Earlier quoted context omitted.
This take needs more coverage. In fact the current freakout is almost entirely due to the deliberate burn and the big plume it caused, with almost no one taking the time to explain that the combustion products are simply much safer than the products that were leaking. But everyone wants to cover how it smells in East Palestine and not what the options were. (And to everyone replying with "But it's ACTUALLY about the…
The ultimate problem is the breakdown in trust of our institutions to get this right - the overriding incentives are wrong at every level. Burning a product because it would have otherwise needed to be recovered and transported under pressure seems like exactly the kind of amoral tradeoff a company would take, not particularly caring about the combustion products apart from what they can legally get away with. As far…
I don't think that's correct. It was leaking. No recovery was feasible. The options at hand were "let it leak" or "burn it", and burning it was the right choice.
Now, maybe you don't believe that. And of course I believe it on faith. But real chemical engineers are making these decisions, not yahoos on HN. And the fact that you perceive a "breakdown in trust" of those engineers doesn't make them wrong. If you want them to be wrong you need to provide evidence yourself.