Bridge collapse

Yeah, he gets some too. I'd feel comfortable handing that out to most of Minnesota's government, actually.


On another note, why are they suddenly saying that there are eight people missing at this point? Earlier today it was twenty to thirty people.

More than 800 Bay Area bridges have been deemed "structurally deficient" by Caltrans, the same rating held by the Minneapolis bridge that collapsed Wednesday.

That's about 16 percent of the roughly 5,100 state- and locally owned bridges in the nine-county area. Across California, more than 13 percent of the 23,000 bridges have been classified as structurally deficient, a term that can mean the paint is peeling from a span, it has too many potholes - or, in the worst case, is at risk of failure.

Hope Subrosa doesn't haveto use any of them.
I was there for the '89 bridge collapse'/quake and that was bad enough

I am quite contentedly car-less, thank you very much. Living and working in the City is a lovely thing.

For what it's worth, according to something I heard on the local NPR yesterday and am way too lazy to actually find the link for, the state is actually in the top 4-5 nationally in terms of the percentage of bridges that are actually at risk for structural damage. Plus, bridges that are closer to more corrosive salt-water (i.e. all of ours) are checked on a more frequent basis.

In other words, I'll take my chances.

Your a lucky man in an amazing city.
Stay safe

Jesus.

Anyone else getting extremely tired of the words "structurally deficient"? Especially since they're essentially meaningless, as the conditions they can describe are highly variable. Not to say that there wasn't a known problem with the bridge, and I know people need someone to blame, but using "structurally deficient" as a synonym for "in imminent danger of catastrophic failure" is getting on my nerves.

There's a difference between structurally deficient and "in imminent danger of catastrophic failure." I don't like that it's become a buzz word anymore than you do, or anyone else in this town though, I hear you there. If that'd been the case it would've been closed just like the Lowry bridge.

I'm not saying it didn't need to be shut down, but it wasn't going to be unless it actually had been labeled "in imminent danger of catastrophic failure."

Basically a major bridge like that won't just be closed on a hunch without everyone in town flipping out and having the opposite reaction of "the bridge is fucking FINE! These people need to pull their heads out of their asses!" And causing major upheaval in traffic patterns and public response.

Everyone who's an expert in this field who I've seen interviewed are scratching their heads, wondering how it happened, and generally feeling like there's no possible way it could've happened as suddenly as it did. My point being, I don't dispute that there isn't blame, and plenty of it, to pass around, but at the same time all signs point to this being a freak occurrence, not something anyone could've foreseen.

Thank you; that's what I was trying to get at.

Though I certainly don't like the current state or federal administrations, I highly doubt they would have allowed a bridge they knowingly knew presented an immediate danger to remain in use.

Then again, they've surprised me before...

Yikes. I'm very glad you're okay.

Your story reminds me of my father's - he was on Nicoll Highway when it collapsed right in front of him.

Good to hear you are ok...

YES.

No one knows what that even means. It's an industry-specific, technical term that does not mean "folks, that bridge is about to fall the fuck over." It could mean all kinds of things, from what I've gathered.

This is unfortunately true. If they had told us in advance that they'd decided to rebuild the 35W bridge and that it would be unavailable for the next few years at least, people would have been absolutely irate.

Indeed, but I think it means that there is a deficiency in the structure of the bridge. The flaw in the structure might not be serious, but it's presumably still a flaw of some concern.

Yes, it means there was a flaw in the structure, but not necessarily that the flaw was of an emergency nature.

Given that the bridge was assessed on a regular basis, and it was still something like fortieth on state's "to do" list, I would guess that some freak combination of circumstances occurred which wasn't taken into account.

For instance, last night I was thinking of the new de-icers they've been using. Could the de-icers change the freeze/thaw cycle of the water on the bridge, adding more melt water which would seep into the existing cracks in the structure, which would then freeze and expand the cracks at a faster rate than anticipated by assessments made not taking the de-icers into account?

It wouldn't have to be a major circumstance; when the bridge was built, fatigue cracking wasn't believe to affect bridges, and certain parts of the structure were designed without redundancy, resulting in a single point of failure at the truss system.

Basically, if there was an unseen and upredicted problem with the truss system that caused its failure, the whole bridge would come down.

I'm done trying to be an engineer now. I'm clearly not one.

Yes, I think I understood that much. Thanks for making sure I didn't overlook that point, though--that "structurally deficient" might be a term used to indicate a deficiency in a structure. It's certainly a subtle point, to be sure.

As I said, that term still does not mean that a bridge is about to fall over.

Indeed, I agree, it certainly doesn't mean that a bridge is about to fall over. Otherwise bridges would be collapsing left and right, as so many of them are classified as structurally deficient.

It just seemed that it was being suggested that 'structurally deficient' was a fairly harmless term that could mean anything, and I don't think that's the case.

No, what was being suggested is that while the term "structurally deficient" certainly means there is a deficiency in the structure of the bridge, it does not specify what that deficiency is. And it is the case that the conditions the term describe range from minor deficencies to major deficencies. That is, the term is so broad and general as to be essentially worthless on its own, without an exact description of the deficencies.

And all that is off the original point, which was that the media have turned "structurally deficient" into a buzzword, and are using it as a synonym for "in imminent danger of collapse," which we've agreed it certainly doesn't mean. By doing so they risk further dilluting the words' meaning, making its definition even more vague, and possibly misleading the public.

The U.S. did it,
No wait Bush did,
No wait it was Cheney,

But seriously I'm suprised this took so long to start.


Massive ULF 'Blast' Detected In US Bridge Collapse Catastrophe (Article taken from http://www.whatdoesitmean.com:80/index1026.htm)

Reports from Russia's Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics located in Irkutsk are reporting today that their Siberian Solar Radio Telescope (SSRT) detected a 'massive' ultra low frequency (ULF) 'blast' emanating from Latitude: 45° 00' North Longitude: 93° 15' West at the 'exact' moment, and location, of a catastrophic collapse of a nearly 2,000 foot long bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


To the horrific destruction of the Interstate 35W Bridge which spanned the Mississippi River we can read as reported by the Star Tribune News Service:


"The 1,907-foot bridge fell into the Mississippi River and onto roadways below. The span was packed with rush hour traffic, and dozens of vehicles fell with the bridge leaving scores of dazed commuters scrambling for their lives.


Nine people were confirmed dead as of 4 a.m. today. Sixty were taken to hospitals and 20 people were still missing this morning. Authorities said they expected the death toll to rise."


Russian Military reports state that the total collapse of such a massive bridge, and in the absence of evidence linking its destruction to terrorist activity, could only have been accomplished by an acoustic weapon, of which the United States Military is known to possess.


These reports further state that one of the United States primary research organizations into acoustic weapons research is Augsburg College, and which is located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and most importantly less than 1 mile from the Interstate 35W Bridge collapse.



To the exact reason of why, and what exactly happened in this catastrophe we can only speculate, but, with what is known about the United States past history of using sophisticated weapons on their own citizens for 'research' purposes it certainly lies in the realm of possibility that this horrific tragedy is rooted in the use of ULF weapons.

at least no ones blaming the Flying Spagheti Monsters yet

I think a ULF weapon fucked up the boner I had in the middle of the night. I woke up and it was gone.

As for the real story as to why the bridge went down? I suspect we'll find the answer to that in the Globe.

Or on Fox news, or maybe in the Inquirer
btw you are quoting me as saying

scorp17yh said:
To the exact reason of why, and what exactly happened in this catastrophe we can only speculate, but, with what is known about the United States past history of using sophisticated weapons on their own citizens for 'research' purposes it certainly lies in the realm of possibility that this horrific tragedy is rooted in the use of ULF weapons.

'when in fact that was in the article. I was attempting sarcasm but perhaps you missed the beginnig of my post or I missposted