This is the danger of Google et al facilitating all and sundry access to information they cannot properly understand
Tremcards were removed from use 1 January 2009
Where do I begin with that?
Drivers DO NOT fight a fire involving the load, only a fire involving parts of the vehicle, eg a tyre fire. Had you ever done an ADR course that would have been drilled into you on the Core module
Climbing onto the top of a burning vehicle with a 6kg extinguisher to put out a fire involving in excess of 44,000 litres of flammable liquid for a fully loaded fuel tanker…
I’d heard about no more tremcards. Ironically all part of the same satire about when to make the call to run or to use the stowed fire extinguisher on a burning tanker.IE I was avin a larf.
You seem to be avoiding the point a tanker fire doesn’t just mean some burning vapour contained in the ullage space.
It means the potential explosion of the whole liquid load’s worth.
Was it a terminal or service station? It makes a difference to whether the truck was loading or unloading. Ullage plays no part in the incident. There was no need to have a hatch open, loading or unloading.
Carryfast you are simply reinforcing your utter lack of knowledge, with each and every post.
A laugh? It’s hard to tell, a great deal of your contributions make me laugh, though when that happens I’m certain that was not the intended effect.
A fire wouldn’t be contained in the ullage space, which would be so small (approx 5% of the volume of the tank) that the air/vapour mix would be well above the upper flammability/explosive limit.
And if the man-lid was open (as per your description) then it wouldn’t be likely to BLEVE as there would be no build-up of pressure.
To add.Agreed it’s possible looking at the video that there was actually an existing fire around the tanker which led to a different BLEVE type of event.The column of flame was just the start of that.
Either way what followed makes no difference to the premise.A full tanker is more dangerous than an empty one and the words fire combined with tanker are mutually inclusive with the default choice of RUN.
There was obviously an open hatch of whatever sort which was clearly the source of ignition and air supply and combustion in the first column of flame shown in the video.
There are obviously numerous definitions of a BLEVE.
As I said open a tanker to air and whatever source of ignition then see what happens.There’s no need to boil the contents of the tank first.The liquid is volatile enough and there’s enough heat in the resulting vapour fire to explode the whole load from cold.
What else separates the liquid from vapour in a tanker other than ullage space ?.By definition only the ullage contains vapour.The rest is liquid.
The previous argument was over the idea that only that vapour content of the tank can ignite and burn and the liquid content isn’t a factor.
I’m all ears Oh Great Master of the New Order of Science, be I ever so 'umble and unworthy, I beseech you to educate me in the ways of interdimensional science…
Preferably today, as I’m delivering ADR and am due to be covering BLEVE’s this afternoon.
Is that from the same stable as A Different Truth?
Or in oldie speak Alternative Reality, classically Through The Looking Glass, or Down the Rabbit Hole?
There is a huge audience out there swallowing that stuff all the time.
Today, some tin-foil hat wearing weirdo on FB called me a “fascist N-azi” (is there any other type of N-azi?) and questioned my IQ, because I mocked his acceptance of some other tin-foil hat wearing weirdo, who was banging on about aircraft con-trails, and how this was [insert global manipulation organization of choice] allegedly “spraying the skies” “with chemicals” in order to: spread covid/cover up unspecified illegal activities/get us addicted to some drug or other/A.N other unspecified mind-controlling activity.
These are CF’s people, who will gladly follow his “New Science” in this, or any other alternative dimension/reality
One of the reasons I don’t do FB, it’s a bit like CB radio, and when it first came out.
It was a good way of communicating with like minded people,.and groups of mates.
In FB’s case friends, (real friends not virtual strangers who have ‘latched on’ to you) then it became infested with k/heads and f/wits…around the mid 90s, and that’s when I kicked it into touch.
Not sure when it actually started on FB though.
Also you mention mad assed theories and narratives, or basically ‘Lies’…
There are also a lot of the same that come from official sources, direct opppsites to the actual truth, aka propaganda, that many people ‘follow and swallow’.
There has been whole campaigns started which have relied on that…and have succeeded, since …well at least the 1930s that I know of, and right through to the present day.
Same thing/different hat.
I’ll refer you back to the reply to Franglais.
If you’re involved in a tanker fire be sure to attempt to extinguish it with the regulation extinguisher.
A full tanker load is much safer in that event than an empty one.
Unfortunately you have no tremcard to also retrieve from the cab.
Don’t under any circumstances even think about running for your life.
That covers ADR for tanks.
Back to the tragic incident, using original science.
Facts are in short supply and subject to poor quality journalism.
The site is claimed to be a retail service station, partially supported by the fact that two casualties were juveniles.
Taking that at face value, the truck was discharging. The fire/explosion started in a gas tank. Gasoline, LPG? Above or below ground?
Assuming an LPG tank, that has no interaction with the discharge of diesel or motor spirits.
The underground fuel tanks will have remote vents. Those vents would be contributing a fuel vapour to the unrelated fire, with the possibility/probability of the fire ultimately spreading to the discharging truck and any other combustible material.
The initial cause of the fire has not been established, arson appears to be a strong possibility.
Legislation, safe practice and compliance may differ between Russia, Australia, UK and Europe, I am basing my speculation and assumptions on Australian practice and original science.
■■■■, sorry I was just checking to see if N azi was a banned word.
For crying out loud, who are the prefects in this playground?
And don’t try to tell me that it is the base of the new TN that demands it, my French general forum has exactly the same, and there are no banned words, we police ourselves perfectly adequately.
Where do I begin with that?
