×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Explosive-Laden California Home To Be Destroyed

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the boom-boom dept.

The Military 424

wiredmikey writes with this snippet from an AP report: "Neighbors gasped when authorities showed them photos of the inside of the Southern California ranch-style home: Crates of grenades, mason jars of white, explosive powder and jugs of volatile chemicals that are normally the domain of suicide bombers. ... Now authorities face the risky task of getting rid of the explosives. The property is so dangerous and volatile that they have no choice but to burn the home to the ground this week in a highly controlled operation involving dozens of firefighters, scientists and hazardous material and pollution experts. ... Some 40 experts on bombs and hazardous material from across the country and at least eight national laboratories are working on the preparations. They have analyzed wind patterns to ensure the smoke will not float over homes beyond the scores that will be evacuated. They have studied how fast the chemicals can become neutralized under heat expected to reach 1800 degrees and estimate that could happen within 30 minutes, which means most of the toxins will not even escape the burning home."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

424 comments

Owner? (0)

Voulnet (1630793) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466536)

Who is the house owner and why this amount of explosives?

Re:Owner? (4, Insightful)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466602)

It's all answered in TFA. You're welcome. :)

Re:Owner? (5, Informative)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466756)

No it isn't. The closest thing I could find to an explanation was this Reuters article [reuters.com], and even that isn't much to go on. Both mention that the guy is "anxious to tell his side of the story", though. It'll be pretty interesting to see what he comes out with.

Also of interest is the fact that, according to Yahoo, "The home has been declared a public nuisance and therefore the county does not have to reimburse the owners, who were renting the house to Jakubec."

Re:Owner? (5, Funny)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466906)

What is funny in TFA is the estranged wife's comment. "he became increasingly unstable since losing his job several years ago." I am from the South and around here we call what he did either batshit crazy or really pissed off.

Re:Owner? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467350)

It's hard to say for sure since we don't know what his plans might have been, but given that he's been at this a while and hasn't actually done anything, I'm leaning towards batshit crazy.

Re:Owner? (4, Informative)

mcheu (646116) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467378)

Have you been on Youtube lately? Blowing crap up is a pretty common hobby among Americans.

Re:Owner? (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466998)

"Prosecutors say Serbian-born George Jakubec quietly packed the home with the largest amount of homemade explosives ever found in one location in the U.S. and was running a virtual bomb-making factory in his suburban neighborhood. How the alleged bank robber obtained the chemicals and what he planned to do with them remain mysteries."

Re:Owner? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467492)

Not only was the guy a bank robber, he was stockpiling explosives. Wow, talk about the road less traveled... Hey, he was probably just into fishing with grenades. And robbing banks, well, he was out of work...

Re:Owner? (1)

spads (1095039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466624)

I understand it's a rental property and the owner is not to be compensated, because it was declared a "public nuisance". DOH! Should've kept up with those annual inspections!

Re:Owner? (5, Insightful)

pz (113803) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466934)

I understand it's a rental property and the owner is not to be compensated, because it was declared a "public nuisance". DOH! Should've kept up with those annual inspections!

We clearly don't have all of the information on that decision. Nevertheless, in reading the article, not compensating the owners struck me as just being mean. The property should be taken by eminent domain (to protect the public welfare), owners compensated fair market value, the structure buried under a heap of dirt to protect the neighbours and the contents extracted by robot, slowly, with the explosive bits being neutralized a small bit at a time, in a controlled way.

Burning the entire house, when the authorities do not know what nastiness might be hiding in unlabelled bottles, is not a controlled disposal. I, for one, do not believe that explosives will burn for 30 minutes, and that no toxicity will be released. The house may burn for 30 minutes, but the explosives are going to incinerate a whole lot faster, assuming none of them achieve detonation conditions. Am I the only one who is given pause by the implicit assurance of a so-called controlled burn that none of these explosives are going to detonate?

Re:Owner? (0)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467000)

Huh? Whut? Who is more responsible for this... the landlord or the government? What the government should do is bill the landlord for the cost of the cleanup as well as not compensating for the house.

Re:Owner? (2)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467130)

Why is the landlord at fault? When I owned a rental property, I only visited the property once every 6 months or so, more than enough time for someone to build a meth-lab or accumulate explosives.

Should I be required to invade the tenants privacy more often and visit the tenants monthly? Weekly? Daily?

Re:Owner? (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467310)

One, this happened over a period of years, not weeks.

Second, if the tenants destroy your property creating a meth lab, the government would not reimburse you. For all intents and purposes these tenants destroyed the property. I as a tax payer should not compensate the landlord for his loss.

Re:Owner? (5, Insightful)

pz (113803) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467362)

One, this happened over a period of years, not weeks.

Second, if the tenants destroy your property creating a meth lab, the government would not reimburse you. For all intents and purposes these tenants destroyed the property. I as a tax payer should not compensate the landlord for his loss.

No, the government is destroying this house. The tenants only stored unusual materials that the government has deemed dangerous.

Re:Owner? (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467390)

The tenants only stored unusual materials that the government has deemed dangerous.

LOL! The fact that you diluted the situation shows you see how weak your argument is.

The gov't is doing what it must to cure a dangerous situation. The tenant did the destruction. Frankly, I am tired of everyone wanting to be a gov't welfare case.

Re:Owner? (1)

subanark (937286) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467476)

You get insurance. If they don't cover it then hopefully your contract puts the tenant liable for damage to the house. If the tenant can't pay, well, that's just how the system works, and one of the risks you take as a landlord. But, I'm sure there is some kind of insurance that covers "house must be destroyed due to being a safety hazard," due to the popularity of meth-labs. If it's convenient to check up on your tenant regularly, then you may be safe without that clause.

Re:Owner? (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467454)

"Huh? Whut? Who is more responsible for this... the landlord or the government? What the government should do is bill the landlord for the cost of the cleanup as well as not compensating for the house."

How so?

I mean...landlord's aren't mandated to check up on their tenants..Hell, I've rented places for years, and never had the landord come inside. I mean, if there are not complaints, when is a landlord obligated to come in an inspect things? I mean, as a tenant, I prefer not to have the landlord in, if I'm abiding by my lease, paying my rent, etc, the landlord has no business coming into my 'home'.

Re:Owner? (2)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467026)

"This is a truly unknown situation," said Neal Langerman, the top scientist at the safety consulting firm, Advanced Chemical Safety in San Diego. "They've got a very good inventory of what's in there. Do I anticipate something going wrong? No. But even in a controlled burn, things occasionally go wrong."

Re:Owner? (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467436)

I guess we should hope he didn't install some kind of booby trap in the event something like this happened.

not compensating the owners ? (1, Insightful)

mpapet (761907) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467112)

in reading the article, not compensating the owners struck me as just being mean.

Really? Run an equity into the ground in clear violation of untold number of regulations and reward the owner. That's going to end badly for everyone.

Think about it and apply this thinking to other things like, oh, banks for instance. How about extending it to any corporation in the industry you choose to dislike the most?

Re:not compensating the owners ? (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467206)

Really? Run an equity into the ground in clear violation of untold number of regulations and reward the owner.

A. It wasn't the owner who ran it into the ground. The owner obeyed regulations.

B. It isn't a reward by any means when the government takes a cash-producing property from someone and then pays them "fair market value", even if they pay as much as fair market value is. Try buying a replacement property with the "fair market value" the guvmint is going to pay you.

Re:not compensating the owners ? (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467244)

The guy who did it is a tenant. That's why it's unfair not to pay the owner.

Re:not compensating the owners ? (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467352)

Hi. Some guy keyed my car. It is not my fault. Please pay me for my loss.

Yeah, it is the gov't that is demolishing the house. But it is the actions of the tenant that caused it. The gov't is not the ones who caused the loss of value. The landlord is the one who entered a contract with the tenant. The landlord can sue the tenant if he chooses.

The government IS causing the loss of value (3, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467424)

The house still has value, if the contents would be removed.

Instead of removing them and leaving the house standing, the government CHOSE to burn down the structure. They are in fact the ones who are causing the loss of value by destroying the house.

If they took explosives out by robot and something exploded, then the tenant would be the one who caused full loss of value.

As it stands the tenant is only really responsible for the dangerous content, I don't think you could sue him for destroying the house.

Re:Owner? (2)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467250)

Try reading the article again. The 30 minutes is not how long they expect it to take for the house to burn down. 30 minutes is how long they expect it to take before the fire is hot enough to break down toxins before they can escape the house in the plume of smoke.

As for the detonation issue, a lot of explosives will merely burn quickly unless they are very hot and are triggered by a shock wave (such as from a blasting cap) to detonate. It's quite reasonable for them to expect to be able to burn a lot of the explosives without detonation occurring, and even if a lot of the stuff does detonate, they've calculated that debris would only be sent flying 60-70 feet.

Re:Owner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34467396)

You probably oppose taxes too. Who the heck would pay for your (admittedly better) solution? Our bankrupt cities? Our bankrupt counties? The bankrupt state of California? Good luck with that.

Re:Owner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34467398)

The property should be taken by eminent domain (to protect the public welfare), owners compensated fair market value

But if the cops had to pay for every drug den they seized, how would they ever be able to use the seized millions on ferraris for the chief??!?

That's why we have "public nuisance" laws.

none of these explosives are going to detonate

Personally, I'm not all that assured, but they presumably know what they're dealing with. There are a great number of explosives that require specific conditions to detonate that will burn poorly. For instance, C-4 requires heat and a shockwave.

Re:Owner? (1)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466682)

Prosecutors say Serbian-born George Jakubec quietly packed the home with the largest amount of homemade explosives ever found in one location in the U.S. and was running a virtual bomb-making factory in his suburban neighborhood. How the alleged bank robber obtained the chemicals and what he planned to do with them remain mysteries.

Someone has been watching too much Oceans 11

Re:Owner? (3, Funny)

LoRdTAW (99712) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467128)

FTFA:
"Little is known about Jakubec, a 54-year-old unemployed software consultant. His estranged wife has told the San Diego Union-Tribune that he became increasingly unstable since losing his job several years ago. "

"unemployed software consultant" is the key phrase here.

In related news... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34466540)

Helena Bonham Carter hasn't been fucked like that since grade school.

why? (1, Flamebait)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466554)

Why? I mean, isn't there some redneck lawyer that can stop them from doing this, under the second ammendment?

IANAL. IANAA (I am not an american) either.

BTW, this is a JOKE.

Re:why? (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466670)

The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Recently, SCOTUS decided that that means the right to bear arms of the type commonly used for personal defense. (They had to decide something, because two hundred years ago people could buy muskets, and now they can buy howitzers. So they had to decide what kind of arms it referred to.)

So basically, we can have handguns. (Though they can still be regulated in some ways. Ask a lawyer. Or a cop.)

But we don't usually use houses full of explosives for self-defense.

Re:why? (2, Funny)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466740)

One side of me says: "What if you had a bunker under your house that you could escape to if some army was attacking you. Then you could blow up your house to defend your person as a last ditch effort."

But that's really reaching.

Re:why? (4, Funny)

lennier (44736) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467444)

One side of me says: "What if you had a bunker under your house that you could escape to if some army was attacking you. Then you could blow up your house to defend your person as a last ditch effort."

Thereby cleverly revealing your formerly hidden bunker's trapdoor?

Filling your house with live bobcats might be more effective. Then, if the army doesn't arrive, you get bonus bobcats.

Re:why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34466746)

But we don't usually use houses full of explosives for self-defense.

Especially after we've been arrested for bank robbery.

Re:why? (4, Insightful)

tabrisnet (722816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467100)

Don't ask a cop. Then again, don't ask a lawyer either. Both will give you overly conservative anwers.

Very often a cop is not required to know whether certain 2A activities are legal, and will arrest you anyway. Sure, the charges might not stick... But this IS California that the article is about.

And yes, I live in NorCal.

Re:why? (4, Informative)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467364)

More specifically, Americans can (without a special license, although registration is usually necessary) own handguns up to 12.7mm in caliber, semiautomatic and manually-operated rifles up to 12.7mm in caliber, shotguns with a valid sporting purpose (only a few military-grade shotguns are prohibited), and flamethrowers (they were exempted apparently because they are the only sure defense from Africanized honeybees).

With a proper license, one can also own an automatic weapon or a large-bore weapon, although these are rather rare. Note that a license is also necessary to "conceal" a weapon (if it isn't immediately and completely visible, it is concealed), there are significant restrictions on purchasing a gun (background check, waiting period, etc.) and transferring ownership of a weapon is heavily taxed. Not to mention that walking down the street with a semiautomatic rifle WILL get police attention, and pretty much nobody practices "open carry" in urban or suburban areas - just in rural areas where hunting is ubiquitous. Finally, the concealed-carry license, depending on your state, may only be issued if you can demonstrate "reasonable need", while others may issue one unless they find a reason not to.

Re:why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34466678)

Not seeing the funny part.

Pyros. All of them (1, Insightful)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466604)

I am sure they could think of a proper way to get rid of all of that stuff, but they have been looking for an excuse to burn something down and maybe get some cool explosions out of it

Re:Pyros. All of them (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466738)

Not really. I'm guessing that they're dealing with a large number of relatively low explosive devices. If it were a small number of highly explosive devices, they'd disarm. But if you've got that many devices, it's a lot safer to just burn the place down knowing that you'll have to shield the surrounding buildings.

It's also nice in that you've got a much more predictable timing on the explosives. Anything which doesn't go off as a result of the fire isn't likely to go off ever.

Re:Pyros. All of them (2, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466966)

Not really. I'm guessing that they're dealing with a large number of relatively low explosive devices. If it were a small number of highly explosive devices, they'd disarm. But if you've got that many devices, it's a lot safer to just burn the place down knowing that you'll have to shield the surrounding buildings. .

You are sure its a lot safer? I'm so relieved.

What could possibly go wrong.

Explain how going in, picking up one item, walking out to the bomb disposal truck, rinse repeat, for a couple weeks (if necessary) is going to be so hazardous.

How much evidence as to sources of these materials will be destroyed in the burn down and inevitable explosion?
(Yeah, I've seen the silly containment fence. Laughable!).

In fact one wonders if the destruction of evidence isn't part of the motivation here. After all, someone's ass is on the line for that crate of live military grenades, right? Some one sold that guy all this stuff. Was it the government?

Not after its all gone. No way to pin it on any agency then.

Re:Pyros. All of them (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34467120)

Not really. I'm guessing that they're dealing with a large number of relatively low explosive devices. If it were a small number of highly explosive devices, they'd disarm. But if you've got that many devices, it's a lot safer to just burn the place down knowing that you'll have to shield the surrounding buildings. .

You are sure its a lot safer? I'm so relieved.

What could possibly go wrong.

Explain how going in, picking up one item, walking out to the bomb disposal truck, rinse repeat, for a couple weeks (if necessary) is going to be so hazardous.

Apparently you've never seen pictures of what a "hoarder" house looks like inside. There's garbage UP TO THE CEILING, with only narrow passageways to move throughout the junk. Explosive devices and/or hazardous substances could be interspersed anywhere within that, possibly even booby-trapped specifically to go off if the weight around / on them shifts. This isn't like they're raiding a fucking FPS inventory locker with everything arranged neatly.

As for the second half of your post, I think you may need to get your medication adjusted before you turn into the whackjob from TFA.

Re:Pyros. All of them (3, Insightful)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467182)

The problem lies in the fact that they discovered this when the gardener stepped into some of the residue left over from the creation of some of these explosives, and went "BOOM!".

Tell me how many weeks you think they'd be able to play the lottery and not have the whole thing go off in their face as they are attempting to carry stuff out?

Re:Pyros. All of them (1)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467366)

Individually extracting the bombs requires real, live people to spend a lot of time moving around in and near a house full of explosives. If they start going off, people die. On the other hand, evacuating the neighborhood and setting up remote-controlled fire hoses allows you to get rid of the explosives quickly and without significant risk of people getting hurt. Yes, the risk of property damage beyond the house itself is probably higher this way, but the risk of people getting hurt is much lower, as is the duration of the evacuation of the neighborhood.

Re:Pyros. All of them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34466758)

The real question is: are they w+m1 pyros? because those are the worst.

Re:Pyros. All of them (1)

leenks (906881) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466762)

I'm sure they could, but maybe this is the cheapest and potentially safest way. I doubt that they can guarantee all the compounds are labelled properly and reuse them for anything, so all they could do is transport them somewhere else and dispose of them there, assuming they are stable enough to be transported.

If it does go wrong, this could be one incredible fireworks display though!

Re:Pyros. All of them (5, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466982)

Other articles (better than the TFA) have noted that the place is so packed with junk - both explosive and non explosive) that the bomb crews cannot work in their usual protective gear - there isn't enough room.

They are also worried about booby traps and just plain explosive / dangerous crap. They are going through a lot of expense to do it this way. They are building a perimeter fence, coating a house with fire retardant foam, bringing in all manner of people. It appears that this is the safest of a number of unsafe choices.

Re:Pyros. All of them (5, Funny)

ashridah (72567) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467090)

If it does go wrong, this could be one incredible fireworks display though!

"And the bomb technicians claimed that having to perform the burning operation on new years eve at midnight was totally coincidental..."

Re:Pyros. All of them (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34466784)

If you're volunteering to fetch potentially trip-wired explosives from a building with so many explosives that they'd have a hard time finding all the pieces of you afterwards then good luck with that.

Pity he didn't use them on the senate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34466608)

not joking

Re:Pity he didn't use them on the senate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34466942)

Dear sir,

please do not endorse the murder of politicians. This will result in unjust laws. It is also immoral.

Kind Regards,

Archangel Bob.

What a waste (1)

oic0 (1864384) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466672)

Should have been "clean it you can keep it". It sounds cruel at first, people getting blown up trying their shot at cleaning explosives from a house.... but as a broke guy not to long out of college, I would give it a shot :D

Complete incineration of toxins - how? (1)

spads (1095039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466688)

I mean, they say that the thing is supposed to burn at 1800 degrees, but I'd like to know how they will achieve that, unless they nape the whole place, just flood it with fuel. Otherwise, the temperature should be less at the fire's periphery as it spreads.

Really? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466718)

Now authorities face the risky task of getting rid of the explosives. The property is so dangerous and volatile that they have no choice but to burn the home to the ground this week in a highly controlled operation involving dozens of firefighters, scientists and hazardous material and pollution experts

So you've determined whats in the house, conclusively taken an inventory of it all, yet its too dangerous to handle...

Is this like SAW where everything has some tripwire booby trap hooked up to it - or are we just too afraid to pick up the stuff that we've been within 5 feet of?

I am more intrigued by this story than it actually lets on. Something about the whole "It's so dangerous we can't go one step further than what we've already done" really captivates me. There must be more to it than just what they're saying.

Re:Really? (1)

VoxMagis (1036530) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466812)

I'm not an explosives expert but perhaps the worry is moving/jostling the stuff, especially in a tight environment?

Re:Really? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466844)

It just seems like there is a WHOLE LOT of effort that would have to go into a controlled demolition of this sort (what with chemicals and all that) - so... why can't the same amount of effort go into removing them slowly, 1 at a time?

From the article, too volitile (3, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466954)

The way they discovered it was a gardener simply stepping in some reside, and it blowing up.

They probably figure there are a few things in there that will go even if they are just jostled, sending up the remaining stuff...

So basically it's just too much risk, even using a robot - since it's likley to go up anyway if they try to clear it out, better just to control the burn-down and secondaries as best they can.

Re:From the article, too volitile (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467032)

The way they discovered it was a gardener simply stepping in some reside, and it blowing up.

Wow - then thats worse than what the summary had led me to believe (They seem to be aware of a few different products, as if they had inspected the place)

Home made nitro is scary stuff (4, Informative)

Elfich47 (703900) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466988)

If he had home made nitroglycerin (the article only said "home made explosives") I can understand why the cops want nothing to do with it. Nitro can be manufactured at home with a minimum of difficulty. Nitro also has the property where physical shocks can detonate it. This property is great in small quantities like flash power and bang snaps. This is also a good property for remote mining: You plant your explosive charge and then bury a string of explosives 10 feet apart apart to the staging area. When the first charge in the string is detonated the rest of the string detonates because of the vibration, which in turn detonates the main charge at the mine.

Having a house with this kind of sensitivity to vibration is asking for someone to drop/knock over a bottle of something sensitive and have it detonate. And then have that explosion trigger a sympathetic explosion, etc etc etc.

Re:Home made nitro is scary stuff (3, Interesting)

dondelelcaro (81997) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467280)

This is also a good property for remote mining: You plant your explosive charge and then bury a string of explosives 10 feet apart apart to the staging area.

Almost no one uses nitroglycerin for mining any more. The stuff is so horribly unstable that you could easily set it off just by burying it, it's expensive, and it's highly toxic. Most mining and other blasting uses ANFO coupled with a high explosive primer instead.

Re:Home made nitro is scary stuff (1)

Elfich47 (703900) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467326)

I did not intend to imply that modern mining practice uses nitro anymore. I was just using it as an example of how unstable nitro is. My fear is that the guy was making his own and had it in storage in the house. That would convert the house into a death trap very quickly.

Re:Really? (1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467420)

The gardener already got blown up by stepping on residue. I think "Nuke it from orbit" is the appropriate response. I think it's pretty sad that the owners get nothing. I thought we have a society and community in order to help each other out, not for the government to hoard as much wealth as possible and deny payment whenever possible.

Re:Really? (1)

Pyrion (525584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467484)

They're probably afraid that if they try to remove anything in such close proximity to everything else in that house, that just errantly knocking something over will (literally) set off the whole lot.

Jakubec, a 54-year-old software consultant (1, Interesting)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466732)

Ah no worries, it was just a bit of harmless fun and it hurt noone.

Wait, what's that file on his computer? He planned on setting up a wikileaks mirror? TERRORIST!!!

Re:Jakubec, a 54-year-old software consultant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34466846)

Don't worry. According to one neighbor, "I've decided because God protected us all this time when we did not know what was there, that he will do the same now."

Obviously, God deemed this heathen unworthy of owning a home so God is having the county burn it down. Also God says, "Quit fighting and leave Britney alone!"

Poor fucking owners.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34466774)

The home has been declared a public nuisance and therefore the county does not have to reimburse the owners, who were renting the house to Jakubec.

And let me guess, the owners live in another state and being decent folks, didn't do a "strategic foreclosure" and rented instead.

Yea Government!

And let me get this straight, the Serbian bought all this stuff and packed it in his house and somehow, it became too "volatile" to remove it but because

Bomb experts pulled out about nine pounds of explosive material and detonated it, but they soon realized it was too dangerous to continue given the quantity of hazardous substances.

they can't just remove it like it got their in the first place. I see. So, there's no way to neutralize it, hose it down or something to remove it? You gotta burn it?

So, I guess Bevis and Butthead are the Sheriff and Mayor?

Fire! Fire! Fire!

satisfying my inner pyro (2)

gclef (96311) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466788)

There's got to be a live feed of this that's planned...any hints as to who would be carrying it?

Re:satisfying my inner pyro (1)

pogle (71293) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466828)

This was the first thought in my mind as well.

Even if its just a smooth controlled burn with no earth-shattering kaboom, it'll still be cool. And if things go less according to play...it'll be even cooler. So long as the safety measures are sufficient.

Exploding House Myth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34466840)

California, explosives laden house needing to be destroyed....sounds like a job for the MythBusters.

3d! (1)

JeffSh (71237) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466866)

Extra points for his profile photo being a cross-eyed 3d photo!

Re:3d! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34466990)

I think you are commenting on the wrong article...

Sounds like bullshit (3, Insightful)

topham (32406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34466876)

Sounds like a completely bullshit reason.

Get a military ordinance disposal team in place and demolish it if you really have to, but burning it? That's just looking to create a disaster.

Not bullshit. (1)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467282)

It's unlikely that they are just going to burn the house with all the explosives and other materials in it! Probably, they will remove as much as they can, or so you would think. The burning is to eliminate any remaining contamination. If you simply demolish the contaminated building, it will send the contaminants into the air and soil.

Terminator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34466892)

I thought this is the exact reason that Californians elected The Terminator for Governor.

Minecraft (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34466898)

In Minecraft you'd just put water blocks around the explosives and they'd be rendered inert. Why not here?

gov't exercise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34466902)

This sounds like some "make work" project for a gov't agency. "It's a perfect lesson to practice with".

The gov't is being lazy and is using this as an excuse to have an exercise.

mod dowN (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34466904)

by BSDI who seel worse and worse. As You are a screaming bring your own

But (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34467024)

Isn't this the guy who supplies mythbusters?

Why I love Slashdot (5, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467288)

Everyone is an expert.

In spite of the fact that "some 40 experts on bombs and hazardous materials from across the country and at least eight national laboratories..." have decided on this course of action, all of us World of Warcraft players and PHP developers have concluded it's a bad idea to handle it this way.

Re:Why I love Slashdot (1)

bhlowe (1803290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34467380)

I think the collective minds of slashdot could come up with something 40 experts have not thought of.. For instance, why not encourage Jakubec to move his chemicals to a place where they can be disposed of rather than burning the house down and not compensating the (innocent) owner?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...