Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EPA orders Norfolk Southern to conduct all cleanup actions related to derailment

epa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 263 posts

Re: EPA orders Norfolk Southern to conduct all cleanup actions related to derailment

#131

Post by s1artibartfast »

joe_the_user wrote: post #122

Why isn't the EPA offering trailers outside of town to any worried residents? News reports indicate that people seem to be being poisoned in their homes and staying because they have no other place to go. Edit: Jeesh, of course I mean "why aren't the Feds overall offering trailers". I get the impression the EPA is currently organizing the remediation but that's a side-issue, darn it.

Why do you think the EPA has trailers or is responsible for housing people?

This seems to be the role of a disaster management organization

Re: EPA orders Norfolk Southern to conduct all cleanup actions related to derailment

#132

Post by ncallaway »

joe_the_user wrote: post #122

Why isn't the EPA offering trailers outside of town to any worried residents? News reports indicate that people seem to be being poisoned in their homes and staying because they have no other place to go. Edit: Jeesh, of course I mean "why aren't the Feds overall offering trailers". I get the impression the EPA is currently organizing the remediation but that's a side-issue, darn it.

That seems like something that FEMA would be better prepared to do.

I think FEMA should be in the role of protecting the individuals, evacuating people and providing food, water, heating and shelter.

EPA should have more focus on directing the cleanup of the area, and making the area safe for residents to return to.

And the railroad should be billed every penny of the costs of both.

Re: EPA orders Norfolk Southern to conduct all cleanup actions related to derailment

#133

Post by excalibur »

joe_the_user wrote: post #122

Why isn't the EPA offering trailers outside of town to any worried residents? News reports indicate that people seem to be being poisoned in their homes and staying because they have no other place to go. Edit: Jeesh, of course I mean "why aren't the Feds overall offering trailers". I get the impression the EPA is currently organizing the remediation but that's a side-issue, darn it.

That's FEMA's role, but otherwise that's a damn good question. Yes the company that caused the mess should rightly be on the hook for cleaning it up, but there's still a need for federal disaster assistance.

Re: EPA orders Norfolk Southern to conduct all cleanup actions related to derailment

#134

Post by noahtallen »

thearn4 wrote: post #98

I'm finding it difficult to find objective assessments of the impact of what has happened in East Palestine. It seems like there are interests in dismissing the impacts entirely, but there are others that seems to want to overstate the impacts significantly. Does anyone else feel this way?

I think part of the problem is that a really thorough investigation from the NTSB (https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20230214.as...) will by definition not be quick. We'll definitely get answers, but it will take time. As a result, we have an information gap which is quickly filled with tons of speculation.

I think it's fair to be concerned until we know that the impact was somehow limited. Toxic fumes and spills are incredibly dangerous. Not just deadly in the short term, they can cause severe long-term health problems. It's not like the spillage/smoke just simply disappears, so it's good to be concerned about them until there's proof the impact is minor.

Re: EPA orders Norfolk Southern to conduct all cleanup actions related to derailment

#135

Post by ng12 »

thearn4 wrote: post #112
Rimintil wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other than introducing FUD about the cleanup costs, why would you believe there is overstatement on the impact of the disaster? What metric has you doubting the impact statement? What are your qualifications to make this assessment?

I'm thinking about what I've read on social media (twitter, reddit, etc) about the event. The posts getting the most engagement/traction are convinced this is larger than Chernobyl. However, relevant authorities do not seem to agree with this. But I have no environmental sciences credentials to speak of.

I think the overt issue is that both state and fed gov completely bungled their response. Their absurd, stubborn silence, even after the issue has been lighting up social media for a week, gives the impression they know it's deadly but don't care -- whether or not that's the truth.

Re: EPA orders Norfolk Southern to conduct all cleanup actions related to derailment

#136

Post by Rimintil »

thearn4 wrote: post #112
Rimintil wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other than introducing FUD about the cleanup costs, why would you believe there is overstatement on the impact of the disaster? What metric has you doubting the impact statement? What are your qualifications to make this assessment?

I'm thinking about what I've read on social media (twitter, reddit, etc) about the event. The posts getting the most engagement/traction are convinced this is larger than Chernobyl. However, relevant authorities do not seem to agree with this. But I have no environmental sciences credentials to speak of.

> I'm thinking about what I've read on social media (twitter, reddit, etc) about the event.

Social media is social media. It requires critical thinking skills to navigate what you can trust versus what you cannot. I would have put this point in your GP, though. The GP otherwise reads like it has an agenda.

> relevant authorities do not seem to agree with this.

They're (probably) a more reliable source than social media, so I'd have to refer to the relevant authorities.

Social media (likely) isn't out there gathering soil samples, air quality metrics, and water quality metrics in a uniform or scientific method that would qualify 'social media' to make a judgement call about the impact of the disaster.

Re: EPA orders Norfolk Southern to conduct all cleanup actions related to derailment

#137

Post by piva00 »

the_optimist wrote: post #119
piva00 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeremy Hunt co-authored this in 2005 [0]. Look at the bits about denationalising the NHS. I'd like to see your rebuttal to this book, genuinely [1]. Edit: also this op-ed contains some more examples of the process going on [2]. Please, refrain from name-calling and instead point exactly where I'm wrong on what you so called a "conspiracy theory". It's a baseless comment and you haven't provided me anything to look fu…

Merely pointing out that a theory for attacking the system exists is not equivalent to attacking the system; you have to assume malicious intent. There is no way to differentiate merely scarce resources from supposedly adversarial depletion. This market is fixed. Abject failure is indistinguishable from success, in any form. You are merely saying, “I assume you are malicious,” which is a premise—not a conclusion. The…

To prove malicious intent without doubt would require me to have access to the minds of the perpetrators of a plan. I don't have such access, I do have access to their intentions through an agenda document and their further actions afterwards in government, such a plan would not be presented as malicious so I can only derive its intents from their agenda and actions to the results in reality.

The results in reality is a system that has not coped with its usage, one such example is presented in the op-ed article I shared on [2] which states that McKinsey was commissioned to provide a report which they concluded there would be less need of nurses, which was false, that report was used to reduce the budget for nurses which as a result caused further reduction in force of nurses as they quit because of lower pay. I can only derive that it's malicious since the report is wrong and no action was taken to correct the government's actions when reality hit. The same op-ed links to another analysis with this exact question [0].

> “In other words we didn’t have enough nurses before to provide a high quality service? Ah!” said John Humphrys in shocked tones - as if this was a revelation the BBC’s flagship news programme had never heard before.

> But the BBC failed to ask the key question – why were all the warning signs about nurse shortages, ignored?

> After all, NHS chiefs and ministers had been warned clearly for years that there would be a shortage of nurses, as a result of David Cameron’s coalition government cutting training places for nurses and doctors from 2010 onwards. From 2010 through to 2013 the numbers of nursing places commissioned at universities in England were cut by 12.7% – resulting in 2500 fewer places. In 2012 experts warned that this would result in a “disaster” in two or three years. In all, the 2010 cutbacks (reversed only relatively recently) meant that around 8000 fewer nurses were coming into the system.

Can you point me to any counterpoint to this where the government's actions align to a non-malicious plan to actually help the system, as misaligned as that plan might be? Because every action I can find points to a plan where the system is put under further struggle without giving a good reason why it is sensible to, for example, train less nurses when they were advised by NHS chiefs and specialists they will require more. You can't say that ignoring your chief specialists is not malicious.

[0] https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/ournhs/nhs-staff-shortage-s...

Re: EPA orders Norfolk Southern to conduct all cleanup actions related to derailment

#138

Post by yardie »

input_sh wrote: post #110
yardie wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Japan privatized their railway in the early 90s. It's really good. This is not an endorsement of privatization just a counterpoint to the argument of national vs privatized transport systems. What it means is leadership and management has to be truly held accountable.

Worth pointing out that a major part of why it works in Japan is that rail companies also own real estate around stations. High foot traffic allows them to charge high rent to stores.

This is also the business model for the private rail in Hong Kong, Singapore, and now Florida with Brightline.

The Brightline model is surprising because it shouldn't work. Miami and Orlando aren't well thought of for there public transit systems. Yet, this premium intercity train is expanding. I'm not convinced they are profitable as a train, but they own the property around downtown train stations which is really hot right now.

Re: EPA orders Norfolk Southern to conduct all cleanup actions related to derailment

#139

Post by orwin »

rootusrootus wrote: post #57
pookha wrote: post #27

Apparently there are something like 1K derailments a year in the US? Had no idea...Seems pretty high. https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/02/17/tra...

How does this compare to Europe, or the rest of the world? I can spot numbers like 'every other day' in Europe, but getting comparables is proving difficult. Given the different nature of the tracks, usage, and geography, it may be difficult to draw a meaningful comparison anyway. I do see that the rates are broadly similar between Canada and the US, which is not a surprise but does suggest a correlation.

I could probably get the exact numbers, but nowadays probably less than 100/year. Diminishing every years from 2004 through 2014 at least.

Plus we have gauges issues that the US don't, so this much disparity is concerning.

Re: EPA orders Norfolk Southern to conduct all cleanup actions related to derailment

#140

Post by xadhominemx »

throwanem wrote: post #116
mlindner wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. There is no one in East Palestine who got sick from this. There's many derailments throughout the country and chemical spills of other sorts have happened many times.

> There is no one in East Palestine who got sick from this. You're saying this a decade or two early, don't you think? Cancer rates are a trailing indicator. I'm not going to try to address the normalization of deviance implicit in the rest of your comment, because what would be the point?

None of the contaminants are carcinogenic, really
Post reply on HN