h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I find it very strange that BBC , HSE and who ever has been writing on the disaster of UK Nypro at Flixborough fail to recognize the most basic facts.:

At the time of disaster UK Nypro was not Shell but DSM
Sir Roger Jocelyn Parkers inquiry report holds a few interesting lines few people pay attention to.
DSM was all to happy to not have very knowledge team members from the Netherlands participate residing on the Geleen Caprolactam master plantto beinvolved in the investigations.

The Oxanon section in Geleen was overhauled but not put back in to service.....................

Nice cold case to solve ....................

Tell you what I find very strange. Tell you what I'd consider an example of failing to recognise the most basic facts. That anyone could read this Entry, and then decide it's the right place to try make this point.

In future you should think about why things get written, before succumbing to your urge to be self-important

Hmm, self-important? What makes you conclude that?

The piece is about the impact of the disaster on a local community. It invites personal recollections.

Who do you think wrote this? I did. I lived through the Flixborough Disaster and its aftermath, and all the people referred to in this piece (one of them is me) did so too. Most are/were people I know/knew personally. A few are/were people who others know/knew personally, their experiences added in a collective writing effort.

So the person you label as not recognising the "basic facts" is me. (The BBC is no more than a host of the site. Read the small print before jumping to conclusions). I consider your assertion to be insulting, not just to me but to the many people who suffered through the disaster. And you include the HSE among those who don't recognise these "basic facts"? I consider that to be a very naive perception, suggestive of the opinion of someone who doesn't have any real grounding in the community of professionals who work to further industrial safety.

The nature of this piece is clear to anyone making anything more than a cursory reading. I doubt that you took in any of the context beyond noticing that this is a BBC site and the title subject. Tell me I'm wrong if you like, and if you can. But here's your explanation of what I read into your post #1, why I (still) consider it highly inappropriate and why I used and stand by that term 'self-important'.

I am not labeling you, merely correcting out my re-collection of what happened from 1974 onwards and my studying around. And I do have a profesional interest in the case. And it has nothing to do with myselves. Although I was drawn in to the case 35 years ago already.
The disaster had and has an impact far beyond the community of Flixborough. Hope you change your mind in misreading my good intentions. Not jumping to any conclusions. Just my notes. Don't need to agree. May I ask you don't label as I am not labeling you.

Or you don't want any comments?

And when I wrote "who ever has been writing" I did not have you in mind but anybody sofar. The BBC Part not referring to your piece here neither, but of a documentary they made once. I took 1974 as was for years until I discovered I should have put more attention to it.

But I have the feeling we will not be able to discuss it.

OK, but I won't apologise just yet.
I know there are alternative theories about how it happened (particularly Cox 2007) and cover-up allegations (particularly King 2000), but I'm not much interested.

If you've got something to say, say it.

Hmm, leaves not much ground exchanging opinions.
Too many battles already over different scenarios.
Not aware of the King story yet, will evaluate that one now by searching where to find.

Ah, forgot, Ralph King and HSE. I asked HSE about test results.
The super heating scenario. Do not see a cover-up in that.
Seen it happen elsewhere.

Hmm, remember Ralph King now. Asked HSE about test results while ago.
Not a cover up in my eyes. Seen such a scenario in real before.