Skip to content or view screen version

Dissident blogger urges RMT to investigate dust explosions risk

faz | 10.01.2006 08:56

Dissident blogger argues that the London Underground does not recognise the fire and explosive hazards of tunnel dust.

 http://blogs.cjb.net/dissident/

This article argues that the danger of dust explosions from combustible tunnel dust on the London underground has not been properly recognised and addressed. It suggests that the RMT union urgently investigates the dangers of dust explosions on the tube so that it is able to ensure the safety of its members and the pubic.


faz

Comments

Hide the following 4 comments

Dust health risks

10.01.2006 09:31

I know in the past there have been serious issues around types of dust and their health implications and disquiet in the union, (eg  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2001/03/2590.html )but have never heard of such an explosion risk - has it happened before?

WR

Look at a Dust Explosion

10.01.2006 12:29

Dust Explosions are fairly well known:
www.chemeng.ed.ac.uk/~emju49/SP2001/webpage/

You tend to see them in the latest Hollywood Blockbuster whenever they need a cheap special effect.

Damp Cloth

Dust explosions

10.01.2006 12:42

can and do happen [flour mills being one example]. But three of them simultaneously? One maybe, two co-incidence, but three is enemy action.

sceptic

have you considered ... reading the article?

10.01.2006 15:53


The article does not address the explosions of 7 July 2005 at all and instead considers tube accidents in 2003.

The article contains a quote from a London Underground representative claiming that tunnel dust is not explosive.

The article challenges this opinion by assessing the results of studies concerned with breathing tunnel dust. It is acknowledged that caution is needed in extrapolating from the data.

The article includes eyewitness accounts of the Chancery Lane accident of 25 January 2003 and the Camden Town accident of 19 October.

RE: The remark about three simultaneous explosions being beyond coincidence.

The story changed so that the tube explosions were simultaneous, originally they were a sequence.

The article includes a reference to this document  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/3007970.stm. It states that on 20 June 2003 "The incident was one of three to affect rail and tube networks in London during the day."

I suggest that this document is very important in understanding the state's response to 7 July.  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9410.htm

faz