I'll put this here because there aren't comments for the East Palastine article.
UGH...so infuriating.
The author throws out half truths and glosses over anything that is beneficial.
Examples: “basically nuked a town with chemicals so we could get a railroad open,” and "chemicals that might kill you getting dumped at your doorstep"
No understanding (or acknowledgement - not sure which is worse) of why the chemicals were burned (to prevent a much larger and uncontrolled explosions (See: bleve)) or that none of these chemicals "might kill you" unless you swam in them.
He then goes on to attack the very manufacturing that is coming back to western PA after decrying how these areas have been dying (due to manufacturing leaving - ie, coal, steel).
Which is it? You want manufacturing or not? The county rep said it exactly - you can't just sit in a coffee shop and expect everything to magically be made. But of course the author frames that as callous and from an chemical/oil stooge.
The fact is that in the modern world, we use lots of hazardous materials everyday and 99.9% of the time they are handled safely. But accidents do happen, yet this author (and fellow travelers) don't want to acknowledge that, just gin up fear about "chemicals" or whatever it is they are peddling their "expertise" at decrying (to get on TV, write articles, etc.).
Yeah, I found the lack of acknowledgement about the tough decision to do a controlled burn troubling. That isn't to say it was a correct decision, I have no idea, but to ignore it completely like it was a non-issue? That article needs a correction on that aspect if nothing else.
I'll put this here because there aren't comments for the East Palastine article.
UGH...so infuriating.
The author throws out half truths and glosses over anything that is beneficial.
Examples: “basically nuked a town with chemicals so we could get a railroad open,” and "chemicals that might kill you getting dumped at your doorstep"
No understanding (or acknowledgement - not sure which is worse) of why the chemicals were burned (to prevent a much larger and uncontrolled explosions (See: bleve)) or that none of these chemicals "might kill you" unless you swam in them.
He then goes on to attack the very manufacturing that is coming back to western PA after decrying how these areas have been dying (due to manufacturing leaving - ie, coal, steel).
Which is it? You want manufacturing or not? The county rep said it exactly - you can't just sit in a coffee shop and expect everything to magically be made. But of course the author frames that as callous and from an chemical/oil stooge.
The fact is that in the modern world, we use lots of hazardous materials everyday and 99.9% of the time they are handled safely. But accidents do happen, yet this author (and fellow travelers) don't want to acknowledge that, just gin up fear about "chemicals" or whatever it is they are peddling their "expertise" at decrying (to get on TV, write articles, etc.).
Yeah, I found the lack of acknowledgement about the tough decision to do a controlled burn troubling. That isn't to say it was a correct decision, I have no idea, but to ignore it completely like it was a non-issue? That article needs a correction on that aspect if nothing else.