561–570 of 607 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you deeply underestimate how many derailments happen each year in the US https://www.wric.com/news/u-s-world/how-often-do-trains-dera...
If you think “derailment” means “on fire”, we have bigger issues.
- "On Sunday, the EPA released a list, written by Norfolk Southern, of the toxic chemicals that were in the derailed cars. In addition to vinyl chloride and butyl acrylate, it mentions ethylhexyl acrylate, which can cause headaches, nausea, and respiratory problems in people exposed to it; as well as isobutylene, which can make people dizzy and drowsy." This is anodyne phrasing that omits the lede, which is that this…
It's listed as a "possible carcinogen". Which would put it in the same category as caffeine. Although it's worth noting that while caffeine would obviously not be that dangerous of a chemical, a giant spill of it would still be an environmental issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How do you know the crash was the result of missing regulations? "“Would ECP brakes have reduced the severity of this accident? Yes,” Steven Ditmeyer, a former senior official at the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), told The Lever." https://www.levernews.com/rail-companies-blocked-safety-rule...
This regulation was put into place during the Obama administration ( I don't know if it was implemented) then the Trump administration removed it.
And the Biden administration, with control of both houses, couldn't put it back in place?
Republicans suck, yes. But Dems aren't any better and partisan bickering results in no one held accountable
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Democrats are against government regulation, they worship B. Clinton and he deregulated everything. Both US parties, as usual, support regulation that damages the other party's prospects or damages the competitors of their own donors.
False equivalence Clinton was president in the 90s, prove he removed more regulations than Republicans, finally Republicans are the only ones who compalin about regulations
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EPA famously declared the air safe following 9/11. Their credibility is, at least for me personally, negligible. The flint water crisis and the Gold King Mine are other examples. People are rightfully worried and angered. Your dismissal of them as "losing their mind" or "hysterical" is at best tone deaf, and at worst an intentional tactic to downplay the event. Appeals to governmental authority falls flat when th…
The EPA has absolutely nothing to do with Flint.
> Since January 2016, EPA has been monitoring compliance with its emergency administrative order (as amended) to ensure that Flint’s drinking water system continues to improve. Flint’s system currently meets regulatory criteria for lead and copper. EPA will continue to oversee the City’s efforts to transition to a long-term drinking water source and also monitor its replacement of lead (and galvanized) service lines throughout Flint
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EPA famously declared the air safe following 9/11. Their credibility is, at least for me personally, negligible. The flint water crisis and the Gold King Mine are other examples. People are rightfully worried and angered. Your dismissal of them as "losing their mind" or "hysterical" is at best tone deaf, and at worst an intentional tactic to downplay the event. Appeals to governmental authority falls flat when th…
The EPA has absolutely nothing to do with Flint.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The actual EPA pronouncement was that the air and water in NY city were safe (not to warrant an evacuation). They still recommended that first responders and people in the vicinity wear respirators.
Didn't realize that distinction - thank you. Do you know if they recommended it right away or after a few days?
If I can remember later, I'll come back and post a NASA satellite image showing the particle density that I saved from that morning
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For vinyl chloride 250ppm for 4 hours is enough to give you tumors. No it’s not! You’ve completely made that up.
Tu quoque my friend. I merely coped & pasted wikipedia, wanna check the cite? >1972, Maltoni, another Italian researcher for the European vinyl chloride industry, found liver tumors (including angiosarcoma) from vinyl chloride exposures as low as 250 ppm for four hours a day.[30]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is a huge catastrophe that will have long term repercussions across a wide area. No it’s not, and no it won’t.
Care to share why you think that way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I've been seeing content on Tiktok where even 100 miles away they're seeing small dead fish which is apparently according to the folks making the videos a massive red flag." I wouldn't bother watching a Tiktok video unless the video maker is an environmental professional. Otherwise this is just the blind leading the blind. Here's a legal definition of environmental professional used by developers when they do a envi…
"hey look, here's a bunch of dead fish that weren't here yesterday" "show me your degree"
Would you believe a random Tiktoker if they told you Elvis came back to life and camped with Aliens at the local park, the other day? If not, why is a video about dead fish more credible?