30,000 unsafe tank cars article in New York Times

[Anonymous]

Speaking of the NYT, their headline at the moment is “Deadly Leak Underscores Concerns About Rail Safety” http://nytimes.com/2005/01/09/national/09rail.html?hp&ex=1105246800&en=e75f76ae66f38b78&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Tank cars made before ‘89 don’t use heat treated steel and are likely to rupture in a derailment. It goes on about them being terror targets and describes efforts to route hazardous freight around the Capital. It also describes security measures and the lack of them. Giving an example of 6 chlorine cars behind Las Vegas hotels.

[ericsp]

According the the article the Chlorine tankcar in the cra***his week was made in 1993. So why was the article written? If one did not read that part, and did not know any better, they would probably assume the tankcar was pre-1989 and that the heat treating would have prevented the rupture. Again I ask, why was the article written?

Also, if they think the heat treating will dissuade a terrorist form attacking a train or tankcar, they need to get their heads out of where the sun does not shine.

[mudchicken]

(1) Any chance that New York Times can write about their "30+ reckless-braindead journalists out causing unwarranted hysteria" ? [}:)][}:)]

(2) Odd, no mention of the rubber liners in most of those cars[%-)]...The few of us on here with hazmat training are amazed by knee jerk stories like this.

NYTimes, in an effort to seize the moral high ground, are now so far underground, they may never see the light of day.

(3) With the forces involved, would anything stopped the leak?

[passengerfan]

The NY Times has been brain dead for years and I can't beleive people still belive the drivel they publish.

[jeaton]

The New York Times is the owner of the International Herald Tribune where Don Phillips know hangs his hat. Perhaps the Times might want to borrow Don to do a seminar on quality journalism for transportation writers. Either that or a disclaimer-"We are not very knowledgable about this subject, but we think it will sell more papers"

Jay

[greyhounds]

Well, what subject are they "knowledgeable" about? People here are upset about this coverage because the people here are, in fact, "knowledgeable" about railroads. But it's not just railroads.

What "The Media" does is send some reporter(s) who know absolutely nothing about what they are going to report on out to report on a "story"; then they give them a "deadline" and the reporter(s) have to come up with a story. OK, they'll grab whatever they can and "report" it. Only God knows wether it's truthful or not. The readers/viewers sure can't tell.

We had a high rise fire in Chicago recently. The TV stations just showed the fire instead of their regular progamming. The reporting was comical. It included the "information" that this was the biggest fire in Chicago's history.

They had aparently never heard of "The Chicago Fire" or the theater fire that killed over 600 people or the Our Lady of Angels School fire. What they were trying to say was that the high rise fire had the largest response of equipment and firefighters in the city's history. But they couldn't even get that straight.

And then there was:

Reporter: The people across the street are watching the fire.
Anchor: How far away are those people?

The people were, of course, across the street.

[ericsp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

Well, what subject are they "knowledgeable" about? People here are upset about this coverage because the people here are, in fact, "knowledgeable" about railroads. But it's not just railroads


What "The Media" does is send some reporter(s) who know absolutely nothing about what they are going to report on out to report on a "story"; then they give them a "deadline" and the reporter(s) have to come up with a story. OK, they'll grab whatever they can and "report" it. Only God knows wether it's truthful or not. The readers/viewers sure can't tell.

We had a high rise fire in Chicago recently. The TV stations just showed the fire instead of their regular progamming. The reporting was comical. It included the "information" that this was the biggest fire in Chicago's history.

They had aparently never heard of "The Chicago Fire" or the theater fire that killed over 600 people or the Our Lady of Angels School fire. What they were trying to say was that the high rise fire had the largest response of equipment and firefighters in the city's history. But they couldn't even get that straight.

And then there was:

Reporter: The people across the street are watching the fire.
Anchor: How far away are those people?

The people were, of course, across the street.

The article was probably written in response to the tankcar being breached. The main point of the article seems to be that there are a large number of tankcars running about built before 1989 that are unsafe because of the fabrication methods. What impression does this give? I suppose that will vary from person to person, however, I would guess that many people will get the impression that had this tankcar been built to the new, post-1989 standards it would have kept its structural integrity. It is only in one sentence near the end of the article that they tell that this tankcar was built in 1993. I do not see how that is simply a case of not being knowledgable about trains.

[jeaton]

Eric

Of course it is something else beside the lack of knowledge about trains and tank cars.

It probably has as much to do with an effort take a true news story (the accident) and add an angle to the story written in a manner that makes it look like it is really part of the story. The writters get out something that gets printed, therefore justifying their paychecks. The newspaper has something that meets the goal of alarming people to a risk that exist in the world, therefore meeting one of the appearant criteria for maintaining or increasing circulation.

Maybe there is a story in the fact that a significant number of tank cars in use are not up to the latest standards. But unless the story can include a part on an incident causing loss of life, it goes into the category of "the sky is falling" and at this point, the NYT may think that such stories are a bit too much.

Jay

[mudchicken]

Mysteriously, the article makes it to the Sunday Denver Post (pg 2) without the qualifyer about the age of the current tank car involved at Graniteville[:(!][:(!][:(!]...and then compounds things griping about why UP will not allow kayakers to trespass on its R/W on the Western Slope for a proposed new whitewater run that is not even in existance yet.(?)......Methinks Kansas got Dorothy & Toto while Colorado got Scarecrow without a brain.[V][V] [V]


http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2643379,00.html


[banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead]

[adrianspeeder]

Same story just was on CNN, fox, ect... Just like how hollywood butchers train movies (remember "atomic train") the news does too.

"Millions of tons of deadly substances are on trains every day..."

No kiddin', how else would they move?

Adrianspeeder

[Anonymous]

the media always (ALWAYS) makes situations seem worse than they really are. There is countless ways by which terrorists could terrorize, and the media will be guessing until the next attack happens, then they will be saying they predicted it...

[tree68]

Hey - maybe we can get some mileage out of this one...

If we tell people that driving in front of trains might cause a derailment and chemical spill, maybe they'll think twice next time they set out to run the gates.

No - wait. They'll want the RR to leave town. Can't have that nasty stuff where I live. NIMBY!

[espeefoamer]

Scene in the newsroom of a major daily paper: "We don't know much of what we're writing about, so we'll tell people that it is very dangerous.Then they will think we're doing our jobs".