In a statement on the occasion Karoni Exhibition for the accident at Tempi proceeded the Movement for democracyon the basis of which it raises “30 critical questions” concerning selected parts of the finding.
According to the party of Mr. Kasselakithese 30 questions would be legitimate to be answered, especially when we are talking about a finding we expected in late February – but was delivered in mid -May – and concerns one of the biggest tragedies and at the same time open wounds of today’s Greek society.
In detail the announcement by the Democracy Movement:
The so -called Karoni exhibition on the tragedy of Tempi attempts to build a technical narrative without scientific foundations, without elementary transparency and without accountability. The Karoni Committee bears heavy responsibility: instead of attributing responsibilities, it blurs them. Instead of documenting, it impresses. Instead of giving answers, he rescues narratives.
The Democracy Movement raises 30 critical questions, based solely on the phrases of the report themselves. None of them have received a substantial answer.
On the contrary:
Spectra hides. No temperatures are defined. Terms are invented. Percentages are manufactured. They are bypassed standards. They are missing basic protocols. These questions are not hostile. Are necessary. Because when science is tool, justice is degenerated and democracy is threatened.
We are waiting for answers. Publicly. Documented. Under responsibility. Otherwise, the Karoni exhibition is nothing more than a prefabricated alibi.
And against that, we will not be silent.
The 30 critical questions
Can you submit the spectra or diagrams on which you based the phrase: “Multicyclic hydrocarbons were detected by more than 10%”?
What method did you use to separate Siloania from other organic lubricants?
What was the temperature and pressure when analyzing the samples and what are the error margins for your measurements?
What “earlier events” did you use as a comparison of quantitative estimation and have the original data of these incidents?
In which specific samples (number / location) did you detect the “substances of ignition precursors” mentioned in chapter 2.4 and with what detection limit?
What specific materials of wagons have flame reinforcement behavior and what standards do you rely on for their thermodynamic behavior?
What is the natural equation that supports the phrase “entropy direction of the reaction”?
How do you define the term “reactionary scent diagrams” and what laboratory method is their production based?
What was the control sample for each analysis carried out and what were his traceability certificates?
In Chapter 3.8 you report “testing with surface heating representation”. Where, when and with what thermal, did these tests were carried out? Is there a relevant protocol?
How do you end up with a “compatibility of a phenomenon with flammable substances” without defining the substances or their physicochemical properties?
In chapter 5.2 you state that “the composition of the mixture cannot be imprinted with certainty”. On what basis do you substantiate that it contributed to the event?
You write that the presence of aromatic hydrocarbons “exceeded 10%”. Which method gave you the quantification? Is there Calibration Curve?
Since you are unable to substantiate the recommendation, why did you not propose an analysis by a third laboratory?
Report “High Power Thermal Release”. What exactly was the price (kw/m²) and how was it calculated?
Imply ‘electric arches’. Are there evidence (residues, arquishes, metal splatter) for electrical discharge?
You say that “it cannot be attributed to specific materials”. Then why was there a technical report?
Is there a chapter where other scenarios are excluded (eg external catalysts, third -party materials)?
The phrase “high intensity thermal reaction” implies exothermic chain. Which chain reaction mechanism do you describe?
Of the six questions asked, what have you answered documented with data rather than opinions or estimates?
There is no reference to GC-MS or FTIR while talking about “spectral analysis”. Which technique was used?
What is the thermal efficiency limit (in BTU or KJ/Mol) you used to consider a “high performance” effect?
How do you exclude the possibility of subsequent adding materials if there is no complete custody chain?
Is there storage, sealing and sealing protocol based on ISO/IEC 17025 or other standard?
In Chapter 4.3 you are listed without quoting diagrams or tables. Who did the calculations and where is the file?
If spectral analysis was done by an external laboratory, who signed the interpretation of spectrum?
Have you used the software that produced the spectra or did you rely solely on third parties?
Where is it substantiated that materials are not related to third -party equipment (companies or bodies)?
No temperatures are listed at real points. How do you substantiate a “thermal intensity phenomenon” without recording?
Do you think that a 112 -page technical report, without spectacles, tables or charts, is scientifically sufficient?