“Does the “Burn Down” principle really exist?
Thread Content
This post was last edited by ybcity on 2015-8-28 at 14:40. After the explosion in Tianjin, the “Burn Down Principle” became widely circulated online. Netizens say this is the internationally accepted principle for dealing with large-scale chemical explosions: establish a buffer zone, evacuate people, and wait until everything inside has burned down before entering to handle the situation. Chemical industry experts from China and the United States, in interviews with reporters from Nandu, both stated that the “Burn Down principle” does not exist, but there are cases in practice where chemical substances were allowed to explode and then disposed of after they had burned out. Based on my own practical work experience and my involvement in handling major hazardous chemical and fire explosions, I believe that the “Burn Down principle” indeed exists, and it is reasonable and scientific. For example, in the fire and explosion incident that I supervised on-site at the acetylene drying tower, such principles were applied: on one hand, the inlet valve of the acetylene drying tower was closed to prevent further material from entering the tower; on the other hand, fire-fighting misting water was used to increase the humidity in the area where the fire and explosion occurred, thereby reducing the temperature of the tower’s shell. At the same time, firefighting units were deployed to cool and protect the equipment surrounding the drying tower. Under these conditions, it took more than 5 hours for the material inside the drying tower to be completely burned up. This prevents the possibility of further major accidents occurring due to the ignited acetylene drying tower. Therefore, in my guiding principles for safety command and rescue operations, the “Burn Down Principle” is a very important principle.
In practice, there are precedents of chemical substances exploding, with handling taking place only after they have burned out
There are such precedents; it depends on the commander to make flexible judgments rather than adhering strictly to rules. If it can be eliminated, then do so; if not, prevent it from spreading
Personally, I think the “Burn Down principle” is the safest approach; state-owned enterprises may not have one. What private enterprise owners hate the most. The manager he hired at a high cost is there to not only manage the chemical plant on his behalf, but also to do everything within his capabilities to minimize the company’s financial losses in the event of any emergencies; otherwise, if he leaves the job, he could end up losing everything he has, or even facing imprisonment. But the premise is to minimize his losses within the limits of one’s capabilities; he would not want to see anyone give orders or carry out actions in violation of regulations when it is clear that such actions are not feasible.
Whether it is state-owned or private enterprises, everyone hopes to minimize losses; this is the outcome that all wish to see.
I don’t understand, but I’ve seen on other websites that this principle is not available in China; one needs a VPN software to access it.
The idea behind installing firewalls in oil tanks is basically this. The existence of such a situation does not mean that there is a \"universal\" rule. Moreover, for many years in the country, there has been a focus on **property over individuals. For example, the Grassland Hero Sisters, or X Ning, or pilots who face aerial emergencies. As for individuals, I really despise model workers who ignore their wives who are about to give birth, their sick family members, and their young children. . . I've said too much. When the value of life is considered above everything else, the entire concept changes.
This post was last edited by arpcd on 2015-8-26 at 16:04. This “burn down” is nothing but a tool used by ill-intentioned people on the Internet to discredit TG. There’s no need to take it seriously. There will always be people in this world who hope that China won’t enjoy peace and stability; they’d be happy if something bad happened to you every day. For the firefighters who are directly involved in fighting fires (not only firefighters or crew members, but also personnel from the safety departments of factories), it is like a war. And since it’s a battle, one must be flexible and able to adapt to circumstances; sticking rigidly to one principle or method will only lead to failure. . Regarding the fire in the acetylene drying tower mentioned by the poster, the measures you took were correct; there was probably no other option. Since the fire had already grown so large that it couldn’t be extinguished, (if the poster had some effective tool that could put out such a big fire within 10 minutes, they would definitely use it without hesitation, rather than letting it burn down). The only thing to do was to let it burn out first, making sure not to cause a secondary fire or explosion. Another example is forest fires; due to their large scale, and in situations where there is a shortage of manpower and firefighting equipment (which is quite common), the only option is to create buffer zones and let the fire burn itself out. It’s the only option available; that’s when it becomes a principle. A comparison of the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents in Japan shows that if this principle were applied in both cases, the Ukrainian people would be in trouble; at such times, someone must step in to prevent the accident from worsening further! If firefighters value their own lives as many people say at such times, then who will value the lives of ordinary people? Sometimes, for certain things, sacrifices must be made, even significant ones, in order to avoid greater and more severe \"sacrifices\" (disasters might be a more appropriate term). In fact, in Ukraine at that time, almost all those who rushed forward were active Soviet soldiers. Even the Americans don’t dare to use this so-called \"burn down\" principle to accuse the former Soviet Union; at most they might complain about why no timely reports were made. If a similar accident occurred in the United States, it’s likely that the same approach would be taken. Would you dare let a nuclear power plant burn down? ? Fukushima seems to have applied this principle; what was the result? The aftereffects are probably impossible for anyone to explain clearly. . During the 9/11 attacks in the United States, with so many firefighters losing their lives, why didn’t anyone say that using the phrase “burn down” would have been appropriate in that situation? Don’t professional firefighters in your field know that buildings can collapse? The building is made of steel structure and can’t withstand fire – don’t you know that? :lol:lol Dealing with it after it’s burned is just one method; it can’t be applied in every situation. . So personally, I think the claim that NetEase is deliberately trying to harm TG is more plausible.
For an individual, life is more important than property. Perhaps the boss will go back and calculate how much property will be lost if several people die, trying to measure employees’ lives in terms of money. If one is a worker, it’s right to run away in case of danger and call the police only after being safe – after all, there’s no point risking one’s life. To yourself and your family, you are everything; to your boss, you might be worth millions. How can someone who isn’t responsible for themselves talk about being responsible for the company?
Seeing floor 8, I have no desire to reply at all.
It should be determined on a case-by-case basis. If it’s in an uninhabited area, there’s nothing wrong with applying this principle. But in the case of Tianjin, where residential areas are nearby, can it really be left unattended in that way? If we can delay things a bit, it gives the public more time to evacuate. So, I think we still need to compose a hymn of praise for the hero