ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Huge Fire at Industrial Park in Hillsborough

PaKnight said:
Nothing was more fun than running behind a mosquito truck.
Click to expand...
We used to hop on our bikes and follow them around the neighborhood. Then again, we also used to drive in the car with no seatbelt in the front seat with second-hand smoke blazing in our faces with occasionally buzzed parents. Dogs used to be allowed to take a dump wherever their owners let them without cleaning it up, people smoked on airplanes and in restaurants, we'd go to the beach without sun screen, and (on the lighter side), we watched Laugh-In.

Does this partly explain our collective forbearance of our football and basketball programs? I mean, DDT was GOOD STUFF, I must say.
 
RutgersRaRa said:
We used to hop on our bikes and follow them around the neighborhood. Then again, we also used to drive in the car with no seatbelt in the front seat with second-hand smoke blazing in our faces with occasionally buzzed parents. Dogs used to be allowed to take a dump wherever their owners let them without cleaning it up, people smoked on airplanes and in restaurants, we'd go to the beach without sun screen, and (on the lighter side), we watched Laugh-In.

Does this partly explain our collective forbearance of our football and basketball programs? I mean, DDT was GOOD STUFF, I must say.
Click to expand...

There aren't many people who recollect that, until 1986, it was legal in the state of New Jersey to drink and drive - as long as you weren't over the limit (.05).

Ah, mosquito trucks... Those were the days.
 
RU4Real said:
There aren't many people who recollect that, until 1986, it was legal in the state of New Jersey to drink and drive - as long as you weren't over the limit (.05).

Ah, mosquito trucks... Those were the days.
Click to expand...
Yep, and occasionally the cops treated the limit as though it was .5. Now THOSE were the days (and evenings). I mean, that's what I've been told, of course, since I was at church.
 
Let's not forget riding around in the back of someone's pickup or a flatbed for a Little League parade.
David_RU said:
Do you work in the building with Air Liquide/Voltaix? I live pretty close in Whitehouse Station.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's our building.
 
RU4Real said:
There aren't many people who recollect that, until 1986, it was legal in the state of New Jersey to drink and drive - as long as you weren't over the limit (.05).

Ah, mosquito trucks... Those were the days.
Click to expand...

I remember pops driving us down to the beach circa 1980 in his AMC Hornet Sportabout SW, cracking open several Piels real drafts on the way.
 
RULoyal said:
It all depends on your definition of toxic. In the strict sense of the word it may not be toxic - do you want be breathing it (or any smoke for that matter) probably not.
Click to expand...

My issue is how the info is released to the public. The real issue is what is the real threat assessment. What is in the smoke, the density, what is your dose, etc.

A local health official would be better of just saying to stay in your house, and avoid breathing the smoke. And telling people, the further away you are, the less chance of inhaling a dangerous amount. But instead they say its non-toxic, which for that fire, we know it is not true. There could be severe health issues, both acute and chronic for those on the scene if they are breathing it, and also for others if they are close enough and breath enough smoke.
 
Went outside for a walk a little earlier, and there was still some smoke in the sky.

I did sniff the air, and immediately fell down and started speaking in tongues. However, I was upwind from the fire so I don't think that had anything to do with it.
 
JPhoboken said:
My issue is how the info is released to the public. The real issue is what is the real threat assessment. What is in the smoke, the density, what is your dose, etc.

A local health official would be better of just saying to stay in your house, and avoid breathing the smoke. And telling people, the further away you are, the less chance of inhaling a dangerous amount. But instead they say its non-toxic, which for that fire, we know it is not true. There could be severe health issues, both acute and chronic for those on the scene if they are breathing it, and also for others if they are close enough and breath enough smoke.
Click to expand...
Totally agree.
 
JPhoboken said:
I know they are lying. Some smoke might be worse than others, depending on whats burning, but to say the smoke is non-toxic is not true. This was an old warehouse, tar roofs, wood and plastic inside, and who know what was stored in there, you really think the smoke from that burning was non-toxic? Trust me, you don't want to be breathing it if you don't have to. The smoke is not non-toxic.
Click to expand...

Yeah. All smoke is toxic, including the smoke from the wood fire I lit in my fireplace the other night. The glass of wine I had last night is toxic too.

But the DEP didn't say the the smoke was not toxic ... in fact they advised people in the smoky areas to avoid going outdoors. The DEP said they were testing the smoke for toxins (other than the usual stuff you would expect in a building fire) and did not find any.

It isn't very useful for the DEP to sound the alarm about stuff in the smoke that is no different than the smoke from any building fire. At an industrial warehouse, people are concerned about unusual toxins in the smoke (in this case, specifically lead and mercury) that might trigger warnings beyond the usual "stay indoors, especially if you have respiratory problems".

Had they found lead or mercury in the air, or other highly poisonous toxins, they probably would have evacuated the area. Unless they are lying. But there is no reason to believe they are.
 
Upstream said:
Yeah. All smoke is toxic, including the smoke from the wood fire I lit in my fireplace the other night. The glass of wine I had last night is toxic too.

But the DEP didn't say the the smoke was not toxic ... in fact they advised people in the smoky areas to avoid going outdoors. The DEP said they were testing the smoke for toxins (other than the usual stuff you would expect in a building fire) and did not find any.

It isn't very useful for the DEP to sound the alarm about stuff in the smoke that is no different than the smoke from any building fire. At an industrial warehouse, people are concerned about unusual toxins in the smoke (in this case, specifically lead and mercury) that might trigger warnings beyond the usual "stay indoors, especially if you have respiratory problems".

Had they found lead or mercury in the air, or other highly poisonous toxins, they probably would have evacuated the area. Unless they are lying. But there is no reason to believe they are.
Click to expand...

The local health official in Hillsborough said the smoke was non-toxic. Sorry, that is a lie. I get there are factors that make some smoke more dangerous than others, I am a CIH, so I understand Toxicity versus Hazard, but to say the smoke is non-toxic is wrong. THe smoke coming off that fire has plenty of toxic chemicals, nobody would really dispute that. Could it be more hazardous, yes, but to say non-toxic is really not being truthful.
 
I live in Flemington and could see the fire last night at 9PM from my deck. Friend of mine lost his business in the fire.
 
Upstream said:
Why are you assuming that they are lying? The DEP is monitoring the smoke and says they have not detected any toxins in the smoke.
Click to expand...
It smelled like gunpowder, or chemicals for one thing. Also the materials that they used to keep in those warehouses. And just seeing the color and the solids that were falling out of the sky. A report on the news said they were worried about vaporized lead in the smoke. To me that is enough red flags to realize it was toxic. I think the sole purpose for authorities to say the air quality is fine is to not make people panic or maybe to avoid an expense of cleaning a vast area. Like another person said, the authorities should give a scale of toxicity not say the smoke isn't toxic. Do you think the air from the collapse of the twin towers was fine?
 
JPhoboken said:
The local health official in Hillsborough said the smoke was non-toxic.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any official from Hillsborough, Somerset County, or the DEP saying the smoke was non-toxic. In fact, the township issued an air quality alert for the area, based on the recommendation from the DEP. What the DEP did say is that they were monitoring air quality and while they found quality issues typical for a building fires (such as carbon monoxide and particulates) they did not find any unusual toxins.

When the DEP says that there is nothing unusually unsafe in the air quality from an industrial fire (while still issuing an air quality alert and recommending people in the area stay indoors), and you call them out as liars, you imply that there is something unusually dangerous.
 
DJ Spanky said:
Went outside for a walk a little earlier, and there was still some smoke in the sky.

I did sniff the air, and immediately fell down and started speaking in tongues. However, I was upwind from the fire so I don't think that had anything to do with it.
Click to expand...
I have that album, too!! Did the people around you start jamming with you to Burnin' Down the House? Oh wait, something's wrong with that....
 
I could see the flames shooting up last night from my office in Bridgewater
 
Dollar, H.P. child of the 60' s here ... I remember summer smog inversions where it looked like L.A. They tried to make us stay inside especially anyone with respiratory problems..The river looked like something from an iodine jar.
 
Upstream said:
But they didn't find any vaporized lead in the smoke. Unless they were lying. But there is no evidence they were lying.
Click to expand...
The danger is, kids or people without common sense might act like the air is fine based on the report and expose themselves to toxic fumes. Precautions people like you and me who don't fully believe the DEP will keep our windows and vents closed.
 
RUScrew85 said:
The Lead exposure would explain a lot.
Click to expand...
On the plus side, some of us can go to the dentist and not need that heavy blanket they put on regular patients when they take x-rays. So inconvenient, that thing. Like, it weighs A LOT for some reason.
 
Last edited:
Extra Point said:
"Bob Considine with New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection confirmed Friday morning that there's no air quality issues resulting from the fire."
Why do these guys lie like this? Are they stupid or something? btw it is still burning and the giant column of toxic smoke is still there.
http://www.nj.com/somerset/index.ssf/2016/02/hillsborough_schools_closed_after_massive_warehous.html
Click to expand...
Maybe they are referring to nothing toxic except for the regular stuff in building fire smoke.
 
SL reports: "Inside were bulk amounts of furniture, paper records and food goods, but much of the dark smoke that billowed skyward was a result of the plastic pellets stored there." No mercury stored there. Blaming poor sprinklers and old hydrants.
 
Upstream said:
I'm not aware of any official from Hillsborough, Somerset County, or the DEP saying the smoke was non-toxic. In fact, the township issued an air quality alert for the area, based on the recommendation from the DEP. What the DEP did say is that they were monitoring air quality and while they found quality issues typical for a building fires (such as carbon monoxide and particulates) they did not find any unusual toxins.

When the DEP says that there is nothing unusually unsafe in the air quality from an industrial fire (while still issuing an air quality alert and recommending people in the area stay indoors), and you call them out as liars, you imply that there is something unusually dangerous.
Click to expand...

I stick to the points I made.

On thursday, the Hillsborough health officer said the smoke was "non-toxic. This is simply not true. This is what I said was a lie.

He has since changed that to: "We are very confident there is no public health threat," Belnay said.

This is fair and more responsible than what he first said.
 
JPhoboken said:
I stick to the points I made.

On thursday, the Hillsborough health officer said the smoke was "non-toxic. This is simply not true. This is what I said was a lie.

He has since changed that to: "We are very confident there is no public health threat," Belnay said.

This is fair and more responsible than what he first said.
Click to expand...
This is what I think as well.
 
JPhoboken said:
I stick to the points I made.

On thursday, the Hillsborough health officer said the smoke was "non-toxic. This is simply not true. This is what I said was a lie.

He has since changed that to: "We are very confident there is no public health threat," Belnay said.

This is fair and more responsible than what he first said.
Click to expand...

If he said the smoke was non-toxic, he shouldn't have said that, since all smoke is toxic to some degree. But I am not aware of any official from Hillsborough or the DEP actually saying that.
 
Last edited:
RUScrew85 said:
Bad job by the FFers or did they want new trucks?
Click to expand...

Wow...nice attitude. Firefighting can be terribly difficult at times. They took a stand, tried to stop the spread and save the next building and they got overwhelmed. It happens. Sometimes it happens very quickly. I don't mean to sound overly defensive, but if you're not on the job you may not fully understand.
 
mean15 said:
Wow...nice attitude. Firefighting can be terribly difficult at times. They took a stand, tried to stop the spread and save the next building and they got overwhelmed. It happens. Sometimes it happens very quickly. I don't mean to sound overly defensive, but if you're not on the job you may not fully understand.
Click to expand...

In fairness to @RUScrew85, they also always want new trucks. So really, it's what you said AND what he said.
 
Been following this from afar at work, since I've had significant emergency planning/response responsibilities for many years at work, and we pay close attention to incidents like this. Right off the bat any moron in a position of authority for communications who would say the smoke is non-toxic should be fired. Sure, actual exposures off site might not be considered dangerous (dilution does work), but any smoke from a fire is going to contain numerous products of incomplete combustion, which are toxic.

http://www.nfpa.org/press-room/reporters-guide-to-fire-and-nfpa/consequences-of-fire

Secondly, early indications are that the sprinkler systems and hydrants available on this federally owned property, were inadequate, despite protests by local officials to have them upgraded to NJ codes. This may or may not have prevented the worst of the fire, but it certainly wouldn't have hurt.

http://www.nj.com/somerset/index.ss...e_problems_at_hillsbor.html#incart_river_home

Third, large warehouse fires like this can be extremely dangerous to firefighters and other responders and I wonder if they had good intel on what was inside, given the lessons recently shared in the CSB report on the deadly West Fertilizer (TX) fire and explosion that killed 15 (mostly responders) and injured 260 a few years ago when a fire led to an explosion of 30 tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. In that situation, letting the fire burn itself out would have been the better choice, but lack of knowledge and planning prevented that decision from being reached.

http://www.csb.gov/west-fertilizer-explosion-and-fire-/

Finally, while nobody can guarantee that a government official isn't lying, having worked at the NJDEP for a year, having 1 very good friend from college who still works there (in the air permit area), and having dealt with them professionally over the years, I can tell you with confidence that most of the people in the DEP are dedicated professionals who truly take their job of protecting the environment and public health seriously and would be hugely surprised if any of them were lying.
 
Last edited:
Upstream said:
If he said the smoke was non-toxic, he shouldn't have said that, since all smoke is toxic to some degree. But I am not aware of any official from Hillsborough or the DEP actually saying that.
Click to expand...
Belay said it. I am aware of it.
 
Mmmm, DDT - used to love running after the smoke trucks, lol. And getting on our bikes and chasing any firetrucks to see where the fire was. Bottle rocket fights, blowing up giant wine jugs with M80s, shooting things with BB guns, torching shaving cream and lighter fluid together, and drinking and smoking dope from the time we were 13-14. Fun times. I also don't think I knew what a seatbelt was until the 80s. Wasn't lucky enough to grow up near a toxic waste dump, though.
 
mean15 said:
Wow...nice attitude. Firefighting can be terribly difficult at times. They took a stand, tried to stop the spread and save the next building and they got overwhelmed. It happens. Sometimes it happens very quickly. I don't mean to sound overly defensive, but if you're not on the job you may not fully understand.
Click to expand...
Not being anti-FF here. Just hey - big fire, budget cuts, put the old POS truck in harms way - get new truck - might be the only way to get it funded given our current crop of politicians.

And if not, that fire must have REALLY surprised them that one guy wasn't close enough to jump in the seat and drive to safety.
 
RU848789 said:
I thought every kid learned that one by the age of 10. Taught that one to my son around that age and recall him howling with laughter (tinged with a little fear, lol).
Click to expand...
Somehow it escaped being brought to my attention until ten years ago, and I of course embraced it right away. Limited opportunities to tell it, but this forum presents opportunities for moments such as these.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RU848789

OT: Major Nor'easter for our region Thursday into Friday (12/16/22) - looks mostly wet for most of us

Replies
120
Views
5K
Rutgers Football
RUPete
R
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back