CDC team studying East Palestine train derailment fell ill during investigation(cbsnews.com)
cbsnews.com
CDC team studying East Palestine train derailment fell ill during investigation
https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/cdc-team-sick-east-palestine-ohio-train-derailment/
181 comments
"Because the investigators' symptoms improved soon after they left the area, the incident was not reported to the public" .... This is a rather Orwellian statement. Don't worry everyone, the CDC workers symptoms improved as soon as they got the hell out of East Palestine, therefore East Palestine must be completely healthy.
"Symptoms resolved for most team members later the same afternoon, and everyone resumed work on survey data collection within 24 hours" (Note the "everyone resumed work on survey data collection" part)
I take that to mean the opposite of the quote you gave. So it's unclear which is true.
I take that to mean the opposite of the quote you gave. So it's unclear which is true.
People were evacuated for a reason?
And cleared to return? These people got sick doing door to door surveys, meaning people were back at home.
This is ridiculous. Even with the above, they are “unsure” if it was related to anything else like “fatigue”. Like come on.
This is ridiculous. Even with the above, they are “unsure” if it was related to anything else like “fatigue”. Like come on.
The CDC is awful secretive for a public organization working on public health. Sigh.
I get where they are coming from. The pundits and the public at large are not very good at digesting nuanced data. Just look at how much conspiracy the open VAERS database has fueled.
Human health is a complicated thing.
Talk to people all day about symptoms they're experiencing and you can develop psychosomatic effects. Especially if you're over-worked and that kind of censusing isn't your day-to-day.
Not to say nothing happened to them. Just that medical causality is really complicated.
Talk to people all day about symptoms they're experiencing and you can develop psychosomatic effects. Especially if you're over-worked and that kind of censusing isn't your day-to-day.
Not to say nothing happened to them. Just that medical causality is really complicated.
Truly the mind and body are mysterious things. For example, if you walk around in an area where toxic chemicals are burning you can also feel ill. We have no way of knowing what the causes are.
But toxic chemicals weren't burning at the time they walked around, right?
Right, just the toxic combustion byproducts.
Air quality sampling indicates they had dissipated if I understand correctly.
You do not. Even weeks after people were kicked out of the temporary accommodations and told to go back to their homes the smell of chlorine was omnipresent across the town. What congressman Johnson claimed at the townhall was that the levels were safe which appears to be based on acute rather than long-term exposure data.
If long-term exposure to chlorine smell was a problem, wouldn't every pool lifeguard have a lawsuit in their back pockets?
What concentration is the chlorine relative to the air around a pool? Is Chlorine the only chemical present?
revelio(1)
The CDC is full of shit. It’s not complicated.
What does the CDC have to gain by downplaying the seriousness of this disaster?
Immediately before this accident, the rail workers were striking over inadequate safety rules.
Multiple trains derailed in East Palistine. Netflix even filmed a documentary about it there.
Knowing all that, both parties sided with the railways and voted to force the rail workers back to work.
Post accident, audio recordings of a railway supervisor ordering safety inspectors to ignore safety issues were released.
Poisoning an entire town is not a good look for either the Democrats or the Republicans, so the CDC has every political incentive possible to downplay this incident, regardless of who wins the next election.
Multiple trains derailed in East Palistine. Netflix even filmed a documentary about it there.
Knowing all that, both parties sided with the railways and voted to force the rail workers back to work.
Post accident, audio recordings of a railway supervisor ordering safety inspectors to ignore safety issues were released.
Poisoning an entire town is not a good look for either the Democrats or the Republicans, so the CDC has every political incentive possible to downplay this incident, regardless of who wins the next election.
... except CDC scientists have a reputation independent of the political machine. They have more to lose being branded liars than to gain toeing party lines.
US government agencies have decoupled scientists’ findings from the statements their PR people make. There was a large amount of public complaining about this under George W Bush, but I doubt this was the first or last time an executive branch engaged in a reality / science purge.
The CDC scientists in this case almost certainly came to the obvious conclusion and then properly documented and reported it.
The CDC scientists in this case almost certainly came to the obvious conclusion and then properly documented and reported it.
It’s a little late to start caring about lying now…
revelio(1)
Loss of government credibility for telling people that they were in no danger while clouds of toxins were visible overhead? If there is one thing you can out on, it is that government agencies will always circle the wagons to cover up malfeasance and/or incompetence.
That's exactly why, if anything, the CDC is incentivized to overstate the risk. Credibility is their stock in trade.
They’re incentivized to focus on interagency bullshit and little else.
Why didnt CDC report the symptoms of their own employees?
Is it interesting or relevant? I have similar symptoms right now; it's called "what you get when you have a cold."
No causality, nothing to report.
No causality, nothing to report.
I don't know, they told healthy 20 year olds to take multiple shots of largely untested injections to avoid those same symptoms, so
Can you clarify your meaning?
[deleted]
> What does the CDC have to gain by downplaying the seriousness of this disaster?
Don't you remember what happened to 9/11 workers who then died of specific forms of cancer? The US government fully knew that working there was dangerous for their health due to the toxic dust.
What executive working at the CDC now will still be there in 15 years? That won't be their problem...
Don't you remember what happened to 9/11 workers who then died of specific forms of cancer? The US government fully knew that working there was dangerous for their health due to the toxic dust.
What executive working at the CDC now will still be there in 15 years? That won't be their problem...
9/11 was an unprecedented event; nobody had been exposed to that level of powdered modern-constructed building before in the US. Not in those population numbers.
Vinyl chloride exposure risk, in contrast, is pretty well understood; we've been working with it for over 100 years (and crashing trainloads of it for about that long).
I agree the EPA (not CDC) made errors after 9/11, but they were working with a novel threat.
Vinyl chloride exposure risk, in contrast, is pretty well understood; we've been working with it for over 100 years (and crashing trainloads of it for about that long).
I agree the EPA (not CDC) made errors after 9/11, but they were working with a novel threat.
“Novel threat?!” Just “Errors?”
You underplay this, however unwittingly. (Sorry for the long post here.)
I lived in New York suburbs and had a firefighter friend who by his commanding officers was encouraged not to go down there (reasons unknown to me) despite being willing. I was glad for him (and his family) because the risk of spending days/weeks in that strange smelling smoke were pretty obvious.
Common sense isn’t “science” but the Bayesian priors for the risk given what we knew about asbestos, asbestos in office buildings, other chemicals in plastics in office buildings, the prolonged period people were working in the smoke, the lack of leadership demanding masks due to the discomfort/heat and the great strange stench of the smoke were all pretty obvious to anyone following the news in the area.
Amidst very reasonable questioning and concern for first responder heros spending large amounts of time in the smoke (and after it was clear there were no more survivors to be found), while smoke was still abundant, the EPA literally declared it was “safe” during public questioning about it and in very strong terms, when it was clear there could be no such scientific basis to conclude a statement as strong as that. I was shocked at the time and I hold their previously respectable but politically-oriented leader Christine Todd Whitman personally responsible for the lie and injury to 1000s of people so that the capitalist system could rebuild as fast as possible at the expense of first responder suckers who trusted the elite all the while praising them for their sacrifice. (I don’t usually view the world in such terms but in this particular circumstance I completely do.)
The way people clearing the site as fast as possible were lied to was unconscionable. I am sure Ms. Whitman was pressured from above her, but I consider it one of the most obvious blatant political economically-driven hypocritical lies to come out of my government, a complete self-betrayal of the EPA in fulfilling their core mission purpose and values, and a dark disgrace upon all involved.
Looking back, I don’t think I misremembered the EPA characterization of it as “safe”. They did declare it safe per Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_...
Per Wikipedia, Ms Whitman claims the agency statement of “safe” was never about ground zero, just lower manhattan, which I will concede may be true, but ground zero was a super obvious concern at the time amidst press questioning and even if I should be charitable and not claim it was a bald face lie, it was a lie by omission, misdirection, etc. The lack of clarity on the risks to ground workers or public concern or advocacy for them by the agency with the most expertise and pertinent mission was and is a betrayal. They couldn’t have added a qualifying statement of concern with whatever degree of uncertainty they had at the time about ground zero at the time? “There are risks/unknown here but not here?” I don’t mind also blaming local political officials also for using/misusing/twisting EPA words for their agendas and on behalf of are business owners small or large, or national security officials playing psychological or political games at the requests of their leadership, but I came away with the a stench of deception.
I try to tell myself “Deception? Couldn’t it have been just ordinary incompetence, a failure of leadership, scientific uncertainty?” But the silence about the risks to first responders and cleanup teams —all the while while the entire culture was voluminously heroizing them, to me, speaks volumes. This was a completely predictable tragedy which, while perhaps not completely avoidable, would have been much more morally defensible if the risks and unknowns would have been openly acknowledged and disclosed responsibly to the people who put their lives and health on the line to accelerate economic recovery so they could make an informed decision or requested at least hazard pay before taking the risks. But no. They were deceived and lied to. All while being praised for their sacrifice. Makes me sick.
You underplay this, however unwittingly. (Sorry for the long post here.)
I lived in New York suburbs and had a firefighter friend who by his commanding officers was encouraged not to go down there (reasons unknown to me) despite being willing. I was glad for him (and his family) because the risk of spending days/weeks in that strange smelling smoke were pretty obvious.
Common sense isn’t “science” but the Bayesian priors for the risk given what we knew about asbestos, asbestos in office buildings, other chemicals in plastics in office buildings, the prolonged period people were working in the smoke, the lack of leadership demanding masks due to the discomfort/heat and the great strange stench of the smoke were all pretty obvious to anyone following the news in the area.
Amidst very reasonable questioning and concern for first responder heros spending large amounts of time in the smoke (and after it was clear there were no more survivors to be found), while smoke was still abundant, the EPA literally declared it was “safe” during public questioning about it and in very strong terms, when it was clear there could be no such scientific basis to conclude a statement as strong as that. I was shocked at the time and I hold their previously respectable but politically-oriented leader Christine Todd Whitman personally responsible for the lie and injury to 1000s of people so that the capitalist system could rebuild as fast as possible at the expense of first responder suckers who trusted the elite all the while praising them for their sacrifice. (I don’t usually view the world in such terms but in this particular circumstance I completely do.)
The way people clearing the site as fast as possible were lied to was unconscionable. I am sure Ms. Whitman was pressured from above her, but I consider it one of the most obvious blatant political economically-driven hypocritical lies to come out of my government, a complete self-betrayal of the EPA in fulfilling their core mission purpose and values, and a dark disgrace upon all involved.
Looking back, I don’t think I misremembered the EPA characterization of it as “safe”. They did declare it safe per Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_...
Per Wikipedia, Ms Whitman claims the agency statement of “safe” was never about ground zero, just lower manhattan, which I will concede may be true, but ground zero was a super obvious concern at the time amidst press questioning and even if I should be charitable and not claim it was a bald face lie, it was a lie by omission, misdirection, etc. The lack of clarity on the risks to ground workers or public concern or advocacy for them by the agency with the most expertise and pertinent mission was and is a betrayal. They couldn’t have added a qualifying statement of concern with whatever degree of uncertainty they had at the time about ground zero at the time? “There are risks/unknown here but not here?” I don’t mind also blaming local political officials also for using/misusing/twisting EPA words for their agendas and on behalf of are business owners small or large, or national security officials playing psychological or political games at the requests of their leadership, but I came away with the a stench of deception.
I try to tell myself “Deception? Couldn’t it have been just ordinary incompetence, a failure of leadership, scientific uncertainty?” But the silence about the risks to first responders and cleanup teams —all the while while the entire culture was voluminously heroizing them, to me, speaks volumes. This was a completely predictable tragedy which, while perhaps not completely avoidable, would have been much more morally defensible if the risks and unknowns would have been openly acknowledged and disclosed responsibly to the people who put their lives and health on the line to accelerate economic recovery so they could make an informed decision or requested at least hazard pay before taking the risks. But no. They were deceived and lied to. All while being praised for their sacrifice. Makes me sick.
Maybe they did it so that it would be easier to remove medical and CDC personnel from the area.
After all, protecting these people was the justification the public health administration used to say "masks don't work".
You have to be a total sucker to believe they're optimizing for your subpopulation. They're the #1 Greater Good Team.
If admitting they got sick would reduce faith in the government and that would be bad For The Greater Good, they would just lie.
After all, protecting these people was the justification the public health administration used to say "masks don't work".
You have to be a total sucker to believe they're optimizing for your subpopulation. They're the #1 Greater Good Team.
If admitting they got sick would reduce faith in the government and that would be bad For The Greater Good, they would just lie.
The CDC didn't say masks don't work. They did say cloth masks weren't as effective as N95s.
Oh how quickly we forget.
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-07-27/timeline-cd...
March 24, 2020
Even as the coronavirus spreads across the United States — shutting down businesses, sporting events and schools — the CDC’s advice around masking remains unequivocal: Healthy people who do not work in the healthcare sector and are not taking care of an infected person at home do not need to wear masks.
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-07-27/timeline-cd...
March 24, 2020
Even as the coronavirus spreads across the United States — shutting down businesses, sporting events and schools — the CDC’s advice around masking remains unequivocal: Healthy people who do not work in the healthcare sector and are not taking care of an infected person at home do not need to wear masks.
Ah, now that I know what you mean:
Yes, the CDC said masks don't prevent the spread of the virus. They also said it mitigates the spread of the virus, which are both true statements when the number of people wearing masks grows to "most of the country."
Medicine is a statistical science, which a lot of people have a hard time wrapping their heads around the nuances of.
Yes, the CDC said masks don't prevent the spread of the virus. They also said it mitigates the spread of the virus, which are both true statements when the number of people wearing masks grows to "most of the country."
Medicine is a statistical science, which a lot of people have a hard time wrapping their heads around the nuances of.
I'm not renewiltord, who actually talked about public health officials not the CDC, unless he edited that part of his post.
Hardly makes a difference though. CDC advice in March 2020 was that the vast majority don't need to wear one. Then suddenly everyone had to wear one, on pain of fines. Nothing about masks or the virus or "the science" changed. The reliability problem remains.
Hardly makes a difference though. CDC advice in March 2020 was that the vast majority don't need to wear one. Then suddenly everyone had to wear one, on pain of fines. Nothing about masks or the virus or "the science" changed. The reliability problem remains.
> Nothing about masks or the virus or "the science" changed.
Are you sure? Because I'm pretty sure they refined the transmission model after understanding the virus better, looked at the cost / benefit ratios on mitigation options, and concluded that masks were better than nothing given that quarantining everyone wasn't an option.
In that sense, "the science changed" in that we understood the situation better. There is also, of course, the gap between policy and science; the science can say X is true, whether we do Y in response to X being true is a cost / benefit calculus, and that calculus was changing continuously as policymakers updated economic impact estimates and saw how people responded to different approaches.
Are you sure? Because I'm pretty sure they refined the transmission model after understanding the virus better, looked at the cost / benefit ratios on mitigation options, and concluded that masks were better than nothing given that quarantining everyone wasn't an option.
In that sense, "the science changed" in that we understood the situation better. There is also, of course, the gap between policy and science; the science can say X is true, whether we do Y in response to X being true is a cost / benefit calculus, and that calculus was changing continuously as policymakers updated economic impact estimates and saw how people responded to different approaches.
Right. Edited to be less precise and more correct. The US Surgeon General said "masks don't work" and the head of the NIAID said you shouldn't wear a mask. Later that latter person admitted that the reason was to ensure healthcare personnel would get preferential access to them.
One reason is so they can focus their resources on serving underprivileged communities instead of a 97% white town.
The CDC's handling of COVID was also just a complete and utter joke.
Frankly, one big reason why COVID was so bad in the US was because of how terribly the CDC fucked up testing.
They banned every test that wasn't their flawed one.
NPR did a good article on how massive the fuck up was - https://www.npr.org/2020/11/06/929078678/cdc-report-official...
Frankly, one big reason why COVID was so bad in the US was because of how terribly the CDC fucked up testing.
They banned every test that wasn't their flawed one.
NPR did a good article on how massive the fuck up was - https://www.npr.org/2020/11/06/929078678/cdc-report-official...
It's wild that you're being downvoted for true facts, sourced by NPR.
The CDC also knowingly advised against masks, for months, claiming that they wouldn't help and could even hurt despite knowing better.
And that wasn't the only time they kept quiet with information that would have benefited Americans - this well sourced article points out a few of the more egregious incidents. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/07/31/cdcr-j31.html
The CDC also knowingly advised against masks, for months, claiming that they wouldn't help and could even hurt despite knowing better.
And that wasn't the only time they kept quiet with information that would have benefited Americans - this well sourced article points out a few of the more egregious incidents. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/07/31/cdcr-j31.html
IIRC, they advised against masks because (1) they didn’t know it was airborne and (2) there was a huge PPE shortage and discouraging a run on PPE would allow more to go to healthcare professionals. In the beginning there was a ton of investigation on how big of droplets the virus could subsist in (we were all wiping down packages) and it wasn’t clear how the virus was transmitted. As they got more actionable information, they revised their guidance. Not saying they were perfect but there was some fog of war during the spring of 2020 that can’t be dismissed.
The coventional wisdom in epidemiology that diseases can be separated into those spread by aerosols and those spread by droplets. This turns out to be complete nonsense based on a single flawed decades old study claiming particles larger than 5 microns can't stay in the air for an extended period of time, when the actual limit is orders of magnitudes higher. The failure of the public health establishment to realize this reflects long-standing issues the field has with appreciating research done by experts in other fields. Aerosol scientists knew all this, and tried to tell them.
Luckily the CDC has admitted it's mistake, though they haven't properly updated guidance accordingly.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwu...
Luckily the CDC has admitted it's mistake, though they haven't properly updated guidance accordingly.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwu...
thisisdumb93(1)
Completely genuine question here. Have masks actually been shown to help or not help? We must have learned something about it during all this.
There is just no chance that an n95 being worn even somewhat properly wouldn't significantly reduce your chance of catching COVID or any airborne, respiratory virus.
My anecdotal experience, and I think it matches with lots of other people, is that I never caught covid for most of the pandemic while wearing an n95 and even travelled and was out in public quite a bit. It wasn't until after I and most other people stopped wearing a mask in public that I caught it. It could have been due to virus mutation or whatever, but I had quite a few close calls where I was around infected people but wearing a mask and did not catch it. I also have a large extended family, so lots of people caught it and there was always a homegrown investigation on where they got it. Every single time, there was always some maskless gathering a week or two before where multiple people became infected or a family member that brought it home.
My anecdotal experience, and I think it matches with lots of other people, is that I never caught covid for most of the pandemic while wearing an n95 and even travelled and was out in public quite a bit. It wasn't until after I and most other people stopped wearing a mask in public that I caught it. It could have been due to virus mutation or whatever, but I had quite a few close calls where I was around infected people but wearing a mask and did not catch it. I also have a large extended family, so lots of people caught it and there was always a homegrown investigation on where they got it. Every single time, there was always some maskless gathering a week or two before where multiple people became infected or a family member that brought it home.
This study from the CDC website indicates masks have benefits, with increased benefits from certain types of masks - N95 masks seem to be the most effective.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm
Yes, I know, the irony!
Yes, I know, the irony!
thisisdumb93(1)
I'm really worried about the effects on the food supply chain. The plume of chemical vapors covered a significant proportion this country's breadbasket. Corn, wheat and soybean fields got sprinkled with carcinogens, they will be harvested, turned into flours and processed derivatives, and could end up in practically any processed food on grocery store shelves.
Does anyone have a reassuring reason why I shouldn't be worried about this? Does the food industrial complex have controls to prevent chemically contaminated grain from getting into processed food supply chains? Is there a reason to believe the government is regulating this competently?
I think I'm going to try to avoid processed food and buy produce as locally as possible for a few years (which also has some other benefits anyways). But, am I being overly paranoid?
Does anyone have a reassuring reason why I shouldn't be worried about this? Does the food industrial complex have controls to prevent chemically contaminated grain from getting into processed food supply chains? Is there a reason to believe the government is regulating this competently?
I think I'm going to try to avoid processed food and buy produce as locally as possible for a few years (which also has some other benefits anyways). But, am I being overly paranoid?
> The plume of chemical vapors covered a significant proportion this country's breadbasket.
Does anybody have a scientific (not clickbait) citation for this?
The quick HYSPLIT plume simulation I ran[0] showed the plume crossing over New England on its way to the Atlantic. There is agriculture there, but I would hardly describe it as the nation's bread basket.
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of contamination of the food supply from pesticides and soil-accumulating heavy metals in fertilizers. Buying local and organic food isn't paranoid, but it would be a mistake to over-attribute these pollution sources to the East Palestine incident.
[0] https://www.ready.noaa.gov/hypub-bin/hyresults.pl?jobidno=28...
Does anybody have a scientific (not clickbait) citation for this?
The quick HYSPLIT plume simulation I ran[0] showed the plume crossing over New England on its way to the Atlantic. There is agriculture there, but I would hardly describe it as the nation's bread basket.
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of contamination of the food supply from pesticides and soil-accumulating heavy metals in fertilizers. Buying local and organic food isn't paranoid, but it would be a mistake to over-attribute these pollution sources to the East Palestine incident.
[0] https://www.ready.noaa.gov/hypub-bin/hyresults.pl?jobidno=28...
Here's a hysplit for the date of the disaster
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/113wyj3/hy...
Looks like the plume didn't blow west much, which probably mitigates agricultural impact significantly, good point!
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/113wyj3/hy...
Looks like the plume didn't blow west much, which probably mitigates agricultural impact significantly, good point!
Indeed, different assumptions yield different data. The simulation I ran assumed 1.1 million lb of material released during the controlled burn on Feb 6 (this caused the famous "mushroom cloud" photos), while the Reddit sim seems to assume a constant release rate (quantity unknown) starting at the time of the initial derailment and fire. The actual plume will be some combination.
>Does anybody have a scientific (not clickbait) citation for this?
The lack of this in the coverage of the East Palestine train derailment is interesting.
So many of the claims goes back to TikTok videos and reddit comments.
The lack of this in the coverage of the East Palestine train derailment is interesting.
So many of the claims goes back to TikTok videos and reddit comments.
This is absolutely a phenomenal point. I would be interested to know how one could test their own food and water at their house for a reasonable price. I can't imagine that any regulation would actually catch this. Water is a maybe (mostly they're concerned with other types of contaminates), but food is a concern for sure.
I'll just say this, I don't think worrying about the safety of your food supply (or any other goods) is overly paranoid -- environmental disaster or not.
I would urge you to consider the motives and reasons of those who would disagree with, or try and stop you from doing so.
I would urge you to consider the motives and reasons of those who would disagree with, or try and stop you from doing so.
Relax, unless the grains were grown next door and you got that batch of corn or flour you'll be fine. Otherwise it's going to be very diluted.
There are tons of carcinogens around, East Palestine is the least of your worries unless you live near there.
(I have zero scientific background)
There are tons of carcinogens around, East Palestine is the least of your worries unless you live near there.
(I have zero scientific background)
You may have zero scientific background, but your rule of thumb numbers are quite correct.
By simple volume, people have more to be concerned about from the plastic vapors left over from the packaging and shipping processes for the food they're buying from the grocery store then the risk of vinyl chloride contamination from the East Palestine spill.
By simple volume, people have more to be concerned about from the plastic vapors left over from the packaging and shipping processes for the food they're buying from the grocery store then the risk of vinyl chloride contamination from the East Palestine spill.
I would expect that most food is processed in batches, so there could be a few batches that are very dangerous, but most would be completely unaffected (assuming the chemicals don't persist through whatever cleaning/batch changeover processes)
[deleted]
EPA officials also recently admitted that the scanners they are using for some tests aren't sensitive enough to detect dangerous levels of some chemicals they are testing for
https://statuscoup.substack.com/p/east-palestine-bombshell-e...
https://statuscoup.substack.com/p/east-palestine-bombshell-e...
3.6 roentgen? Not great, not terrible.
Yes, but it's not exactly the same situation. "The EPA’s equipment isn’t able to detect lower levels of Butyl Acrylate that can still pose a threat to human health." In Chernobyl, the Soviets had the opposite problem: the maximum concentration their standard equipment could read was far below the real level.
that's a far better problem to have because you'll at least have the indication that you are maxing out your equipment
Unfortunately this is not the case with many Geiger counters, especially older ones. Geiger-Muller (GM) tubes detect radiation by measuring ionization events. When a high energy particle passes through the tube, it leaves a little trail through which electricity can flow, but only for a moment — this temporary flow of electricity is amplified and fed into the detection circuit, and it also what is used to generate the typical clicking noise. The Geiger counter is basically an edge detector + summing circuit with decay.
When a GM tube is overloaded, the particles create too many overlapping trails, and the tube cannot stop conducting electricity. This continuous flow of electricity does not trigger the edge detector, so it thinks the level of radiation is zero. Some modern equipment has an alarm for this condition.
When a GM tube is overloaded, the particles create too many overlapping trails, and the tube cannot stop conducting electricity. This continuous flow of electricity does not trigger the edge detector, so it thinks the level of radiation is zero. Some modern equipment has an alarm for this condition.
Integer overflow is real and prevalent. To many times have I seen unchecked overflow return a number much much smaller than expected.
Wow, why do bad things happen to all the investigators sent to look into mishaps in Ohio?
https://katv.com/news/local/authorities-responding-to-plane-...
https://katv.com/news/local/authorities-responding-to-plane-...
> A Little Rock-based environmental consulting firm confirmed that all five people onboard the plane, including the pilot, were members of their company.
Not "investigators"...
Not "investigators"...
Don't know why you are downvoted, maybe because you are unclear.
Most of the people sent on site to perform tests and surveys are private contractors payed by the train company (Norfolk Southern) [0]. This is 1980 USSR level of corruption.
[0] https://www.propublica.org/article/east-palestine-ohio-norfo...
Most of the people sent on site to perform tests and surveys are private contractors payed by the train company (Norfolk Southern) [0]. This is 1980 USSR level of corruption.
[0] https://www.propublica.org/article/east-palestine-ohio-norfo...
We will take a redundancy of investigator teams to ensure that government is on the up and up, no?
[deleted]
Can we update the title to be “East Palestine, Ohio”? Otherwise it reads like CDC is involved with chemical warfare allegations in Palestine.
If you're going to go that far, you should add "USA" to it as well. This is a very USA centric forum though, so it's perfectly fine leaving it as it is.
A better question is why is a CDC news article on train derailment on hacker news. What part of this article is related to technology or computers? It's just regular news.
A better question is why is a CDC news article on train derailment on hacker news. What part of this article is related to technology or computers? It's just regular news.
Many readers are involved in biosciences and discussing chemical reactions is a hn thing to do.
And that's fine, but it isn't about biosciences or chemical reactions. It's just a fluff journalistic piece with a bunch of he said, she said.
No links to any reports containing any factual studies, any reports, any discussion on the chemical components (beyond listing what they are).
So I just don't think it deserves to be on HN, but that's fine. It's got 441 votes so obviously at least that many think it does.
No links to any reports containing any factual studies, any reports, any discussion on the chemical components (beyond listing what they are).
So I just don't think it deserves to be on HN, but that's fine. It's got 441 votes so obviously at least that many think it does.
Much much much more people are aware that Ohio is in the USA, while Palestine is in Palestine.
This sounds like CDC workers will have a big lawsuit against the CDC. Their employment contract can't possibly be so bullet proof as to fully waive their right to this?
They should have sufficient protective equipment when investigating these types of disasters.
They should have sufficient protective equipment when investigating these types of disasters.
> Their employment contract can't possibly be so bullet proof as to fully waive their right to this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...
OSHA would have something to say about it, but the Executive Branch would like to keep a muzzle on them to avoid more fallout next election.
That whole disaster was terribly handled. From The sec of transportation dragging his feel by weeks, to the president being dismissive and the train company saying no big deal... go back home, it's safe!
I hope Erin can help to bring the attention and justice this disaster deserves.
At least GWB, though a contemptible fellow otherwise, took his frat attitude up in a chopper to survey Katrina.
I hope Erin can help to bring the attention and justice this disaster deserves.
At least GWB, though a contemptible fellow otherwise, took his frat attitude up in a chopper to survey Katrina.
It's deeply concerning to me that democratic party insiders are still acting like Pete Buttigieg could be a future presidential nominee after his horrible handling of this disaster.
Further horrifying to think that some of these people may rationalize minimizing and hiding evidence of harm from this disaster because they believe it would serve their political goals.
Further horrifying to think that some of these people may rationalize minimizing and hiding evidence of harm from this disaster because they believe it would serve their political goals.
I am fairly certain most mainstream Americans of any political leaning rolls their eyes when Pete makes a statement on TV. He has had quite the number of mishaps to be commenting on, and I think people are beginning to expect that there will be more under his watch.
I don't disagree, but am pretty cynical about the DNCs willingness to change course based on mainstream American opinions
80% of Dems support universal healthcare, but the lobbyists who control the party kept it out of the 2020 platform.
Biden was losing the nomination until the party whipped the other candidates to endorse him so he wouldnt be polling worse than Bernie
80% of Dems support universal healthcare, but the lobbyists who control the party kept it out of the 2020 platform.
Biden was losing the nomination until the party whipped the other candidates to endorse him so he wouldnt be polling worse than Bernie
> At least GWB, though a contemptible fellow otherwise, took his frat attitude up in a chopper to survey Katrina.
What? Bush’s handling of Katrina was so bad “this is so-and-so’s Katrina” entered the political lexicon as a term for mishandling disasters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_government_re...
What? Bush’s handling of Katrina was so bad “this is so-and-so’s Katrina” entered the political lexicon as a term for mishandling disasters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_government_re...
The point is the double standard, Bush was there for a flyover on day 3, and on the ground day 5, and it was the worst response ever. So what is the East Palestine response in comparison?
After Katrina, almost 1400 people died, and 80% of the city of New Orleans (population ~400,000) was flooded for weeks. No one died in the East Palestine incident. Hard to see the equivalence.
> No one died in the East Palestine incident. Hard to see the equivalence.
It seems very premature to draw such a conclusion. If people start dying of cancer in high numbers a few years down the line, any early claims about the non-impact of this spill will age poorly.
Regarding Katrina, we have the benefit of hindsight and enough time passing to have gotten a handle on the impact and it’s worth noting that those 1,400 deaths did not occur overnight.
If you made an assessment of Katrina’s impact prematurely, such an assessment would be unlikely to capture the true impact of the event.
A premature assessment wouldn’t have even considered including ~300-400 of the people who eventually died in health care facilities after the fact.
It seems very premature to draw such a conclusion. If people start dying of cancer in high numbers a few years down the line, any early claims about the non-impact of this spill will age poorly.
Regarding Katrina, we have the benefit of hindsight and enough time passing to have gotten a handle on the impact and it’s worth noting that those 1,400 deaths did not occur overnight.
If you made an assessment of Katrina’s impact prematurely, such an assessment would be unlikely to capture the true impact of the event.
A premature assessment wouldn’t have even considered including ~300-400 of the people who eventually died in health care facilities after the fact.
It's not premature when after Katrina, by this point in time, the death toll was over 100. The East Palestine disaster is still clocking a zero (thankfully).
The death toll at this time during Katrina tells us nothing about what to expect in this completely orthogonal scenario, unless you believe that the mortality associated with a category 5 hurricane plays out on the same timescale as exposure to these particular chemicals. It's simply not a useful analogy.
I think it would also be unwise to draw unfounded conclusions about deaths-to-come as if they're some foregone conclusion, because we are in a stage of not knowing the full impact of what happened. At the same time, we also live in a world where we now understand the long term impacts of things like asbestos and a myriad of other chemicals/substances, and concern seems warranted.
I think it would also be unwise to draw unfounded conclusions about deaths-to-come as if they're some foregone conclusion, because we are in a stage of not knowing the full impact of what happened. At the same time, we also live in a world where we now understand the long term impacts of things like asbestos and a myriad of other chemicals/substances, and concern seems warranted.
But this is neither the first spill of vinyl chloride nor the first train derailment releasing toxic chemicals. We actually have plenty of data on these kinds of disasters to have a fairly confident model of what to expect.
Has the equivalency of this spill to past spills been established?
I haven’t found anything confirming that this spill is believed to match the characteristics of other spills in such a way that would alleviate concerns.
I haven’t found anything confirming that this spill is believed to match the characteristics of other spills in such a way that would alleviate concerns.
How much worse is burning this stuff than a vinyl siding apartment complex fire? Back of the envelope they burned about 2 orders of magnitude more material than in a large one of those, but were maybe in a 2 orders of magnitude less dense population area than those often take place in.
Does the vinyl chloride precursor burn into much worse stuff than the polyvinyl version, for equal masses? I get that it might cross some threshold for acute effects for people right near by that the other fires may never cause even for direct neighbors.
Does the vinyl chloride precursor burn into much worse stuff than the polyvinyl version, for equal masses? I get that it might cross some threshold for acute effects for people right near by that the other fires may never cause even for direct neighbors.
Being one of the first people from out of state to assist in Katrina myself, I would argue that this shows that the POTUS showing up at a disaster site isn't a good measurement of how seriously they're taking the situation / how well they're handling it.
In comparison, it shows that merely showing your face but otherwise not solving the problem, can be even worse.
Also transportation sec Buttigieg just casually saying not to worry we have over 1,000 train derailments a year: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11760173/There-roug...
Over 1,000 derailments! Maybe we should work on getting those down before patting ourselves on the back for job well done.
Over 1,000 derailments! Maybe we should work on getting those down before patting ourselves on the back for job well done.
Never mind derailments: trains can be a serious source of pollution when just being trains, because: money, of course.
We have coal trains rumbling through town every day. They have nothing covering the coal. It's often windy. Result: the entire town is blanketed in a pall of black dust. It gets everywhere. Comes around the windows, even modern well sealed double glazing units. On patio furniture. In our lungs, one assumes too.
We have coal trains rumbling through town every day. They have nothing covering the coal. It's often windy. Result: the entire town is blanketed in a pall of black dust. It gets everywhere. Comes around the windows, even modern well sealed double glazing units. On patio furniture. In our lungs, one assumes too.
> Also transportation sec Buttigieg just casually saying not to worry we have over 1,000 train derailments a year
That this is what people care about is why nothing gets done. A politician can't even say a fact without the news media or another opportunistic politician spinning it in the worst way possible. Imagine if this was how your company handled postmortems. Given that half the time politicians majority of time politicians spend is on optimizing their sound bites, it should be no surprise that they outsource the actual policy making part to the lobbyists.
That this is what people care about is why nothing gets done. A politician can't even say a fact without the news media or another opportunistic politician spinning it in the worst way possible. Imagine if this was how your company handled postmortems. Given that half the time politicians majority of time politicians spend is on optimizing their sound bites, it should be no surprise that they outsource the actual policy making part to the lobbyists.
You're quite correct regarding the culture of handling postmortems. I had the privilege of attending a NASA talk one year where we discussed the blameless postmortem culture in software engineering and the approach of logging reports and making them open company-wide.
A kind NASA engineer thanked us for our time, but noted that there's a lot of what we do in software that can't be applied to the NASA approach because, ultimately, their bosses are Congress and Congress is... somewhere between "dumb" and "an actively hostile agent." Words must be carefully chosen and information can't be widely-shared internally until the message is crafted because about half of Congress is incentivized to look for the worst possible interpretation of data collected and weaponize it.
A kind NASA engineer thanked us for our time, but noted that there's a lot of what we do in software that can't be applied to the NASA approach because, ultimately, their bosses are Congress and Congress is... somewhere between "dumb" and "an actively hostile agent." Words must be carefully chosen and information can't be widely-shared internally until the message is crafted because about half of Congress is incentivized to look for the worst possible interpretation of data collected and weaponize it.
Come on. He wasn’t “casually saying not to worry”. He literally called it a horrible situation. His point was to suggest that this particular incident was being turned into a a political football. That being said, I think his complaint is, at best, trivial considering the incident has deserved all the attention is has gotten.
Hey, I'm sure the majority of those are trains popping off the track at low speeds.
I expect in most of them there is no serious damage and most of the train is still on the rails.
That's how the derailment I was in worked. This was an Amtrak going from the Seattle area to Los Angeles. We pulled onto a siding to let a freight train by. When our train started again it went a few feet and then there was a thud and it abruptly stopped.
What happened was that the rails had separated a bit just ahead of where we had stopped on the siding, and so when the train resumed it fell off the rails.
Amtrak sent a couple engines to help. One went to the back or our train, and one went to the main track in front of where the siding started. The back one was connected to the back of our train, and the derailed engine was disconnected. The back engine then pulled the rest of our train backwards onto the main track. The other engine was coupled to the front of our train, the back engine decoupled, and we were back on our way.
It took around 6 hours or so from the engine derailing to the rest of the train resuming with the new engine. That was pretty annoying because we were without power most of that time, which apparently caused issues with food storage resulting in dinner being cancelled. Many of us who got on in the Seattle area had not had lunch either. The train was supposed to leave Seattle about an hour before lunch so we had planned on lunch on the train, but it actually got to Seattle after lunch.
That's how the derailment I was in worked. This was an Amtrak going from the Seattle area to Los Angeles. We pulled onto a siding to let a freight train by. When our train started again it went a few feet and then there was a thud and it abruptly stopped.
What happened was that the rails had separated a bit just ahead of where we had stopped on the siding, and so when the train resumed it fell off the rails.
Amtrak sent a couple engines to help. One went to the back or our train, and one went to the main track in front of where the siding started. The back one was connected to the back of our train, and the derailed engine was disconnected. The back engine then pulled the rest of our train backwards onto the main track. The other engine was coupled to the front of our train, the back engine decoupled, and we were back on our way.
It took around 6 hours or so from the engine derailing to the rest of the train resuming with the new engine. That was pretty annoying because we were without power most of that time, which apparently caused issues with food storage resulting in dinner being cancelled. Many of us who got on in the Seattle area had not had lunch either. The train was supposed to leave Seattle about an hour before lunch so we had planned on lunch on the train, but it actually got to Seattle after lunch.
Sounds like a typical Amtrak experience. Really cannot recommend it if you need to be at your destination on time.
Most of it is non-issues in rail yards. The definition of derailment, isn't a big crash, it's when a wheel doesn't touch the rail (or something simple but not indicative of serious problems).
And? The system shouldn't be in a steady state of expected failures. These are enormous machines that sometimes carry hazardous materials. Failure cannot be tolerated. It's indicative of a rotten culture of safety and mismanagement that ignores the problems.
Uh, that’s completely unrealistic. No large scale system (or any system for very long) has zero downtime.
What is the overall percentage any train spends derailed?
What is the overall percentage any train spends derailed?
Not when the consequence of failure for spilling hazardous material is so great! What are you going to agree to next, that nuke plants are allowed a few minutes of core meltdown a year? Get real.
Nuclear plants have safety incidents all the time. Someone drops a hammer on their toe. That's what most of the 1,000 derailments are; things like this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Minor_Derailment_in_... or https://tdn.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/amtrak-train-suf...
The big problems, for both trains and nuclear plants, are rare.
The big problems, for both trains and nuclear plants, are rare.
"Derailment" sounds dramatic but most of them are minor. It's unrealistic and unhelpful to pretend that all incidents are equally serious: the only way to achieve zero incidents of any severity is to not build the power plant (of any type) or the train system.
Just because the consequences are severe doesn’t mean it’s possible to avoid them - regardless of the cost.
For instance, plane crashes are far more severe - and still happen relatively frequently despite all effort to stop them.
For instance, plane crashes are far more severe - and still happen relatively frequently despite all effort to stop them.
Failure cannot be tolerated, but mother nature cannot be fooled. Its not a realistic way of thinking about risk unless you don't run any trains.
1000 also feels roughly consistent with the rest of the world considering how big the US is.
1000 also feels roughly consistent with the rest of the world considering how big the US is.
Exactly! If he's blasé about 1000 derailments it better not be 1000 derailments of the East Palestine type per year.
In any event. it's really tone deaf to say, hey, no big deal we have approx three accidents like this every day of the year, deal with it! What a wanker.
In any event. it's really tone deaf to say, hey, no big deal we have approx three accidents like this every day of the year, deal with it! What a wanker.
[deleted]
What's the last solely environmental catastrophe a president has visited?
People died in Katrina. There were no immediate deaths from this environmental catastrophe.
People died in Katrina. There were no immediate deaths from this environmental catastrophe.
Obama visited Flynt. Even drank the water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ZynkD3N_k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ZynkD3N_k
It would be more accurate to describe that as "He even let the water touch his lips while pretending to drink it".
How was Katrina not an environmental catastrophe -- the casual definition that I find repeatedly is "An environmental disaster or ecological disaster is defined as a catastrophic event regarding the natural environment that is due to human activity."
Given that criteria, Katrina was most definitely an environmental catastrophe.
Now, if you mean "When was the last time a president visited a catastrophe that involved chemical/biological/radiological factors?" -- well, that's a bit more rare; but I presume that it's done not as a matter of appearing placid by the society at large, but as a form of damage mitigation before all the facts are presumed known.
it's essentially a rite of passage for the president to hug people in some tornado ravaged state for photos. I presume the risks outweigh the positive P.R. in actual danger zones.
tl;dr : it's easier to declare a hurricane or flood site to be safe enough for presidential passage, so it represents a fairly easy to coordinate photo-op. Things are shakier when the facts about the danger present are not done rolling in.
p.s. I feel the need to clarify something: what I mean to remind by calling Katrina an environmental catastrophe was the significant role that society had in amplifying the damage of the event through both careless engineering, careless maintenance, and careless planning -- which was then exacerbated by careless response.
Given that criteria, Katrina was most definitely an environmental catastrophe.
Now, if you mean "When was the last time a president visited a catastrophe that involved chemical/biological/radiological factors?" -- well, that's a bit more rare; but I presume that it's done not as a matter of appearing placid by the society at large, but as a form of damage mitigation before all the facts are presumed known.
it's essentially a rite of passage for the president to hug people in some tornado ravaged state for photos. I presume the risks outweigh the positive P.R. in actual danger zones.
tl;dr : it's easier to declare a hurricane or flood site to be safe enough for presidential passage, so it represents a fairly easy to coordinate photo-op. Things are shakier when the facts about the danger present are not done rolling in.
p.s. I feel the need to clarify something: what I mean to remind by calling Katrina an environmental catastrophe was the significant role that society had in amplifying the damage of the event through both careless engineering, careless maintenance, and careless planning -- which was then exacerbated by careless response.
President Carter visited Three Mile Island.
Incidentally, President Carter was uniquely qualified to go there.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/02/20/jimmy-cart...
https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/national-veri...
https://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/about_us/naval_service
> 16 OCT 1952 - 08 OCT 1953—Duty with US Atomic Energy Commission (Division of Reactor Development, Schenectady Operations Office) From 3 NOV 1952 to 1 MAR 1953 he served on temporary duty with Naval Reactors Branch, US Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. “assisting in the design and development of nuclear propulsion plants for naval vessels.” From 1 MAR 1953 to 8 OCT 1953 he was under instruction to become an engineering officer for a nuclear power plant. He also assisted in setting up on-the-job training for the enlisted men being instructed in nuclear propulsion for the USS Seawolf (SSN575).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/02/20/jimmy-cart...
https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/national-veri...
https://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/about_us/naval_service
> 16 OCT 1952 - 08 OCT 1953—Duty with US Atomic Energy Commission (Division of Reactor Development, Schenectady Operations Office) From 3 NOV 1952 to 1 MAR 1953 he served on temporary duty with Naval Reactors Branch, US Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. “assisting in the design and development of nuclear propulsion plants for naval vessels.” From 1 MAR 1953 to 8 OCT 1953 he was under instruction to become an engineering officer for a nuclear power plant. He also assisted in setting up on-the-job training for the enlisted men being instructed in nuclear propulsion for the USS Seawolf (SSN575).
After his experience with Chalk River, Three Mile Island was like a trip to Disney World.
I now kind of want to see an HBO series like Chernobyl about this.
"Carter was ordered to Chalk River to lead a U.S. maintenance crew that joined other American and Canadian service personnel to assist in the shutdown of the reactor.[30] The painstaking process required each team member to don protective gear and be lowered individually into the reactor for 90 seconds at a time, limiting their exposure to radioactivity while they disassembled the crippled reactor. When Carter was lowered in, his job was simply to turn a single screw.[31] During and after his presidency, Carter said that his experience at Chalk River had shaped his views on atomic energy and led him to cease development of a neutron bomb.[32]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#Naval_career
"Carter was ordered to Chalk River to lead a U.S. maintenance crew that joined other American and Canadian service personnel to assist in the shutdown of the reactor.[30] The painstaking process required each team member to don protective gear and be lowered individually into the reactor for 90 seconds at a time, limiting their exposure to radioactivity while they disassembled the crippled reactor. When Carter was lowered in, his job was simply to turn a single screw.[31] During and after his presidency, Carter said that his experience at Chalk River had shaped his views on atomic energy and led him to cease development of a neutron bomb.[32]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#Naval_career
You read what I wrote too fast and missed, or misunderstood, at least one word ("solely").
This is a rose tinted look at how GWB handled Katrina. He so bungled the response that people’s opinions of him dropped precipitously afterwards. The excuse for why he didn’t act sooner was that he was on a month long vacation. He was disconnected and praised FEMA which was universally considered to have bungled the recovery.
I mean, knowing nothing else, one of the most memorable pieces of pop culture in the last twenty years was “George Bush doesn’t care about black people”
I mean, knowing nothing else, one of the most memorable pieces of pop culture in the last twenty years was “George Bush doesn’t care about black people”
Kanye says the darndest things doesn’t he.
I can't imagine what any authority could have said to calm the populace. They've basically been truthful this whole time, but nobody wants to hear "This disaster was scary-looking but ultimately not very harmful."
They want scary to equal dangerous. Real chemical disasters look like Love Canal, or the quiet fire that eventually ate Centralia, but people want to believe "train on fire" equals "generational trauma" and in this case it doesn't. A Bhopal or Chernobyl or Deepwater Horizon is rare, and most chemical disasters are scary-looking-but-contained.
(... and that's before you factor in the work of foreign agents trying to inflate the story as a wedge issue. https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2023/03/20/ohio-train-... )
They want scary to equal dangerous. Real chemical disasters look like Love Canal, or the quiet fire that eventually ate Centralia, but people want to believe "train on fire" equals "generational trauma" and in this case it doesn't. A Bhopal or Chernobyl or Deepwater Horizon is rare, and most chemical disasters are scary-looking-but-contained.
(... and that's before you factor in the work of foreign agents trying to inflate the story as a wedge issue. https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2023/03/20/ohio-train-... )
I just read the Cincinnati article you posted and it reads like mainstream misinformation. “Claimed without evidence” and throwing “elon musk’s new rating system” in there to boot. It says some things were demonstrably false, but read through other comments here with links to citations and it becomes pretty clear this “news” story is a PR piece without any evidence of its own.
Having been here a long time, I'll trust "mainstream misinformation" before I'll trust the sleuthing abilities of HN every day of the week.
Seriously, what cited information in these threads should I be looking at? The "status coup" blog? The poster who is alleging some kind of conspiracy to kill people investigating industrial accidents in Ohio?
Seriously, what cited information in these threads should I be looking at? The "status coup" blog? The poster who is alleging some kind of conspiracy to kill people investigating industrial accidents in Ohio?
USDOT does have an important role to play. But the link (which I admittedly didn't follow) has a headline about the CDC. EPA is also an important agency, maybe the most important one for this clean-up. All that to say I'm somewhat skeptical when criticism focuses on Pete Buttigieg in particular...
I think it's honestly quite fair. He was a presidential candidate and looks likely to run again in the next election - as a consolation prize he was appointed to the department that handles these things and absolutely failed to step up when a disaster directly in his domain happened.
I think it's fair that he's held to a higher standard than Ellen Chao who was pretty much just a nepotism appointment and, as far as I've seen at least, has no real desire to get into serious election competitions.
I think it's fair that he's held to a higher standard than Ellen Chao who was pretty much just a nepotism appointment and, as far as I've seen at least, has no real desire to get into serious election competitions.
Lol.
So we’re supposed to show deference to an appointee whose a member of a family controlling a Chinese maritime shipping company who happens to be the wife of the Senate Majority leader, because she’s just a patronage appointee?
So many regulatory changes were made during the Trump administration that directly benefited shipping interests. Chao isn’t some Washington DC housewife!
So we’re supposed to show deference to an appointee whose a member of a family controlling a Chinese maritime shipping company who happens to be the wife of the Senate Majority leader, because she’s just a patronage appointee?
So many regulatory changes were made during the Trump administration that directly benefited shipping interests. Chao isn’t some Washington DC housewife!
I don't think I ever said anything about deference? Chao was a complete BS appointment who was clearly just there to hand off contracts to family friends... Buttigieg was someone who wanted to be endowed as the chief executive and instead got a cabinet appointment - they came from being a mayor to having a role on the national stage and I honestly don't think they've really accomplished anything of note that would give them a boost in an upcoming election - this collision was not their fault personally but they responded to it poorly and hasn't been doing much else. I'm pretty sure Katie Porter has had a much larger impact on most people's lives than Buttigieg.
To clarify - when I said I hold them to a higher standard than Chao it's because my expectations were for Chao to wave in a series of corrupt defunding decisions and they ended up only being relatively corrupt - they cleared the extremely low bar I had for them. I had expectations about Buttigieg and they have not lived up to them.
To clarify - when I said I hold them to a higher standard than Chao it's because my expectations were for Chao to wave in a series of corrupt defunding decisions and they ended up only being relatively corrupt - they cleared the extremely low bar I had for them. I had expectations about Buttigieg and they have not lived up to them.
I don't really see what answer to "step up" wouldn't be considered wrong in the eyes of most people dunkin' on Buttigieg.
Personally wading in saving the fish?
Personally wading in saving the fish?
I dunno, he's the face of the Feds. He sets the tone --this is his purview. He needed to go over there, check it out, figure out the magnitude on the ground and call in the cavalry (EPA, FEMA, etc.) as he saw necessary. But no, it took him two weeks to show his face.
Err that's not his job. Literally, the NTSB exists as an independent entity from the DOT and is tasked with investigating disasters like this one.
I wish we, as people, would pay less attention to figureheads and more attention to what's happening behind the curtain. I also wish said figureheads, and the media that comment on them, would report more of what does, doesn't, and should go on behind the curtain.
The media is the curtain.
It’s possible there is a benign explanation (spring is allergy season after all), but it’s insane that the government hasn’t been erring in the side of caution throughout this incident.
I wouldn't call it "insane." The temporary evacuation was erring on the side of caution. Vinyl chloride and the other materials on the train are extremely well-understood chemicals and denature pretty rapidly in the wild (especially if you expose them to a controlled burn).
Could also be psychosomatic.
Hmm. How about that. Might be a bigger deal then originally thought.
[deleted]
Or the investigators need to go closer to the disaster than the public?
The article says the people that got sick were only going door to door to interview people in the town...
If you clear folks to return to their homes they'll be passing by that site every days.
Yes - most folks probably aren't going to shove their noses in the train wreck but the people with the weakest resistance to poisons (kids) absolutely will be all over the site. If adults are getting significant side effects then children will likely have very severe reactions.
Yes - most folks probably aren't going to shove their noses in the train wreck but the people with the weakest resistance to poisons (kids) absolutely will be all over the site. If adults are getting significant side effects then children will likely have very severe reactions.
Is there any antidote for phosgene that can be manufactured quickly at home?
I believe the toxicity of Phosgene is more of a corrosive effect than being poisoned by something like snake venom. It chemically reacts with the tissue in your lungs rather than interfering with specific biochemical reactions, so you can’t really manufacture an antidote. Just like how there isn’t an antidote for chlorine gas.
Yes, water. Phosgene reacts aggressively with water and hydrolizes in less than a tenth of a second.
It doesn't necessarily dissolve readily, but any surface that gets hosed down (or chunk of atmosphere that gets sprayed) will generally be phosgene-free.
It doesn't necessarily dissolve readily, but any surface that gets hosed down (or chunk of atmosphere that gets sprayed) will generally be phosgene-free.
i haven't even opened this article yet, but the headline scares the crap out of me
In a year or 2 when all the reports are in, I can’t wait to read them. Of course I am not an environmental scientist, but my mind boggles at the thought of turning a bad (but controlled/constrained) situation into an uncontrolled/unconstrained one by simply torching the spill, seems bananas.
[deleted]
Probably just a coincidence
favsq(1)
Possibly a result of overwork, or exposure to something unrelated to the disaster.
I'm feeling the same symptoms described right now. But there's a cold going around.
I'm feeling the same symptoms described right now. But there's a cold going around.
reactspa(2)