Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

persolb t1_jduvur6 wrote

Maybe just me, but it seems like the headline should include the words ‘bodies of’.

They are victims even if they were buried under the rubble with just a broken bone.

488

Dcap16 t1_jdvh9oz wrote

Victim is appropriate. The use of bodies is so disrespectful to families imo. Someone’s son or daughter shouldn’t in the end be simply referred to as “body”. They’re a victim alive or dead.

140

persolb t1_jdvx037 wrote

Adding the word ‘dead’ after ‘found’ would work too. Or switch ‘victims’ to ‘killed’.

The important information is that they are not alive anymore.

95

graveybrains t1_je164ud wrote

The expectation that whole articles can be crammed down into the space of a headline is getting out of hand.

2

persolb t1_je1wwou wrote

If the whole update can be a headline it should be. The entire rest of that article is filler.

Just to prove the point, I asked ChatGPT to summarize the headline in three ways and got:

Seven dead in Pennsylvania chocolate factory explosion

Seven fatalities confirmed in Pennsylvania chocolate factory explosion

West Reading community mourns loss of seven lives in chocolate factory explosion

​

Someone paid to do it should be able to come up with a better headline. I also, after some persuasion, got it to provide click-bait versions...

"You won't believe what caused the deadly explosion at this chocolate factory!"

"Exclusive: Eyewitness reveals shocking details about the chocolate factory blast in Pennsylvania"

"Is the chocolate industry hiding something? Tragic explosion at factory raises questions"

0

Sinder77 t1_jdw3cmk wrote

Is it? Seems like the information being passed along was that those people were missing after the explosion, now they've been found.

−31

VanillaLifestyle t1_jdw46ic wrote

All the dead are victims but not all the victims are dead.

38

Sinder77 t1_jdw4di7 wrote

OK, but the headline is talking about whether or not they're been found.

−19

NordicDong t1_jdw5fad wrote

Found alive or recovered a body is a huge difference. You don't understand why people would want to know how many died vs stubbed their toe?

26

Sinder77 t1_jdw5mjo wrote

The article gives that detail. This is a headline.

It's literally the first line of the article that they're bodies were found.

−19

NordicDong t1_jdw5qk6 wrote

Why not include that in the headline? It's intentionally misleading so you have to click. There will 100% be people who just read the headline and now believe 7 people just got found alive.

12

Sinder77 t1_jdw64pl wrote

Because the point of this article is that they have now found all of them.

Before, they were missing. Now, they are found. The news is that they have now been found.

−5

NordicDong t1_jdwaqj0 wrote

Found means NOTHING without knowing if they're alive or not. You're either dense or pointlessly argumentative

6

Sinder77 t1_jdwfvvm wrote

It's just the headline dude.

Like the alternative run would be that they're still missing. Which is also news. It's an ongoing situation that was updated. The update was that they're no longer looking for anyone as they've all been accounted for. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.

0

NordicDong t1_jdwgm0a wrote

The real update is that they're DEAD not just found bruh. Nobody cares that they were found. The status is what matters. Get it together smh

5

Slapbox t1_jdwfhht wrote

Using "recovered" instead of "found" is the way to handle this, I think.

89

Dcap16 t1_jdwj5vh wrote

I agree. But, it’s just a headline. It’s become too normal to use body. Body this body that for one or two paragraph articles that serve no other purpose than to generate revenue from the dozen advertisements on the page. Last week locally “body pulled from pond” when the first paragraph gives the man’s name, age, circumstances (accident). Why not “56yo local man recovered from pond following accident”? It is just something that grinds my gears.

12

Brohara97 t1_jdxxjm0 wrote

Never thought about that before but you’re right! I think that may grind my gears now too!

7

richalex2010 t1_jdxgj5l wrote

There's other terms. "Remains of all 7 Pennsylvania chocolate factory victims found" would more accurately describe the victims' deceased condition without being disrespectful.

18

Dcap16 t1_jdxlw2d wrote

Many other options than body. But it is just a headline.

1

Exseatsniffer t1_jdvo3g3 wrote

You might be right, but it's not accurate. And I don't think the family would be more distraught by reading about bodies as they're pretty much at peak fucked up as it is and I'm pretty sure this article is the least of their problems right now. Journalism should be about accuracy, not about potential hurt feelings.

10

axxl75 t1_jdvrf0k wrote

Victims is accurate just not as specific as it could be. And if you bothered to open the article literally the 3rd word is “bodies”.

You’re getting pedantic and upset over nothing.

8

Dcap16 t1_jdw0dti wrote

It’s completely accurate. Want the full story? Read the article, not just headlines. Bodies is used to generate clicks.

−1

Orleanian t1_jdxadi9 wrote

I mean... wouldn't this headline lead me to believe that I should call MarySue up and congratulate her on her son having been found?

Which would be inappropriate, as it was his dead body that was found, and my condolences that should have been offered?

9

biscovery t1_jdw4go7 wrote

Its implied that they were dead but i wasn’t sure til i read the comments. Probably could have just read the article but that’s a lot of work.

2

[deleted] t1_jdvfgdz wrote

[deleted]

2

Dave3786 t1_jdvfswr wrote

First line of the article makes it clear they’re all dead

6

Mentalpatient87 t1_jdwlch5 wrote

Yeah, but they didn't cram every detail of the article in the headline. So Reddit thinks that makes it clickbait or something.

1

Sinder77 t1_jdw3g1n wrote

Literally the first line of the article says "bodies".

2

richalex2010 t1_jdxgpcj wrote

Which means you might click thinking they've found someone alive, and only after they have the ad revenue do you find out the truth. It's not as bad as many, but it's still clickbait.

8

WirelessBCupSupport t1_jdvx9tc wrote

Well, they might have found remnants of them...but I think "victims" is appropriate.

1

GoliathTCB t1_jdv3v4e wrote

With the rumoured info available, here's my take: a gas leak caused an initial, smaller explosion and subsequent fire, that initial explosion's concussive blast disturbed what had previously been settled cocoa dust across rafters/pipes/vent shafts, and when this cloud of dust was sparked, the entire building became a pressure bomb in effect.

121

john_doe_jersey t1_jdvp481 wrote

People always seem to forget that safety regulations are written in blood.

I don't know if Trump's 2017 rollback of Obama-era safety rules put in place after the 2013 chemical plan explosion in TX was a factor here, but when safety takes a back seat to profits, people die.

124

kaihatsusha t1_jdwpnle wrote

Deregulation is another word for "let's relive past tragedies!"

47

ILikeMyGrassBlue t1_jdwq8mu wrote

Yup. Whenever you see a “don’t do XYZ,” it’s because some did it.

A perfect example of this just happened to a guy I know. He uses these machines at work. He was training a new guy and explicitly said, “there’s no guard here, but make sure your fingers don’t go in. This thing’ll pull them right off.” A few days later, the guy know accidentally got a finger in there and was just barely able to save it. He got incredibly lucky and easily could’ve lost a whole hand. And now they finally decided to pay someone to put guards on those specific machines to prevent it.

25

throwaway661375735 t1_jdznj6e wrote

Guards like that cost money. Corporations don't like to spend money, unless lobbying is more expensive. Its the reason trains derail so often. Lobbying, is much cheaper than fixing the problem. 😕

1

Jayce_T t1_jdx8wpy wrote

And that unless the fines and punishments are high enough, big companies will flaunt them anyway and eat the cost

5

Relentless_Salami t1_jdvweko wrote

"Safety regulations are written in blood..." this man drank the Kool Aid at his OSHA 10 training.

−132

TheGaussianMan t1_jdw3neg wrote

This guy has never worked in a factory or lab.

68

17times2 t1_jdw72gv wrote

Seriously. You can literally watch it happen in front of you. We have stricter regulations on our barrel makers because someone lost half a finger. Extra ventilation was only made when one summer our interior reached 130 degrees F and workers literally could not be in the plant for more than 5 minutes and were getting hospitalized from heat stroke.

40

bradlees t1_jdwhx3l wrote

It seems he does. Maybe he just hates regulations (though it seems like he understands them)….. it’s just a weird opinion he has I guess.

Good choice in flashlights, motorcycles and stuff like that though so I’m reserving actual judgment here that he actually obeys OHSA even if he hates it. At least I hope so…

−1

preprandial_joint t1_jdwkjd1 wrote

they sub to antiwork too ironically.

"We don't need no OSHA regulations to tell me how to do my job!" and "What's that? You expect me to put effort into my job?"

9

Relentless_Salami t1_jdwti9q wrote

I partake in plenty of subs thst I generally don't align philosophically with. I'm actually a former union EHS rep. And ironically I work in an industrial lab/testing facility. I keep myself and my co-workers plenty safe.

−13

ogipogo t1_jdx3ewu wrote

I'm glad you aren't responsible for my safety.

10

Relentless_Salami t1_jdx60jd wrote

Why because I said someone drank the Kool Aid during their OSHA 10? What an odd way to come to a conclusion lol. The internet man.......haha.

−7

Skewk t1_jdyehbx wrote

Do you have a particular reason or examples to share why you disagree?

2

Kronqvist t1_jdw31r1 wrote

Funny, kinda sounds like you’re chugging kool-aid right now, just a different flavor.

28

kaizenkitten t1_jdw6yf0 wrote

Hey at least you know it was made in accordance to 29 CFR 1910.141 (h)

7

persolb t1_jdw2hlz wrote

Yeah, we should stop pretending safety is our top priority. Safety is important, and people try to reduce risk, but in practice it almost always takes second place to doing what needs to be done.

Millions of people in the US drive to work everyday. ~100 of them die in vehicle accidents every day. Meanwhile ~5 people die a day at US workplaces (excluding vehicle accidents above and violence).

−32

17times2 t1_jdw7wgd wrote

> Millions of people in the US drive to work everyday. ~100 of them die in vehicle accidents every day. Meanwhile ~5 people die a day at US workplaces

...Is this attempting to minimalize fatalities in workplaces? Cars have new safety features put on or improved every single year to save lives. What do you think you're arguing here?

22

persolb t1_jdx3eco wrote

I guess my point was that, much like driving to work, people take risks people take risks when working. The biggest risk, by far, that people take is driving to work in the first place.

The remainder of the risks are minuscule in comparison. A defensive driving course would make everyone safer than OSHA 10.

−7

17times2 t1_jdx949c wrote

> A defensive driving course would make everyone safer than OSHA 10.

Do you have a stat for this, or are you just continuing to minimize the efforts of workplace safety? There's a big difference between idiots on the road you have little to no control over, and say, an exposed pump with moving parts that has been reported 3 times to management until Phil got too close and it pulled his hand in and now they finally put a metal shield over the damn thing. Although I guess Phil's wasn't a fatality so he doesn't count against workplace safety...

9

persolb t1_jdxagd7 wrote

You are arguing a straw man. I never said we should ignore safety, I said safety wasn’t number 1.

If safety was number 1, we’d all refuse to drive to work.

−6

17times2 t1_jdxej30 wrote

Then by that logic, all of us should stay and hide in bed because there's danger outside. Congrats, you win the useless pedantic argument award.

4

bradlees t1_jdwk5wj wrote

Oh I see persolb - dying is just a thing that everyone who goes into work just has to deal with. Like, who cares if you die at work. Right buddy?

Except people no longer have to die. Follow these rules and put this gear on or use these guards or follow these steps and you will never get killed at a job. Which is why your statistics are so low for workplace deaths.

I’m am betting you never saw someone get killed at work. Have you?

I have. Twice. Both “just wanted to get things done”. No extra time was saved and both will never see their kids grow up or go home again.

Comments like yours are just coming from a place where you don’t know any better. I felt that way too. Then I saw a guy get crushed. Another get smashed into the warehouse floor after falling from the top level racking.

10

persolb t1_jdx0zd9 wrote

Four times. Two suicides by train, one roll away and crush, one because a scissor lift failed.

Excluding the two suicides, neither was ‘because they wanted to get it done’.

You missed the part where I said the goal is to mitigate risk. That does not mean safety is the first priority. The safest job is always the one that doesn’t happen.

−1

TraditionalRest808 t1_jdwnmlm wrote

Factory dust explosion fact.

A dime high of dust can cause an explosion.

The carbon in the sugar makes this type of explosive very dangerous.

23

unropednope t1_jdwpxdo wrote

Doubtful. This occurred in a building separate from the actual factory, near the human resources department. Gas leak.

−17

TraditionalRest808 t1_jdwq3tv wrote

Doughtful?

Perhaps you didn't read.

I didn't say dust caused the incident, only that this is a safety fact taught to factory workers from science?

Does that help your comment?

12

morphballganon t1_jducg4c wrote

What does a chocolate factory need that is explosive enough to kill 7 people?

46

5xad0w t1_jdudnrt wrote

Literally anything that creates fine dust when stored or processed such as flour, sugar, cocoa, etc.

360

Heiferoni t1_jdukuig wrote

Yeah it's a common classroom physics demonstration to harmlessly combust a small amount of flour in a can. Great way to help in understanding silo explosions.

133

Sioul_the_resilient t1_jdvk0ap wrote

Well not literally anything, but yes many things create combustible dusts that must be treated as hazardous. Dusts are actually tested for their ease of combustibility and the pressure created from combustion to rate the level of hazard and safety measures needed.

Source - have designed industrial dust collection systems and have done process safety evaluations with dust systems for work.

20

bkconn t1_jdvmira wrote

You just reminded me of this incredibly satisfying dust collection system I saw yesterday. The stone debris being drilled from a giant tunnel through a mountain bust be completely de-dusted in order to keep the tunnel air breathable for all the workers inside.

https://youtu.be/Bie00h3lxKI?t=200

11

asdaaaaaaaa t1_jdugbv0 wrote

Anything that gets turned into fine enough powder and gets dispersed will explode. Sugar, flower, sawdust, dust itself, etc. Most factories have stuff like that in them. Most oils and fats used in food production can be quite flammable as well. Really, heavy production just isn't the safest thing, but it's a great way for you to get chocolate bars or whatever else at an actually affordable price.

59

spachi1281 t1_jdx09jh wrote

Yes even creamer that folks use in their coffee. I think someone can pull up the relevant Mythbusters clip of them testing this.

4

TechnicalSymbiote t1_jduchwl wrote

Natural gas

31

BlademasterFlash t1_jdutpqr wrote

Yeah a lot of people are talking about dust explosions (which is a possibility) but I’m thinking it’s more likely a boiler or something like that

12

iksbob t1_jduwlv8 wrote

The weather-cam footage looked a bit flamey. I don't think it was steam.

1

memberzs t1_jdux7i0 wrote

how do you think the water is heated for boilers?

8

iksbob t1_jduyam5 wrote

Yeah, but that's just a gas explosion. Boilers are heavy pressure vessels. The burner could blow out and cause an explosion destroying the building, leaving the boiler tank sitting on its stand (less some insulation). Boiler explosions are a whole different thing - a (typically structurally-compromised) tank explodes due to reaching its pressure limit.

6

BabySnarkalaTurkey t1_jduog6y wrote

There is also a debate about the possibility of a gas leak from what I read earlier. The next building over in the factory complex had people who reported smelling gas all day, but the gas company claims that no report was made. The gas company did respond early in the resulting fire from the explosion to help shut off gas to the area to prevent further explosions. Time will tell what the cause was.

21

TheLaGrangianMethod t1_jduhd5f wrote

Flour explodes very easily and violently. Plenty of other stuff too. That's just ignoring something like natural gas or propane.

19

shewy92 t1_jdv2xp4 wrote

You know that sugar can be explosive, right? And chocolate has sugar in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Georgia_sugar_refinery_explosion

>On 7 February 2008, fourteen people were killed and forty injured during a dust explosion at an Imperial Sugar owned refinery in Port Wentworth, Georgia, United States. Dust explosions had been an issue of concern among U.S. authorities since three fatal accidents in 2003, with efforts made to improve safety and reduce the risk of reoccurrence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_explosion

>A dust explosion is the rapid combustion of fine particles suspended in the air within an enclosed location. Dust explosions can occur where any dispersed powdered combustible material is present in high-enough concentrations in the atmosphere or other oxidizing gaseous medium, such as pure oxygen. In cases when fuel plays the role of a combustible material, the explosion is known as a fuel-air explosion.

>?Dust explosions are a frequent hazard in coal mines, grain elevators, and other industrial environments. They are also commonly used by special effects artists, filmmakers, and pyrotechnicians, given their spectacular appearance and ability to be safely contained under certain carefully controlled conditions.

13

memberzs t1_jdux4nq wrote

organic powders like wheat dust, plastic dust, and sweeteners can all explode if blow into the air, even a static spark can ignite it. boilers that aren't maintained or malfunctioning, ammonia systems used for refrigeration and process chillers. the list is quite long for pretty much any manufacturing facility especially food manufacturing.

8

mrg1957 t1_jdw0aq0 wrote

I used to replace the sulpur in my homemade gunpowder with sugar.

1

Janixon1 t1_jdycvue wrote

Mythbusters did an episode on this. I think they used non-dairy creamer. They created a helluva fireball

1

djpackrat t1_jdv4jq5 wrote

I grew up in that area, this makes me very sad :(

15

S1DC t1_jdwc819 wrote

I lived in Lititz where Wilbur Chocolate operated for decades. At first I thought this was there somehow. Of course this isn't any better... damn

9

Brohara97 t1_jdxxpcz wrote

I thought it was too. Absolute tragedy either way though

1

sugar_addict002 t1_jdxtg4n wrote

Do they have an idea of what caused this explosion?

2

God_of_Illiteracy t1_jdy3t0v wrote

I live not far and have friends in the Fire police. From he said that they need to finish clearing debris before they can start an investigation.

3

Keylime29 t1_jdynxx9 wrote

It took until today to find them all?? What blew up, exactly?

1

The__hex t1_jdz0iqp wrote

Hmm… i dont like the look of it. Oom.

1

throwaway661375735 t1_jdzn5r7 wrote

Seems to me news which is a bit late bit. Chock-late news, to those who matter most.

1

Free_Dimension1459 t1_jdwk06r wrote

Not like this. First the child labor. Now people’s lives too. Darn it big chocolate. Why you gotta ruin a good thing with your evils.

−2