'Some one pointed out the bomb shelter for the White House was under the East Wing. During the day, one would think the bombers were go for the West Wing where the machinery of government would be located. At night, they would go for the White House. The East Wing was thought to be the safest part of the house for the shelter.
Though in 1942 when that shelter was first constructed (with the East Wing on top of it) the level of precision to hit just part of the White House didn't exist for strategic bombing. Dive bombers could achieve that accuracy, but the bomb load wouldn't be enough to destroy the building (good against tanks, or with several hits a ship, but not against large buildings) and the range they could operate over short enough that an enemy would need to occupy a large part of the Eastern US to have airfields in range. Even into 1944 with the bombing of German cities the US Air Force and RAF Bomber Command were still classifying bombs as being "on target" if they landed within a mile of what they were targeting.
Which is to say, the bomb shelter is where it is because it was easier to put it into open ground and build something on top than excavate underneath one of the existing buildings on the site.
What's this I hear about the east wing being riddled with asbestos? That should leave a pleasing legacy to the construction workers and indeed the denizens of Pennsylvania Ave.
It's quite possible, the age of the building is a bit on the old side for widespread use of asbestos but it's been renovated often enough that there could be asbestos there. There would have been an extensive survey down to confirm there wasn't any prior to actual demolition of the building, any successful property developer would know to do that.
Agree. There is endless speculation about Trump's health - he seems to be getting some kind of regular treatment as he drops off the grid every few weeks, but whether it's for cancer or stroke follow-up, of course it's not public. He might make it another 3 years, he might not. I wouldn't place a bet either way.
Yes, he's apparently had his second "annual" physical this year, which included some MRI imaging for reasons no one at the White House has bothered to explain. He also bragged about passing what he called a difficult IQ test, which was actually a cognitive function test. Such tests are fairly easy for anyone without some kind of cognitive impairment, so the fact that Trump considered it difficult says something.
It's quite possible, the age of the building is a bit on the old side for widespread use of asbestos but it's been renovated often enough that there could be asbestos there.
No "could" about it. Anything built in the U.S. prior to 1980 had asbestos in it. If it didn't that meant you'd been cheated since the contractor shorted you on asbestos. Asbestos was banned for most construction applications in 1978 but the ban came with a two year "lag" to let the building trades work off the existing stocks already in their possession, hence the 1980 cutoff date I mentioned. While there has probably been some asbestos remediation at the White House since 1980, one of the acceptable remediation methods is encapsulation. In other words, enclosing the asbestos containing materials in such a way that they can't come in contact with people.
There would have been an extensive survey down to confirm there wasn't any prior to actual demolition of the building, any successful property developer would know to do that.
Which almost certainly guarantees Trump did no such survey. The encapsulation process I mentioned earlier would not stand up to contact with wrecking equipment. The water being sprayed over the rubble in this photo from the Boston Globe is likely intended to capture some of the airborne asbestos (and other dangerous airborne particles), but this is obviously not a foolproof or completely effective measure.
Proceeding with the demolition without going through the established planning process has the feel of a "boat burning" exercise, turning the renovations into a fait accompli.
It's quite possible, the age of the building is a bit on the old side for widespread use of asbestos but it's been renovated often enough that there could be asbestos there.
No "could" about it. Anything built in the U.S. prior to 1980 had asbestos in it.
I was thinking more about when asbestos started to be used. In the UK, it was first widely used in housing with the post-war "pre-fabs". Most pre-war buildings wouldn't have had asbestos unless it was installed during retrofitting after the war (eg: putting in central heating). But, that may be different in the US, was asbestos widely used in buildings earlier than when it become common in the UK?
It's quite possible, the age of the building is a bit on the old side for widespread use of asbestos but it's been renovated often enough that there could be asbestos there. There would have been an extensive survey down to confirm there wasn't any prior to actual demolition of the building, any successful property developer would know to do that.
You know this post caused a loud metallic clang and compass needles to swing uncontrollably across much of northern Europe, right?
Comments
Now that that's gone....
Which is to say, the bomb shelter is where it is because it was easier to put it into open ground and build something on top than excavate underneath one of the existing buildings on the site.
Yes, he's apparently had his second "annual" physical this year, which included some MRI imaging for reasons no one at the White House has bothered to explain. He also bragged about passing what he called a difficult IQ test, which was actually a cognitive function test. Such tests are fairly easy for anyone without some kind of cognitive impairment, so the fact that Trump considered it difficult says something.
No "could" about it. Anything built in the U.S. prior to 1980 had asbestos in it. If it didn't that meant you'd been cheated since the contractor shorted you on asbestos. Asbestos was banned for most construction applications in 1978 but the ban came with a two year "lag" to let the building trades work off the existing stocks already in their possession, hence the 1980 cutoff date I mentioned. While there has probably been some asbestos remediation at the White House since 1980, one of the acceptable remediation methods is encapsulation. In other words, enclosing the asbestos containing materials in such a way that they can't come in contact with people.
Which almost certainly guarantees Trump did no such survey. The encapsulation process I mentioned earlier would not stand up to contact with wrecking equipment. The water being sprayed over the rubble in this photo from the Boston Globe is likely intended to capture some of the airborne asbestos (and other dangerous airborne particles), but this is obviously not a foolproof or completely effective measure.
Proceeding with the demolition without going through the established planning process has the feel of a "boat burning" exercise, turning the renovations into a fait accompli.
You know this post caused a loud metallic clang and compass needles to swing uncontrollably across much of northern Europe, right?