News Forum - Massive fire breaks out in front of Pattaya massage parlour

[Thaiger]

Another devastating fire has struck Pattaya. A massive electrical fire broke out in front of a Pattaya massage parlour last night. Firefighters rushed to the scene on Pattaya Second Road in Soi 13 where a fire was burning overhead wires and signs in front of the fire. Meanwhile, terrified passersby watched as the incident unfolded. …

The story Massive fire breaks out in front of Pattaya massage parlour as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Rookiescot]

The exact cause of the fire is still under investigation.

Not my fault it was her.

I warned her she was rubbing too fast.

[Soidog]

I’ve often thought these oily massage parlours are a fire risk and an accident waiting to happen. 

[Chatogaster]

48 minutes ago, Soidog said:

I’ve often thought these oily massage parlours are a fire risk and an accident waiting to happen. 

 

I don't think that matters (referring to the implications of your statement, not your opinion).

Risk is not just the possibility of something happening, but the likelihood of it happening relative to the significance of the effects it might have. 

What's described in this article rarely happens + there were no major effects (the owner of the building/their insurance company might feel otherwise, but at least there were no casualties). Consequently, it seems that massage parlours are at low risk (within the context of fire-hazards).

Sure, forbidding the use of easily inflammable oils, mandating a special storage room, requiring that customers/employees are frisked for the possession of lighters etc. would diminish the risk fractionally. But the risk was negligible to begin with and there are significant disadvantages if regulation is attempted. 

In short, here's my philosophy: many "risks" are small enough to allow them to happen; trying to reduce a small risk further has no significant effect other than to reduce quality of life for many people. To put it into an even shorter nutshell: nobody sane can desire to live in an accident-free environment.

 

[Soidog]

9 minutes ago, Chatogaster said:

I don't think that matters (referring to the implications of your statement, not your opinion).

Risk is not just the possibility of something happening, but the likelihood of it happening relative to the significance of the effects it might have. 

What's described in this article rarely happens + there were no major effects (the owner of the building/their insurance company might feel otherwise, but at least there were no casualties). Consequently, it seems that massage parlours are at low risk (within the context of fire-hazards).

Sure, forbidding the use of easily inflammable oils, mandating a special storage room, requiring that customers/employees are frisked for the possession of lighters etc. would diminish the risk fractionally. But the risk was negligible to begin with and there are significant disadvantages if regulation is attempted. 

In short, here's my philosophy: many "risks" are small enough to allow them to happen; trying to reduce a small risk further has no significant effect other than to reduce quality of life for many people. To put it into an even shorter nutshell: nobody sane can desire to live in an accident-free environment.

I was of course joking

[AdvocatusDiaboli]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

I warned her she was rubbing too fast.

Bushcraft …. Starting a fire by rubbing two small sticks together

[Rookiescot]

17 minutes ago, Chatogaster said:

I don't think that matters (referring to the implications of your statement, not your opinion).

Risk is not just the possibility of something happening, but the likelihood of it happening relative to the significance of the effects it might have. 

What's described in this article rarely happens + there were no major effects (the owner of the building/their insurance company might feel otherwise, but at least there were no casualties). Consequently, it seems that massage parlours are at low risk (within the context of fire-hazards).

Sure, forbidding the use of easily inflammable oils, mandating a special storage room, requiring that customers/employees are frisked for the possession of lighters etc. would diminish the risk fractionally. But the risk was negligible to begin with and there are significant disadvantages if regulation is attempted. 

In short, here's my philosophy: many "risks" are small enough to allow them to happen; trying to reduce a small risk further has no significant effect other than to reduce quality of life for many people. To put it into an even shorter nutshell: nobody sane can desire to live in an accident-free environment.

I have literally written hundreds of risk assessments and procedures in my old work which was a chemical factory. We had a matrix which gave guidance. Now in the bottom left of this it was all "low likelihood" and "low consequence".  The top right was all "its gonna definitely happen" and "everyone will die".

My job with the written procedure was to put in place steps which would reduce the risks and consequences. Sometimes that was very hard to do given the nature of the chemicals involved. If you could not get everything into the green zone then it was deemed to be high hazard. That meant it needed to be signed off by senior management. Not that they ever offered to do the job themselves you understand.

Often these jobs would also involve plant modifications in order for the job to be carried out. Again they were deemed to be high hazard mods. More senior management involved.

Risk assessment is a bit of a black art. Good risk assessors need to have a full understanding of the workplace, the process, the hazards and a lot of experience. They also need a good imagination to try and come up with scenarios (however remote) that could possibly happen. They also need to be pragmatic because otherwise you will never get anything done.

Ultimately risk assessments and procedures are a way of demonstrating to the HSE that you gave it your best shot. The best procedure and risk assessment in the world can be written and followed and the job STILL goes wrong.

Now if I was writing a risk assessment for a massage parlor a lot of guys will be seriously disappointed with the services on offer  

[Rookiescot]

19 minutes ago, AdvocatusDiaboli said:

Bushcraft …. Starting a fire by rubbing two small sticks together

My stick is not small its just very dry.

[Marble-eye]

59 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

My stick is not small its just very dry.

Well why do they call you Willy Woodbine?

[Rookiescot]

3 minutes ago, Marble-eye said:

Well why do they call you Willy Woodbine?

How very dare you sir. I has never had a Woodbine in my mouth.

What with me being all hi-so and stuff.

[Soidog]

6 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Ultimately risk assessments and procedures are a way of demonstrating to the HSE that you gave it your best shot. The best procedure and risk assessment in the world can be written and followed and the job STILL goes wrong.

Does Thailand even have anything like a HSE or risk assessments? I often see typical safety signage in large construction site telling people to wear hard hats etc, but of course many don’t follow the advice. I just wonder if Thailand has all the usual facade of an advanced nation but pays kip service to it in practice?