I had wondered the whole time why they didn’t just pierce it with an AM rifle. Would that not have been better than a random partial failure via a crack?

Genuinely open question. I don’t know anything about stuff.

▲

ajb 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not a direct answer, but there is a standard code for what actions emergency services should take, and the code[1] for this stuff is 3YE, which means "Use foam or dry agent, substance reacts violently/is explosive, BA [breathing apparatus] use is essential, evacuate vicinity, contain spill." So there must be some reason not to let the stuff out.

[1] This is the hazchem code. I think the US uses a different system. A list is here: https://www.ricardo.com/media/radn55jg/dangerous-goods-emerg...

▲

ac29 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The spark could have caused an explosion.

▲

cogogo 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I read that was the primary concern and wondered about drilling/piercing techniques that could avoid a spark. Spraying water sounds like the dumbest one but some kind of mud applied or something. CNC machines don’t seem to be light shows but i know very little.

▲

gpm 2 hours ago | parent [-]

My "I have no clue how this works" proposal to minimize the chance of sparking would be to re-purpose a waterjet cutter...

	▲	Waterluvian 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Okay now hear me out. What about we introduce more chemicals and eat through the tank with acid?

▲

kotaKat 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I guess that begs the next point though - the high pressure system inside would want to violently vent out to the low pressure system outside through the relatively tiny hole.

Delta P... when it's got you... it's got you.