Is Burning Man still dangerous?

Lassen Forge · Post by **Lassen Forge** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:55 am

This seems restrictive...

The EMS is easy, as REMSA is already on site.

Hazard assessment - alrady do that as well. Wonder if they'll try to use that to close the event early, using a duststorm as the reason?

How do we certify our drinking water and showers? In advance? We need to get their approval on our gallon jugs of water before we go up there?

All right... who brought the livestock trough to BRC?? Beware, tho, as this can also be construed to be an evap pond over 50 gallons (11, 550 cubic INCHES as I remember - do the math, that's not very big - a 4x8' evap pond that has 3" of water in it is in violation of this rule!!) Something to think about.

Sounds like BLM is working at cross purposes all of the sudden... even if it's loosely enforced *now*, nothing stops it from being tightened up later, shutting BRC down before it's even launched.

Wish I had an "in" at BLM, now... or a few congresspeople to work on our side of the equation...

bb

Rockdad · Post by **Rockdad** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:14 am

60. BRC LLC shall assume responsibility for public safety and health during all phases of the
event, including, but not limited, to the following (Link)

Also last page shows where BMORG has obtained a comprehensive insurance policy.

So much for all the discussion about BMORG not having liability for injuries, deaths etc

They cannot assume anyone has read the ticket back especially prior to purchase. IMHO

Also notice where the Feds are held harmless though!

Rockdad · Post by **Rockdad** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:34 pm

Every Burner should read this crap sheet from the BLM and Org.
What does half this crap got to do with Environmental Assessment?

Controlled substances are covered, morals, restricted zones, fireworks, firefighting, police activities, wading pools, horse troughs, guns and ton of other crap that has nothing to do with environmental assesment! Lots of ways that the BLM can decide before, during and after event that the event is in violation and shut it down for good. Even if they think the weather is dangerous!

The appendix has the permit conditions
http://www.nv.blm.gov/Winnemucca/NEPA/b ... ingman.htm

Niacin · Post by **Niacin** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:58 pm

Rockdad wrote:Also last page shows where BMORG has obtained a comprehensive insurance policy.

Regardless of the affect of lessening risk at BM, it's a good thing the Org has insurance. I don't want the Burn to stop because a mother disagreed with someone's decision to give fire-breathing a go wearing a rayon jumpsuit.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:48 am

Sheesh, people... what's in danger seems to be reading comprehension.

Rockdad · Post by **Rockdad** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:32 am

Bob wrote:Sheesh, people... what's in danger seems to be reading comprehension.

Actually Bob would love to hear what you mean?
I read it through a few times...
The excerpt I posted was from the BLM required stipulations that are going to be
REQUIRED of the Burning Man org in order to even get a use permit issued.
And there is all kinds of very harmless sounding short paragraphs that could be used to deny the permit altogether.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:36 am

Rockdad wrote:Every Burner should read this crap sheet from the BLM and Org.

Why? It's the LLC's job to make it happen. It's my job to make it great.

Lassen Forge · Post by **Lassen Forge** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:12 am

When you look, however, at the "do nothing" option of the permit, (you *have* read the permit, right??) you realize how foolish it would be to deny the org their permit. This way they have control over the event. Not giving the permit woukd give birth to an anarchist situation, which would be a multi-faceted disaster that even the BLM comprehends. (OK... 40K people, no more LNT or burn scar protection, no public safety or LE presence to "protect" Gerlach and Empire and the reservations, no environmental protections, no protection of the historical artifacts closeby, no more porta poties, no more revenue to the BLM or the local communities, no medical facility for when participants get shot or run over because they're drag racing through the ad-hoc city during a white out...)

Naw... I think the "do nothing" option is no longer an option... >grins<

bb

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:12 am

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the permit, it's rules, stipulations and the requirement that BM LLC operate within the State and Federal laws outlined in said permit. Puts responsibility on the LLC and participants in a fair an equitable manner.

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:40 am

Rockdad wrote:60. BRC LLC shall assume responsibility for public safety and health during all phases of the
event, including, but not limited, to the following.....

Also notice where the Feds are held harmless though!

I don't see a problem here.

Rockdad · Post by **Rockdad** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:40 pm

helitack wrote:
Rockdad wrote:60. BRC LLC shall assume responsibility for public safety and health during all phases of the
event, including, but not limited, to the following.....

Also notice where the Feds are held harmless though!
I don't see a problem here.

No problem I was referring to past discussions and threads where peeps claimed the back of the ticket held the LLC harmless

Rockdad · Post by **Rockdad** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:43 pm

helitack wrote:There is absolutely nothing wrong with the permit, it's rules, stipulations and the requirement that BM LLC operate within the State and Federal laws outlined in said permit. Puts responsibility on the LLC and participants in a fair an equitable manner.

Ok where does federal law say they can add all these stipulations?
It is an Environmental Assessment and they are doing a end run with it. That was my point.

"What does half this crap got to do with Environmental Assessment"

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:57 pm

Bay Bridge Sue wrote:When you look, however, at the "do nothing" option of the permit, (you *have* read the permit, right??) you realize how foolish it would be to deny the org their permit.

Wow, I'd never thought about it this way before. People would still gather there during the same period, LLC or not, and yeah, it would be a train wreck for the BLM. The shoe is on the other foot now, isn't it?

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:03 pm

43 CFR

Read it, know it, love it

Rockdad · Post by **Rockdad** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:06 pm

helitack wrote:43 CFR

Read it, know it, love it

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te ... ain_02.tpl

Ok get back to you in a couple days....

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:12 pm

Basically 43 CFR gives the BLM the authority and the duty to enforce compliance with permittees no matter what the activity. Be it mining or oil and gas or recreation. Which means insurance, emergency services etc

Rockdad · Post by **Rockdad** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:34 pm

helitack wrote:Basically 43 CFR gives the BLM the authority and the duty to enforce compliance with permittees no matter what the activity. Be it mining or oil and gas or recreation. Which means insurance, emergency services etc

I will get around to reading it my point was why not just say so? why hide under a enviromental umbrella which lead me to believe thay may not have any other written authority for these stipulations...

They say as much a couple times in the stipulations that it is not about morals then go ahead and want to zone the city for moral reasons...

My morals are not derived from the Immoral Bush administration...

Note: I see nothing about morals here

Code: Select all

[Title 43, Volume 2]
[Revised as of October 1, 2003]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 43CFR2932.56]

[Page 312-313]
 
                    TITLE 43--PUBLIC LANDS: INTERIOR
 
    CHAPTER II--BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 
PART 2930--PERMITS FOR RECREATION ON PUBLIC LANDS--Table of Contents
 
Subpart 2932--Special Recreation Permits for Commercial Use, Competitive 
      Events, Organized Groups, and Recreation Use in Special Areas
 
Sec. 2932.56  When will BLM amend, suspend, or cancel my permit?

    (a) BLM may amend, suspend, or cancel your Special Recreation Permit 
if necessary to protect [b]public health, public safety, or the 
environment.[/b]    (b) BLM may suspend or cancel your Special Recreation Permit if you-
-
    (1) Violate permit stipulations, or
    (2) Are convicted of violating any Federal or State law or 
regulation concerning the conservation or protection of natural 
resources, the environment, endangered species, or antiquities.

[[Page 313]]

    (c) If we suspend your permit or a portion thereof, all of your 
responsibilities under the permit will continue during the suspension.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:41 am

Scroll down to the part where you party, you leave (thank god), and DPW cleans up.

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:32 am

Bob wrote:Scroll down to the part where you party, you leave (thank god), and DPW cleans up.

Sheesh, the DPW attitude flat out sucks sometimes. Remember without that "party" there wouldn't be a need for DPW. Biting the hand that feeds you is not a good idea...one of these times that hand will slap back.

Zulegoona · Post by **Zulegoona** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:53 pm

Kinetic IV wrote:
Bob wrote:Scroll down to the part where you party, you leave (thank god), and DPW cleans up.
Sheesh, the DPW attitude flat out sucks sometimes. Remember without that "party" there wouldn't be a need for DPW. Biting the hand that feeds you is not a good idea...one of these times that hand will slap back.

Translation :

“ Please, Please, Please, take that huge fork lift and pick up a burned out 1982 Ford van as high as you can and drop it on my camp”

Rockdad · Post by **Rockdad** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 8:03 pm

Bob wrote:Scroll down to the part where you party, you leave (thank god), and DPW cleans up.

Thing is he does not represent DPW! I have made friends with them, partied with them, and almost moved up there when they were looking for an electrician! The new no dog rule stopped me. Most of them are hella cool!
And like k4 said would be no DPW without the party!
Worked for a default real city for 25 years need the citizens or they would have no job for Ya so in fact he works for us.
So I will be there early again this year to help out and stay late to help out whether he likes it or not.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 12:05 am

Okay then, I'll just take your word for it that Burning Man is still dangerous because you "party" with DPW.

Fucking hell I'm glad I took last year off.

Rockdad · Post by **Rockdad** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:02 am

Bob wrote:Okay then, I'll just take your word for it that Burning Man is still dangerous because you "party" with DPW.

Fucking hell I'm glad I took last year off.

Didn’t say anything about dangerous or not just think your as pleasant as a hemorrhoid.

My point is your nasty attitude does not represent the DPW as a whole.
The job got done last year without you.

Desert Duck · Post by **Desert Duck** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:13 am

Oh, man. We kicked ass on the man base tearout last year-got it done in 5 1/2 hours. Apparently that was some kind of record-especially since there was more to tear out than years previous as well. I love working with those guys.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:42 am

Rockdad wrote:My point is your nasty attitude does not represent the DPW as a whole.

My apologies, esp. if you work for Fernley Electric, but DPW does want ya'll to leave when Burning Man is over, and come back when Burning Man starts. Otherwise, you're an impediment to permit compliance.

Re: reading comprehension, every permit doc I've seen leaves the agencies the leeway to act as Mr. Helitack cites. Even the ticket requires you to agree to follow federal, state, and local laws, without specificity. IMO the agencies have always been fairly reasonable wrt permit requirements, being concerned mostly with conventional public health, safety & environmental issues, and the current docs don't seem to reflect any change on that. The health dept has been involved for about ten years now, and law enforcement for longer, so their expectations are pretty well known regarding public pools and such.

At least they don't send the building department out to the event. Enough that we have to deal with them on the ranch.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:51 am

Mr Magoo · Post by **Mr Magoo** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 12:55 pm

I think it's the LLC covering its legal back on advice of their lawyers

I believe that Diane was right.
Actually, it is more than that. One has to assume the LLC has insurance coverage. They have to. Everytime a claim or lawsuit is filed, the next year some underwriter will make sure that there is a defense there (ie "warning on your ticket") or they exclude coverage. The language regarding the art cars is a perfect example. You will recall that the family of the poor burner who was run over by the art car did file suit.
Its all about the money. Not your safety.

Rockdad · Post by **Rockdad** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:04 pm

Bob wrote:
Rockdad wrote:My point is your nasty attitude does not represent the DPW as a whole.
My apologies, esp. if you work for Fernley Electric, but DPW does want ya'll to leave when Burning Man is over, and come back when Burning Man starts. Otherwise, you're an impediment to permit compliance.

Re: reading comprehension, every permit doc I've seen leaves the agencies the leeway to act as Mr. Helitack cites. Even the ticket requires you to agree to follow federal, state, and local laws, without specificity. IMO the agencies have always been fairly reasonable wrt permit requirements, being concerned mostly with conventional public health, safety & environmental issues, and the current docs don't seem to reflect any change on that. The health dept has been involved for about ten years now, and law enforcement for longer, so their expectations are pretty well known regarding public pools and such.

At least they don't send the building department out to the event. Enough that we have to deal with them on the ranch.

Very reasonable answer I did not understand before what you were saying about leaving of course everyone should leave or least move out of the BRC boundaries within the specified time apparently you must have experienced a problem with this before that I was not aware of but I never mentioned staying beyond any time limit.

The pool thing is not just "Public Pools" it states

“Portable swimming pools containing water, and that have a capacity of 50 gallons or more, are prohibited. As used in this section, "pools" includes inflatable wading pools, livestock troughs, and similar objects.”

so that would rule out a tiny kiddies pool to wet your feet in or possibly an evaporation pond even.

Anyhow I tend to think the local economy and the BLM need us more than we need them. It is public land.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:23 pm

Rockdad wrote:The pool thing is not just "Public Pools".....

The key word being "public". The health inspectors have always concentrated on camps or installations where there may be a chance of numbers of people coming into contact with coliform etc. The incident most people remember was in 1998, when the org placed an artist's "One Tree" installation in the keyhole near Center Camp -- a welded copper tree plumbed for spraying recycled water (and for propane flames). They did onsite testing with paper strips and allegedly found indications of coliform in that water, as well as in a few other installations involving "public" bathing. Fewer people remember they also were concerned in 1997 (and maybe previously) about the possibility of coliform spread due to heavy use of local hotsprings. You can't really fault them for doing their job.

Rockdad · Post by **Rockdad** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:26 pm

Bob wrote:
Rockdad wrote:The pool thing is not just "Public Pools".....
The key word being "public". The health inspectors have always concentrated on camps or installations where there may be a chance of numbers of people coming into contact with coliform etc. The incident most people remember was in 1998, when the org placed an artist's "One Tree" installation in the keyhole near Center Camp -- a welded copper tree plumbed for spraying recycled water (and for propane flames). They did onsite testing with paper strips and allegedly found indications of coliform in that water, as well as in a few other installations involving "public" bathing. Fewer people remember they also were concerned in 1997 (and maybe previously) about the possibility of coliform spread due to heavy use of local hotsprings. You can't really fault them for doing their job.

No your right somebody always pee's in the pool actually Coliform would have indicated shit in the pool nice!