Talk:San Bruno pipeline explosion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Time zone PDT not PST[edit]

Please note that the current local time zone in San Bruno is PDT not PST. If you are going to refer to the local time, you should use that designation. --Crunch (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UTC−7 is probably fine too. It's likely PDT is more broadly recognized. Though, I'm not sure which has broader recognition, considering a fair number of Californians colloquially use 'PST' throughout the year regardless of daylight savings. --Xaliqen (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We know exactly when this happened, because USGS recorded it as a magnitude 1.1 earthquake: Thursday, September 09, 2010 at 06:11:12 PM at epicenter location 37.623°N, 122.442°W http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Quakes/nc71453305.html Bealevideo (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move without discussion[edit]

Why was this article moved without discussion from 2010 San Bruno, California fire to 2010 San Bruno fire? The explanation given was "no need for California, as there was no other notable fire in another San Bruno." First of all, 2010 is not over and we don't know if there will be another fire in another San Bruno. More importantly, having the word "California" in the title does more than just differentiate the fire from other fires in 2010 in other San Bruno. It helps people find the article who might not know exactly where it took place. San Bruno is not a large or well-known location outside of northern California and to require knowledge of the exact city in order to find the article is foolish. See Wikipedia:Article titles. Point number one in this article is "Recognizability." This new name seems to violate that. At the very least a discussion should take place before a renaming take place. --Crunch (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a reasonable move, if there is need to differentiate a second one later we will do such. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see someone has now moved the title from Fire to Explosion with the illogical explanation that "it started with an explosion." Well, yes, but the damage was mostly from the fire. Should we rename Great Chicago Fire to Great Chicago Cow Lantern Tipping? This type of renaming action should not be taken unilaterally. --Crunch (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
again a reasonable page move. No use getting so upset Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think moving it from fire to explosion is a bit more contentious. Explosions don't necessarily burn over night.--Anthonzi (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken this one step further, adding the word "pipeline", which imparts a crucial piece of information that is also pivotal to the significance of the story. It wasn't just any old explosion -- it was the explosion of a natural gas pipeline inside of a city, with resulting devastation. The implications for other urban areas are already the subject of widespread reportage throughout the state and nationwide. Furthermore, the term "pipeline explosion" immediately suggests that there was also a major fire, which isn't necessarily the case with a generic explosion. Cgingold (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that there does not seem to be another San Bruno of any significant size. The San Bruno page has been a redirect to San Bruno, California since 2004, and a Google Maps search for "San Bruno" turns up only the California city. I think it's unlikely that there will be another major fire in another city named San Bruno in the three months remaining in 2010, and in the event that there is, the page can be renamed. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of thinking led to the "Y2K" (Year 2000) panic, and here we are, repeating mistakes, having learned nothing from history. At least the pre-1980 computer system programmers had a good reason to truncate years to two digits, because memory was an expensive, limited resource. What's the excuse in Wikipedia for truncating place names?  —QuicksilverT @ 14:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need more photos[edit]

This article has been nominated for deletion. We need some more free-use photos to beef this article up, besides the only one that's currently up. Seeyardee (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a picture I took the night of the accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterOh (talk • contribs) 13:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odorant[edit]

As a gas transmission line, not distribution or service, it was unlikely to have methyl mercaptan injected, as noted:

"He said that high-pressure lines are not required to have odor added to help detect leaks and said the probe would determine whether it was." <http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/09/san-bruno-fire-explosion-ntsb-pge.html>

Thus any stories about "smelling gas" are likely unrelated....

166.84.1.2 (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would be good to add?[edit]

I think it'd be important to add some more info about what hospitals the people went to, or where families went when evacuated, and for how long. Also I wonder if it'd be allowed if there was a victims section allowed. Of course we don't describe too much about each victim because WP doesn't allow that, but just "Person's name, age" as a list. Cyanidethistles (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should be prudent when discussing victims, respectful of private information and also understand that posting too much information publicly can lead to those families being targeted by scammers. Keeping those thoughts in mind, I agree it's appropriate to include some information, as is warranted in an encyclopaedic article. --Xaliqen (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps[edit]

When you look closely at the USGS epicenter on Google Maps, it is obvious that underground work has been done at this spot -- a large square of the pavement is a different color at that exact spot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corsair1944 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking! Google Maps aerial photos are taken at different times under varying lighting conditions, then pieced together as a mosaic, causing some tiles to be lighter than others. Any pavement repair is such a small feature in Google Maps that it is unlikely to even show up, even under maximum magnification.  —QuicksilverT @ 14:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

San Andreas fault proximity[edit]

Just FYI, the comment about the San Andreas fault proximity came from a former resident of the area and supported (albeit imprecisely) by the cited USGS map. This is admittedly OR, not a second source. Hopefully the USGS maps can suffice. It is regrettable that it was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StudiousReader (talk • contribs) 02:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Further, if USGS citations are 1st source OR, then they should be removed from the rest of the article as well.[reply]
It always bothers me whenever I see a single editor blanket the history page with edits seemingly born of mid-brain territoriality. It is not professional. It is not in the spirit of Wikipedian collaboration. See also the above complaint from Anthonzi, valid or not. --StudiousReader (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see both sides of this. The core question comes down to contextual notability. There's no doubt that the USGS is a reliable source, but there seems to be some doubt as to whether the information related to the fault location is notable in this instance. It turns out, the NY Times ran an article which mentions the fault location in the context of the explosion. Using this article as the primary source should clear up the notability question.[1] --Xaliqen (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you Xaliqen. This is the importance of a discussion page. None of us can know enough. --StudiousReader (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the NY Times article as an additional source and clarified the fault location as per the article. There is a chance the pipeline explosion triggered a fault reaction from faults in the area. This should be clarified once more reliable sources are available. I'm glad I could help with this part. --Xaliqen (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT article opens by mentioning that Crestmoor is adjacent to San Andreas Lake, and that the San Andreas fault runs right under that lake, only to work up to the punch line that the devastation in Crestmoor was nevertheless not due to an earthquake. Presenting the site of the explosion and the fault line prominently in one image, and stressing the fault's proximity in the caption, suggest a connection of some kind between the two not justified by the sources. As presented, this qualifies as WP:SYNTH.  --Lambiam 22:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly if I wanted to use the image I have to explain the read line is. It is nearby by 100% coincidence. I personally agree with you assessment and hopefully this clarification is will suffice.BB7 (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Lambiam, I'm not sure which version of the page you're referring to, but I revised the material specifically so that viewers would not get the wrong impression. Specifically, I indicated the fault runs through the nearby lake, as described in the NY Times article. I then moved the sentence indicating USGS registered the pipeline explosion as an earthquake to the end of that section. If this is the version of the page you're referring to, I'm saddened to hear you would accuse it of WP:SYNTH. I entered into the discussion trying to find a compromise between two different points of view before the discussion became overly heated. Whether you intended it or not, responding to my comment implicates me in whatever claims you're making. I don't feel an accusation of WP:SYNTH is justified in relation to any of the edits I made. In fact, my revisions were aimed at a specific NPOV compromise. If there are any questions, please go back and review my edits. I agree the recent changes to the material and addition of the image may not be warranted. I'm fine with a proposal to remove the material, but we should discuss it here first since it's previously-disputed. Thanks again. --Xaliqen (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment explicitly mentions an image presenting the site of the explosion and the fault line together. It refers to the version of the article as it was when I posted the comment. That version doesn't mention a lake. I had earlier edited the caption text, which wrongly stated that the San Andreas Fault runs "under the Neighborhood T", to just state that it runs nearby. The image was initially added in this edit, which also removed the more accurate piece of text you had contributed almost 16 hours earlier, characterized as awkwared in the edit summary.  --Lambiam 09:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification and sorry for any confusion. I also agree that any edits suggesting the fault is under the neighborhood are inaccurate and should be corrected. Resting on top of a fault versus being situated somewhat nearby makes a huge difference. Since faults are everywhere in the Bay Area, there is almost always going to be a fault nearby. Though, it's been mentioned (albeit by non-California media) in the article above and may be notable in that context along with the notoriety of the fault itself. --Xaliqen (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be more specific, if mentioned, the fault should be given similar importance to SFO. Both SFO and the fault are briefly important when some residents initially believed the disaster to be a plane crash or earthquake. SFO is mentioned very briefly (less than a sentence) towards the beginning of the article. It's probably appropriate for the fault to be mentioned in a similar way. What do you think? --Xaliqen (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the NYT article it is mentioned mainly as a journalistic gimmick, and not in a context of initial guesses by local witnesses. I think it's fine though to mention the proximity as long as there is no (possibly unintended) suggestion of any kind of a connection between the fault and the explosion. I've tweaked the caption to put the emphasis on the power of the explosion.  --Lambiam 21:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PG&E did some replacement work on this pipeline with an eye toward the San Andreas Fault hazard. Sadly, they stopped the replacing just before the area that failed. --Pipeexaminer —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • (Un-indent) - I removed most of the material and moved the sentence related to the explosion registering as an earthquake towards the beginning of the article. I think the picture was a distraction from the main purpose of the article. If anyone wants to add material back, please list the reason here so we can arrive at a good solution. --Xaliqen (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More images and videos[edit]

Resolved
 – Images from flicker added Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Expert-talk}} Will someone please add more images.69.181.118.225 (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe the 'expert' tag isn't necessarily the best one to use in a request for more images. I'm going to replace it with a reqphoto template on the talk page here, unless other editors object. --Xaliqen (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some great images on Creative commons lisencse [2] Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed images added. We can add more when we expand the text. Trying to keep Limit images being proportional to amount of text So we dont have a Gallery instead of an articleWeaponbb7 (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding those photos, they add substantial impact to the article. --Xaliqen (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a video I shot on the night of the fire coming down Fairmont Drive towards Claremont from the medical triage area at Sneath and Claremont. I was somewhat torn about adding it, since the video quality kind of sucks (I shot it on my cell phone while most of my attention was occupied with keeping the press photogs I was escorting into the abyss from stepping on live wires and climbing onto burnt-out cars), but since nothing better in the realm of images of the active fire from craterside has shown up in the last few months, I thought it would be a good addition to the article nonetheless. I'd like to get a consensus on it, though. --Dynaflow babble 19:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

too minor for an encyclopaedia, wikinews would be better.Lihaas (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eight people died in an explosion and fire witnessed across most of the San Francisco Bay Area. The blast itself is the subject of numerous official investigations and prompted legislation proposals at the state and federal level. You're entitled to your opinion, but it hardly seems minor from my perspective. --Xaliqen (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical anomaly[edit]

Over the weekend of April 16-17, 2011 I caught a fragment of a report on the radio saying that technicians "admitted to the NTSB" that they had encountered problems during the electrical repair work at the Milpitas pumping station. After repairs had been completed, they powered the system up and it appeared to "go crazy", whereupon they yanked wires out and shut it down. After reconnecting the wires and powering it up again, everything appeared to be working normally. This was shortly before the explosion in San Bruno, about 40 miles away. The malfunction could have caused a pressure surge in the pipeline that ultimately caused a weld failure at a weak point. I left an embedded comment in the article, but a reliable reference is needed to include it. —QuicksilverT @ 14:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NTSB Report Link[edit]

I couldn't find a link to the NTSB report anywhere on the page. Here it is: http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2011/PAR1101.pdf . I think it should be referenced, however the page says there are too many references. Which one should be removed? Or would you like to put it somewhere else? 131.179.1.73 (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Devastation in San Bruno.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Devastation in San Bruno.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 9, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-09-09. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 22:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Bruno pipeline explosion damage
Destruction caused by a natural gas pipeline explosion, which took place on September 9, 2010, in San Bruno, California, a suburb of San Francisco. Defective welds in the pipeline caused the gas to leak, which then caused the explosion. The resulting fire was fed by the natural gas, hampering emergency efforts, and the fire was not contained until the following day.Photo: Mbz1
Archive – More featured pictures...

Does anyone know what the tags on the cars mean? () I like to write it in a footnote. Soerfm (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on San Bruno pipeline explosion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bloated ex. links section[edit]

Hi. Is there the need to have a dozen or more external links? I don't know if some are duplicated or not as inline refs, but maybe most of them could be trimmed. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion&oldid=1210195728"