“Obvious evidence of individuals promoting their favoured hypothesis.” D. Rowlands, Professor of Engineering, University of Qld
BY D. ROWLANDS, PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND
There are several paragraphs in the Review I draw attention to
“Unfortunately the Report does not describe a dispassionate consensus view of the reviewing team. there is obvious evidence of individuals promoting their favoured hypothesis.”
I cannot but agree with this statement.
The real question is which individuals are obviously promoting their favoured hypothesis.
Is it the overseas members of the multi disciplinary research team who presented enough “new evidence” for the Government in 1989 to spend $500,000 of taxpayers money on the Study?
Or is it the Qld based members including ex Chief Inspector of Coal Mines or Simtars Researcher who has spent 4 years trying to propagate an explosion from a Flame Safety Lamp?
The same 2 people who then rewrote the Original report into the Ministerial Report.
Rowlands goes on an makes the following statements
In the Moura No.4 mine disaster there were two events. that may have occurred concurrently or sequentially namely:
- a major collapse of the roof in the goaf, and
- an explosion.
In spite of all the extra material provided in this Report I come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that clearly establishes the cause of the Moura No.4 mine ex-plosion.
Nevertheless the report emphasises that:
- the flame safety lamp can be a potential source of ignition under certain atmospheric conditions. and
- there is a need to provide an inert atmosphere in coal mine goafs where there is the possibility of explosions associated with incendive sparking.
After reading these comments, I also have to question whether the Reviewer’s impartiality in the matter.
Phrases like “no evidence clearly establishes the cause” are little more than a cop out.
The use of the words “can be” and “under certain atmospheric conditions” speak for themselves.
As to “there is a need to provide inert atmosheres in coal mine goafs where there is the possibility of explosions associated with incendive sparking.” there is a reference in the Ministerial Executive Summary. Fourteen words actually.
“Ongoing reserch priorities are goaf inertisation and the elimination of frictional ignition by machines”
According the the Authors of the Ministerial Report there is obviously no need to do anything except put their hands out for more vaguely worded Government Research Grants.
Professor Rowlands also authored Chapter 31 “EXPLOSIONS and FIRES” in Australasian Coal Mining Practise published in 1993 by the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
I have attached a copy of page 550.
Rowlands states
In 1989 the Qld Government decided to carry out a further investigation into the incident after new interpretations of the blast and forensic evidence were formally reported to the Chief Inspector of Coal Mines.
A comprehensive multidisciplinary research team was set up to re-examine all the original and new evidence. The members consulted with overseas experts in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, the Federal Republic of Germany and New Zealand.
As a result, a major report was presented to the Queensland Government by SIMTARS in May 1990. The author of this Chapter was invited to review that report and as a result wrote the following as part of the review:
“In spite of all the extra material provided in this Report it came to the conclusion that there is no evidence that clearly establishes the cause of the Moura No 4 mine explosion”.
Nothing about goaf inertisation.
None of his other comments contained in his official Review at all.
Definitely not “Unfortunately the Report does not describe a dispassionate consensus view of the reviewing team. there is obvious evidence of individuals promoting their favoured hypothesis”
He then goes on to quote a Simtars Final Report from December 1990 about the Flame Safety Lamp that is longer than all his own words about the Moura No 4 Disaster.
In my view it is obvious which hypothesis Professor Rowlands ascribes to.
Given that this was an official Reference book for would be Mining Engineers what view would any ot them have as to what was the only likely cause of the explosion?
Did 30 years of one sided academic instruction contribute to the events at Grosvenor?
There is one other possibilty
Whether he had full knowledge or if he was just given the amended report to add credibility to it.
