Critics immediately begin putting out the spin

Read the MDS safety sheet I posted a link to in an earlier post. Look at the intensity of the fire before the explosion It was an oxidizer..... Ammonium Nitrate Salts, saltpeter, a component of dynamite. Perhaps it combined with the diesel fuel in the tanks, they combined and went kaboom! Nawww, that would never happen would it? Er. remember Oklahoma City? What did they have? A few hundred pounds of this stuff and a few gallons of diesel all combined to take down the Federal Building. Ooops! Silly me! That wasn't Ammonium Nitrate. That was the C-4 being stored in bulk in the ATF offices! How could I forget that conspiracy theory! Oh, and one last thing. The collision was between a Class 8 road tractor, 2007 model which could have been carrying 220 gallons of diesel. The other vehicle was a Ford Lobo pickup which is a Mexican F-150 4 door luxury model. Fuel tank capacity for this model is I believe 22 gallons. If it has a reserve tank, double that number. This pickup was destroyed in the initial impact. The gasoline could have been the catalyst that set off the explosion. Look at the intensity in the photos.

Backing up.... I DID read what you said. you said "" the explosion would never have occured"" word for word. did they have blasting caps aboard? was it some kind of explosive that I dont know about that times itself to detonate 40 minutes after a small jolt from hitting a passenger vehicle? what exactly caused it to detonate? most, if not all of todays explosives require what you would call an explosive detonation to ever hope of setting it off... benn that way for a long long time. so tell us magical chavez, what caused the explosion, and why would it have been im possible for it to explode in the same case senario here in the sates. Maybe you could keep them from having to do an investigation on nothing but a burned crater, since you know the answers already.

What you suggest is a valid point except for one thing. Mexican trucks under the Demonstration Program are not allowed to haul haz mat of any type and the truth be known, I doubt if they ever will be permitted to. But, you might be interested in knowing that a couple of firms based in El Paso and grandfathered in under the 1982 agreement continue to this day to haul propane from Laredo to El Paso on a daily basis and pick up propane for facilities in the Permian basin for transport back to Mexico, all without incident.

With regard to rural Mexican communities which lack training and preparedness, that speaks to a lack of vision and support at the community level. That also exists in the United States, but to a far lesser extent. In most instances, their first responders likely would not even have to consider or deal with HAZMAT issues, were it not for TRUCKERS and other commercial enterprises, who bring HAZMAT through their communities. Thus, these trucking firms and commercial enterprises should shoulder the burden of cost for ensuring that the communities they place at risk will be adequately trained and able to respond. With regard to responsibility, it raises a great many questions. First, were a HAZMAT incident to occur in the United States, such as a tanker truck full of chlorine gas rupturing, would we even be able to prosecute those responsible civilly and criminally as appropriate, given the added layers of complexity that international law and cross-border coordination presents? And suppose the trials are nonetheless held, and the outcome holds the Mexican trucking firm guilty and financially accountable, potentially for tens of millions of dollars. It's one thing to hold someone financially accountable, but wholly another to actually collect the money. Could such a financial obligation even be collected? Again, there are many layers of complexity in dealing internationally. Would the Mexican trucking company have the financial wherewithal to pay tens of millions of dollars? Would they be adequately insured and/or bonded to pay? I think you may find that actually providing these types of assurances begins to close the gap.

Calderon, I agree totally with your first paragraph, but I've lost you on the second. I am saying that in Mexico, rural fire departments which are often nothing more than a pumper truck of vintage age and some eager volunteers are all they have. Metropolitan fire departments such as Monterrey and other big cities and even smaller towns such as Nuevo Laredo and Monclova near where this occurred, are better equipped to handle an incident such as this. And as for responsibility. Mexican law will hold those deemed to be responsible criminally and civilly responsible for all costs associated with this. And if the company is found to be negligent or the trucking company is found to be in anyway negligent, officers or owners of these companies will be held accountable. That is the way the law works down here. And aside to this. Did you know that if you are traveling on a public highway here in Mexico and involved in a wreck and the pavement, guard rails or any public property is damaged, the person found at fault for the wreck is also responsible for monetary damages to repair the damage to the right of way? If traveling on a toll road, your toll is also insurance against this.

There are not insubstantial costs involved in training first responders how to respond to, isolate, or otherwise deal with hazardous materials, including cleanup. Trucking firms IMPOSE RISK on communities and motorists by carrying these materials on the roads. It thus makes sense that they should bear financial burden for training and preparedness, as well as full financial liability for response, cleanup, health, safety and all the rest, should something go wrong. That is generally the model that governance in the United States attempts to impose upon business, but given this incident and Trailero's own testimony above, this does not appear to be how Mexican governance and entrepreneurism works. It instead seems to be "move goods, without care to what the goods are, at the lowest cost possible, with no care to consequence." That is unacceptable.

Welcome back trucked over. Read what I said. The explosion occurred 40 minutes after the accident happened. After the first responders were on the scene and the looky loos were milling around. (remember, this explosion blew the windows out of a passenger bus a 1/4 mile away) It happened in a rural area. Generally, rural areas have the equivalent of a "volunteer fire department" with one or two pumper trucks. Volunteers are not trained in Haz Mat response as they are in the U.S. Firemen in the larger cities do have this training. This vehicle was placarded. I don't know yet what the designation would have been. If it was indeed dynamite, then of course it would have had EXPLOSIVOS on the placard. Ammonium Nitrate, which is shipped in 22 ton lots in the U.S. would have had another designation. I don't have my book at hand so maybe you can help me there. What would nitrate go out under. Had it happened in the U.S., the first response would have been professionals. In Mexico, many times it is the public on the scene first, milling around and trying to be helpful but generally getting in the way. So no, I wasn't wrong. You simply desired to bitch about something and you chose this subect to bitch on.

Actualy, you are only trying to say that had this same truck, in the same situation benn in the united states, no explosion would have taken place. HMMM... Here is MY thought. we do not have 25 tons of that TYPE of such EXPLOSIVE on a single truck. say whaatever you want about fuel tankers and explosive haulers, and you might sell it to genie; (those type loads would never have such a violent explosion, were one to occur), but those of us who live in the trucking world will know you are full of mexican diesel smoke.

Trailero... How in the HELL do you know for a fact that it would not have happened if they were trained as in the u.s.? Are you god or what? The more of your b.s. that I read daily, the stupider you get. I think that 5000 ppm fuel smoke is getting to you. This is just ONE MORE THING that will shine the light on mexican trucking safety standards. Here in the us.... 25 tons of readily explosive material (especialy ready made amonium nitro mix) would never have been handled so carelesly. I cannot believe you say things like you stated above. Here is your quote so you can read it again. and remember, you sound like you are trying to be god, or play the part of a prophet or something. ""Had this happened around a large metropolitan area or closer to Monclova where the bomberos are trained in haz mat response in the same manner as U.S. firefighters, and with the same equipment, the explosion would never have occurred."" Ladies and gentlemen... another "statement backed up by FACT", as he so often puts it.

What do you expect? Had this happened around a large metropolitan area or closer to Monclova where the bomberos are trained in haz mat response in the same manner as U.S. firefighters, and with the same equipment, the explosion would never have occurred. But this was a rural area and I can imagine the equipment the first responders has at their disposal. I too am following the Mexican coverage on this. Keep us informed please.

Yes I am following this in the Mexican press. It is terribly sad that many of those killed were first responders.

I haven't heard that one but I am not surprised. It was a load of explosive material headed for the pacific coast state of Colima. A Van pulled out in front of the driver and the truck hit the van killing three occupants of the van. As Police and rescue workers were working the accident and the bystanders pressed in to get a better look, the thing blew. Simple as that. A tragic accident and nothing more.

No it didn't take long. I've even seen some assertions that the truck was a dirty bomb headed to the US. Thanks again for providing some sanity to this discussion. I'm so glad I found your site. Genie