PDA

View Full Version : Gas vs. Electric Dryer


BrianEWilliams
June 23rd 03, 04:15 PM
We are buying a new construction townhouse. Installing a gas line to
the laundry area will be $100. A gas dryer cost $53 more than the
same model in electric. I have seen headlines saying gas prices are
going up. My question is this. Does anyone have a opinion on how
long it will take me to save back my extra $153 in upfront costs for
the gas dryer? Obviously this depends on the relative price of gas
vs. electricity in the future which no one can predict, but opinions
are welcome.

Also, are there any maintenance issues with gas vs. electric dryers?
This is the gas model we are thinking of getting:

http://tinyurl.com/f0wi

Terry
June 23rd 03, 04:54 PM
BrianEWilliams wrote:
>
> We are buying a new construction townhouse. Installing a gas line to
> the laundry area will be $100. A gas dryer cost $53 more than the
> same model in electric. I have seen headlines saying gas prices are
> going up. My question is this. Does anyone have a opinion on how
> long it will take me to save back my extra $153 in upfront costs for
> the gas dryer? Obviously this depends on the relative price of gas
> vs. electricity in the future which no one can predict, but opinions
> are welcome.
>
> Also, are there any maintenance issues with gas vs. electric dryers?
> This is the gas model we are thinking of getting:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/f0wi

This how WE might estimate our electricity cost for clothes
drying. Anyone may disagree with this if they wish.
Dryer time eight (8) hours per week. (This is probably a bit
overestimated) only two of us.
Heater inside the dryer cuts in and out (depending on your
thermostat setting) but assume it is 'on' (i.e. using electricity
for heat) for three quarters of the time. That is is it is 'on'
for six hours.
The electric heater in our dryer, AFIK, is 3.5 kilowatts.
So; 6 x 3.5 = 21 kilowatt hours of electrical consumption; per
week.
Our electricity costs us, on average, 8.5 cents per kilowatt
hour.
So; 21 x .085 = $1.76 per week.
52 weeks in a year; $1.76 x 52 = $93 per year to dry our clothes.
However it varies; I have blankets/sheets etc. on the line today
which in mid winter would be dried electrically. Towels also.
OK. Now work out what the cost of gas would be?
The difference in the cost per year, if any, divided into $153
will give you the pay back interval, in years.
Another way might be to find out how much your gas would cost for
the same thing as one kilowatt hour of electricity and compare
that. But you'd still have to decide how long you would be
running your dryer at tha difference in cost.
PS. We've never had but people seem to speak highly/positively
about gas water heating and gas clothes dryers and a feeling
generally that 'gas is cheaper'?
PPS. Is gas dryer maintenance higher; what with vents and exhaust
gases etc. I presume also you MUST have a carbon monoxide
detector in any home with any gas appliances? They cost I believe
$20 to $40 dollars and may or may not be linked to other alarms
systems. I wouldn't be without one.

Terry
June 23rd 03, 04:54 PM
BrianEWilliams wrote:
>
> We are buying a new construction townhouse. Installing a gas line to
> the laundry area will be $100. A gas dryer cost $53 more than the
> same model in electric. I have seen headlines saying gas prices are
> going up. My question is this. Does anyone have a opinion on how
> long it will take me to save back my extra $153 in upfront costs for
> the gas dryer? Obviously this depends on the relative price of gas
> vs. electricity in the future which no one can predict, but opinions
> are welcome.
>
> Also, are there any maintenance issues with gas vs. electric dryers?
> This is the gas model we are thinking of getting:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/f0wi

This how WE might estimate our electricity cost for clothes
drying. Anyone may disagree with this if they wish.
Dryer time eight (8) hours per week. (This is probably a bit
overestimated) only two of us.
Heater inside the dryer cuts in and out (depending on your
thermostat setting) but assume it is 'on' (i.e. using electricity
for heat) for three quarters of the time. That is is it is 'on'
for six hours.
The electric heater in our dryer, AFIK, is 3.5 kilowatts.
So; 6 x 3.5 = 21 kilowatt hours of electrical consumption; per
week.
Our electricity costs us, on average, 8.5 cents per kilowatt
hour.
So; 21 x .085 = $1.76 per week.
52 weeks in a year; $1.76 x 52 = $93 per year to dry our clothes.
However it varies; I have blankets/sheets etc. on the line today
which in mid winter would be dried electrically. Towels also.
OK. Now work out what the cost of gas would be?
The difference in the cost per year, if any, divided into $153
will give you the pay back interval, in years.
Another way might be to find out how much your gas would cost for
the same thing as one kilowatt hour of electricity and compare
that. But you'd still have to decide how long you would be
running your dryer at tha difference in cost.
PS. We've never had but people seem to speak highly/positively
about gas water heating and gas clothes dryers and a feeling
generally that 'gas is cheaper'?
PPS. Is gas dryer maintenance higher; what with vents and exhaust
gases etc. I presume also you MUST have a carbon monoxide
detector in any home with any gas appliances? They cost I believe
$20 to $40 dollars and may or may not be linked to other alarms
systems. I wouldn't be without one.

BrianEWilliams
June 23rd 03, 08:20 PM
Hmmm, very interesting. My post somehow was appended to a very
relevant thread, at least on Google Groups:

http://tinyurl.com/f1sv

Not sure how this happened, but thanks to the Internet powers that be.
I think I will drive my builder crazy and switch back to the gas
option.

(BrianEWilliams) wrote in message >...
> We are buying a new construction townhouse. Installing a gas line to
> the laundry area will be $100. A gas dryer cost $53 more than the
> same model in electric. I have seen headlines saying gas prices are
> going up. My question is this. Does anyone have a opinion on how
> long it will take me to save back my extra $153 in upfront costs for
> the gas dryer? Obviously this depends on the relative price of gas
> vs. electricity in the future which no one can predict, but opinions
> are welcome.
>
> Also, are there any maintenance issues with gas vs. electric dryers?
> This is the gas model we are thinking of getting:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/f0wi

BrianEWilliams
June 23rd 03, 08:20 PM
Hmmm, very interesting. My post somehow was appended to a very
relevant thread, at least on Google Groups:

http://tinyurl.com/f1sv

Not sure how this happened, but thanks to the Internet powers that be.
I think I will drive my builder crazy and switch back to the gas
option.

(BrianEWilliams) wrote in message >...
> We are buying a new construction townhouse. Installing a gas line to
> the laundry area will be $100. A gas dryer cost $53 more than the
> same model in electric. I have seen headlines saying gas prices are
> going up. My question is this. Does anyone have a opinion on how
> long it will take me to save back my extra $153 in upfront costs for
> the gas dryer? Obviously this depends on the relative price of gas
> vs. electricity in the future which no one can predict, but opinions
> are welcome.
>
> Also, are there any maintenance issues with gas vs. electric dryers?
> This is the gas model we are thinking of getting:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/f0wi

nope
June 23rd 03, 08:51 PM
BrianEWilliams wrote:

> I think I will drive my builder crazy and switch back to the gas
> option.

New construction? Bring _BOTH_ gas and electricity for the dryer into
the laundry room. Same near the stove. It's cheap and easy now, it's
expensive and difficult later.


- bryan

nope
June 23rd 03, 08:51 PM
BrianEWilliams wrote:

> I think I will drive my builder crazy and switch back to the gas
> option.

New construction? Bring _BOTH_ gas and electricity for the dryer into
the laundry room. Same near the stove. It's cheap and easy now, it's
expensive and difficult later.


- bryan

Christopher Green
June 23rd 03, 09:26 PM
(BrianEWilliams) wrote in message >...
> We are buying a new construction townhouse. Installing a gas line to
> the laundry area will be $100. A gas dryer cost $53 more than the
> same model in electric. I have seen headlines saying gas prices are
> going up. My question is this. Does anyone have a opinion on how
> long it will take me to save back my extra $153 in upfront costs for
> the gas dryer? Obviously this depends on the relative price of gas
> vs. electricity in the future which no one can predict, but opinions
> are welcome.
>
> Also, are there any maintenance issues with gas vs. electric dryers?
> This is the gas model we are thinking of getting:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/f0wi

Depends on how much use you are going to make of the dryer and what
utility rates are like in your area.

If you are in California, which has outrageous electric rates but
reasonably-priced natural gas, and you use your dryer a lot, the
payback may be a small number of months. If you have relatively cheap
electricity (for example, you are on public power in Washington), and
don't run your dryer that often, the balance may favor the electric.

Gas dryers are more finicky about how you plumb the exhaust and keep
it clean.

--
Chris Green

Christopher Green
June 23rd 03, 09:26 PM
(BrianEWilliams) wrote in message >...
> We are buying a new construction townhouse. Installing a gas line to
> the laundry area will be $100. A gas dryer cost $53 more than the
> same model in electric. I have seen headlines saying gas prices are
> going up. My question is this. Does anyone have a opinion on how
> long it will take me to save back my extra $153 in upfront costs for
> the gas dryer? Obviously this depends on the relative price of gas
> vs. electricity in the future which no one can predict, but opinions
> are welcome.
>
> Also, are there any maintenance issues with gas vs. electric dryers?
> This is the gas model we are thinking of getting:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/f0wi

Depends on how much use you are going to make of the dryer and what
utility rates are like in your area.

If you are in California, which has outrageous electric rates but
reasonably-priced natural gas, and you use your dryer a lot, the
payback may be a small number of months. If you have relatively cheap
electricity (for example, you are on public power in Washington), and
don't run your dryer that often, the balance may favor the electric.

Gas dryers are more finicky about how you plumb the exhaust and keep
it clean.

--
Chris Green

jeff
June 23rd 03, 09:32 PM
(BrianEWilliams) wrote in message >...
> We are buying a new construction townhouse. Installing a gas line to
> the laundry area will be $100. A gas dryer cost $53 more than the
> same model in electric. I have seen headlines saying gas prices are
> going up. My question is this. Does anyone have a opinion on how
> long it will take me to save back my extra $153 in upfront costs for
> the gas dryer? Obviously this depends on the relative price of gas
> vs. electricity in the future which no one can predict, but opinions
> are welcome.
>
> Also, are there any maintenance issues with gas vs. electric dryers?
> This is the gas model we are thinking of getting:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/f0wi

Hi,

Some gas dryer purchase tips...

http://www.appliance411.com/links/jump.cgi?ID=425

Some consumer opinions...

http://www.epinions.com/hmgd-Large_Appliances-All-Dryers-Gas

> Also, are there any maintenance issues with gas vs. electric dryers?

Not really, same as electric...clean venting every year, clean our
dryer every 3-5 years. Venting shoudl be metal for a gas dryer as
well.

jeff.

Appliance Repair Aid
http://www.applianceaid.com/

jeff
June 23rd 03, 09:32 PM
(BrianEWilliams) wrote in message >...
> We are buying a new construction townhouse. Installing a gas line to
> the laundry area will be $100. A gas dryer cost $53 more than the
> same model in electric. I have seen headlines saying gas prices are
> going up. My question is this. Does anyone have a opinion on how
> long it will take me to save back my extra $153 in upfront costs for
> the gas dryer? Obviously this depends on the relative price of gas
> vs. electricity in the future which no one can predict, but opinions
> are welcome.
>
> Also, are there any maintenance issues with gas vs. electric dryers?
> This is the gas model we are thinking of getting:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/f0wi

Hi,

Some gas dryer purchase tips...

http://www.appliance411.com/links/jump.cgi?ID=425

Some consumer opinions...

http://www.epinions.com/hmgd-Large_Appliances-All-Dryers-Gas

> Also, are there any maintenance issues with gas vs. electric dryers?

Not really, same as electric...clean venting every year, clean our
dryer every 3-5 years. Venting shoudl be metal for a gas dryer as
well.

jeff.

Appliance Repair Aid
http://www.applianceaid.com/

DaveG
June 24th 03, 12:49 AM
Interesting that your builder is charging extra for the gas line. Is he
including a circuit for an electric dryer in for free? I've been offered
one or the other at no charge with the 2 houses I've had built. The person
who suggested putting in both had a pretty good suggestion. Relatively
inexpensive, when you consider the price of your townhouse, the monthly
payment you make will change by only pennies, probably.

Keep in mind that if gas prices go up, electric rates may rise right along
with them. Many utilities burn natural gas to generate electricity. Some
may switch to another fuel if they can, but that fuel would likely rise as
well.

That said, when we switched from an electric dryer to natural gas a decade
ago, we noticed a several dollar per month drop in our electric bill. Maybe
$75 per year. We did not notice much of an increase at all in our gas bill.
So call it maybe $65 per year, so total payback in less than 3 years. Your
results will vary based on the utility rates in your area. In this area,
electricity is relatively inexpensive $0.07 per kwh. and gas is about 77
per therm.

I've had to replace one timer on my electric dryer in the 5 years I've owned
it (Kenmore)
In the 12 years I've owned 2 gas dryers, both Maytags, no repairs needed.
Hardly representative, I know, but that's my experience.

HTH
Dave

"BrianEWilliams" > wrote in message
om...
> We are buying a new construction townhouse. Installing a gas line to
> the laundry area will be $100. A gas dryer cost $53 more than the
> same model in electric. I have seen headlines saying gas prices are
> going up. My question is this. Does anyone have a opinion on how
> long it will take me to save back my extra $153 in upfront costs for
> the gas dryer? Obviously this depends on the relative price of gas
> vs. electricity in the future which no one can predict, but opinions
> are welcome.
>
> Also, are there any maintenance issues with gas vs. electric dryers?
> This is the gas model we are thinking of getting:
>
>

DaveG
June 24th 03, 12:49 AM
Interesting that your builder is charging extra for the gas line. Is he
including a circuit for an electric dryer in for free? I've been offered
one or the other at no charge with the 2 houses I've had built. The person
who suggested putting in both had a pretty good suggestion. Relatively
inexpensive, when you consider the price of your townhouse, the monthly
payment you make will change by only pennies, probably.

Keep in mind that if gas prices go up, electric rates may rise right along
with them. Many utilities burn natural gas to generate electricity. Some
may switch to another fuel if they can, but that fuel would likely rise as
well.

That said, when we switched from an electric dryer to natural gas a decade
ago, we noticed a several dollar per month drop in our electric bill. Maybe
$75 per year. We did not notice much of an increase at all in our gas bill.
So call it maybe $65 per year, so total payback in less than 3 years. Your
results will vary based on the utility rates in your area. In this area,
electricity is relatively inexpensive $0.07 per kwh. and gas is about 77
per therm.

I've had to replace one timer on my electric dryer in the 5 years I've owned
it (Kenmore)
In the 12 years I've owned 2 gas dryers, both Maytags, no repairs needed.
Hardly representative, I know, but that's my experience.

HTH
Dave

"BrianEWilliams" > wrote in message
om...
> We are buying a new construction townhouse. Installing a gas line to
> the laundry area will be $100. A gas dryer cost $53 more than the
> same model in electric. I have seen headlines saying gas prices are
> going up. My question is this. Does anyone have a opinion on how
> long it will take me to save back my extra $153 in upfront costs for
> the gas dryer? Obviously this depends on the relative price of gas
> vs. electricity in the future which no one can predict, but opinions
> are welcome.
>
> Also, are there any maintenance issues with gas vs. electric dryers?
> This is the gas model we are thinking of getting:
>
>

Eastward Bound
June 24th 03, 08:02 AM
The Advantage of a house with all electric appliances instead of gas
is that you don't have to run natural gas lines through the home.

For those of you who are safety oriented this can be important if you
are concerned about gas building up inside the house and a huge
explosion leveling the whole property afterwards. Some apartments and
condos don't have any gas at all in the for that very same reason
because the risk is greater.

If not in explosion then the residents can get gassed out and killed
while they are sleeping. There was a time long ago when lighting
fixtures were not electric but has gas coming through them and burned
gas to create light. I don't think it's even documented how many
people died from being gassed out from the gas itself or from the
buildup or carbon dioxide or from being burned.

For those of you who live in earthquake country your better off not
having gas if you want to be safe. This is why it is mandatory to
know exactly where is the main gas shut off valve for your house so
that you can immediately secure your residence by getting a wrench and
turning the valve closed so that your house won't explode.

There is one other thing, I don't know if Gas lines can freeze up the
way water lines do. You can't know everything and I wish somebody
would pitch in on the matter.

Scour the Internet for the situation where a gas main exploded and
burned a whole community somewhere in California. There was a
situation once where a train derailed at a bedroom community. Two
houses were leveled I believe because they were by the tracks that was
a sharp turn. (stupid place to build a house in my opinion) Silently
underground there was a serious problem being a fracture in the main
gas line. Days later after the train derailment the line burst and
gas was shot up hundreds of feet into the air. Minutes later the
worst imaginable had happened once all of that fuel ignited. It was
such a great tragedy indeed and I still remember watching it on a
documentary as if it were only yesterday. Some of those poor people
who were still alive to talk about it, it was tragic.

Eastward Bound
June 24th 03, 08:02 AM
The Advantage of a house with all electric appliances instead of gas
is that you don't have to run natural gas lines through the home.

For those of you who are safety oriented this can be important if you
are concerned about gas building up inside the house and a huge
explosion leveling the whole property afterwards. Some apartments and
condos don't have any gas at all in the for that very same reason
because the risk is greater.

If not in explosion then the residents can get gassed out and killed
while they are sleeping. There was a time long ago when lighting
fixtures were not electric but has gas coming through them and burned
gas to create light. I don't think it's even documented how many
people died from being gassed out from the gas itself or from the
buildup or carbon dioxide or from being burned.

For those of you who live in earthquake country your better off not
having gas if you want to be safe. This is why it is mandatory to
know exactly where is the main gas shut off valve for your house so
that you can immediately secure your residence by getting a wrench and
turning the valve closed so that your house won't explode.

There is one other thing, I don't know if Gas lines can freeze up the
way water lines do. You can't know everything and I wish somebody
would pitch in on the matter.

Scour the Internet for the situation where a gas main exploded and
burned a whole community somewhere in California. There was a
situation once where a train derailed at a bedroom community. Two
houses were leveled I believe because they were by the tracks that was
a sharp turn. (stupid place to build a house in my opinion) Silently
underground there was a serious problem being a fracture in the main
gas line. Days later after the train derailment the line burst and
gas was shot up hundreds of feet into the air. Minutes later the
worst imaginable had happened once all of that fuel ignited. It was
such a great tragedy indeed and I still remember watching it on a
documentary as if it were only yesterday. Some of those poor people
who were still alive to talk about it, it was tragic.

Jonathan Kamens
June 24th 03, 08:25 AM
My, what amazing fear-mongering about natural gas. Are you paid by
the electric company, or what? Here's a different point of view, from
<http://utilities.dteenergy.com/infoZone/safety/gasSafety.html>:

The Facts

Natural gas is one of the safest energy sources available to
homeowners and businesses alike. By itself, natural gas will not
ignite. For ignition to occur, a mixture of gas between four and 14
percent must combine with air. Also, gas must have an ignition
source with a temperature of 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit or more before
it will ignite.

Because gas is lighter than air, it will rise and disperse. That's
why you should open windows and doors if you smell gas.

I suspect that if you research the subject, you will find that more
people are injured or killed and more property is damaged as a result
of electrical fires than as a result of gas leaks.

You mentioned, without any details, a gas main explosion which "burned
a whole community somewhere in California." If that really happened,
then sure, it's a terrible tragedy. But the fact that it happened
doesn't really prove much about the safety of natural gas, any more
than Boston's great molasses flood of 1919 proves anything about the
safety of molasses.

Jonathan Kamens
June 24th 03, 08:25 AM
My, what amazing fear-mongering about natural gas. Are you paid by
the electric company, or what? Here's a different point of view, from
<http://utilities.dteenergy.com/infoZone/safety/gasSafety.html>:

The Facts

Natural gas is one of the safest energy sources available to
homeowners and businesses alike. By itself, natural gas will not
ignite. For ignition to occur, a mixture of gas between four and 14
percent must combine with air. Also, gas must have an ignition
source with a temperature of 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit or more before
it will ignite.

Because gas is lighter than air, it will rise and disperse. That's
why you should open windows and doors if you smell gas.

I suspect that if you research the subject, you will find that more
people are injured or killed and more property is damaged as a result
of electrical fires than as a result of gas leaks.

You mentioned, without any details, a gas main explosion which "burned
a whole community somewhere in California." If that really happened,
then sure, it's a terrible tragedy. But the fact that it happened
doesn't really prove much about the safety of natural gas, any more
than Boston's great molasses flood of 1919 proves anything about the
safety of molasses.

Albert Wagner
June 24th 03, 09:19 AM
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 06:25:51 +0000 (UTC)
(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:

> My, what amazing fear-mongering about natural gas. Are you paid by
> the electric company, or what? Here's a different point of view, from
> <http://utilities.dteenergy.com/infoZone/safety/gasSafety.html>:
>
> The Facts
>
> Natural gas is one of the safest energy sources available to
> homeowners and businesses alike. By itself, natural gas will not
> ignite. For ignition to occur, a mixture of gas between four and 14
> percent must combine with air. Also, gas must have an ignition
> source with a temperature of 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit or more before
> it will ignite.

Like a pilot light?

>
> Because gas is lighter than air, it will rise and disperse. That's
> why you should open windows and doors if you smell gas.

If you are there and awake to smell it.

>
> I suspect that if you research the subject, you will find that more
> people are injured or killed and more property is damaged as a result
> of electrical fires than as a result of gas leaks.

It is harder to outrun an explosion than a fire.

>
> You mentioned, without any details, a gas main explosion which "burned
> a whole community somewhere in California." If that really happened,
> then sure, it's a terrible tragedy. But the fact that it happened
> doesn't really prove much about the safety of natural gas, any more
> than Boston's great molasses flood of 1919 proves anything about the
> safety of molasses.

Albert Wagner
June 24th 03, 09:19 AM
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 06:25:51 +0000 (UTC)
(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:

> My, what amazing fear-mongering about natural gas. Are you paid by
> the electric company, or what? Here's a different point of view, from
> <http://utilities.dteenergy.com/infoZone/safety/gasSafety.html>:
>
> The Facts
>
> Natural gas is one of the safest energy sources available to
> homeowners and businesses alike. By itself, natural gas will not
> ignite. For ignition to occur, a mixture of gas between four and 14
> percent must combine with air. Also, gas must have an ignition
> source with a temperature of 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit or more before
> it will ignite.

Like a pilot light?

>
> Because gas is lighter than air, it will rise and disperse. That's
> why you should open windows and doors if you smell gas.

If you are there and awake to smell it.

>
> I suspect that if you research the subject, you will find that more
> people are injured or killed and more property is damaged as a result
> of electrical fires than as a result of gas leaks.

It is harder to outrun an explosion than a fire.

>
> You mentioned, without any details, a gas main explosion which "burned
> a whole community somewhere in California." If that really happened,
> then sure, it's a terrible tragedy. But the fact that it happened
> doesn't really prove much about the safety of natural gas, any more
> than Boston's great molasses flood of 1919 proves anything about the
> safety of molasses.

SoCalMike
June 24th 03, 10:21 AM
"Eastward Bound" > wrote in message
om...
> The Advantage of a house with all electric appliances instead of gas
> is that you don't have to run natural gas lines through the home.

i looked specifically for a place with natural gas appliances, and heating.
in so cal, gas is cheaper than electricity.
>
> For those of you who are safety oriented this can be important if you
> are concerned about gas building up inside the house and a huge
> explosion leveling the whole property afterwards. Some apartments and
> condos don't have any gas at all in the for that very same reason
> because the risk is greater.

my condo was built in 81 and has a gas stove, water heater, clothes dryer,
and central heat. i like it. it also meets all earthquake codes and has
apparently been thru a few of em since it was built with no damage at all.
>
> If not in explosion then the residents can get gassed out and killed
> while they are sleeping. There was a time long ago when lighting
> fixtures were not electric but has gas coming through them and burned
> gas to create light. I don't think it's even documented how many
> people died from being gassed out from the gas itself or from the
> buildup or carbon dioxide or from being burned.

might not be documented because it wasnt a big issue. how many gas station
fires are documented? i rarely hear of one, yet we all pump flammable liquid
fuel in our vehicles regularly.
>
> For those of you who live in earthquake country your better off not
> having gas if you want to be safe. This is why it is mandatory to
> know exactly where is the main gas shut off valve for your house so
> that you can immediately secure your residence by getting a wrench and
> turning the valve closed so that your house won't explode.

true. its also nice to be able to shut off your power in case of short
circuits, and water in case of ruptured pipes.
>
> There is one other thing, I don't know if Gas lines can freeze up the
> way water lines do. You can't know everything and I wish somebody
> would pitch in on the matter.
>
> Scour the Internet for the situation where a gas main exploded and
> burned a whole community somewhere in California. There was a
> situation once where a train derailed at a bedroom community. Two
> houses were leveled I believe because they were by the tracks that was
> a sharp turn. (stupid place to build a house in my opinion) Silently
> underground there was a serious problem being a fracture in the main
> gas line. Days later after the train derailment the line burst and
> gas was shot up hundreds of feet into the air. Minutes later the
> worst imaginable had happened once all of that fuel ignited. It was
> such a great tragedy indeed and I still remember watching it on a
> documentary as if it were only yesterday. Some of those poor people
> who were still alive to talk about it, it was tragic.

**** happens. powerlines fall and kill people too. you work for So Cal
edison, doncha?

SoCalMike
June 24th 03, 10:21 AM
"Eastward Bound" > wrote in message
om...
> The Advantage of a house with all electric appliances instead of gas
> is that you don't have to run natural gas lines through the home.

i looked specifically for a place with natural gas appliances, and heating.
in so cal, gas is cheaper than electricity.
>
> For those of you who are safety oriented this can be important if you
> are concerned about gas building up inside the house and a huge
> explosion leveling the whole property afterwards. Some apartments and
> condos don't have any gas at all in the for that very same reason
> because the risk is greater.

my condo was built in 81 and has a gas stove, water heater, clothes dryer,
and central heat. i like it. it also meets all earthquake codes and has
apparently been thru a few of em since it was built with no damage at all.
>
> If not in explosion then the residents can get gassed out and killed
> while they are sleeping. There was a time long ago when lighting
> fixtures were not electric but has gas coming through them and burned
> gas to create light. I don't think it's even documented how many
> people died from being gassed out from the gas itself or from the
> buildup or carbon dioxide or from being burned.

might not be documented because it wasnt a big issue. how many gas station
fires are documented? i rarely hear of one, yet we all pump flammable liquid
fuel in our vehicles regularly.
>
> For those of you who live in earthquake country your better off not
> having gas if you want to be safe. This is why it is mandatory to
> know exactly where is the main gas shut off valve for your house so
> that you can immediately secure your residence by getting a wrench and
> turning the valve closed so that your house won't explode.

true. its also nice to be able to shut off your power in case of short
circuits, and water in case of ruptured pipes.
>
> There is one other thing, I don't know if Gas lines can freeze up the
> way water lines do. You can't know everything and I wish somebody
> would pitch in on the matter.
>
> Scour the Internet for the situation where a gas main exploded and
> burned a whole community somewhere in California. There was a
> situation once where a train derailed at a bedroom community. Two
> houses were leveled I believe because they were by the tracks that was
> a sharp turn. (stupid place to build a house in my opinion) Silently
> underground there was a serious problem being a fracture in the main
> gas line. Days later after the train derailment the line burst and
> gas was shot up hundreds of feet into the air. Minutes later the
> worst imaginable had happened once all of that fuel ignited. It was
> such a great tragedy indeed and I still remember watching it on a
> documentary as if it were only yesterday. Some of those poor people
> who were still alive to talk about it, it was tragic.

**** happens. powerlines fall and kill people too. you work for So Cal
edison, doncha?

June 24th 03, 01:56 PM
On 23 Jun 2003 23:02:52 -0700, (Eastward
Bound) wrote:

>There is one other thing, I don't know if Gas lines can freeze up the
>way water lines do. You can't know everything and I wish somebody
>would pitch in on the matter.

In Rochester, NY, with winter months routinely experiencing long
periods of freezing temperatures, gas lines do not freeze up.

June 24th 03, 01:56 PM
On 23 Jun 2003 23:02:52 -0700, (Eastward
Bound) wrote:

>There is one other thing, I don't know if Gas lines can freeze up the
>way water lines do. You can't know everything and I wish somebody
>would pitch in on the matter.

In Rochester, NY, with winter months routinely experiencing long
periods of freezing temperatures, gas lines do not freeze up.

Wade Lippman
June 24th 03, 03:24 PM
>
> In Rochester, NY, with winter months routinely experiencing long
> periods of freezing temperatures, gas lines do not freeze up.

True, but houses do blow up there. 40 years ago a whole street blew up. I
don't remember what it was; a big surge in pressure or something like that.

Wade Lippman
June 24th 03, 03:24 PM
>
> In Rochester, NY, with winter months routinely experiencing long
> periods of freezing temperatures, gas lines do not freeze up.

True, but houses do blow up there. 40 years ago a whole street blew up. I
don't remember what it was; a big surge in pressure or something like that.

Wade Lippman
June 24th 03, 03:27 PM
If you do a search on gas dryers you will find some good sites.

I was going run a line across my house and put in a gas dryer, but then
found out I would save less than $50 a year. Couldn't justify that.
Electric dryer just aren't as bad as I thought.

Wade Lippman
June 24th 03, 03:27 PM
If you do a search on gas dryers you will find some good sites.

I was going run a line across my house and put in a gas dryer, but then
found out I would save less than $50 a year. Couldn't justify that.
Electric dryer just aren't as bad as I thought.

v
June 24th 03, 04:35 PM
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:45:39 -0400, someone wrote:

OP is trying to put too fine a point on this.

In general, it is relatively expensive to make heat with electricity.
Most electricity is generated by burning a fuel (be it coal, oil, or
yes gas) to begin with. (Exception: hydroelectric) Then there is
inherent inefficiency in converting that heat into electricity to
begin with, and transmitting it to the user. (The conversion of the
elctricity back into heat is highly efficient, pretty nearly 100%.)

Thus, there is generally an inherent cost advantage to gas as a heat
source, if the infrastructure is in place to deliver it to the home.

If gas prices go up, electric rates will generally follow.

OP can spend more of his time than the cost difference is worth,
trying to analyze it to death, when both electric and gas rates are
moving targets. Today's analysis can be inaccurate next year. But
the general r'ship is generally true (except if you are in an area
with cheap subsidized hydro).

-v.

v
June 24th 03, 04:35 PM
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:45:39 -0400, someone wrote:

OP is trying to put too fine a point on this.

In general, it is relatively expensive to make heat with electricity.
Most electricity is generated by burning a fuel (be it coal, oil, or
yes gas) to begin with. (Exception: hydroelectric) Then there is
inherent inefficiency in converting that heat into electricity to
begin with, and transmitting it to the user. (The conversion of the
elctricity back into heat is highly efficient, pretty nearly 100%.)

Thus, there is generally an inherent cost advantage to gas as a heat
source, if the infrastructure is in place to deliver it to the home.

If gas prices go up, electric rates will generally follow.

OP can spend more of his time than the cost difference is worth,
trying to analyze it to death, when both electric and gas rates are
moving targets. Today's analysis can be inaccurate next year. But
the general r'ship is generally true (except if you are in an area
with cheap subsidized hydro).

-v.

Albert Wagner
June 24th 03, 04:36 PM
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:27:07 -0500
Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote:

> Albert Wagner wrote:
> > It is harder to outrun an explosion than a fire.
>
> Let me guess, you don't wear a seat belt in case your car catches fire
>
> and the seat belt jams, right?
>

Huh?

Albert Wagner
June 24th 03, 04:36 PM
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:27:07 -0500
Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote:

> Albert Wagner wrote:
> > It is harder to outrun an explosion than a fire.
>
> Let me guess, you don't wear a seat belt in case your car catches fire
>
> and the seat belt jams, right?
>

Huh?

Albert Wagner
June 24th 03, 04:53 PM
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:43:36 -0500
Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote:
<snip>
> You don't consider the "odds" when rating personal risk, only
> spectacular occurances. Fires due to electric heaters are much more
> common but less spectacular than gas explosions.
>

My point was that escaping a fire is easier than escaping an explosion.
Do you have any reliable statistics otherwise?

Albert Wagner
June 24th 03, 04:53 PM
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:43:36 -0500
Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote:
<snip>
> You don't consider the "odds" when rating personal risk, only
> spectacular occurances. Fires due to electric heaters are much more
> common but less spectacular than gas explosions.
>

My point was that escaping a fire is easier than escaping an explosion.
Do you have any reliable statistics otherwise?

Jonathan Kamens
June 24th 03, 05:02 PM
Albert Wagner > writes:
>Like a pilot light?

One of the neat things about pilot lights and gas leaks is
that since the pilot light is always burning, it is always
burning off any gas in its vicinity. So no, a pilot light is
unlikely to ignite an explosion as a result of a small gas
leak.

As for large gas leaks, they just don't happen that often, and
as I said before, I'm fairly certain that more people are
injured by electricity-related accidents than gas-related
accidents.

>It is harder to outrun an explosion than a fire.

Irrelevant if the fires happen much more often than the
explosions.

I submit that the reason why every pretty much gas leak and
explosion is reported in the media is because they happen so
rarely.

Jonathan Kamens
June 24th 03, 05:02 PM
Albert Wagner > writes:
>Like a pilot light?

One of the neat things about pilot lights and gas leaks is
that since the pilot light is always burning, it is always
burning off any gas in its vicinity. So no, a pilot light is
unlikely to ignite an explosion as a result of a small gas
leak.

As for large gas leaks, they just don't happen that often, and
as I said before, I'm fairly certain that more people are
injured by electricity-related accidents than gas-related
accidents.

>It is harder to outrun an explosion than a fire.

Irrelevant if the fires happen much more often than the
explosions.

I submit that the reason why every pretty much gas leak and
explosion is reported in the media is because they happen so
rarely.

Bill Seurer
June 24th 03, 05:25 PM
v wrote:
> If gas prices go up, electric rates will generally follow.

This is an important point. A lot of electricity is generated by
burning natural gas.

Bill Seurer
June 24th 03, 05:25 PM
v wrote:
> If gas prices go up, electric rates will generally follow.

This is an important point. A lot of electricity is generated by
burning natural gas.

BrianEWilliams
June 24th 03, 06:32 PM
(v) wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:45:39 -0400, someone wrote:
>
> OP is trying to put too fine a point on this.
>
> In general, it is relatively expensive to make heat with electricity.
> Most electricity is generated by burning a fuel (be it coal, oil, or
> yes gas) to begin with. (Exception: hydroelectric) Then there is
> inherent inefficiency in converting that heat into electricity to
> begin with, and transmitting it to the user. (The conversion of the
> elctricity back into heat is highly efficient, pretty nearly 100%.)
>
> Thus, there is generally an inherent cost advantage to gas as a heat
> source, if the infrastructure is in place to deliver it to the home.
>
> If gas prices go up, electric rates will generally follow.
>
> OP can spend more of his time than the cost difference is worth,
> trying to analyze it to death, when both electric and gas rates are
> moving targets. Today's analysis can be inaccurate next year. But
> the general r'ship is generally true (except if you are in an area
> with cheap subsidized hydro).
>
> -v.

To all the responents, thanks for the good ideas. I talked to our
Sears saleswoman, and she made a similar point that if gas prices go
up, then electricity will go up too. I know this isn't strictly true,
but that reasoning has led me to the gas dryer option.

Your point about endlessly analyzing things is the story of my life.
I guess I like the process, so it is recreation vs. work.

BrianEWilliams
June 24th 03, 06:32 PM
(v) wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:45:39 -0400, someone wrote:
>
> OP is trying to put too fine a point on this.
>
> In general, it is relatively expensive to make heat with electricity.
> Most electricity is generated by burning a fuel (be it coal, oil, or
> yes gas) to begin with. (Exception: hydroelectric) Then there is
> inherent inefficiency in converting that heat into electricity to
> begin with, and transmitting it to the user. (The conversion of the
> elctricity back into heat is highly efficient, pretty nearly 100%.)
>
> Thus, there is generally an inherent cost advantage to gas as a heat
> source, if the infrastructure is in place to deliver it to the home.
>
> If gas prices go up, electric rates will generally follow.
>
> OP can spend more of his time than the cost difference is worth,
> trying to analyze it to death, when both electric and gas rates are
> moving targets. Today's analysis can be inaccurate next year. But
> the general r'ship is generally true (except if you are in an area
> with cheap subsidized hydro).
>
> -v.

To all the responents, thanks for the good ideas. I talked to our
Sears saleswoman, and she made a similar point that if gas prices go
up, then electricity will go up too. I know this isn't strictly true,
but that reasoning has led me to the gas dryer option.

Your point about endlessly analyzing things is the story of my life.
I guess I like the process, so it is recreation vs. work.

Bill Seurer
June 24th 03, 10:43 PM
Albert Wagner wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:27:07 -0500
> Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Albert Wagner wrote:
>>
>>>It is harder to outrun an explosion than a fire.
>>
>>Let me guess, you don't wear a seat belt in case your car catches fire
>>and the seat belt jams, right?
>
> Huh?

You don't consider the "odds" when rating personal risk, only
spectacular occurances. Fires due to electric heaters are much more
common but less spectacular than gas explosions.

Bill Seurer
June 24th 03, 10:43 PM
Albert Wagner wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:27:07 -0500
> Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Albert Wagner wrote:
>>
>>>It is harder to outrun an explosion than a fire.
>>
>>Let me guess, you don't wear a seat belt in case your car catches fire
>>and the seat belt jams, right?
>
> Huh?

You don't consider the "odds" when rating personal risk, only
spectacular occurances. Fires due to electric heaters are much more
common but less spectacular than gas explosions.

Eastward Bound
June 24th 03, 11:10 PM
"Wade Lippman" > wrote in message >...
> True, but houses do blow up there. 40 years ago a whole street blew up. I
> don't remember what it was; a big surge in pressure or something like that.

You know what Mr. Lippman. What you have heard of is by no means an
isolated occurrence.

Houses explode from gas leaks all the time.

The biggest gas line danger in a home are the flexible gas lines that
connect the clothes dryer to the gas line along with the stove and the
water heater that use the flexible connection as well.

DANGEROUS! Here in Cali at least I know that it is illegal for anyone
to install a new gas appliance without putting in a new flexible metal
gas line.

Also what if nobody is home to smell the gas leak? (Vacation most
likely, most home owners are not smart enough to shut off the main gas
valve before they leave the house) Then it just keeps building up more
and more until all 4 houses the 3 surrounding houses included are
blown up.

There was once incident somewhere in North America where an Elderly
couple were getting more and more sick and they would sleep for the
whole day through and would have to use crutches. They felt tired all
the time and would vomit and they didn't know why.

Eventually the house cat (cats have an acute sense of smell) was seen
digging in the side of the house. The Lady went up to her cat and
noticed that there was a bad odor and a hissing sound from the gas
leaking out into the ground.

The gas company came with one of those testers that can sense how
strong the gas concentration is and it was off the scale.

That very same couple are a lot better now but are extremely lucky to
be alive. They were suffering from the poisoning and their house was
filling up with gas without them knowing. They are lucky that they
didn't quite literally blow up.

Sure there is a danger using electric appliances as well. The
difference is when you introduce gas appliances into the house, you
and your loved ones are now more at risk. Every house would have
electricity anyway. Having a gas appliance only adds more risks along
with a lot more things that can go wrong.

Remember, "What ever can go wrong will go wrong." Murphys law...

I'm not trying to by like Ralph Nader here going overboard. I'm just
saying that now that I am aware of all of the possible dangers
involved and the smart thing to do would be to make wise decisions to
keep you and your loved ones safe. Wouldn't you want to keep your
loved ones safe? There is nothing worse then a parent outliving a
child.

If for whatever impossible reason I were forced to use gas appliances
I would have them all inspected annually and would replace all the
flexible gas lines every year. Now if you had to inspect all of your
gas equipment and infrastructure annually how is that more frugal then
just using the more maintenance free electric appliances in the first
place?

A burn victim from flash burnings can be the most tragic accidents to
live through. I have seen burn victims and it is not pretty seeing
them like that uncomfortable no matter what they do. They don't even
look human anymore. Being a burn victim is no different then loosing
your hearing, loosing your vision or becoming a cripple. It's sad,
it's tragic and it's most unfortunate. The worst part about it is
that it would have been avoided if only one took the necessary
precautions.

Eastward Bound
June 24th 03, 11:10 PM
"Wade Lippman" > wrote in message >...
> True, but houses do blow up there. 40 years ago a whole street blew up. I
> don't remember what it was; a big surge in pressure or something like that.

You know what Mr. Lippman. What you have heard of is by no means an
isolated occurrence.

Houses explode from gas leaks all the time.

The biggest gas line danger in a home are the flexible gas lines that
connect the clothes dryer to the gas line along with the stove and the
water heater that use the flexible connection as well.

DANGEROUS! Here in Cali at least I know that it is illegal for anyone
to install a new gas appliance without putting in a new flexible metal
gas line.

Also what if nobody is home to smell the gas leak? (Vacation most
likely, most home owners are not smart enough to shut off the main gas
valve before they leave the house) Then it just keeps building up more
and more until all 4 houses the 3 surrounding houses included are
blown up.

There was once incident somewhere in North America where an Elderly
couple were getting more and more sick and they would sleep for the
whole day through and would have to use crutches. They felt tired all
the time and would vomit and they didn't know why.

Eventually the house cat (cats have an acute sense of smell) was seen
digging in the side of the house. The Lady went up to her cat and
noticed that there was a bad odor and a hissing sound from the gas
leaking out into the ground.

The gas company came with one of those testers that can sense how
strong the gas concentration is and it was off the scale.

That very same couple are a lot better now but are extremely lucky to
be alive. They were suffering from the poisoning and their house was
filling up with gas without them knowing. They are lucky that they
didn't quite literally blow up.

Sure there is a danger using electric appliances as well. The
difference is when you introduce gas appliances into the house, you
and your loved ones are now more at risk. Every house would have
electricity anyway. Having a gas appliance only adds more risks along
with a lot more things that can go wrong.

Remember, "What ever can go wrong will go wrong." Murphys law...

I'm not trying to by like Ralph Nader here going overboard. I'm just
saying that now that I am aware of all of the possible dangers
involved and the smart thing to do would be to make wise decisions to
keep you and your loved ones safe. Wouldn't you want to keep your
loved ones safe? There is nothing worse then a parent outliving a
child.

If for whatever impossible reason I were forced to use gas appliances
I would have them all inspected annually and would replace all the
flexible gas lines every year. Now if you had to inspect all of your
gas equipment and infrastructure annually how is that more frugal then
just using the more maintenance free electric appliances in the first
place?

A burn victim from flash burnings can be the most tragic accidents to
live through. I have seen burn victims and it is not pretty seeing
them like that uncomfortable no matter what they do. They don't even
look human anymore. Being a burn victim is no different then loosing
your hearing, loosing your vision or becoming a cripple. It's sad,
it's tragic and it's most unfortunate. The worst part about it is
that it would have been avoided if only one took the necessary
precautions.

George
June 24th 03, 11:17 PM
"Bill Seurer" <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote in message
...
> v wrote:
> > If gas prices go up, electric rates will generally follow.
>
> This is an important point. A lot of electricity is generated by
> burning natural gas.
>
Yes and it is an interesting paradox because one of the reasons for the
"shortages" and higher cost of natural gas is that many peak use gas turbine
generators have been put on line recently which readily use up what was once
an oversupply of gas.

George
June 24th 03, 11:17 PM
"Bill Seurer" <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote in message
...
> v wrote:
> > If gas prices go up, electric rates will generally follow.
>
> This is an important point. A lot of electricity is generated by
> burning natural gas.
>
Yes and it is an interesting paradox because one of the reasons for the
"shortages" and higher cost of natural gas is that many peak use gas turbine
generators have been put on line recently which readily use up what was once
an oversupply of gas.

lpogoda
June 25th 03, 02:54 AM
Pat Meadows wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:56:40 GMT,
wrote:
>
>>On 23 Jun 2003 23:02:52 -0700, (Eastward
>>Bound) wrote:
>>
>>>There is one other thing, I don't know if Gas lines can freeze up the
>>>way water lines do. You can't know everything and I wish somebody
>>>would pitch in on the matter.
>>
>>In Rochester, NY, with winter months routinely experiencing long
>>periods of freezing temperatures, gas lines do not freeze up.
>
>Not here in northern PA either - our climate is similar to
>yours.
>
>For that matter, I used to live in very seriously cold
>country - Edmonton, Alberta, CA. Gas lines there didn't
>freeze up either. Night-time temps of -30 to -40 (F or C -
>take your pick, it's not much different in that range) were
>common in Edmonton when we lived there.
>

Oh for heaven's sake. Natural gas is a mixture of compounds, (methane,
ethane, propane, isobutane, etc.). Natural gas boils at minus 263 degrees F.
Methane, the principle component of natural gas (around 94% of the total by
volume), freezes at minus 296.5 degrees F. Precise temperatures will vary
with the proportions of the various components.

Can natural gas lines freeze? Not in any climate found on Earth.

lpogoda
June 25th 03, 02:54 AM
Pat Meadows wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:56:40 GMT,
wrote:
>
>>On 23 Jun 2003 23:02:52 -0700, (Eastward
>>Bound) wrote:
>>
>>>There is one other thing, I don't know if Gas lines can freeze up the
>>>way water lines do. You can't know everything and I wish somebody
>>>would pitch in on the matter.
>>
>>In Rochester, NY, with winter months routinely experiencing long
>>periods of freezing temperatures, gas lines do not freeze up.
>
>Not here in northern PA either - our climate is similar to
>yours.
>
>For that matter, I used to live in very seriously cold
>country - Edmonton, Alberta, CA. Gas lines there didn't
>freeze up either. Night-time temps of -30 to -40 (F or C -
>take your pick, it's not much different in that range) were
>common in Edmonton when we lived there.
>

Oh for heaven's sake. Natural gas is a mixture of compounds, (methane,
ethane, propane, isobutane, etc.). Natural gas boils at minus 263 degrees F.
Methane, the principle component of natural gas (around 94% of the total by
volume), freezes at minus 296.5 degrees F. Precise temperatures will vary
with the proportions of the various components.

Can natural gas lines freeze? Not in any climate found on Earth.

June 25th 03, 04:11 AM
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 16:16:12 -0500, Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net>
wrote:

>Eastward Bound wrote:
>> Houses explode from gas leaks all the time.
>
>No they don't. Where do you get crap like this?

Search www.cnn.com for 'gas leak house explode'
found over 5000 hits. Here are 3 examples...

http://wcpo.com/news/butlerwarren/oct232002.html

http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/19990225/LN_002.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/ri2/fires/page3.html

June 25th 03, 04:11 AM
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 16:16:12 -0500, Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net>
wrote:

>Eastward Bound wrote:
>> Houses explode from gas leaks all the time.
>
>No they don't. Where do you get crap like this?

Search www.cnn.com for 'gas leak house explode'
found over 5000 hits. Here are 3 examples...

http://wcpo.com/news/butlerwarren/oct232002.html

http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/19990225/LN_002.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/ri2/fires/page3.html

Jonathan Kamens
June 25th 03, 05:10 AM
[email protected] writes:
>On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 16:16:12 -0500, Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net>
>wrote:
>>Eastward Bound wrote:
>>> Houses explode from gas leaks all the time.
>>No they don't. Where do you get crap like this?
>
>Search www.cnn.com for 'gas leak house explode'
>found over 5000 hits. Here are 3 examples...

First of all, when you type a query into the search box on the
www.cnn.com home page and click Search, you aren't actually searching
www.cnn.com, you're searching the entire Web. Notice that there are
two radio buttons next to the search box with the words "The Web" and
"CNN.com" next to them and the one that's checked by default is "The
Web".

Second, when you search for "gas leak house explode" you're telling
Google to find pages that match *any* of those words, not pages that
match *all* of them.

Third, since you're searching the entire Web, you're finding many
pages reporting on the same events, and many other pages talking about
the topic without actually mentioning specific events.

If you go to www.cnn.com, select the "CNN.com" search rather than
searching "The Web", and search for "gas leak house explode", you find
only three matches, which is not quite the same as "over 5000". If you
search for "gas leak house explosion" instead, you find 68 matches. In
contrast, if you search for "electrical fire house", you find 468
matches.

I'm not trying to claim that any of this is particularly scientific;
I'm merely trying to illustrate that your "over 5000" citation is
completely bogus.

Jonathan Kamens
June 25th 03, 05:10 AM
[email protected] writes:
>On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 16:16:12 -0500, Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net>
>wrote:
>>Eastward Bound wrote:
>>> Houses explode from gas leaks all the time.
>>No they don't. Where do you get crap like this?
>
>Search www.cnn.com for 'gas leak house explode'
>found over 5000 hits. Here are 3 examples...

First of all, when you type a query into the search box on the
www.cnn.com home page and click Search, you aren't actually searching
www.cnn.com, you're searching the entire Web. Notice that there are
two radio buttons next to the search box with the words "The Web" and
"CNN.com" next to them and the one that's checked by default is "The
Web".

Second, when you search for "gas leak house explode" you're telling
Google to find pages that match *any* of those words, not pages that
match *all* of them.

Third, since you're searching the entire Web, you're finding many
pages reporting on the same events, and many other pages talking about
the topic without actually mentioning specific events.

If you go to www.cnn.com, select the "CNN.com" search rather than
searching "The Web", and search for "gas leak house explode", you find
only three matches, which is not quite the same as "over 5000". If you
search for "gas leak house explosion" instead, you find 68 matches. In
contrast, if you search for "electrical fire house", you find 468
matches.

I'm not trying to claim that any of this is particularly scientific;
I'm merely trying to illustrate that your "over 5000" citation is
completely bogus.

Anthony Matonak
June 25th 03, 05:14 AM
[email protected] wrote:
....
> Search www.cnn.com for 'gas leak house explode'
> found over 5000 hits.
.....

Try a search for 'electric dryer fire' and you'll get 80,000 hits.
Try a search for 'flying saucers abduct cheerleader' and you'll still
get at least 2 hits.

Can houses with natural gas appliances explode? Yes.
Does it happen very often? No.
Can houses with electrical appliances burn down and kill everyone? Yes.
Does it happen very often? More often than gas leak explosions.

If one were really concerned with the safety aspect of natural gas then
it would be appropriate to get the correct explosive gas and carbon
monoxide alarms installed. These are common in RV's.

Anthony

Anthony Matonak
June 25th 03, 05:14 AM
[email protected] wrote:
....
> Search www.cnn.com for 'gas leak house explode'
> found over 5000 hits.
.....

Try a search for 'electric dryer fire' and you'll get 80,000 hits.
Try a search for 'flying saucers abduct cheerleader' and you'll still
get at least 2 hits.

Can houses with natural gas appliances explode? Yes.
Does it happen very often? No.
Can houses with electrical appliances burn down and kill everyone? Yes.
Does it happen very often? More often than gas leak explosions.

If one were really concerned with the safety aspect of natural gas then
it would be appropriate to get the correct explosive gas and carbon
monoxide alarms installed. These are common in RV's.

Anthony

Eastward Bound
June 25th 03, 05:56 AM
Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote in message >...
> v wrote:
> > If gas prices go up, electric rates will generally follow.
>
> This is an important point. A lot of electricity is generated by
> burning natural gas.


Not a lot, most of our electricity is generated by burning coal. Only
a very small percentage is done by gas. Gas is too expensive to burn
in large quantities. And many municipalities want to reserve their
gas.

Coal is cheap and abundant in North America. Natural gas is not.
Also much of New England doesn't use natural gas but instead puts
giant oil tanks in the basements of the houses. These tanks have a
fill up flap at the front porch of the house usually for easy access
to the refueling trucks.

I don't like using volatile natural gas it's too unstable. You can't
sell that to me. And you can't sell it to anyone else who is as
sensible.

Eastward Bound
June 25th 03, 05:56 AM
Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote in message >...
> v wrote:
> > If gas prices go up, electric rates will generally follow.
>
> This is an important point. A lot of electricity is generated by
> burning natural gas.


Not a lot, most of our electricity is generated by burning coal. Only
a very small percentage is done by gas. Gas is too expensive to burn
in large quantities. And many municipalities want to reserve their
gas.

Coal is cheap and abundant in North America. Natural gas is not.
Also much of New England doesn't use natural gas but instead puts
giant oil tanks in the basements of the houses. These tanks have a
fill up flap at the front porch of the house usually for easy access
to the refueling trucks.

I don't like using volatile natural gas it's too unstable. You can't
sell that to me. And you can't sell it to anyone else who is as
sensible.

Bob Ward
June 25th 03, 06:06 AM
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:11:52 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 16:16:12 -0500, Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Eastward Bound wrote:
>>> Houses explode from gas leaks all the time.
>>
>>No they don't. Where do you get crap like this?
>
>Search www.cnn.com for 'gas leak house explode'
>found over 5000 hits. Here are 3 examples...
>

So did searching for 'gas leak house not explode'... perhaps you need
to refine your searching technique.

Bob Ward
June 25th 03, 06:06 AM
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:11:52 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 16:16:12 -0500, Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Eastward Bound wrote:
>>> Houses explode from gas leaks all the time.
>>
>>No they don't. Where do you get crap like this?
>
>Search www.cnn.com for 'gas leak house explode'
>found over 5000 hits. Here are 3 examples...
>

So did searching for 'gas leak house not explode'... perhaps you need
to refine your searching technique.

Eastward Bound
June 25th 03, 06:14 AM
Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote in message >...
> Wade Lippman wrote:
> >>In Rochester, NY, with winter months routinely experiencing long
> >>periods of freezing temperatures, gas lines do not freeze up.
> >
> > True, but houses do blow up there. 40 years ago a whole street blew up. I
> > don't remember what it was; a big surge in pressure or something like that.
>
> Yeah, so? I bet you think that travel by car is safer than travel by
> airplane because when cars crash only a few people (usually) are killed
> yet when planes crash sometimes hundreds are killed.


Bill, back in the mid 90s England was building a bunch of flats
(apartments/condos) that were about 30 floors high 50 max. They were
based off of a type of construction technology that originated from a
northern part of Europe that DID NOT use natural gas. But the most
important thing is that they were so cheap to build and they went up
rapidly with the cranes because they were so simple in construction.

Big mistake. Even though it was a great idea to solve much of
England's housing shortage problems, all of these high rises were
flawed.

They were built like a house of cards because every section of wall
and floor all comes together like a puzzle, and gravity plays a big
role in keeping it all together. (Some of these buildings were spared
when they updated them with reinforces to hold the sections of walls
and floors together)

This works differently then what is common in north America where we
use big columns that are the main support for the building. The outer
shell would be to keep out the elements only and didn't support
themselves.

So The British went ahead and built all of these high rises and were
very exited about it because now they had cheap affordable housing for
many.

The big mistake is that they also installed gas lines and gas
appliances into these buildings. About a month after construction of
some of the first buildings all hell broke loose when one of the
residence left their stove running with no flame (told ya so). The
single apartment at the mid section of the building exploded. Because
the place was built like a house of cards there was a domino effect.
Not the whole building fell down on itself but 1/4 of it was missing
in the corner where the apartment had exploded. There was a bunch of
deaths and fatalities.

They made another wrong decision when they decided to simply shrug it
off as an accident as if it couldn't happen again. They couldn't be
more wrong.

Some time later it happened again (natural gas explosion), this time a
lot worse. And I can still see in my head a poor couple who lived to
tell about it when their apartment fell down from the rest of the
building. "My husband jumped on top of me and said I love you and
that the flat (apartment) was falling."

After that they started making some big changes.

Most of the new apartment buildings where torn down deemed as unsafe.
Only one or two of them that weren't built that tall were spared. All
they had to do was put in reinforces or fasteners that held each wall
and floor section together instead of just relying on gravity to do
the job. And of course in the end they ended up removing all gas
appliances and infrastructure and installed all electric's in it's
place.

This was a most unfortunate incident. Two incidents that didn't have
to happen. If it's comforting to anyone, at least we might learn from
these horrific experiences. The company that built the buildings went
belly under and is still in debt till this day.

Eastward Bound
June 25th 03, 06:14 AM
Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote in message >...
> Wade Lippman wrote:
> >>In Rochester, NY, with winter months routinely experiencing long
> >>periods of freezing temperatures, gas lines do not freeze up.
> >
> > True, but houses do blow up there. 40 years ago a whole street blew up. I
> > don't remember what it was; a big surge in pressure or something like that.
>
> Yeah, so? I bet you think that travel by car is safer than travel by
> airplane because when cars crash only a few people (usually) are killed
> yet when planes crash sometimes hundreds are killed.


Bill, back in the mid 90s England was building a bunch of flats
(apartments/condos) that were about 30 floors high 50 max. They were
based off of a type of construction technology that originated from a
northern part of Europe that DID NOT use natural gas. But the most
important thing is that they were so cheap to build and they went up
rapidly with the cranes because they were so simple in construction.

Big mistake. Even though it was a great idea to solve much of
England's housing shortage problems, all of these high rises were
flawed.

They were built like a house of cards because every section of wall
and floor all comes together like a puzzle, and gravity plays a big
role in keeping it all together. (Some of these buildings were spared
when they updated them with reinforces to hold the sections of walls
and floors together)

This works differently then what is common in north America where we
use big columns that are the main support for the building. The outer
shell would be to keep out the elements only and didn't support
themselves.

So The British went ahead and built all of these high rises and were
very exited about it because now they had cheap affordable housing for
many.

The big mistake is that they also installed gas lines and gas
appliances into these buildings. About a month after construction of
some of the first buildings all hell broke loose when one of the
residence left their stove running with no flame (told ya so). The
single apartment at the mid section of the building exploded. Because
the place was built like a house of cards there was a domino effect.
Not the whole building fell down on itself but 1/4 of it was missing
in the corner where the apartment had exploded. There was a bunch of
deaths and fatalities.

They made another wrong decision when they decided to simply shrug it
off as an accident as if it couldn't happen again. They couldn't be
more wrong.

Some time later it happened again (natural gas explosion), this time a
lot worse. And I can still see in my head a poor couple who lived to
tell about it when their apartment fell down from the rest of the
building. "My husband jumped on top of me and said I love you and
that the flat (apartment) was falling."

After that they started making some big changes.

Most of the new apartment buildings where torn down deemed as unsafe.
Only one or two of them that weren't built that tall were spared. All
they had to do was put in reinforces or fasteners that held each wall
and floor section together instead of just relying on gravity to do
the job. And of course in the end they ended up removing all gas
appliances and infrastructure and installed all electric's in it's
place.

This was a most unfortunate incident. Two incidents that didn't have
to happen. If it's comforting to anyone, at least we might learn from
these horrific experiences. The company that built the buildings went
belly under and is still in debt till this day.

Albert Wagner
June 25th 03, 09:07 AM
On 24 Jun 2003 21:14:43 -0700
(Eastward Bound) wrote:
<snip>
> The
> single apartment at the mid section of the building exploded. Because
> the place was built like a house of cards there was a domino effect.
> Not the whole building fell down on itself but 1/4 of it was missing
> in the corner where the apartment had exploded.
<snip>
I saw that on TV. Really peculiar looking; all the apartments on one
corner neatly sheared off.

Albert Wagner
June 25th 03, 09:07 AM
On 24 Jun 2003 21:14:43 -0700
(Eastward Bound) wrote:
<snip>
> The
> single apartment at the mid section of the building exploded. Because
> the place was built like a house of cards there was a domino effect.
> Not the whole building fell down on itself but 1/4 of it was missing
> in the corner where the apartment had exploded.
<snip>
I saw that on TV. Really peculiar looking; all the apartments on one
corner neatly sheared off.

Jonathan Kamens
June 25th 03, 02:20 PM
(Eastward Bound) writes:
>Like what one of the previous posters said, "It's undocumented because
>it's so frequent."

Um, I didn't see anybody say that. In fact, I said exactly
the opposite, i.e., that the reason why it seems like there
are so many gas explosions reported in the media is because
they happen so infrequently that they're a big deal, so every
one of them gets reported.

Jonathan Kamens
June 25th 03, 02:20 PM
(Eastward Bound) writes:
>Like what one of the previous posters said, "It's undocumented because
>it's so frequent."

Um, I didn't see anybody say that. In fact, I said exactly
the opposite, i.e., that the reason why it seems like there
are so many gas explosions reported in the media is because
they happen so infrequently that they're a big deal, so every
one of them gets reported.

Jonathan Kamens
June 25th 03, 02:34 PM
(Eastward Bound) writes:
>Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote in message >...
>> This is an important point. A lot of electricity is generated by
>> burning natural gas.
>Not a lot, most of our electricity is generated by burning coal. Only
>a very small percentage is done by gas.

Wow, every time you post you make yourself look even more
ignorant.

If you visit www.energy.gov and spend a little time digging
around, you'll discover that in 2001, the last year for which
statistics are reported, 23.4% of energy produced in the US
was from coal, 19.8% was from dry natural gas, and 58.2% was
from liquid natural gas.

So both your claim that most of our electricity comes from
coal and your claim that "a very small percentage" comes from
gas are both just flat-out wrong.

Jonathan Kamens
June 25th 03, 02:34 PM
(Eastward Bound) writes:
>Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote in message >...
>> This is an important point. A lot of electricity is generated by
>> burning natural gas.
>Not a lot, most of our electricity is generated by burning coal. Only
>a very small percentage is done by gas.

Wow, every time you post you make yourself look even more
ignorant.

If you visit www.energy.gov and spend a little time digging
around, you'll discover that in 2001, the last year for which
statistics are reported, 23.4% of energy produced in the US
was from coal, 19.8% was from dry natural gas, and 58.2% was
from liquid natural gas.

So both your claim that most of our electricity comes from
coal and your claim that "a very small percentage" comes from
gas are both just flat-out wrong.

Bill Seurer
June 25th 03, 05:13 PM
Eastward Bound wrote:
> Like what one of the previous posters said, "It's undocumented because
> it's so frequent."

You are so full of bull**** that it's funny.

Bill Seurer
June 25th 03, 05:13 PM
Eastward Bound wrote:
> Like what one of the previous posters said, "It's undocumented because
> it's so frequent."

You are so full of bull**** that it's funny.

Tsu Dho Poster
June 25th 03, 05:25 PM
"BrianEWilliams" > wrote in message news:
> We are buying a new construction townhouse. Installing a gas line to
> the laundry area will be $100. A gas dryer cost $53 more than the
> same model in electric. I have seen headlines saying gas prices are
> going up. My question is this. Does anyone have a opinion on how
> long it will take me to save back my extra $153 in upfront costs for
> the gas dryer? Obviously this depends on the relative price of gas
> vs. electricity in the future which no one can predict, but opinions
> are welcome.
>
> Also, are there any maintenance issues with gas vs. electric dryers?
> This is the gas model we are thinking of getting:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/f0wi

Unless we (USA) have a mild Summer *and* a mild Winter, we may see an
explosion in NG prices.

Natural Gas Crisis
by Dale Allen Pfeiffer

© Copyright 2003, From The Wilderness Publications, www.copvcia.com. All
Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web
site for non-profit purposes only.

June 23, 2003, 2000 PDT (FTW) --Forget about terrorists. Don't give another
thought to SARS. The single greatest threat to the U.S. right now comes from
a critical shortage of natural gas. The impending crisis will affect all
consumers directly in the pocket book, and it may well mean that some people
won't survive next winter. The problem is not with wells or pumps. The
problem is that North America is running out and there is no replacement
supply.
[.....]
Rising NG prices have also led to an increase in Nitrogen fertilizer costs,
which use NG as a feedstock. Nitrogen fertilizer is now selling for in
excess of 55% more than it sold for a year ago. Natural Gas accounts for 70
to 80% of the cost of such fertilizers. Southern farmers also face higher
irrigation expenses, as NG is used to run irrigation pumps.
[.....]
It is almost a certainty that there will be a Natural Gas crisis this year,
and you will not have to wait until winter to see it begin. Prices are
already beginning to move upward. By the end of August NG prices will
probably be back in the $8.00-$10.00/MMbtu range, and possibly higher. Such
prices for summer are unheard of, and there is no telling how it will affect
the market, or our electric bills.
[.....]
In the worst case, there would be many stories of people freezing in their
homes. Prices would skyrocket. The chemical and fertilizer industry would be
sent reeling. Overall, industry would slow down drastically and the economy
would suffer. Come the summer of 2004, farmers would go out of business and
the price of food would likely begin to climb. And the task of refilling
storage in 2004 would be even more daunting than it is this year.

http://tinyurl.com/f8d9

Tsu Dho Poster
June 25th 03, 05:25 PM
"BrianEWilliams" > wrote in message news:
> We are buying a new construction townhouse. Installing a gas line to
> the laundry area will be $100. A gas dryer cost $53 more than the
> same model in electric. I have seen headlines saying gas prices are
> going up. My question is this. Does anyone have a opinion on how
> long it will take me to save back my extra $153 in upfront costs for
> the gas dryer? Obviously this depends on the relative price of gas
> vs. electricity in the future which no one can predict, but opinions
> are welcome.
>
> Also, are there any maintenance issues with gas vs. electric dryers?
> This is the gas model we are thinking of getting:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/f0wi

Unless we (USA) have a mild Summer *and* a mild Winter, we may see an
explosion in NG prices.

Natural Gas Crisis
by Dale Allen Pfeiffer

© Copyright 2003, From The Wilderness Publications, www.copvcia.com. All
Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web
site for non-profit purposes only.

June 23, 2003, 2000 PDT (FTW) --Forget about terrorists. Don't give another
thought to SARS. The single greatest threat to the U.S. right now comes from
a critical shortage of natural gas. The impending crisis will affect all
consumers directly in the pocket book, and it may well mean that some people
won't survive next winter. The problem is not with wells or pumps. The
problem is that North America is running out and there is no replacement
supply.
[.....]
Rising NG prices have also led to an increase in Nitrogen fertilizer costs,
which use NG as a feedstock. Nitrogen fertilizer is now selling for in
excess of 55% more than it sold for a year ago. Natural Gas accounts for 70
to 80% of the cost of such fertilizers. Southern farmers also face higher
irrigation expenses, as NG is used to run irrigation pumps.
[.....]
It is almost a certainty that there will be a Natural Gas crisis this year,
and you will not have to wait until winter to see it begin. Prices are
already beginning to move upward. By the end of August NG prices will
probably be back in the $8.00-$10.00/MMbtu range, and possibly higher. Such
prices for summer are unheard of, and there is no telling how it will affect
the market, or our electric bills.
[.....]
In the worst case, there would be many stories of people freezing in their
homes. Prices would skyrocket. The chemical and fertilizer industry would be
sent reeling. Overall, industry would slow down drastically and the economy
would suffer. Come the summer of 2004, farmers would go out of business and
the price of food would likely begin to climb. And the task of refilling
storage in 2004 would be even more daunting than it is this year.

http://tinyurl.com/f8d9

Bill Seurer
June 25th 03, 05:34 PM
[email protected] wrote:
> Search www.cnn.com for 'gas leak house explode'
> found over 5000 hits. Here are 3 examples...

Learn to do a web search properly, your search is meaningless as others
point out.


From the Consumer Product Safety Commmission and National Fire
Protection Association:

<quotes>
Most home fires start in living rooms. Second is bedrooms, third is
kitchens.

The leading cause of fatal home fire is smoking, followed by: arson,
heating equipment, electrical distribution equipment, and then children
playing with fire.

The number one cause in home fire resulting in injury, however, is
cooking equipment.

Cooking is the leading cause of home fires in the U.S. It is also the
leading cause of fire injuries. Cooking fires often result from
unattended cooking and human error, rather than mechanical failure of
stoves or ovens.

Two of every three home heating fires in the U.S. in 1998, and three of
every four related deaths, were attributed to space heating equipment.
</quotes>

So, let's see. Most fires start in the living room and bedroom where
you are extremely unlikely to find any natural gas equipment. The fires
that start in the 3rd most likely place, the kitchen, aren't caused by
equipment failure.

Of the fires caused by heating equipment most of the fires and even more
of the deaths are due to space heaters. I've never seen a space heater
that was run by natural gas, most of them are electric.

Bill Seurer
June 25th 03, 05:34 PM
[email protected] wrote:
> Search www.cnn.com for 'gas leak house explode'
> found over 5000 hits. Here are 3 examples...

Learn to do a web search properly, your search is meaningless as others
point out.


From the Consumer Product Safety Commmission and National Fire
Protection Association:

<quotes>
Most home fires start in living rooms. Second is bedrooms, third is
kitchens.

The leading cause of fatal home fire is smoking, followed by: arson,
heating equipment, electrical distribution equipment, and then children
playing with fire.

The number one cause in home fire resulting in injury, however, is
cooking equipment.

Cooking is the leading cause of home fires in the U.S. It is also the
leading cause of fire injuries. Cooking fires often result from
unattended cooking and human error, rather than mechanical failure of
stoves or ovens.

Two of every three home heating fires in the U.S. in 1998, and three of
every four related deaths, were attributed to space heating equipment.
</quotes>

So, let's see. Most fires start in the living room and bedroom where
you are extremely unlikely to find any natural gas equipment. The fires
that start in the 3rd most likely place, the kitchen, aren't caused by
equipment failure.

Of the fires caused by heating equipment most of the fires and even more
of the deaths are due to space heaters. I've never seen a space heater
that was run by natural gas, most of them are electric.

Lawrence Wasserman
June 25th 03, 05:39 PM
I,m not taking any side on how much of what source produces how much
electricity, just wanted to point out that

23.4% + 19.8% + 58.2% = 101.4%, and where is the % produced by oil and
nuclear?


--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland

Lawrence Wasserman
June 25th 03, 05:39 PM
I,m not taking any side on how much of what source produces how much
electricity, just wanted to point out that

23.4% + 19.8% + 58.2% = 101.4%, and where is the % produced by oil and
nuclear?


--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland

Jonathan Kamens
June 25th 03, 06:06 PM
(Lawrence Wasserman) writes:
>23.4% + 19.8% + 58.2% = 101.4%, and where is the % produced by oil and
>nuclear?

Woops. I thought the table I was quoting from was in percent,
but in fact it's in quadrillion BTU. Not only that but one of
the numbers I gave was wrong, because I read from the wrong
column; doh!

The correct numbers for fossil fules are 23.4 quadrillion BTU
for coal, 19.8 for dry natural gas, 12.4 for oil, and 2.5 for
liquid natural gas, for a total of 58.2 quadrillion BTU. That
means that coal accounts for 40% of total fossil fuel energy
production and natual gas accounts for 38%.

Incidentally, the total of fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable
energy production is 71.7 quadrillion BTU, which means that
fossil fuels account for 81% of all energy produced.

Jonathan Kamens
June 25th 03, 06:06 PM
(Lawrence Wasserman) writes:
>23.4% + 19.8% + 58.2% = 101.4%, and where is the % produced by oil and
>nuclear?

Woops. I thought the table I was quoting from was in percent,
but in fact it's in quadrillion BTU. Not only that but one of
the numbers I gave was wrong, because I read from the wrong
column; doh!

The correct numbers for fossil fules are 23.4 quadrillion BTU
for coal, 19.8 for dry natural gas, 12.4 for oil, and 2.5 for
liquid natural gas, for a total of 58.2 quadrillion BTU. That
means that coal accounts for 40% of total fossil fuel energy
production and natual gas accounts for 38%.

Incidentally, the total of fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable
energy production is 71.7 quadrillion BTU, which means that
fossil fuels account for 81% of all energy produced.

Bill Seurer
June 25th 03, 10:24 PM
Eastward Bound wrote:
> Same thing with commercial airliners.

As I thought, you don't understand how to evaluate personal risk. I bet
you fear tornados more than lightning, too, right?

Bill Seurer
June 25th 03, 10:24 PM
Eastward Bound wrote:
> Same thing with commercial airliners.

As I thought, you don't understand how to evaluate personal risk. I bet
you fear tornados more than lightning, too, right?

Brent Geery
June 25th 03, 10:33 PM
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:02:49 +0000 (UTC),
(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:

> As for large gas leaks, they just don't happen that often, and
> as I said before, I'm fairly certain that more people are
> injured by electricity-related accidents than gas-related
> accidents.

Death caused by electricity (both directly via electrocution, and by
short-circuit induced fire) is at least several magnitudes more a
concern than the dangers involved with natural gas leaks. It's funny
how in the earthquake capitol of the USA, Gas is king, by far.
Propane is more of a concern than natural gas, being heavier than air.

--
BRENT - The Usenet typo king. :)

Fast Times At Ridgemont High Info http://www.FastTimesAtRidgemontHigh.org
Voted #87 - American Film Institute's Top 100 Funniest American Films

Brent Geery
June 25th 03, 10:33 PM
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:02:49 +0000 (UTC),
(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:

> As for large gas leaks, they just don't happen that often, and
> as I said before, I'm fairly certain that more people are
> injured by electricity-related accidents than gas-related
> accidents.

Death caused by electricity (both directly via electrocution, and by
short-circuit induced fire) is at least several magnitudes more a
concern than the dangers involved with natural gas leaks. It's funny
how in the earthquake capitol of the USA, Gas is king, by far.
Propane is more of a concern than natural gas, being heavier than air.

--
BRENT - The Usenet typo king. :)

Fast Times At Ridgemont High Info http://www.FastTimesAtRidgemontHigh.org
Voted #87 - American Film Institute's Top 100 Funniest American Films

Brent Geery
June 25th 03, 10:33 PM
On 23 Jun 2003 23:02:52 -0700, (Eastward
Bound) wrote:

> The Advantage of a house with all electric appliances instead of gas
> is that you don't have to run natural gas lines through the home.

fear-monger much?

--
BRENT - The Usenet typo king. :)

Fast Times At Ridgemont High Info http://www.FastTimesAtRidgemontHigh.org
Voted #87 - American Film Institute's Top 100 Funniest American Films

Brent Geery
June 25th 03, 10:33 PM
On 23 Jun 2003 23:02:52 -0700, (Eastward
Bound) wrote:

> The Advantage of a house with all electric appliances instead of gas
> is that you don't have to run natural gas lines through the home.

fear-monger much?

--
BRENT - The Usenet typo king. :)

Fast Times At Ridgemont High Info http://www.FastTimesAtRidgemontHigh.org
Voted #87 - American Film Institute's Top 100 Funniest American Films

Brent Geery
June 25th 03, 10:33 PM
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:35:20 GMT, (v) wrote:

> (The conversion of the
> elctricity back into heat is highly efficient, pretty nearly 100%.)

Exactly 100%, but that only takes into account the power that actually
makes it to the heating element.

--
BRENT - The Usenet typo king. :)

Fast Times At Ridgemont High Info http://www.FastTimesAtRidgemontHigh.org
Voted #87 - American Film Institute's Top 100 Funniest American Films

Brent Geery
June 25th 03, 10:33 PM
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:35:20 GMT, (v) wrote:

> (The conversion of the
> elctricity back into heat is highly efficient, pretty nearly 100%.)

Exactly 100%, but that only takes into account the power that actually
makes it to the heating element.

--
BRENT - The Usenet typo king. :)

Fast Times At Ridgemont High Info http://www.FastTimesAtRidgemontHigh.org
Voted #87 - American Film Institute's Top 100 Funniest American Films

Chloe
June 25th 03, 10:34 PM
"Eastward Bound" > wrote in message
om...
> > The wrong lesson was learned. The correct lesson is to build high-rise
> > apartments in such a manner that isolated damage will not result in the
> > failure of the entire structure.
>
>
> Oh but the fact remains that Natural gas is risky business. It was,
> is and always will be more dangerous and it will put more at risk when
> things go wrong.
>
> Maybe you would be singing a different tune if your house was
> pulverized from a gas leak?
>
> Or maybe you would see things more clearly if only you could have seen
> those scorched bodies personally so that you can get a whiff of the
> sell of cooked/burned human flesh.
>
> There is no *running away* from a gas explosion. It's all or nothing,
> you either get burned/killed or your survive it as a burn victim.
>
> Same thing with commercial airliners. You either make it to your
> destination, or everyone on board dies. That is the trade off for
> economy and convenience. The trade off is risks and danger. Lots of
> it.
>
> There is no running from a gas explosion. There are no fender-benders
> thousands of feet up in the air.

Relax. You're not going to make it out of here alive anyway.

Since you are obviously a fearful sort of person, I sure hope you don't ever
drive or ride in a car. Checked the stats on that lately?

Chloe
June 25th 03, 10:34 PM
"Eastward Bound" > wrote in message
om...
> > The wrong lesson was learned. The correct lesson is to build high-rise
> > apartments in such a manner that isolated damage will not result in the
> > failure of the entire structure.
>
>
> Oh but the fact remains that Natural gas is risky business. It was,
> is and always will be more dangerous and it will put more at risk when
> things go wrong.
>
> Maybe you would be singing a different tune if your house was
> pulverized from a gas leak?
>
> Or maybe you would see things more clearly if only you could have seen
> those scorched bodies personally so that you can get a whiff of the
> sell of cooked/burned human flesh.
>
> There is no *running away* from a gas explosion. It's all or nothing,
> you either get burned/killed or your survive it as a burn victim.
>
> Same thing with commercial airliners. You either make it to your
> destination, or everyone on board dies. That is the trade off for
> economy and convenience. The trade off is risks and danger. Lots of
> it.
>
> There is no running from a gas explosion. There are no fender-benders
> thousands of feet up in the air.

Relax. You're not going to make it out of here alive anyway.

Since you are obviously a fearful sort of person, I sure hope you don't ever
drive or ride in a car. Checked the stats on that lately?

lpogoda
June 26th 03, 03:32 AM
Bill Seurer wrote in message >...
>
>Of the fires caused by heating equipment most of the fires and even more
>of the deaths are due to space heaters. I've never seen a space heater
>that was run by natural gas, most of them are electric.


Where I grew up, in western New England, gas space heaters were (and are)
quite common. A lot of the housing stock was built before central heating
was the norm, so places had no ductwork. Putting in a gas line was a
relatively cheap retrofit - the line would feed a "gas and gas" stove (gas
cooking and gas space heating) in the kitchen, probably a gas hot water
heater also in a corner of the kitchen, and a gas space heater in the living
room.

The kitchen stove space heater wouldn't have a fan to distribute the heat,
but the living room space heater usually did. If you wanted heat in the
bedrooms, you left the bedroom doors open so that warm(er) air could drift
in from one of the heated rooms. The heaters were thermostatically
controlled but you couldn't set a temperature - settings were marked Off, 1,
2, 3...,9, Max. The spiffier models had a glass panel in front so you could
see the fire. While visually somewhat obtrusive, they're pretty cosy.

lpogoda
June 26th 03, 03:32 AM
Bill Seurer wrote in message >...
>
>Of the fires caused by heating equipment most of the fires and even more
>of the deaths are due to space heaters. I've never seen a space heater
>that was run by natural gas, most of them are electric.


Where I grew up, in western New England, gas space heaters were (and are)
quite common. A lot of the housing stock was built before central heating
was the norm, so places had no ductwork. Putting in a gas line was a
relatively cheap retrofit - the line would feed a "gas and gas" stove (gas
cooking and gas space heating) in the kitchen, probably a gas hot water
heater also in a corner of the kitchen, and a gas space heater in the living
room.

The kitchen stove space heater wouldn't have a fan to distribute the heat,
but the living room space heater usually did. If you wanted heat in the
bedrooms, you left the bedroom doors open so that warm(er) air could drift
in from one of the heated rooms. The heaters were thermostatically
controlled but you couldn't set a temperature - settings were marked Off, 1,
2, 3...,9, Max. The spiffier models had a glass panel in front so you could
see the fire. While visually somewhat obtrusive, they're pretty cosy.

lpogoda
June 26th 03, 03:36 AM
Albert Wagner wrote in message
>...
>On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:34:12 -0500
>Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote:
><snip>
>> Of the fires caused by heating equipment most of the fires and even
>> more of the deaths are due to space heaters. I've never seen a space
>> heater that was run by natural gas, most of them are electric.
>
>When I was growing up each room in a house had a valve in the wall for
>natural gas space heaters. This was before central or wall heaters
>became common. I imagine that many of the old houses still have such
>valves and many probably still use natural gas space heaters. I have no
>doubt that the causes of fire due to electrical problems, which you
>point out, are true. But as a previous poster pointed out: there is no
>such thing as an all gas house; Even gas appliances require electricity;
>So that even with gas appliances you have the same risk of fire due to
>electrical problems; when you add gas appliances to the mix, you add
>additional sources of fire on top of electrical sources.

I've had two gas stoves (both in rented apartments) and an aunt had one for
her whole adult life, that had no need of electricity. You lit the burners
and the oven with a pilot light, or a match. No oven light bulb, no clock
on the stove, nothing electrical at all. Not all gas appliances require
electricity. Or at least, not all gas appliances always did.

lpogoda
June 26th 03, 03:36 AM
Albert Wagner wrote in message
>...
>On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:34:12 -0500
>Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote:
><snip>
>> Of the fires caused by heating equipment most of the fires and even
>> more of the deaths are due to space heaters. I've never seen a space
>> heater that was run by natural gas, most of them are electric.
>
>When I was growing up each room in a house had a valve in the wall for
>natural gas space heaters. This was before central or wall heaters
>became common. I imagine that many of the old houses still have such
>valves and many probably still use natural gas space heaters. I have no
>doubt that the causes of fire due to electrical problems, which you
>point out, are true. But as a previous poster pointed out: there is no
>such thing as an all gas house; Even gas appliances require electricity;
>So that even with gas appliances you have the same risk of fire due to
>electrical problems; when you add gas appliances to the mix, you add
>additional sources of fire on top of electrical sources.

I've had two gas stoves (both in rented apartments) and an aunt had one for
her whole adult life, that had no need of electricity. You lit the burners
and the oven with a pilot light, or a match. No oven light bulb, no clock
on the stove, nothing electrical at all. Not all gas appliances require
electricity. Or at least, not all gas appliances always did.

lpogoda
June 26th 03, 03:49 AM
Jonathan Kamens wrote in message ...
(Eastward Bound) writes:
>>Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote in message
>...
>>> This is an important point. A lot of electricity is generated by
>>> burning natural gas.
>>Not a lot, most of our electricity is generated by burning coal. Only
>>a very small percentage is done by gas.
>
>Wow, every time you post you make yourself look even more
>ignorant.
>
>If you visit www.energy.gov and spend a little time digging
>around, you'll discover that in 2001, the last year for which
>statistics are reported, 23.4% of energy produced in the US
>was from coal, 19.8% was from dry natural gas, and 58.2% was
>from liquid natural gas.

Gee, that adds up to 101.4%, and that's before you add in the contributions
made by hydroelectric (about 6%) or nuclear (around 20%). The US Department
of Energy says coal generates "slightly over half of our electricity". Talk
about ignorant.

lpogoda
June 26th 03, 03:49 AM
Jonathan Kamens wrote in message ...
(Eastward Bound) writes:
>>Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote in message
>...
>>> This is an important point. A lot of electricity is generated by
>>> burning natural gas.
>>Not a lot, most of our electricity is generated by burning coal. Only
>>a very small percentage is done by gas.
>
>Wow, every time you post you make yourself look even more
>ignorant.
>
>If you visit www.energy.gov and spend a little time digging
>around, you'll discover that in 2001, the last year for which
>statistics are reported, 23.4% of energy produced in the US
>was from coal, 19.8% was from dry natural gas, and 58.2% was
>from liquid natural gas.

Gee, that adds up to 101.4%, and that's before you add in the contributions
made by hydroelectric (about 6%) or nuclear (around 20%). The US Department
of Energy says coal generates "slightly over half of our electricity". Talk
about ignorant.

SoCalMike
June 26th 03, 03:51 AM
>
> Same thing with commercial airliners. You either make it to your
> destination, or everyone on board dies.

*coff*(bull****) *coff*

SoCalMike
June 26th 03, 03:51 AM
>
> Same thing with commercial airliners. You either make it to your
> destination, or everyone on board dies.

*coff*(bull****) *coff*

Eastward Bound
June 26th 03, 06:48 AM
Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote in message >...
> Eastward Bound wrote:
> > Like what one of the previous posters said, "It's undocumented because
> > it's so frequent."
>
> You are so full of bull**** that it's funny.


Oh so now little Billy has resorted to name calling.

Fact of life kid: if you are going to act like a child then you are
going to be treated like a child.

Eastward Bound
June 26th 03, 06:48 AM
Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote in message >...
> Eastward Bound wrote:
> > Like what one of the previous posters said, "It's undocumented because
> > it's so frequent."
>
> You are so full of bull**** that it's funny.


Oh so now little Billy has resorted to name calling.

Fact of life kid: if you are going to act like a child then you are
going to be treated like a child.

Eastward Bound
June 26th 03, 06:58 AM
Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote in message >...

Oh Billy boooooyyyyyyyyyyyy...

http://www.angelfire.com/ri2/fires/images/exp2.jpg

See what happened to your house that you were still struggling to pay
the rent for?

Too bad you were using Gas Appliances. So sad Billy boy so sad. If
only you were listening, this unfortunate event could have been
avoided.

What a waste, this didn't have to happen.

Too bad Billy boy, much too bad...

Eastward Bound
June 26th 03, 06:58 AM
Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote in message >...

Oh Billy boooooyyyyyyyyyyyy...

http://www.angelfire.com/ri2/fires/images/exp2.jpg

See what happened to your house that you were still struggling to pay
the rent for?

Too bad you were using Gas Appliances. So sad Billy boy so sad. If
only you were listening, this unfortunate event could have been
avoided.

What a waste, this didn't have to happen.

Too bad Billy boy, much too bad...

Bill Seurer
June 26th 03, 04:49 PM
Chloe wrote:
> "Eastward Bound" > wrote in message
> om...
>>There is no running from a gas explosion. There are no fender-benders
>>thousands of feet up in the air.
>
> Since you are obviously a fearful sort of person, I sure hope you don't ever
> drive or ride in a car. Checked the stats on that lately?

I wonder if EB realizes that gasoline is much more explosive than
natural gas? Poor guy won't want to go anywhere any more with all those
bombs driving around out there just waiting to blow up!

Bill Seurer
June 26th 03, 04:49 PM
Chloe wrote:
> "Eastward Bound" > wrote in message
> om...
>>There is no running from a gas explosion. There are no fender-benders
>>thousands of feet up in the air.
>
> Since you are obviously a fearful sort of person, I sure hope you don't ever
> drive or ride in a car. Checked the stats on that lately?

I wonder if EB realizes that gasoline is much more explosive than
natural gas? Poor guy won't want to go anywhere any more with all those
bombs driving around out there just waiting to blow up!

Albert Wagner
June 26th 03, 05:38 PM
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:25:43 -0500
Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote:
<snip>
> The destruction from any sort of fire is memorable too. I saw a grain
>
> elevator explode once. The fireball shot hundreds of feet up into the
>
> air and completely destroyed the huge building. That doesn't stop me
> from eating cereal and pasta, though.

But I bet you think twice before building next to a grain elevator.

Albert Wagner
June 26th 03, 05:38 PM
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:25:43 -0500
Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote:
<snip>
> The destruction from any sort of fire is memorable too. I saw a grain
>
> elevator explode once. The fireball shot hundreds of feet up into the
>
> air and completely destroyed the huge building. That doesn't stop me
> from eating cereal and pasta, though.

But I bet you think twice before building next to a grain elevator.

June 26th 03, 06:15 PM
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:49:39 -0500, Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net>
wrote:

>Chloe wrote:
>> "Eastward Bound" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>>There is no running from a gas explosion. There are no fender-benders
>>>thousands of feet up in the air.
>>
>> Since you are obviously a fearful sort of person, I sure hope you don't ever
>> drive or ride in a car. Checked the stats on that lately?
>
>I wonder if EB realizes that gasoline is much more explosive than
>natural gas? Poor guy won't want to go anywhere any more with all those
>bombs driving around out there just waiting to blow up!

No kidding. I bet he mows his one-acre yard with a B&D electric
mower, too. Or perhaps even a push reel one!

June 26th 03, 06:15 PM
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:49:39 -0500, Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net>
wrote:

>Chloe wrote:
>> "Eastward Bound" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>>There is no running from a gas explosion. There are no fender-benders
>>>thousands of feet up in the air.
>>
>> Since you are obviously a fearful sort of person, I sure hope you don't ever
>> drive or ride in a car. Checked the stats on that lately?
>
>I wonder if EB realizes that gasoline is much more explosive than
>natural gas? Poor guy won't want to go anywhere any more with all those
>bombs driving around out there just waiting to blow up!

No kidding. I bet he mows his one-acre yard with a B&D electric
mower, too. Or perhaps even a push reel one!

Bill Seurer
June 26th 03, 06:25 PM
Chloe wrote:
> With all due respect, EB writes like someone who has suffered a personal
> loss due to a home gas explosion.

Personal loss is no excuse for fear mongering and outright lies.

> I know of two that have happened in areas
> near where I live over the last 8 or 10 years or so. The destruction, when
> viewed, is memorable.

The destruction from any sort of fire is memorable too. I saw a grain
elevator explode once. The fireball shot hundreds of feet up into the
air and completely destroyed the huge building. That doesn't stop me
from eating cereal and pasta, though.

Bill Seurer
June 26th 03, 06:25 PM
Chloe wrote:
> With all due respect, EB writes like someone who has suffered a personal
> loss due to a home gas explosion.

Personal loss is no excuse for fear mongering and outright lies.

> I know of two that have happened in areas
> near where I live over the last 8 or 10 years or so. The destruction, when
> viewed, is memorable.

The destruction from any sort of fire is memorable too. I saw a grain
elevator explode once. The fireball shot hundreds of feet up into the
air and completely destroyed the huge building. That doesn't stop me
from eating cereal and pasta, though.

TCS
June 26th 03, 06:42 PM
<html><input type crash></html>
begin
On 25 Jun 2003 13:17:50 -0700, Eastward Bound > wrote:
>> The wrong lesson was learned. The correct lesson is to build high-rise
>> apartments in such a manner that isolated damage will not result in the
>> failure of the entire structure.
>
>
> Oh but the fact remains that Natural gas is risky business. It was,
> is and always will be more dangerous and it will put more at risk when
> things go wrong.

so is living

>
> Maybe you would be singing a different tune if your house was
> pulverized from a gas leak?
>
> Or maybe you would see things more clearly if only you could have seen
> those scorched bodies personally so that you can get a whiff of the
....insane rant snipped
>
> There is no running from a gas explosion. There are no fender-benders
> thousands of feet up in the air.

You use electric heat and an electric car? If you use a lawn mower, it's
electric too, right?
Do you ever enter residences using gas?

They have drugs nowadays that can help you.

TCS
June 26th 03, 06:42 PM
<html><input type crash></html>
begin
On 25 Jun 2003 13:17:50 -0700, Eastward Bound > wrote:
>> The wrong lesson was learned. The correct lesson is to build high-rise
>> apartments in such a manner that isolated damage will not result in the
>> failure of the entire structure.
>
>
> Oh but the fact remains that Natural gas is risky business. It was,
> is and always will be more dangerous and it will put more at risk when
> things go wrong.

so is living

>
> Maybe you would be singing a different tune if your house was
> pulverized from a gas leak?
>
> Or maybe you would see things more clearly if only you could have seen
> those scorched bodies personally so that you can get a whiff of the
....insane rant snipped
>
> There is no running from a gas explosion. There are no fender-benders
> thousands of feet up in the air.

You use electric heat and an electric car? If you use a lawn mower, it's
electric too, right?
Do you ever enter residences using gas?

They have drugs nowadays that can help you.

Albert Wagner
June 27th 03, 09:50 AM
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:11:00 +0000 (UTC)
(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:

> Tim > writes:
> >Gas prices always rise during heating season, while electrical is
> >regulated by the government.
>
> Be careful about generalized statements like this; this
> particular one is not universally true. In Massachusetts, for
> example, both electricity and natural gas rates are regulated
> by the government, in the sense that the utilities need to get
> permission from the regulatory authorities before raising
> rates, but the authorities rarely reject a rate increase when
> it is legitimately due to increased fossil-fuel costs.

I think that regulation enters into the picture when the gas crosses
state lines. Not suprisingly, gas is typically more expensive in gas
producing states.

Albert Wagner
June 27th 03, 09:50 AM
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:11:00 +0000 (UTC)
(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:

> Tim > writes:
> >Gas prices always rise during heating season, while electrical is
> >regulated by the government.
>
> Be careful about generalized statements like this; this
> particular one is not universally true. In Massachusetts, for
> example, both electricity and natural gas rates are regulated
> by the government, in the sense that the utilities need to get
> permission from the regulatory authorities before raising
> rates, but the authorities rarely reject a rate increase when
> it is legitimately due to increased fossil-fuel costs.

I think that regulation enters into the picture when the gas crosses
state lines. Not suprisingly, gas is typically more expensive in gas
producing states.

Albert Wagner
June 27th 03, 11:30 AM
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:58:34 +0000 (UTC)
(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
<snip>
> >I think that regulation enters into the picture when the gas crosses
> >state lines.
>
> Why do you say that? Most regulation of utility pricing is
> at the state level, not the Federal level. State regulatory
> authorities don't care whether the gas/electricity cross
> state lines.

Google on FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) for articles like
this:


"Recent analyses of the natural gas market, 1 including those of the
Department of Energy (DOE), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC), 2 and the State of Louisiana, 3 conclude that there is a serious
problem of regional gas supply imbalance in which most intrastate
pipelines are at a disadvantage in competing with most interstate
pipelines for new gas supplies. In addition to this supply imbalance,
there is a related problem of price disparity. Most intrastate pipelines
must pay prices for old gas supplies substantially higher than the
prices interstate pipelines must pay for such supplies. Analysts predict
that the twin problems of supply imbalance and price disparity between
the interstate and intrastate markets will grow worse over the next five
to ten years unless Congress passes legislation to avoid this result.
Louisiana is particularly disadvantaged by the present situation because
of its heavy reliance on intrastate suppliers of natural gas."

http://www.dnr.state.la.us/SEC/EXECDIV/TECHASMT/lep/legal/001.htm

Albert Wagner
June 27th 03, 11:30 AM
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:58:34 +0000 (UTC)
(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
<snip>
> >I think that regulation enters into the picture when the gas crosses
> >state lines.
>
> Why do you say that? Most regulation of utility pricing is
> at the state level, not the Federal level. State regulatory
> authorities don't care whether the gas/electricity cross
> state lines.

Google on FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) for articles like
this:


"Recent analyses of the natural gas market, 1 including those of the
Department of Energy (DOE), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC), 2 and the State of Louisiana, 3 conclude that there is a serious
problem of regional gas supply imbalance in which most intrastate
pipelines are at a disadvantage in competing with most interstate
pipelines for new gas supplies. In addition to this supply imbalance,
there is a related problem of price disparity. Most intrastate pipelines
must pay prices for old gas supplies substantially higher than the
prices interstate pipelines must pay for such supplies. Analysts predict
that the twin problems of supply imbalance and price disparity between
the interstate and intrastate markets will grow worse over the next five
to ten years unless Congress passes legislation to avoid this result.
Louisiana is particularly disadvantaged by the present situation because
of its heavy reliance on intrastate suppliers of natural gas."

http://www.dnr.state.la.us/SEC/EXECDIV/TECHASMT/lep/legal/001.htm

Tim
June 27th 03, 12:37 PM
Gas prices always rise during heating season, while electrical is
regulated by the government. But i would still go with gas because it is
just better for drying clothes, IMHO.

BrianEWilliams wrote:

> We are buying a new construction townhouse. Installing a gas line to
> the laundry area will be $100. A gas dryer cost $53 more than the
> same model in electric. I have seen headlines saying gas prices are
> going up. My question is this. Does anyone have a opinion on how
> long it will take me to save back my extra $153 in upfront costs for
> the gas dryer? Obviously this depends on the relative price of gas
> vs. electricity in the future which no one can predict, but opinions
> are welcome.
>
> Also, are there any maintenance issues with gas vs. electric dryers?
> This is the gas model we are thinking of getting:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/f0wi

Tim
June 27th 03, 12:37 PM
Gas prices always rise during heating season, while electrical is
regulated by the government. But i would still go with gas because it is
just better for drying clothes, IMHO.

BrianEWilliams wrote:

> We are buying a new construction townhouse. Installing a gas line to
> the laundry area will be $100. A gas dryer cost $53 more than the
> same model in electric. I have seen headlines saying gas prices are
> going up. My question is this. Does anyone have a opinion on how
> long it will take me to save back my extra $153 in upfront costs for
> the gas dryer? Obviously this depends on the relative price of gas
> vs. electricity in the future which no one can predict, but opinions
> are welcome.
>
> Also, are there any maintenance issues with gas vs. electric dryers?
> This is the gas model we are thinking of getting:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/f0wi

Jonathan Kamens
June 27th 03, 02:11 PM
Tim > writes:
>Gas prices always rise during heating season, while electrical is
>regulated by the government.

Be careful about generalized statements like this; this
particular one is not universally true. In Massachusetts, for
example, both electricity and natural gas rates are regulated
by the government, in the sense that the utilities need to get
permission from the regulatory authorities before raising
rates, but the authorities rarely reject a rate increase when
it is legitimately due to increased fossil-fuel costs.

Jonathan Kamens
June 27th 03, 02:11 PM
Tim > writes:
>Gas prices always rise during heating season, while electrical is
>regulated by the government.

Be careful about generalized statements like this; this
particular one is not universally true. In Massachusetts, for
example, both electricity and natural gas rates are regulated
by the government, in the sense that the utilities need to get
permission from the regulatory authorities before raising
rates, but the authorities rarely reject a rate increase when
it is legitimately due to increased fossil-fuel costs.

Jonathan Kamens
June 27th 03, 03:58 PM
Albert Wagner > writes:
>On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:11:00 +0000 (UTC)
(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
>> Be careful about generalized statements like this; this
>> particular one is not universally true. In Massachusetts, for
>> example, both electricity and natural gas rates are regulated
>> by the government, in the sense that the utilities need to get
>> permission from the regulatory authorities before raising
>> rates, but the authorities rarely reject a rate increase when
>> it is legitimately due to increased fossil-fuel costs.
>
>I think that regulation enters into the picture when the gas crosses
>state lines.

Why do you say that? Most regulation of utility pricing is
at the state level, not the Federal level. State regulatory
authorities don't care whether the gas/electricity cross
state lines.

Jonathan Kamens
June 27th 03, 03:58 PM
Albert Wagner > writes:
>On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:11:00 +0000 (UTC)
(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
>> Be careful about generalized statements like this; this
>> particular one is not universally true. In Massachusetts, for
>> example, both electricity and natural gas rates are regulated
>> by the government, in the sense that the utilities need to get
>> permission from the regulatory authorities before raising
>> rates, but the authorities rarely reject a rate increase when
>> it is legitimately due to increased fossil-fuel costs.
>
>I think that regulation enters into the picture when the gas crosses
>state lines.

Why do you say that? Most regulation of utility pricing is
at the state level, not the Federal level. State regulatory
authorities don't care whether the gas/electricity cross
state lines.

v
June 27th 03, 07:05 PM
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 04:30:18 -0500, someone wrote:


>"Recent analyses of the natural gas market, 1 including those of the
>Department of Energy (DOE), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
>(FERC), 2 and the State of Louisiana, 3 conclude that there is a serious
>problem of regional gas supply imbalance in which most intrastate
>pipelines are at a disadvantage in competing with most interstate
>pipelines for new gas supplies. In addition to this supply imbalance,
>there is a related problem of price disparity. Most intrastate pipelines
>must pay prices for old gas supplies substantially higher than the
>prices interstate pipelines must pay for such supplies. Analysts predict
>that the twin problems of supply imbalance and price disparity between
>the interstate and intrastate markets will grow worse over the next five
>to ten years unless Congress passes legislation to avoid this result.
>Louisiana is particularly disadvantaged by the present situation because
>of its heavy reliance on intrastate suppliers of natural gas."
>
Read it, carefully. Looks like this:

1) There is an price disparity.

2) There is *not* a regulation to stop this, the author is saying that
a regulation is needed to prevent this.

3) It is not clear from the above excerpt alone, that the *reason* for
the disparity is a present reg, rather than old contracts.

Sure, there is an FERC, and it has many roles, and some of its roles
have changed over the years, particularly as to now reduced regulation
of natural gas. Its not my field. Maybe you have info, but tell us
more. The above quote only tells us there is a disparity in price and
that some pipelines are at a competitive disadvantage. But why?

-v.

v
June 27th 03, 07:05 PM
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 04:30:18 -0500, someone wrote:


>"Recent analyses of the natural gas market, 1 including those of the
>Department of Energy (DOE), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
>(FERC), 2 and the State of Louisiana, 3 conclude that there is a serious
>problem of regional gas supply imbalance in which most intrastate
>pipelines are at a disadvantage in competing with most interstate
>pipelines for new gas supplies. In addition to this supply imbalance,
>there is a related problem of price disparity. Most intrastate pipelines
>must pay prices for old gas supplies substantially higher than the
>prices interstate pipelines must pay for such supplies. Analysts predict
>that the twin problems of supply imbalance and price disparity between
>the interstate and intrastate markets will grow worse over the next five
>to ten years unless Congress passes legislation to avoid this result.
>Louisiana is particularly disadvantaged by the present situation because
>of its heavy reliance on intrastate suppliers of natural gas."
>
Read it, carefully. Looks like this:

1) There is an price disparity.

2) There is *not* a regulation to stop this, the author is saying that
a regulation is needed to prevent this.

3) It is not clear from the above excerpt alone, that the *reason* for
the disparity is a present reg, rather than old contracts.

Sure, there is an FERC, and it has many roles, and some of its roles
have changed over the years, particularly as to now reduced regulation
of natural gas. Its not my field. Maybe you have info, but tell us
more. The above quote only tells us there is a disparity in price and
that some pipelines are at a competitive disadvantage. But why?

-v.

June 28th 03, 03:18 AM
Natar gas rate in my area have skyrocketed in in GA where I live since
deregulation . Electric rates still a regulated . I am pretty sure
that owning a gas clothes dryer in GA is no longer a cost savings
with respect ot energy cost .

On 23 Jun 2003 07:15:25 -0700,
(BrianEWilliams) wrote:

>We are buying a new construction townhouse. Installing a gas line to
>the laundry area will be $100. A gas dryer cost $53 more than the
>same model in electric. I have seen headlines saying gas prices are
>going up. My question is this. Does anyone have a opinion on how
>long it will take me to save back my extra $153 in upfront costs for
>the gas dryer? Obviously this depends on the relative price of gas
>vs. electricity in the future which no one can predict, but opinions
>are welcome.
>
>Also, are there any maintenance issues with gas vs. electric dryers?
>This is the gas model we are thinking of getting:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/f0wi

June 28th 03, 03:18 AM
Natar gas rate in my area have skyrocketed in in GA where I live since
deregulation . Electric rates still a regulated . I am pretty sure
that owning a gas clothes dryer in GA is no longer a cost savings
with respect ot energy cost .

On 23 Jun 2003 07:15:25 -0700,
(BrianEWilliams) wrote:

>We are buying a new construction townhouse. Installing a gas line to
>the laundry area will be $100. A gas dryer cost $53 more than the
>same model in electric. I have seen headlines saying gas prices are
>going up. My question is this. Does anyone have a opinion on how
>long it will take me to save back my extra $153 in upfront costs for
>the gas dryer? Obviously this depends on the relative price of gas
>vs. electricity in the future which no one can predict, but opinions
>are welcome.
>
>Also, are there any maintenance issues with gas vs. electric dryers?
>This is the gas model we are thinking of getting:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/f0wi

Eastward Bound
June 28th 03, 07:29 AM
Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
> On 24 Jun 2003 21:14:43 -0700
> (Eastward Bound) wrote:
> <snip>
> > The
> > single apartment at the mid section of the building exploded. Because
> > the place was built like a house of cards there was a domino effect.
> > Not the whole building fell down on itself but 1/4 of it was missing
> > in the corner where the apartment had exploded.
> <snip>
> I saw that on TV. Really peculiar looking; all the apartments on one
> corner neatly sheared off.


This only goes to show just how dangerous Gas used in the home can be.


EastBound-

Eastward Bound
June 28th 03, 07:29 AM
Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
> On 24 Jun 2003 21:14:43 -0700
> (Eastward Bound) wrote:
> <snip>
> > The
> > single apartment at the mid section of the building exploded. Because
> > the place was built like a house of cards there was a domino effect.
> > Not the whole building fell down on itself but 1/4 of it was missing
> > in the corner where the apartment had exploded.
> <snip>
> I saw that on TV. Really peculiar looking; all the apartments on one
> corner neatly sheared off.


This only goes to show just how dangerous Gas used in the home can be.


EastBound-

Albert Wagner
June 30th 03, 09:59 PM
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 01:41:25 GMT
Jeff Cochran > wrote:
<snip>
> ...that's over
> four tons. Even as dead weight, that's a fair load, not to mention
> movement. Nobody would think of parking two compact cars on that
> porch and expect it to stand up.

children would

Albert Wagner
June 30th 03, 09:59 PM
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 01:41:25 GMT
Jeff Cochran > wrote:
<snip>
> ...that's over
> four tons. Even as dead weight, that's a fair load, not to mention
> movement. Nobody would think of parking two compact cars on that
> porch and expect it to stand up.

children would

JazzMan
July 1st 03, 03:21 AM
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationReply-To: [email protected]_info
Abuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library1-aux.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:17:51 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ![-\P1k-XGL=hb`1,C^P1G'XJ (Encoded at Airnews!)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; U)

Jim Kent wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:23:20 +0000 (UTC),
> (Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
>
> >porches are unsafe and anyone with common sense wouldn't have
> >one
>
> The real problem with porches is that people just drive them too damn
> fast!


Remember, never, ever let off the throttle when driving
your porche around the corner. Trailing throttle oversteer
is not to be triffled with. :)

JazzMan
--
***************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
***************************************

JazzMan
July 1st 03, 03:21 AM
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationReply-To: [email protected]_info
Abuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library1-aux.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:17:51 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ![-\P1k-XGL=hb`1,C^P1G'XJ (Encoded at Airnews!)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; U)

Jim Kent wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:23:20 +0000 (UTC),
> (Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
>
> >porches are unsafe and anyone with common sense wouldn't have
> >one
>
> The real problem with porches is that people just drive them too damn
> fast!


Remember, never, ever let off the throttle when driving
your porche around the corner. Trailing throttle oversteer
is not to be triffled with. :)

JazzMan
--
***************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
***************************************

Jeff Cochran
July 1st 03, 03:41 AM
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:23:20 +0000 (UTC),
(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:

>Have you heard about all these cases of people being killed
>when house porches collapse? The recent incident in Chicago,
>in which 12 people were killed, is just the most recent
>example in a long string of porch accidents. Obviously,
>porches are unsafe and anyone with common sense wouldn't have
>one in his house!

Facetious, but a ring of truth in some cases. My question is how at
least 69 people (12 dead, 57 injured) fit on the porch in question.
Assuming an average 120 pounds (probably low) per person, that's over
four tons. Even as dead weight, that's a fair load, not to mention
movement. Nobody would think of parking two compact cars on that
porch and expect it to stand up.

Jeff

Jeff Cochran
July 1st 03, 03:41 AM
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:23:20 +0000 (UTC),
(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:

>Have you heard about all these cases of people being killed
>when house porches collapse? The recent incident in Chicago,
>in which 12 people were killed, is just the most recent
>example in a long string of porch accidents. Obviously,
>porches are unsafe and anyone with common sense wouldn't have
>one in his house!

Facetious, but a ring of truth in some cases. My question is how at
least 69 people (12 dead, 57 injured) fit on the porch in question.
Assuming an average 120 pounds (probably low) per person, that's over
four tons. Even as dead weight, that's a fair load, not to mention
movement. Nobody would think of parking two compact cars on that
porch and expect it to stand up.

Jeff

Jonathan Kamens
July 1st 03, 03:56 AM
Jeff Cochran > writes:
>Facetious, but a ring of truth in some cases. My question is how at
>least 69 people (12 dead, 57 injured) fit on the porch in question.

The porch which collapsed was on the third floor, and there were
porches on the two floors beneath it with people on them. My
understanding is that most of the people who died were people on the
lower porches who were crushed by the porches collapsing from above.

Jonathan Kamens
July 1st 03, 03:56 AM
Jeff Cochran > writes:
>Facetious, but a ring of truth in some cases. My question is how at
>least 69 people (12 dead, 57 injured) fit on the porch in question.

The porch which collapsed was on the third floor, and there were
porches on the two floors beneath it with people on them. My
understanding is that most of the people who died were people on the
lower porches who were crushed by the porches collapsing from above.

Bob Ward
July 1st 03, 04:42 AM
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 01:41:25 GMT, Jeff Cochran >
wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:23:20 +0000 (UTC),
>(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
>
>>Have you heard about all these cases of people being killed
>>when house porches collapse? The recent incident in Chicago,
>>in which 12 people were killed, is just the most recent
>>example in a long string of porch accidents. Obviously,
>>porches are unsafe and anyone with common sense wouldn't have
>>one in his house!
>
>Facetious, but a ring of truth in some cases. My question is how at
>least 69 people (12 dead, 57 injured) fit on the porch in question.
>Assuming an average 120 pounds (probably low) per person, that's over
>four tons. Even as dead weight, that's a fair load, not to mention
>movement. Nobody would think of parking two compact cars on that
>porch and expect it to stand up.
>
>Jeff


Actually, you can reduce your theoretical load by a bit -
http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID=76228&SecID=2
Chicago -- Officials in Chicago say it appears most of the people who
died in a fatal porch collapse were crushed on porches below.

A dozen people were killed in the early morning collapse and as many
as 45 others hurt, some critically.

Police say as many as 50 people may have been packed onto the wooden
third-floor porch in the city's affluent Lincoln Park neighborhood,
which is usually packed with young people on weekend nights.

Officials say there may also have been beer kegs on the porch.

One woman who was in the apartment's kitchen at the time says the
party-goers were mostly friends in their early 20s. She says "the
floor just dropped out from underneath them.''

Bob Ward
July 1st 03, 04:42 AM
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 01:41:25 GMT, Jeff Cochran >
wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:23:20 +0000 (UTC),
>(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
>
>>Have you heard about all these cases of people being killed
>>when house porches collapse? The recent incident in Chicago,
>>in which 12 people were killed, is just the most recent
>>example in a long string of porch accidents. Obviously,
>>porches are unsafe and anyone with common sense wouldn't have
>>one in his house!
>
>Facetious, but a ring of truth in some cases. My question is how at
>least 69 people (12 dead, 57 injured) fit on the porch in question.
>Assuming an average 120 pounds (probably low) per person, that's over
>four tons. Even as dead weight, that's a fair load, not to mention
>movement. Nobody would think of parking two compact cars on that
>porch and expect it to stand up.
>
>Jeff


Actually, you can reduce your theoretical load by a bit -
http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID=76228&SecID=2
Chicago -- Officials in Chicago say it appears most of the people who
died in a fatal porch collapse were crushed on porches below.

A dozen people were killed in the early morning collapse and as many
as 45 others hurt, some critically.

Police say as many as 50 people may have been packed onto the wooden
third-floor porch in the city's affluent Lincoln Park neighborhood,
which is usually packed with young people on weekend nights.

Officials say there may also have been beer kegs on the porch.

One woman who was in the apartment's kitchen at the time says the
party-goers were mostly friends in their early 20s. She says "the
floor just dropped out from underneath them.''

monday, june 30, 2003
July 1st 03, 07:32 AM
Bob Ward wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 01:41:25 GMT, Jeff Cochran
> wrote:
>
>
> >On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:23:20 +0000 (UTC),
> >(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Have you heard about all these cases of people being killed
> >>when house porches collapse? The recent incident in Chicago,
> >>in which 12 people were killed, is just the most recent
> >>example in a long string of porch accidents. Obviously,
> >>porches are unsafe and anyone with common sense wouldn't have
> >>one in his house!
> >
> >Facetious, but a ring of truth in some cases. My question is how at
> >least 69 people (12 dead, 57 injured) fit on the porch in question.
> >Assuming an average 120 pounds (probably low) per person, that's over
> >four tons. Even as dead weight, that's a fair load, not to mention
> >movement. Nobody would think of parking two compact cars on that
> >porch and expect it to stand up.
> >
> >Jeff
>
>
>
> Actually, you can reduce your theoretical load by a bit -
> http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID=76228&SecID=2
> Chicago -- Officials in Chicago say it appears most of the people who
> died in a fatal porch collapse were crushed on porches below.
>
> A dozen people were killed in the early morning collapse and as many
> as 45 others hurt, some critically.
>
> Police say as many as 50 people may have been packed onto the wooden
> third-floor porch in the city's affluent Lincoln Park neighborhood,
> which is usually packed with young people on weekend nights.
>
> Officials say there may also have been beer kegs on the porch.
>
> One woman who was in the apartment's kitchen at the time says the
> party-goers were mostly friends in their early 20s. She says "the
> floor just dropped out from underneath them.''
>
>
The spamnographers summer job is repairing porches

monday, june 30, 2003
July 1st 03, 07:32 AM
Bob Ward wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 01:41:25 GMT, Jeff Cochran
> wrote:
>
>
> >On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:23:20 +0000 (UTC),
> >(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Have you heard about all these cases of people being killed
> >>when house porches collapse? The recent incident in Chicago,
> >>in which 12 people were killed, is just the most recent
> >>example in a long string of porch accidents. Obviously,
> >>porches are unsafe and anyone with common sense wouldn't have
> >>one in his house!
> >
> >Facetious, but a ring of truth in some cases. My question is how at
> >least 69 people (12 dead, 57 injured) fit on the porch in question.
> >Assuming an average 120 pounds (probably low) per person, that's over
> >four tons. Even as dead weight, that's a fair load, not to mention
> >movement. Nobody would think of parking two compact cars on that
> >porch and expect it to stand up.
> >
> >Jeff
>
>
>
> Actually, you can reduce your theoretical load by a bit -
> http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID=76228&SecID=2
> Chicago -- Officials in Chicago say it appears most of the people who
> died in a fatal porch collapse were crushed on porches below.
>
> A dozen people were killed in the early morning collapse and as many
> as 45 others hurt, some critically.
>
> Police say as many as 50 people may have been packed onto the wooden
> third-floor porch in the city's affluent Lincoln Park neighborhood,
> which is usually packed with young people on weekend nights.
>
> Officials say there may also have been beer kegs on the porch.
>
> One woman who was in the apartment's kitchen at the time says the
> party-goers were mostly friends in their early 20s. She says "the
> floor just dropped out from underneath them.''
>
>
The spamnographers summer job is repairing porches

David W.
July 1st 03, 01:22 PM
Jeff Cochran > wrote in
:
>
> Facetious, but a ring of truth in some cases. My question is how at
> least 69 people (12 dead, 57 injured) fit on the porch in question.
> Assuming an average 120 pounds (probably low) per person, that's over
> four tons. Even as dead weight, that's a fair load, not to mention
> movement. Nobody would think of parking two compact cars on that
> porch and expect it to stand up.

The porch that collapsed was on the 3rd floor, and it took the 2nd and
first floor porches with it. Apparently, the 2nd floor porch also had a
number of people on it.

David W.
July 1st 03, 01:22 PM
Jeff Cochran > wrote in
:
>
> Facetious, but a ring of truth in some cases. My question is how at
> least 69 people (12 dead, 57 injured) fit on the porch in question.
> Assuming an average 120 pounds (probably low) per person, that's over
> four tons. Even as dead weight, that's a fair load, not to mention
> movement. Nobody would think of parking two compact cars on that
> porch and expect it to stand up.

The porch that collapsed was on the 3rd floor, and it took the 2nd and
first floor porches with it. Apparently, the 2nd floor porch also had a
number of people on it.

Eastward Bound
July 1st 03, 11:58 PM
Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote in message >...
>
> So you have one explosion and one gas leak example. That does not add
> up to "houses explode from gas leaks all the time". And, no, posting
> another dozen examples of explosions still doesn't cut it. Go read the
> fire statistics and you will realize that houses RARELY explode from gas
> leaks.


Billy calm down, don't fight the Doctors. The Doctors are your
friends, they are here to help you.

Eastward Bound
July 1st 03, 11:58 PM
Bill Seurer <Bill_AT_seurer.net> wrote in message >...
>
> So you have one explosion and one gas leak example. That does not add
> up to "houses explode from gas leaks all the time". And, no, posting
> another dozen examples of explosions still doesn't cut it. Go read the
> fire statistics and you will realize that houses RARELY explode from gas
> leaks.


Billy calm down, don't fight the Doctors. The Doctors are your
friends, they are here to help you.

Jonathan Kamens
July 2nd 03, 01:33 AM
(Eastward Bound) writes:
>Billy calm down, don't fight the Doctors. The Doctors are your
>friends, they are here to help you.

Right, this clinches it.

Please don't feed the troll, everyone.

Jonathan Kamens
July 2nd 03, 01:33 AM
(Eastward Bound) writes:
>Billy calm down, don't fight the Doctors. The Doctors are your
>friends, they are here to help you.

Right, this clinches it.

Please don't feed the troll, everyone.

Arri London
July 2nd 03, 01:51 AM
Jonathan Kamens wrote:
>
> <tongue_in_cheek>
>
> Have you heard about all these cases of people being killed
> when house porches collapse? The recent incident in Chicago,
> in which 12 people were killed, is just the most recent
> example in a long string of porch accidents. Obviously,
> porches are unsafe and anyone with common sense wouldn't have
> one in his house!
>
> </tongue_in_cheek>

Yes you are right. There is no reason whatsoever that a tiny
wooden porch shouldn't be able to hold at least 40
partygoers!

Arri London
July 2nd 03, 01:51 AM
Jonathan Kamens wrote:
>
> <tongue_in_cheek>
>
> Have you heard about all these cases of people being killed
> when house porches collapse? The recent incident in Chicago,
> in which 12 people were killed, is just the most recent
> example in a long string of porch accidents. Obviously,
> porches are unsafe and anyone with common sense wouldn't have
> one in his house!
>
> </tongue_in_cheek>

Yes you are right. There is no reason whatsoever that a tiny
wooden porch shouldn't be able to hold at least 40
partygoers!

Beachcomber
July 2nd 03, 05:11 AM
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:51:42 -0600, Arri London >
wrote:

>Jonathan Kamens wrote:
>>
>> <tongue_in_cheek>
>>
>> Have you heard about all these cases of people being killed
>> when house porches collapse? The recent incident in Chicago,
>> in which 12 people were killed, is just the most recent
>> example in a long string of porch accidents. Obviously,
>> porches are unsafe and anyone with common sense wouldn't have
>> one in his house!
>>

The sad thing is that this is not a unique accident for Chicago. A
few years ago, I had a friend who was severly injured in a similar
porch collapse with an almost identical situation (although there were
no fatalities). The City Building Department is well-aware of the
problem and attempts to control construction quality through permits
and building code enforcement. It is not 100% clear whether the porch
was up to code in this most recent situation, but common sense should
rule if you find yourself in a similar situation. Unfortunately, I
think that the physical integrity of the platform that those young
people were standing on was probably the last thing on their minds...

Beachcomber

Beachcomber
July 2nd 03, 05:11 AM
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 17:51:42 -0600, Arri London >
wrote:

>Jonathan Kamens wrote:
>>
>> <tongue_in_cheek>
>>
>> Have you heard about all these cases of people being killed
>> when house porches collapse? The recent incident in Chicago,
>> in which 12 people were killed, is just the most recent
>> example in a long string of porch accidents. Obviously,
>> porches are unsafe and anyone with common sense wouldn't have
>> one in his house!
>>

The sad thing is that this is not a unique accident for Chicago. A
few years ago, I had a friend who was severly injured in a similar
porch collapse with an almost identical situation (although there were
no fatalities). The City Building Department is well-aware of the
problem and attempts to control construction quality through permits
and building code enforcement. It is not 100% clear whether the porch
was up to code in this most recent situation, but common sense should
rule if you find yourself in a similar situation. Unfortunately, I
think that the physical integrity of the platform that those young
people were standing on was probably the last thing on their minds...

Beachcomber

Gene Wirchenko
July 2nd 03, 07:01 AM
"Nina" > wrote:

>"Gene Wirchenko" > wrote in message
...
>> Jim Kent > wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:23:20 +0000 (UTC),
>> >(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
>> >
>> >>porches are unsafe and anyone with common sense wouldn't have
>> >>one
>> >
>> >The real problem with porches is that people just drive them too damn
>> >fast!
>>
>> ...and slam them into the side of a house.
>>
>Hence the term "wraparound porch"?

Usually only with smaller houses though. Most of the time, they
do not reach all of the way around.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.

Gene Wirchenko
July 2nd 03, 07:01 AM
"Nina" > wrote:

>"Gene Wirchenko" > wrote in message
...
>> Jim Kent > wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:23:20 +0000 (UTC),
>> >(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
>> >
>> >>porches are unsafe and anyone with common sense wouldn't have
>> >>one
>> >
>> >The real problem with porches is that people just drive them too damn
>> >fast!
>>
>> ...and slam them into the side of a house.
>>
>Hence the term "wraparound porch"?

Usually only with smaller houses though. Most of the time, they
do not reach all of the way around.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.

Neil
July 2nd 03, 07:04 PM
JazzMan > wrote in message >...
> X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationReply-To: [email protected]_info
> Abuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
> NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library1-aux.airnews.net
> NNTP-Posting-Time: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:17:51 -0500 (CDT)
> NNTP-Posting-Host: ![-\P1k-XGL=hb`1,C^P1G'XJ (Encoded at Airnews!)
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; U)
>
> Jim Kent wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:23:20 +0000 (UTC),
> > (Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
> >
> > >porches are unsafe and anyone with common sense wouldn't have
> > >one
> >
> > The real problem with porches is that people just drive them too damn
> > fast!
>
>
> Remember, never, ever let off the throttle when driving
> your porche around the corner. Trailing throttle oversteer
> is not to be triffled with. :)

Having briefly owned a used one many years ago, the real killer is the
price of the parts and service...

Neil
July 2nd 03, 07:04 PM
JazzMan > wrote in message >...
> X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationReply-To: [email protected]_info
> Abuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
> NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library1-aux.airnews.net
> NNTP-Posting-Time: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:17:51 -0500 (CDT)
> NNTP-Posting-Host: ![-\P1k-XGL=hb`1,C^P1G'XJ (Encoded at Airnews!)
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; U)
>
> Jim Kent wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:23:20 +0000 (UTC),
> > (Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
> >
> > >porches are unsafe and anyone with common sense wouldn't have
> > >one
> >
> > The real problem with porches is that people just drive them too damn
> > fast!
>
>
> Remember, never, ever let off the throttle when driving
> your porche around the corner. Trailing throttle oversteer
> is not to be triffled with. :)

Having briefly owned a used one many years ago, the real killer is the
price of the parts and service...

v
February 21st 05, 09:25 PM
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:23:52 -0800, someone wrote:


>You can figure an average of at least 300 pounds per American.

The "typical" amount long used by the FAA was 170 lbs. However, there
have been crashes of the 19 seat commuter planes where the actual
weight of the passengers was an issue. I fly small planes and have
known of pilots who put a few big guys in the back seats of a small
pane, and had the plane tip back and the tail hit the ground.

At the governmant weights there were nearly 12,000 lbs of people on
that porch.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

Bob
February 22nd 05, 09:00 PM
"v" > wrote in message
...
> The "typical" amount long used by the FAA was 170 lbs. However, there
> have been crashes of the 19 seat commuter planes where the actual
> weight of the passengers was an issue. I fly small planes and have
> known of pilots who put a few big guys in the back seats of a small
> pane, and had the plane tip back and the tail hit the ground.

An airplane that is tailheavy can become unstable in flight, which could be
more of an issue.

Bob

C. Massey
February 22nd 05, 09:44 PM
"v" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:23:52 -0800, someone wrote:
>
>
> >You can figure an average of at least 300 pounds per American.
>
> The "typical" amount long used by the FAA was 170 lbs. However, there
> have been crashes of the 19 seat commuter planes where the actual
> weight of the passengers was an issue. I fly small planes and have
> known of pilots who put a few big guys in the back seats of a small
> pane, and had the plane tip back and the tail hit the ground.
>


Were they actually trying to get ready to fly?

Don't guess the pilots attempted to figure weight and balance on the
aircraft then, huh?

Joel M. Eichen
February 22nd 05, 10:40 PM
OK, got it. I misread as "Porsches are unsafe."





On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:44:20 GMT, "C. Massey" >
wrote:

>
>"v" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:23:52 -0800, someone wrote:
>>
>>
>> >You can figure an average of at least 300 pounds per American.
>>
>> The "typical" amount long used by the FAA was 170 lbs. However, there
>> have been crashes of the 19 seat commuter planes where the actual
>> weight of the passengers was an issue. I fly small planes and have
>> known of pilots who put a few big guys in the back seats of a small
>> pane, and had the plane tip back and the tail hit the ground.
>>
>
>
>Were they actually trying to get ready to fly?
>
>Don't guess the pilots attempted to figure weight and balance on the
>aircraft then, huh?
>

Matt
February 22nd 05, 10:45 PM
Oh, Porches!

Well, thats different, very different!

Nevermind.

Joel M. Eichen
February 23rd 05, 12:16 AM
On 22 Feb 2005 13:45:31 -0800, "Matt" > wrote:

>Oh, Porches!
>
>Well, thats different, very different!
>
>Nevermind.

Mersaydees are unsafe too ......

C. Massey
February 23rd 05, 02:28 AM
"Joel M. Eichen" > wrote in message
...
> On 22 Feb 2005 13:45:31 -0800, "Matt" > wrote:
>
> >Oh, Porches!
> >
> >Well, thats different, very different!
> >
> >Nevermind.
>
> Mersaydees are unsafe too ......
>


Who the hell let Joel back in?

Joel M. Eichen
February 23rd 05, 04:00 AM
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 01:28:53 GMT, "C. Massey" >
wrote:

>
>"Joel M. Eichen" > wrote in message
...
>> On 22 Feb 2005 13:45:31 -0800, "Matt" > wrote:
>>
>> >Oh, Porches!
>> >
>> >Well, thats different, very different!
>> >
>> >Nevermind.
>>
>> Mersaydees are unsafe too ......
>>
>
>
>Who the hell let Joel back in?

Who let the dogs out?

>

Robert Morien
February 23rd 05, 06:25 AM
In article >,
Joel M. Eichen > wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 01:28:53 GMT, "C. Massey" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Joel M. Eichen" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 22 Feb 2005 13:45:31 -0800, "Matt" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Oh, Porches!
> >> >
> >> >Well, thats different, very different!
> >> >
> >> >Nevermind.
> >>
> >> Mersaydees are unsafe too ......
> >>
> >
> >
> >Who the hell let Joel back in?
>
> Who let the dogs out?
>
> >
>

dogs have dental practices?

Joel M. Eichen
February 23rd 05, 11:34 AM
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:25:04 -0800, Robert Morien
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Joel M. Eichen > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 01:28:53 GMT, "C. Massey" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Joel M. Eichen" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On 22 Feb 2005 13:45:31 -0800, "Matt" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Oh, Porches!
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, thats different, very different!
>> >> >
>> >> >Nevermind.
>> >>
>> >> Mersaydees are unsafe too ......
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >Who the hell let Joel back in?
>>
>> Who let the dogs out?
>>
>> >
>>
>
>dogs have dental practices?

How else would you get your canines fixed?

Joel

Google