It sounds like they don't know why it was hot. And it was temperature-hot ("red hot"), not electrified (the article is misleading because it mentions a woman who was electrified a few weeks ago near the same spot, but they are unrelated cases).
My question is: if the manhole cover was actually "red hot," why did she skateboard near it in the first place?
Well that's what threw me - I didn't think it said "the manhole cover was electrified" anywhere. But since it didn't say why it was hot, and they were talking about electrified manhole covers elsewhere due to insufficient checks, and she's thinking of taking action... I did the only thing I could do and, in abscence of the actual explanation, cobbled one together.
There's no harm in saying "for reasons unknown" Mr Journalist person (or Mrs Journalist person - I'm an equal opportunities groucher.)
Few months ago, not a few weeks. And I think they are related, because Con Ed was supposed to have checked out all the manholes in that area, make sure nothing was awry. There clearly WAS something awry there, even if it wasn't electrified.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-16 09:16 am (UTC)My question is: if the manhole cover was actually "red hot," why did she skateboard near it in the first place?
no subject
Date: 2004-08-16 10:41 am (UTC)There's no harm in saying "for reasons unknown" Mr Journalist person (or Mrs Journalist person - I'm an equal opportunities groucher.)
no subject
Date: 2004-08-16 10:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-16 12:30 pm (UTC)It's possible the cover *was* electrified, but wasn't at the time the woman stepped on it - maybe stepping on it bumped the wire loose.