer EEBDs than there are people who might need them in an
| emergency.
|
| In the section on passenger ships, it says "Where the ship
| carries more than 36 passengers there must be four EEBD's in
| each main fire zone within the accommodation spaces." What if
| there are more than 4 passengers in a fire zone?
|
| [1] https://www.martek-marine.com/blog/what-is-an-emergency-
| esca...
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-28 23:01 UTC)