ADVERTISEMENT

Train Derailment in Ohio

FisherWilcoxTaggart Survivor

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Nov 22, 2020
8,625
24,279
1,853
Wow, what a mess this is. Pets and farm animals are sick or dying from the environmental contamination. How long until this spawns the next wave of “Camp Lejeune” commercials?
 
  • Like
Reactions: fredfarkle336
Yep. This is not ALL that far from where I grew up. This is massive and I'm afraid of something catastrophic in the near future..

Officials are saying the air and everything is fine.. I don't believe diddly poo what any "officials" tell me. Animals are dropping dead, fish are floating, people are feeling light headed, sick, etc.. I'm fearing the worst here. 100,000 gallons of that crap was burned into the air. What could possibly go wrong?
 
Yep. This is not ALL that far from where I grew up. This is massive and I'm afraid of something catastrophic in the near future..

Officials are saying the air and everything is fine.. I don't believe diddly poo what any "officials" tell me. Animals are dropping dead, fish are floating, people are feeling light headed, sick, etc.. I'm fearing the worst here. 100,000 gallons of that crap was burned into the air. What could possibly go wrong?
It was interesting that some government official apparently approved the burning of the multiple forms of hazardous chemicals on the train. In Florida anyway, you need a host of "permits" to burn anything. At the same time that various public agencies are going berserk about the (alleged) environmental evils of of oil production, oil pipelines, and gas-powered vehicles and stoves -- among other things -- someone approves the burning of countless tons of environmentally-toxic chemicals. As noted, what could go wrong? 🤡
 
If I understood it correctly, the burning was pretty much all they could do and the best option. The fear was an explosion that would have decimated a large area of land, so it was the lesser of two evils.

If I got that wrong, oh well--won't be the first time.
Maybe that was the rationale.....but hard to imagine how one massive explosion in a single (presumably evacuated) area could be "worse" than severe environmental contamination that will spread for hundreds of miles.
 
Maybe that was the rationale.....but hard to imagine how one massive explosion in a single (presumably evacuated) area could be "worse" than severe environmental contamination that will spread for hundreds of miles.
In both cases the toxic substance is burned, in one case you get bonus, train sized shrapnel spread for a mile.
Why do you favor the shrapnel option?
 
In both cases the toxic substance is burned, in one case you get bonus, train sized shrapnel spread for a mile.
Why do you favor the shrapnel option?
Both options suck. But in the “shrapnel” context the burn will presumably be shorter and less intense. Think kicking and scattering a raging camp fire.
 
Yeah, both options sucked.. I'm no scientist nor pretend to be one. just sucks that there wasn't something that could have been done to avoid this massive burn off. There was nothing you could have dumped on the fire that could have slowed things down? Obviously not or they would have done in.

The part that is frustrating is that they are acting like the air and water are fine.. But videos are surfacing of chickens, fish, pets, wildlife just dropping dead.. Same with people in the area. They are complaining of headaches, shortness of breath, etc..

And now I'm curious to find out what the reach of this is.. Is it a 10 mile radius? 50? 100, 500? Who knows

And what is going to be the long term effects? Sadly, we won't know for another 5-10-20 years when cancers start popping up in the area.
 
Both options suck. But in the “shrapnel” context the burn will presumably be shorter and less intense. Think kicking and scattering a raging camp fire.
Maybe it’s a bad idea to kick and scatter the toxic materials for a mile around the site? Seems like it would make ground clean up much worse.

Some situations have no good option, just the least bad option.
 
It was interesting that some government official apparently approved the burning of the multiple forms of hazardous chemicals on the train. In Florida anyway, you need a host of "permits" to burn anything. At the same time that various public agencies are going berserk about the (alleged) environmental evils of of oil production, oil pipelines, and gas-powered vehicles and stoves -- among other things -- someone approves the burning of countless tons of environmentally-toxic chemicals. As noted, what could go wrong? 🤡
In a declared emergency, which I'm sure this was, normal protocol goes out the window.
 
In a declared emergency, which I'm sure this was, normal protocol goes out the window.
What’s worse an explosion with related damage and death that we know the explosion caused, or a fire with damage and death we think the fire caused? Seems like they went with option 2 so they can say it was something else.
 
What’s worse an explosion with related damage and death that we know the explosion caused, or a fire with damage and death we think the fire caused? Seems like they went with option 2 so they can say it was something else.
Or they made what they believed was the best decision in the situation at that time. Everything doesn't have to be a conspiracy.
 
What evidence do you have that spreading this stuff over a square mile is preferable to what they’ve chosen?
Didn't say either was preferable. What I said was there is deniability in one of the options. Decisions are made this way all the time. What will cause the least damage and not to the population but to the company or agency involved.
 
Or they made what they believed was the best decision in the situation at that time. Everything doesn't have to be a conspiracy.
I didn't say there was a conspiracy. But with option 2 in my scenario there is a deniability scenario. Do you really think the companies involved were not part of this decision?
 
Nothing like a cloud of phosgene gas in your backyard...
I'm not sure I would have went with the burn option unless there was a way to incinerate it with less toxic smoke. Naplam maybe? However, I'm sure they were looking at this from a liability angle.
 
I'm not sure I would have went with the burn option unless there was a way to incinerate it with less toxic smoke. Naplam maybe? However, I'm sure they were looking at this from a liability angle.
killit.jpg
 
I didn't say there was a conspiracy. But with option 2 in my scenario there is a deniability scenario. Do you really think the companies involved were not part of this decision?
I've worked with emergency management in disaster situations. I've never seen them make a "cover my ass" decision. What has been your experience when working a declared disaster?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoleSince1961
Tough decision no matter the one they go with, for sure

Seems to me blowing it up would cause collateral property damage , damage to electrical grid, maybe cause other explosions from the other train cars adjacent to the exploding car setting of a toxic soup in the air, surface and underground

Maybe future protocols would state these type of cars have to be spaced 10 cars apart to isolate the ruptured or damaged one
 
I've worked with emergency management in disaster situations. I've never seen them make a "cover my ass" decision. What has been your experience when working a declared disaster?
Only worked natural disasters no derailments or things like this. However, I have been part of large aircraft incidents and can tell you they do make liability decisions and utilize bean counters to facilitate those decisions. These are companies with billions at stake, if they can choose between paying out 1 billion or possibly half of that which way would they go? The chemical industry doesn't exactly have a great track record. I'm not saying that's what happened just offering an opinion. You can disagree if you want its ok. Plus our DOT is on the job and seems to have found the cause.
 
Or they made what they believed was the best decision in the situation at that time. Everything doesn't have to be a conspiracy.
Well, if it wasn’t a conspiracy, then it HAD to be dumbass clownery. University admins, govt officials, all them folks in power who have to make the decisions and deal with ramifications of their decisions are pretty much always dumbasses. We don’t need any of the info they had while weighing their options to know that.

Or at least that’s the go-to for the loudest of the underinformed Monday morning QBs who make message boards so enlightening and awesome.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: GeddyLee09
Well, if it wasn’t a conspiracy, then it HAD to be dumbass clownery. University admins, govt officials, all them folks in power who have to make the decisions and deal with ramifications of their decisions are pretty much always dumbasses. We don’t need any of the info they had while weighing their options to know that.

Or at least that’s the go-to for the loudest of the underinformed Monday morning QBs who make message boards so enlightening and awesome.
Its a discussion board. Isn't the point to discuss different points of view? Always the defense of some just to call opinions they don't agree with conspiracy theories.

Also, the decision to burn rather than blow up or let trickle into the ground water was made under the advise of experts in those areas. Damage assessments and PR professionals to guage the potential short and long term effects and media/public fallout, not to mention the legal and liability issues involved.

Since your so much better informed on the subject please enlighten the rest of us on how all this went down. I'm sure you have tons of experience on the internal workings of government agencies.
 
Its a discussion board. Isn't the point to discuss different points of view? Always the defense of some just to call opinions they don't agree with conspiracy theories.

Also, the decision to burn rather than blow up or let trickle into the ground water was made under the advise of experts in those areas. Damage assessments and PR professionals to guage the potential short and long term effects and media/public fallout, not to mention the legal and liability issues involved.

Since you’re so much better informed on the subject please enlighten the rest of us on how all this went down. I'm sure you have tons of experience on the internal workings of government agencies.
Interesting. Let me know where I claimed to be better informed on this matter than anybody. Was merely commenting (on that same “we’ve all got opinions” message board) about the propensity of some to quickly bash decision-makers or assume nefarious motives or both when the criticizers clearly have nowhere near the amount of info, counsel of colleagues and other trained professionals and genuine skin in the game as the decision-makers do, and often based on hindsight and no time pressure either.
I find it humorous.
 
Interesting. Let me know where I claimed to be better informed on this matter than anybody. Was merely commenting (on that same “we’ve all got opinions” message board) about the propensity of some to quickly bash decision-makers or assume nefarious motives or both when the criticizers clearly have nowhere near the amount of info, counsel of colleagues and other trained professionals and genuine skin in the game as the decision-makers do, and often based on hindsight and no time pressure either.
I find it humorous.
I didn't see any bashing of anyone or claims of nefarious motives. I offered a opinion of two possible decisions. Nothing negative was stated. I actually think they used the best option with the least amount of risk. No option there was a good one. You don't think there was any discussion about possible liability in both actions?
 
I didn't see any bashing of anyone or claims of nefarious motives. I offered a opinion of two possible decisions. Nothing negative was stated. I actually think they used the best option with the least amount of risk. No option there was a good one. You don't think there was any discussion about possible liability in both actions?
And all this shows everybody what a prickly job being a mod on this type of board is . I don't always agree with DFS (in fact, most of the time I don't, outside of FSU topics) but I think he does a pretty good job given today's environment of what passes for civil behavior.
 
And all this shows everybody what a prickly job being a mod on this type of board is . I don't always agree with DFS (in fact, most of the time I don't, outside of FSU topics) but I think he does a pretty good job given today's environment of what passes for civil behavior.
Not bashing him at all, I think he does a great job and far better than previous mods. These are good discussions and normally stay in bounds.
 
I didn't see any bashing of anyone or claims of nefarious motives. I offered an opinion of two possible decisions. Nothing negative was stated. I actually think they used the best option with the least amount of risk. No option there was a good one. You don't think there was any discussion about possible liability in both actions?
For the record, I wasn’t referring to you in particular, and I assume there was indeed some discussion of liability, although none of us know that nor to what degree liability considerations influenced the choices made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GeddyLee09
Only worked natural disasters no derailments or things like this. However, I have been part of large aircraft incidents and can tell you they do make liability decisions and utilize bean counters to facilitate those decisions. These are companies with billions at stake, if they can choose between paying out 1 billion or possibly half of that which way would they go? The chemical industry doesn't exactly have a great track record. I'm not saying that's what happened just offering an opinion. You can disagree if you want its ok. Plus our DOT is on the job and seems to have found the cause.
If you've been part of any disaster response, you should be well aware of both NIMS & ICS processes and protocols. I am 100% confident that is what was used to manage the incident given its size, scope and complexity as well as players responding. There is nothing in those that allows for decisions based on deniability.


What’s worse an explosion with related damage and death that we know the explosion caused, or a fire with damage and death we think the fire caused? Seems like they went with option 2 so they can say it was something else.

I didn't say there was a conspiracy. But with option 2 in my scenario there is a deniability scenario. Do you really think the companies involved were not part of this decision?
 
If you've been part of any disaster response, you should be well aware of both NIMS & ICS processes and protocols. I am 100% confident that is what was used to manage the incident given its size, scope and complexity as well as players responding. There is nothing in those that allows for decisions based on deniability.
I'm sure they did use those processes. I'm also sure that there was a legal and liability discussion involved. Were not talking about a hurricane or tornado here. This is a man made event. Rest assured there will be blame placed somewhere and someone will be on the hook for a lot of money. Maybe I shouldn't have stated "Seems like they went with option 2 so they can say it was something else" like I did. However, there is a possible deniability aspect here and actual liability and legal aspects as well.
 
Only worked natural disasters no derailments or things like this. However, I have been part of large aircraft incidents and can tell you they do make liability decisions and utilize bean counters to facilitate those decisions. These are companies with billions at stake, if they can choose between paying out 1 billion or possibly half of that which way would they go? The chemical industry doesn't exactly have a great track record. I'm not saying that's what happened just offering an opinion. You can disagree if you want its ok. Plus our DOT is on the job and seems to have found the cause.
Ford's cost-benefit analysis showed it was cheaper to endure lawsuits and settlements than to remedy the Pinto design. Ford knew about the risk, yet it paid millions to settle damages suits out of court and spent millions more lobbying against safety standards.
 
Ford's cost-benefit analysis showed it was cheaper to endure lawsuits and settlements than to remedy the Pinto design. Ford knew about the risk, yet it paid millions to settle damages suits out of court and spent millions more lobbying against safety standards.
There's a big difference in risk analysis between the private and public sectors especially when profits are part of the calculation.
 
"I'm going to look into this."
Erin Brockovich
Believe it or not she was on CNN this week about this “incident” and - pardon the pun - was railing against the poor response by the railroad, the government and the Secretary of Transportation, who is woefully unqualified in the job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: F4Gary and MagNoleA
Ford's cost-benefit analysis showed it was cheaper to endure lawsuits and settlements than to remedy the Pinto design. Ford knew about the risk, yet it paid millions to settle damages suits out of court and spent millions more lobbying against safety standards.
A very different era and it’s hard to believe it happened (apparently) in East Palestine in a different industry.
 
Believe it or not she was on CNN this week about this “incident” and - pardon the pun - was railing against the poor response by the railroad, the government and the Secretary of Transportation, who is woefully unqualified in the job.
Railing. I get it! :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
I stand corrected!

The heat sensors Did signal to the conductor that the wheels were over heating

Three times!

And the conductor ignored the warning alarm which told them of the problem and to hit the brakes and stop the train

Obviously, they did not!

So I guess it really wasn’t Trumps fault after all!
 
Train wheels do not melt railroad tracks.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT