Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Workers rely on medieval era tech to reconstruct the Notre Dame

popsci.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 106 posts

Re: Workers rely on medieval era tech to reconstruct the Notre Dame

#41

Post by canoebuilder »

hackernewds wrote: post #36
bambax wrote: post #4

The rebuilding is apparently going well, but this is hiding the fact that nobody seems to be doing any inquiry about why the fire wasn't stopped in time. As far as we know, the fire was an accident (not foul play) -- but an extremely preventable one. There were works in progress on the roof of the cathedral, so people were coming and going, some of them possibly smoking, electrical devices were being used, etc. And t…

Why is there a tendency for scapegoating necessary in these situations? It seems like a western cultural carnal temptation for personal justice porn

Something bad occurred. Let’s figure out what, why, and how, and make any necessary changes to make future occurrences of bad thing less likely.

I don’t see how that is scapegoating.

Re: Workers rely on medieval era tech to reconstruct the Notre Dame

#42

Post by ceejayoz »

canoebuilder wrote: post #39
EamonnMR wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rate of construction accidents is what you should look at, not church fires.

Ok but the fact of there being some construction going on is somewhat ancillary to the whole point being made of the various factors observed and at play here that come together and raise some questions. I could have easily left the “what is the rate” part out, and the points made would have been just as strong or stronger. And yes there was some sort of maintenance/construction going on, and if that played a role in…

They did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_fire#Investigation

Workers were smoking in a space where it was explicitly not permitted, and renovation work meant there was electrical supply where "normally, no electrical is allowed in the roof space because of the extreme fire risk".

Pinpointing the exact source of ignition is a bit challenging given the fire and collapse, I suspect, but without any evidence pointing towards arson it seems like a pretty reasonable conclusion.

Re: Workers rely on medieval era tech to reconstruct the Notre Dame

#44

Post by jlawson »

canoebuilder wrote: post #16
bambax wrote: post #4

The rebuilding is apparently going well, but this is hiding the fact that nobody seems to be doing any inquiry about why the fire wasn't stopped in time. As far as we know, the fire was an accident (not foul play) -- but an extremely preventable one. There were works in progress on the roof of the cathedral, so people were coming and going, some of them possibly smoking, electrical devices were being used, etc. And t…

> As far as we know, the fire was an accident “As far as we know” In the same sense of like “innocent until proven guilty” But is that the right lens to be looking through here? What is the rate of accidental church fires, let alone at somewhere that is such a treasured location as this? Then factor in, wasn’t there an ongoing spate of what were clearly church arson attacks going on at the time? Then factor in what y…

I'm reminded how literally within an hour of the fire breaking out, the news was telling us all _very clearly_ that it was an accident - a fact that they clearly could not possibly have known at that time given the flames were still rising and no investigation could possibly have been done.

Re: Workers rely on medieval era tech to reconstruct the Notre Dame

#45

Post by canoebuilder »

ceejayoz wrote: post #42
canoebuilder wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok but the fact of there being some construction going on is somewhat ancillary to the whole point being made of the various factors observed and at play here that come together and raise some questions. I could have easily left the “what is the rate” part out, and the points made would have been just as strong or stronger. And yes there was some sort of maintenance/construction going on, and if that played a role in…

They did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_fire#Investigation Workers were smoking in a space where it was explicitly not permitted, and renovation work meant there was electrical supply where "normally, no electrical is allowed in the roof space because of the extreme fire risk". Pinpointing the exact source of ignition is a bit challenging given the fire and collapse, I suspect, but without any evidence poi…

Were they smoking there in the moments immediately preceding the fire, and a dropped cigarette and maybe some sawdust or something somehow ignited a 35cm or whatever wide beam? And the smokers didn’t notice? But I think the answer is there weren’t any construction workers around in the time before the fire to be smoking anyway.

“Maybe it was an electrical thing or something” is far from conclusive evidence, and as OP was saying, completely incredible as a response to an event of this magnitude that attracted worldwide attention.

>pinpointing

I’m always surprised when I hear what fire forensics can figure out given the state of the evidence being worked with.

>any evidence pointing toward arson

The whole point of my original post was that all the circumstantial evidence points toward arson.

Re: Workers rely on medieval era tech to reconstruct the Notre Dame

#46

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

bambax wrote: post #4

The rebuilding is apparently going well, but this is hiding the fact that nobody seems to be doing any inquiry about why the fire wasn't stopped in time. As far as we know, the fire was an accident (not foul play) -- but an extremely preventable one. There were works in progress on the roof of the cathedral, so people were coming and going, some of them possibly smoking, electrical devices were being used, etc. And t…

> The rebuilding is apparently going well, but this is hiding the fact that nobody seems to be doing any inquiry about why the fire wasn't stopped in time.

Is this a true statement? I remember reading an extremely detailed play-by-play in one of the major papers a couple years ago that did a pretty good analysis of why a confluence of factors led to the fire. I don't know what the status is of any governmental, official investigation, but I at least saw some thorough investigative reporting from news organizations.

I agree with the sibling comment that this feels a little like scapegoating. Like many disasters like this, it wasn't just one thing, but a confluence of lots of little innocuous things (e.g. new guy on the job, can't remember all the details but maybe there was a phone number change IIRC, etc.) that led to the fire. Not saying a thorough investigation isn't warranted, but pretending these types of things are completely preventable is also a mistake IMO.

Edit: This is from a US government website, and I can't see all the details but it looks like someone did do a root cause analysis, https://www.govevents.com/details/37273/risk-management-case... :

    In the days following the fire, questions began to arise about what could have caused the fire and, also about the nature and extent of the fire detection and protection systems. It turns out Notre Dame had one of the most sophisticated and elaborate fire safety systems ever designed, befitting a landmark of its stature. A team of experts had spent more than six years and untold funds developing the fire protection plan. Yet, when the system was put to a real test, it failed in spectacular fashion. How this could have happened, and what lessons can be learned from this tragic event with be discussed in detail.

Re: Workers rely on medieval era tech to reconstruct the Notre Dame

#48

Post by londons_explore »

bambax wrote: post #4

The rebuilding is apparently going well, but this is hiding the fact that nobody seems to be doing any inquiry about why the fire wasn't stopped in time. As far as we know, the fire was an accident (not foul play) -- but an extremely preventable one. There were works in progress on the roof of the cathedral, so people were coming and going, some of them possibly smoking, electrical devices were being used, etc. And t…

It has burnt down and been rebuilt many times in it's history.

Just like we are rebuilding with original stones and techniques, one should perhaps argue that it should also be rebuilt with its original fire resilience too - ie. Low.

At this point, a fire once every hundred years or so is part of the culture, and to stop doing that is in a way destroying the character of the cathedral.

Re: Workers rely on medieval era tech to reconstruct the Notre Dame

#49

Post by hef19898 »

jlawson wrote: post #44
canoebuilder wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As far as we know, the fire was an accident “As far as we know” In the same sense of like “innocent until proven guilty” But is that the right lens to be looking through here? What is the rate of accidental church fires, let alone at somewhere that is such a treasured location as this? Then factor in, wasn’t there an ongoing spate of what were clearly church arson attacks going on at the time? Then factor in what y…

I'm reminded how literally within an hour of the fire breaking out, the news was telling us all _very clearly_ that it was an accident - a fact that they clearly could not possibly have known at that time given the flames were still rising and no investigation could possibly have been done.

Not every lazy reporting is hiding a large conspiracy. Sometimes it is just the lazy picking of the most likely cause to get cotent out.

Re: Workers rely on medieval era tech to reconstruct the Notre Dame

#50

Post by [deleted] »

canoebuilder wrote: post #45
ceejayoz wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_fire#Investigation Workers were smoking in a space where it was explicitly not permitted, and renovation work meant there was electrical supply where "normally, no electrical is allowed in the roof space because of the extreme fire risk". Pinpointing the exact source of ignition is a bit challenging given the fire and collapse, I suspect, but without any evidence poi…

Were they smoking there in the moments immediately preceding the fire, and a dropped cigarette and maybe some sawdust or something somehow ignited a 35cm or whatever wide beam? And the smokers didn’t notice? But I think the answer is there weren’t any construction workers around in the time before the fire to be smoking anyway. “Maybe it was an electrical thing or something” is far from conclusive evidence, and as OP…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN