Meth or P related - it goes here, please.

[mrsaneperson]

I'm not really defending either side but pointing out that facts aren't so factual.
I wasn't there so I don't really know.
Have a read of this for a rescue effort
http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1995-01.html

The facts of the matter Wayne are that immediately after the Pike River Mine explosion ,gas reserve levels were very very low as they were spent.There is still a very small unquantifiable risk with any kind of rescue operation undertaking. Could some of the mine workers been rescued? Quite possibly , sadly we'll never know because rescue workers were prevented from doing their job.
The big picture is that over zealous safety measures are killing people. Ironically it was poor lax safety measures that led to the mine explosion.
Somewhere there is a happy safety medium rather than obsession .

Back to the thread , and lets ask exactly what health & safety risks are involved with a house contaminated with meth. For starters there would be many many variables in the level of contamination dependent on :
How long had the meth lab been going on
Ventilation methods
Meth quantity cooked

etc

[Maccachic]

How bad are these chemicals compared to cleaners and other chemicals we used daily in our homes?? Also the decontaminant some companies are using to clean up Meth what is it what are its side affects?

[Wayne]

The facts of the matter Wayne are that immediately after the Pike River Mine explosion ,gas reserve levels were very very low as they were spent.There is still a very small unquantifiable risk with any kind of rescue operation undertaking. Could some of the mine workers been rescued? Quite possibly , sadly we'll never know because rescue workers were prevented from doing their job.

1st explosion 19-11 @ 3:44pm
2nd explosion 24-11 @ 2:37pm with no one scraping the rocks around
Who knows when that 2nd explosion would have happened if they were scraping around the rocks with diggers etc. It wasn't a quick run in and out after a look-see.

[Wayne]

How bad are these chemicals compared to cleaners and other chemicals we used daily in our homes?? Also the decontaminant some companies are using to clean up Meth what is it what are its side affects?

Good question - any answer?

[mrsaneperson]

1st explosion 19-11 @ 3:44pm
2nd explosion 24-11 @ 2:37pm with no one scraping the rocks around
Who knows when that 2nd explosion would have happened if they were scraping around the rocks with diggers etc. It wasn't a quick run in and out after a look-see.

You've actually proved my point .Thanks

[Wayne]

You've actually proved my point .Thanks

no problem - happy to help even if I can't see how. So long as you are happy though.

[speights boy]

Don't concern yourself too much Wayne.

Despite making other statements full of "facts", when pressed to provide evidence we get....

Its hard to ascertain. But hey its happened once with AMI having to be bailed out by this Govt. Was that only because they didnt have enough reinsurance? Maybe other reasons were involved too.

[Wayne]

Don't concern yourself too much Wayne.

Despite making other statements full of "facts", when pressed to provide evidence we get....

thanks SB - rest assured that I'm not losing sleep over it.

[mrsaneperson]

LOL..."It will never sink"..Famous last words about the Titanic. Yet the "ship that could never sink" sank less than three hours after the crew spotted an iceberg..

And then there was "These are 100% leak proof buildings" .Famous last words on the open day of Botany Town Centre, in 2001 ; today it is costing millions of dollars to repair & rebuild because it leaks everywhere.

Ultimate failsafe beliefs in any kind of system have been proved wrong time & time again.
But people still choose to believe much to their peril.

Just like the belief about the often unquantifiable danger of Meth contamination..A lot of its hype & spin to generate huge profits for those involved in the cleanup industry & as a police crime deterrent, over emphasis on the contaminants left behind in meth production serves to help fight this horrible drug.

[speights boy]

^ Ahh...once again you miss the point.
I am beginning to wonder just how deliberate that is.

It is not whether an insurance company can fail in the future.
That is a possibility.

However, you went about 3 steps further with the quote below, where you appeared to suggest all insurers were accepting premiums today knowing that the policies would not be honoured.

more so the fact remains no insurance company will be left standing in another eathquake situation like Christchurch.
Your premiums & policies wont be honoured just like another Hanover finance fiasco.

Unless you have evidence to back that up, I suggest it is very much a step too far.

PS:
You continually go on about the AMI bail out.
Who were the owners of AMI - shareholders if you like - and why were they not called upon to recapitalise the company?

[mrsaneperson]

Well i guess none of us have a crystal ball, but insurance companies are unable to withstand very large scale events , and that has been proven many times over across the world.I stand by that statement in relation to the shaded part above but not your inaccurate interpretation directly above it.

The main point is that in NZ we only have 2 main insurers ;they have hiked up their premiums to such a huge amount & the reason is to try & recover from the heavy burden of Christchurch.

The AMI bail out is important because it is all New Zealanders that are paying for it through the tax system. Mistakes were made by AMI!The same mistakes will be made again. People forget that it is our money! We are all been leveraged into huge debt burdens by this Govt & the councils. Money is not an endless supply but their is little to no thought going on in regard to chalking up debt all over NZ.
Their is a total disconnect to what is being spent & what is being earned through collections of revenue.

[speights boy]

IAG the new owners of AMI have shareholders they can call on to recapitalise via a rights issue if required.

Question: Prior to the earthquake who owned AMI ?

[mrsaneperson]

IAG the new owners of AMI have shareholders they can call on to recapitalise via a rights issue if required.

Question: Prior to the earthquake who owned AMI ?

This is all very well in theory but we know what happens in practice. Sorry to be a pessimist but i just dont want to be accepting the "all is very well & have blind faith in me " insurance mantra....Lets not go there again.

Prior to the eathquake AMI was locally owned , but it bears little if any relevance .

AMI after the earthquake was bought by IAG & split into 2 parts ,one was the government controlled bailout arm of Southern Recovery & the other was AMI as per norm

[speights boy]

Prior to the eathquake AMI was locally owned , but it bears little if any relevance .

It is totally relevant.
It was a MUTUAL owned by its policyholders.
They benefited from the bailout, not some anonymous "local shareholders"
Your continued comparisons of AMI a mutual, to present day shareholder owned insurers is disingenuous.

As a mutual owned by its policyholders, AMI does not have shareholders or other investors it can go to for funding.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4856873/Quake-hit-AMI-insurance-bailout-could-cost-1-billion

[mrsaneperson]

It is totally relevant.
It was a MUTUAL owned by its policyholders.
They benefited from the bailout, not some anonymous "local shareholders"
Your continued comparisons of AMI a mutual, to present day shareholder owned insurers is disingenuous.


www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4856873/Quake-hit-AMI-insurance-bailout-could-cost-1-billion

Whether its a mutual or not i dont see the relevance because they still had salaried CEO's & staff running it .And there are plenty of other companies throughout the world that are using mutual setups .
On worldwide event scales the Christchurch earthquake was minimal so any insurance company worth its salt, mutual or not should have still been standing.