Enabler: one that enables another to achieve an end ; especially : one who enables another to persist in self-destructive behavior (as substance abuse) by providing excuses or by making it possible to avoid the consequences of such behavior. – Merriam-Webster dictionary
On March 27, 2008 The Athens News published an article quoting W. Keith Best, assistant operations manager for Sauls Seismic, Inc. about how blasting is not a problem for residents living nearby.
At one point this articles states: “When people hear and feel the blast, they won’t actually be feeling the ground move, Best said.”
and
“What you are feeling is the air pressure hitting your house,” he said.
Our question is, If it is not the ground you feel moving but the air blast. Then why monitor the ground peak particle velocity (PPV)?
Later in this same article:
“The blasts will not cause windows to crack, ground to slip or other problems to occur, he said.”
Our question is, If the blast will not cause windows to crack. Then why monitor air pressure? If no cosmetic cracks can form, and there can be no air blast damage to glass, why have a seismograph company since they say there is no chance of damage?
Back to the article:
“Best promised, however, that the blasting work will not hurt any nearby foundations. If property owners see cracks in their foundations after the blasting work, Best said the cracks were probably there before but no one ever noticed. It’s not uncommon for property owners to see cracks after excavation work and blame nearby blasting for the problem, he maintained.”
One could almost question if this were some sort of subliminal suggestion. You see cracks that you obviously lacked the common sense to see before and now you are going to try to blame blasting for your problems. You people who don’t want blasting are probably some kind of kooks who are against progress (and a whole list of other disparaging terms they like to use when someone dares say “wait a minute here”). Obviously blasting will not hurt anything, right?
You may recall our previous article quoting an affadavit by David R. Ziegler, PE for Sauls. In other depositions he has apparently made statements that could make one question that blasting is so harmless. Depositions are typically long and dry reading, but we would like to cite a few quotes from one of Mr. Ziegler’s depositions as examples:
Quotes from deposition:
Excerpt from page 49-50:
Ziegler: “Well, the studies find that there is potential for damage at lower levels dependent on frequency.”
Ziegler: “I believe there’s some reference to five percent.”
Questioner: “Exactly. Five percent probability of cosmetic cracking in sheet rock.”
Ziegler: “Yeah”
Excerpt from page 81-83
Ziegler: “But this had actually caused structure resonance that caused a large chifforobe to fall. A large piece of furniture, in other words. And there was some structural damage to the concrete block foundation walls.”
Questioner: “And you attributed that to?”
Ziegler: “Structural resonance.”
Questioner: So even though the peak particular velocities were within allowable limits, it was your opinion that there had been blasts within the right frequencies to create structural resonance?”
Ziegler: “That’s correct.”
Questioner: “All right. And that that structural resonance had caused –”
Ziegler: “Structural damage.”
Questioner: “What was the structural damage?”
Ziegler: “The concrete block walls.”
Questioner: “Are we talking — hollow cinder block?”
Ziegler: “And sheet rock, yes.”
Questioner: “Mortar joint cracks?”
Ziegler: “Yes.”
That doesn’t sound quite so benevolent as Mr. Best’s comments about the wonders of blasting does it? There seems to possibly be some discrepancy between when you are trying to convince a community they should not oppose blasting (and perhaps providing politicians cover to go along with it) and when you are giving a deposition. We wonder which version the people who paid for this information wanted?
Link:http://www.athensnews.com/news/local/2008/mar/27/odot-officials-say-highway-blasting-wont-hurt-home/