Is Rick Steves on drugs?

Robert Hall said:

I could ask about using my Leica, but I hear you cant even take a cell phone in there.

Ardbeg! Good choice.

Oh, is that owned by Glenmorangie? They might let you photograph. I need to drop them a line.

Click to expand...

Ardbeg is indeed owned by Glenmorangie, well really owned by Louis Vitton Moet Hennesey group but it was already owned by them when I was there years ago and they let me photograph the place. I sure hope that policy hasn't changed!

There's a fair history of Bourbon distilleries burning

Curt said:

For those who don't know he is a huge pro legalization of mj. He gives talks on it locally, his office is about 15 miles from my house. He's an ok guy but kinda geeky.

Click to expand...

I had a strange reaction to the thread title for a related reason. I used to work for eBags in customer service and we sold Rick Steves luggage along with about every other brand imaginable. We got a very strange email from a potential customer who was just livid that we would sell luggage from someone who was such an unrepentant druggie. According to this guy Rick had "recommended" going to a marijuana coffeehouse in Amsterdam.

Makes me wonder if they guy sends similar email to Macy's for selling Jerry Garcia ties or Wal Mart for selling Willie Nelson records.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I am guessing that they find it easier to ban everything rather than have to inspect each potential camera for sparking risks. I also wonder if it could really be that flammable, but if it truly is, they don't want to find out the hard way that the camera someone promised was completely mechanical throws a major spark after all.

For the record I am now retired, but worked for ten years as Safety & Risk Manager for a corporation that ran a large industrial alcohol facility, and thereafter as an industrial safety consultant for a large US company operating worldwide in a lot of hazardous situations including explosives and mining. So I have some background.
In recent years the tightening of OH&S regulations in almost every country and the increasing risk aversion (i.e. ANY risk) by management because of legal and personal liabilities has resulted in a shift towards a much more cautious approach than might have been the case when the facility was built or even last visited by a tourist who wants to take photographs.

Frankly, your wish to take photos doesn't even rate on their scale of concerns. Fire and explosion is right up there. Some facilities are constructed and operated better than others. Some are modern and some are very old. Some will be OK but some will be emitting vapours to the atmosphere continuously. It's not unusual in those older plants for ANYTHING which could possibly create a spark (and that can include ferrous metal in buttons, belt buckles etc) watches, keyring spotlights etc to be totally prohibited.
Granted the risk might be very small and that some managements go overboard in the search for "ultimate" safety but there's no point in getting aerated about it or trying to devise some way around it. You follow their rules or you don't get entry. So get over it, or choose another facility.
Trying to overturn an employee's defence of management's decision by arguing about the merits of a manual camera compared to one with electronics is just sophistry. Chance are they won't even know what you're talking about, let alone defy their management.

Why allow tours at all then? If it really is so dangerous that a camera or cell phone could set it off, why risk it? The funny thing is that the grist mill may be more dangerous than the alcohol, the fine powdered flour in the air is very flammable.

Thankfully I got my pictures and lived to develop and print them ;-) And drink the whisky, good stuff, cask strength the only way to drink it. Slainthe!

When I was there, Ardbeg was even running! Note the clear spirit pouring through the receiver, hand held E200 indoors not bad:

Ardbeg Intermediate Spirit Reciever by Harry Pulley, on Flickr

hpulley said:

Why allow tours at all then? If it really is so dangerous that a camera or cell phone could set it off, why risk it? The funny thing is that the grist mill may be more dangerous than the alcohol, the fine powdered flour in the air is very flammable.

Click to expand...

I thought the thing we were discussing is that some company's have concluded that for them, it is too dangerous, and that is why they are taking the line they do. If you remove all possible ignition sources then it can be safe. After all, people do work in those places without harm all day long for years and years, but they follow certain procedures and rules.
And from a practical point of view, if I were a distillery manager that was leaking alcohol vapour in significant quantities, I'd want to do something about getting it back in the bottle as well as eliminating ignition sources!
As I said, some managements go overboard in their quest to eliminate risk - even when the risk is very small. Many modern managements with their MBA's and shiny cars have very little practical experience of the operations they are responsible for. And some safety managers become zealots with the little bit of power they are given. Nevertheless it's their right to do what they believe is in the company's best interests and industrial OH&S regulations require them to do this. Tourists with cameras don't rate.
As for the explosive potential of flour (or any finely divided organic dust) whilst the effects can be devastating (as seen in grain elevator explosions over the years) the actual dust to air ratio is critical to allowing ignition and does not usually reach that point in open areas - more likely in dust collectors and stive rooms. For the dust to air ratio to reach critical levels in an open production area it would have become uninhabitable at some earlier point. Especially for tourists with cameras!

But imagine if a camera did spark an explosion. I'm sure Winnebego didn't think it was necessary to tell owners that they had to remain at the wheel of the RV after setting the cruise control but they include in the operating manual now after a woman in Oklahoma was awarded $1.75 million and a new RV after she set the cruise control while traveling down the highway and then went into the back to make herself a sandwich. Of course the RV went into the ditch and rolled. Liability cases are unpredictable.
It's not the alcohol vapours in a distillery they are probably worried about but the grain dust from the hops which is very flammable.

The only problem is, the Winnebago story is false. Check snopes.com or something similar.

I doubt the grain dust from the hops is the largest concern, because the air would have to be thick with it to ignite, and hops are not really grain, anyway. Unlike say, barley.

No hops in whisky, just beer.

Robert Hall said:

Just got an email back. Nothing allowed from Talisker...




Sigh!

Click to expand...

That is a pity.

I actually work in the natural gas pipeline industry which has a similar prohibition.

Fully manual cameras though are not an issue in my world so an FM2 without a battery, an RB, Or LF stuff without a flash gun are technically permissible in most areas.

The challenge is simply policy beyond that.

The problem I see for Talisker is that if they let you in with a non-electric Leica somebody with a D3 is going to raise hell.

I'd still ask though.

eclarke said:

There's a fair history of Bourbon distilleries burning

Click to expand...

Oh, well as long as it's only Bourbon, how big a loss could that be?

I would have the Leica. I'm not sure if I'm prepared to haul the 8x10 around Europe again. If I end up on Skye, I will have it with me and ask. No harm no foul. It's not like I would walk away from Talisker empty handed. lol

Robert Hall said:

Ok, so I am planning a trip to bonnie Scotland and I read in Rick Steve's travel guide that Talisker does not allow cell phones or cameras inside the distillery.

Is he kidding?

Click to expand...

No kidding I've bee there. photographing is strictly prohibited. I did not dare trying to convince them that with my Rolleiflex there is no electricity involved. They fear ignition of a blast of alcohol in the air. Not in the stills hall I suppose but the hall with the mash and wort basins. It is not rally separated from the stills hall. The only place inside the distillery where you can take pictures is here:



This is the last station of the guidance. There is a small room separated from the warehouse by a window.

Ulrich

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Not even with a completely manual camera, not using batteries? Wow. That's harsh.

Click to expand...

May be you would convince the guide but you would have to convince other visitors from eight different countries in at least five different languages in which respect your camera is basically different from theirs. My Italian, French, Czech or Japanese is not good enough that I did even tried to make an attempt

Ulrich

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Not even with a completely manual camera, not using batteries? Wow. That's harsh.

Click to expand...

May be you would convince the guide but you would have to convince other visitors from eight different countries in at least five different languages in which respect your camera is basically different from theirs. My Italian, French, Czech or Japanese is not good enough that I even tried to make an attempt

Ulrich

Ulrich,

I have been to photograph many places where I had to obtain a special permit to do so. I was thinking that it might be possible to arrange something with the distillery prior to arriving, by talking to them, explaining how the camera works, and that they perhaps could, against a fee, give a private tour where you could photograph with a manual camera.
You know, so that other visitors can't see it.

If you really want to photograph a place, you shouldn't give up at the first obstacle. Some people can be incredibly accommodating, as long as you treat them with respect and explain what you want to accomplish very clearly.

And others might not be so accommodating. That's when you stop negotiating.

- Thomas

If that's the case, then, why not take the tour, sans camera, and have a look around to decide what you want to photograph, if anything. After the tour, if you are so motivated, make the approach for permission to photograph.

P.S.: If it is an old distillery, certainly make the pitch that photos will be (or SHOULD be) taken with an "old" camera. The appeal to tradition has its merits.

Worker 11811 said:

If that's the case, then, why not take the tour, sans camera, and have a look around to decide what you want to photograph, if anything. After the tour, if you are so motivated, make the approach for permission to photograph.

P.S.: If it is an old distillery, certainly make the pitch that photos will be (or SHOULD be) taken with an "old" camera. The appeal to tradition has its merits.

Click to expand...

I must admit that my interest in taking pictures of this place was not strong enough to arrange for a paid private tour. This may change a lot, especially if you go there off season.

Ulrich

Ulrich Drolshagen said:

No kidding I've bee there. photographing is strictly prohibited. I did not dare trying to convince them that with my Rolleiflex there is no electricity involved. They fear ignition of a blast of alcohol in the air. Not in the stills hall I suppose but the hall with the mash and wort basins....Ulrich

Click to expand...

Photographing the wort you say?

Wort by Harry Pulley, on Flickr

Maybe we will look for a distillery in Frankfurt, Ulrich. Looks like I may have convinced my wife to finally go someplace I speak the language. lol