Star-Advertiser reporter Gordon Pang got a key bit of information in his story today on the fireworks explosion that killed give workers in Waikele a week ago.
Pang reports that the crew was in the process of dismantling some of the fireworks when the explosion occurs.
Then, citing a fireworks expert:
“The assembly or disassembly or the preparation of explosive materials is strictly prohibited in a magazine,” said Weeth, who is not part of the Waikele investigation. “These are activities that are specifically limited to process buildings or areas, or the field.”
Weeth, who has served on the National Fire Protection Association Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics, which helps develop national fire codes, pointed to regulations on the website of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that specify fireworks are to be stored at least 200 feet away from facilities where they are being processed.
Score two points for Pang.
First, he finds out that the procedure being used by Donaldson Enterprises was apparently a violation of federal regulations. Second, he points to an online source of those regulations (the ATF web site).
Second glance: In light of the comment below concerning drawing a premature conclusion, let’s rephrase that last paragraph.
I give Pang credit for moving the story forward. If the employees of Donaldson Enterprises were in the process of dismantling some of the fireworks to prepare for their destruction, as the lead federal investigator is quoted as saying, it would appear to have violated federal regulations for handling and storage of fireworks. Pang then points to an online source for review of those regulations (the ATF web site).
This is a big advance on the story and deserves credit.
Are you sure that “the procedure being used by Donaldson Enterprises was a violation of federal regulations” ?
The story certainly doesn’t say that.
The story says pretty explicitly that it is not clear whether they were inside the magazine when they were doing the dismantling, and that no official conclusions have been drawn.
They may well have been inside, but the story doesn’t say that, and you certainly don’t know enough about the incident or investigation to draw any conclusions and simply declare that there “was a violation of federal regulations.”
You make these type of leaps far too often, especially for someone with a journalism background.
I’m probably way behind several high-priced attorneys in drawing connections between the dots provided.
I definitely trust solid, independent reporting more than lying lawyers!!! Well done, Gordon.
It should be noted that the initial post was edited to add the qualifier “apparently” before the accusation “a violation of federal regulations.”
It would also appear from the newspaper story that it is not yet quite clear what, exactly, was being done when the explosion occurred, or where, exactly, the workers involved were at the time.
And it’s certainly unclear who at the company involved may or may not have ordered or even been aware of any specific actions taken by anyone that may have caused or contributed to this disaster.
It may be that there was a direct and inexcusable violation of federal law, but until that’s made clear, it would seem that the peanut gallery should refrain from publicly (and rather recklessly and irresponsibly) alleging violations of federal law regarding the deaths of five people, or stating as fact that a newspaper account alleged something that may certainly be inferred by some but was not directly alleged by the newspaper or anyone else.