PG&E Contains Gas Leak That Caused San Francisco Explosion

Naming PG&E in the headline is sensationalistic. The article says, "Workers may have struck the distribution pipeline while installing fiber-optic equipment beneath the street". You can see the excavator from the aerial footage! And news reports directly discuss the construction workers. By contrast, there's absolutely zero evidence PG&E has anything to do with it except nominally owning the pipe.

It's insane how we just accept regular natural gas explosions as a thing, but we over-react at even the hint of non-lethal nuclear contamination.

&gt; PG&amp;E Corp. has contained a natural gas leak from a pipe that exploded on Wednesday along a major thoroughfare in San Francisco, engulfing in flames a stretch known for its bars and restaurants.<p>I am the only one slightly annoyed with this writing style? I often see things like this, an it feels they want to be a bit more sensationalist but getting &#x27;bars and restaurants&#x27; as close to the &#x27;engulfing in flames&#x27; phrase as possible. This seems to trigger me as a reader to subconsciously tie the two together (engulfing bars and restaurants in flames) when that&#x27;s not actually the case. Is there a term for this method of writing?

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_2018" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_...</a><p>For context, “workers strike pipeline and cause explosion” is so common that there’s annually-divided lists on Wikipedia.<p>However, this uncovers a critical flaw in PG&amp;E’s deployment: the nearest automated shutoff valve feeds the entire city, because – presumably to skimp on spending – no closer shutoff valve existed. It took them hours to close 7 pipes before they ceased the flow of fuel to the fire.<p>PG&amp;E may not be at fault for causing the strike, but they are at fault for the bad design that fed the fire afterwards.

Well, PG&amp;E is declaring bankruptcy, so I guess all the creditors should just... stand in line? Not very many assets compared to the liabilities.<p>Of course, bankruptcy is probably the best way to resolve this, so every creditor can be paid his fair share (and by fair share I mean maybe 1% of what they are owed). But at least everyone is going to get paid <i>something</i> versus a majority being paid nothing.