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?
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? 🤡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?
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.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.
In both cases the toxic substance is burned, in one case you get bonus, train sized shrapnel spread for a mile.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.
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.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?
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.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.
In a declared emergency, which I'm sure this was, normal protocol goes out the window.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? 🤡
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.In a declared emergency, which I'm sure this was, normal protocol goes out the window.
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’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.
No conspiracy just bean counting.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?No conspiracy just bean counting.
Well if it didn't burn and it didn't explode it would drain into the ground and down the rivers and be there for a long time.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.
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.What evidence do you have that spreading this stuff over a square mile is preferable to what they’ve chosen?
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?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'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.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'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?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?
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.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?
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 they made what they believed was the best decision in the situation at that time. Everything doesn't have to be a conspiracy.
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.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.
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.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.
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?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.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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?
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.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.
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?
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.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.
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.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.
There's a big difference in risk analysis between the private and public sectors especially when profits are part of the calculation.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.
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."I'm going to look into this."
Erin Brockovich
A very different era and it’s hard to believe it happened (apparently) in East Palestine in a different industry.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.
Railing. I get it!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.