I agree.
From over on Metabunk
https://www.metabunk.org/oroville-dam-spillway-failure.t8381/page-41#post-205116
Dan Brekke
New Member
Boilermaker said: #8593
...Maybe the only item of interest in this is that the DWR spokesperson repeats the comment made by Mr Croyle two press briefings ago that there was a lot more concrete used than the original construction specs refer to. She said that this was in the area of the spillway “core” without saying (or being asked) where that is. I’ve taken this to refer to backfill on the rock surface under the deck but if so a lot of it must have got washed away.
I asked DWR the week before last to expand on the claim about the thicker concrete. Here’s part of an email exchange with the person who’s been put in charge of responding to most spillway questions:
Q. Director Croyle mentioned that drilling on the upper spillway has revealed areas with 4 or 5 feet of concrete. How extensive are those areas? Earlier reports from Board of Consultants and others stated the slab was 9 to 15 inches thick (depending on placement of sub-slab herringbone drains). Were those reports essentially accurate?
A. A number of holes have been drilled in the upper portion of the gated flood control spillway and more will be drilled in order to assess geological conditions. Some bore holes show concrete that is four to five feet thick, some do not.
And that’s all the department’s communications apparatus chooses to say on that subject. I don’t know if you could be less informative if you tried, but I’m guessing that’s precisely the department’s intention. It would be easier if they’d just say “take our word for it.”
Dan Brekke, 24 minutes ago