Talk:Howard Log

"Effective today, I have terminated my Dedicated Project Visit due to irreconcilable differences over Hab Lab construction."

What sort of differences? This doesn't bode well..

The Construction Manager had designed a bricklaying pattern (and placement on the concrete supports) that was easy to follow and would avoid structural flaws that would result from bricklaying that was insufficiently overlapped. The Construction Manager's advice was ignored, resulting in numerous vertical seams between courses that were fully aligned. With only a few (four or five) courses on the retaining wall partially laid, several bricks completely cracked through, but dire warnings about this were ignored and corrective action (rebuilding the wall properly) was refused, despite citation of masonry books that were referenced in the design phase. The coursework is seriously structurally deficient, and given that the walls are now loadbearing (it was originally going to be just the columns, but that was changed weeks ago), that makes the entire building construction hazardously perilous. I was essentially providing mere general labor to the construction, but I saw the Construction Manager's messages on the subject, did my best to speak up and caution about the changes, but despite numerous statements and an assurance the mis-laid bricks would be fixed, ultimately they changed their minds and refused. I consider any further work I did toward the structurally deficient construction tantamount to contributing to a potentially criminally negligent situation that could serious injure or even kill people who would attempt to reside in the Hab Lab.

I refuse to contribute toward this, even if there's no real chance I would face criminal charges myself, on ethical principle. I fully intend to continue working with the Open Source Ecology mission, as a documentor most likely working offsite. I do agree with the overall vision, but feel the Hab Lab and fabrication shop projects are being carried out in a dangerously reckless fashion at this point and feel obligated to refuse to continue further on them, so long as basic rules of structural integrity safety are actively dismissed. --Howard V. Agnew 18:41, 28 October 2011 (CEST)