NS serious derailment late feb 3 ( ~2100 )

[charlie hebdo]

Convicted One

In the case of the railroad, they come through your community regardless if you approve, or not. So that raises responsibility even  another notch, imo.

Quite true.  As an loose analogy, if one lives near an medical office building, there is a reasonable expectation that they will properly manage biohazards.

[tree68]

charlie hebdo

But it is the primary culprit by a wide margin, obviously.

For the overall incident, to be sure.  I was referring specifically to the venting and burn off.  

Euclid's quoted material indicates that a lot of people had input on the action, even if they all deny it now.

[Convicted One]

charlie hebdo

But it is the primary culprit by a wide margin

 

Agreed, ...I believe there to be a reasonable expectation that the railroads be master of their domains.  Afterall, they are the ones bringing their freight through communities.  Is there not some implied notion of "hey, we know how  to do this safely".   Even if the actual flaw ends up being with the bearing manufacturer, or whatever. It's still the railroad doing it's bit that made the stars all align.

 

I liken it to someone losing a finger tip in a can of chili at the factory, and then the restaurant serves it to you.    Isn't there a reasonable expectation of expertise on behalf of the restauranteur?  People go there thinking they can be trusted to do things right.

In the case of the railroad, they come through your community regardless if you approve, or not. So that raises responsibility even  another notch, imo.

[Euclid]

.

[charlie hebdo]

tree68

Attempts to cast NS as the sole culprit here are misguided at best.

But it is the primary culprit by a wide margin, obviously.

[Euclid]

tree68

 

 

Euclid

No matter which side you are on, this article bears right down on the controversy we are discussing here.  I suggest reading the second paragraph and consider what it says.  I have seen this brought up in other articles as well.  People are skeptical about the declared motive for the controlled burn. 

 

 

NS was not alone in the room when this decision was made.  The US EPA, PA EPA, and Ohio NG all own a piece of this decision, too.  Maybe NS sold them a bill of goods - but they all are still responsible.  

Unmentioned in any of the reports are the chemical industry representatives who were likely on site as well.

Attempts to cast NS as the sole culprit here are misguided at best.

 

I don’t recall anyone saying that NS made the decision to do the controlled burn.  What I do recall is that they offered the idea and strongly advocated it.

 

Below is an article that is now behind a pay wall for me, but I earlier posted the following information from it:

 

The Ohio EPA said that it was the local Fire Chief who made the decision to do the controlled burn in consultation with the NS Railroad, local law enforcement, and the Ohio EPA.

 

After the burn, in a public meeting, the East Palestine Fire Chief was asked the following questions:

 

1      Did he recommend the controlled burn?

 

2      Did he have the legal authority to order the controlled burn?

 

3      Could he provide more details of the analysis that led to the decision to do the controlled burn?

 

4      Were they any other options considered besides waiting for the tank cars to explode?

 

The Fire Chief declined to comment on the 4 questions. 

 

The following people/organizations have asserted that they did not make the decision to do the controlled burn:

 

The Governor of Ohio

 

The Governor of Pennsylvania

 

The Norfolk Southern Railroad

 

The Federal EPA

 

The East Palestine Fire Chief

 

I conclude that there is no way to determine who formally approved the decision to do the burn off, or if anyone gave such approval.  It may be that nobody actually made the decision or formally authorized it.    

https://www.theohiopressnetwork.com/news/ohio/east-palestine-fire-chief-silent-when-environmental-protection-agency-claims-he-ordered-the-controlled-burn/article_9303cca0-b232-11ed-8bef-9f01ecabcc04.html

[blue streak 1]

The tank car would have exploded if nothing done.  That was indicated by the safety valve pitch getting higher as time went on.  Now was the valve inadequate or maybe damaged ?.  NTSB will tell us.  If the tank did explode the product left would have imediately ignighted as Oxygen got to the product.  As understood the shapped charges only punched a veey small hole in each tank.  So, when set off total product that was exposed to fire and Oxygen much less than a BLEVE which heat would have caused other cars to exceed pressure relief valves. Anyone know how long product burned in the controlled burn?  Exp;psio would hae allowed more product to leak into ground contaminating a much larger ground water area.

[Cotton Belt MP104]

Convicted One

What I object to is when a standard member of the forum attempts to elevate themselves to moderator by trying to control the discussion of others. 

Oh, my friend. No hard feelings taken. Consider what you have said previously: …..”I am mature enough that I can simply ignore (edit mrw) discussion that, for whatever reason, seems misguided to me.”……. 

 

That is exactly what I suggest a person do. The offense you take from all this, is the use of a word. To you it HAS to imply something I do not believe is fair. You and I are on the same page, because what you say you do, is exactly what I have suggested. So sorry that an “offensive” term (extinction) was used when this was taught in the workshop I attended.   Another term was “bird walking”, don’t even try to figure that one.  My teacher classmates do, and the slang terms create a fast way to share w/each other about our job. endmrw0317232234

[tree68]

Euclid

No matter which side you are on, this article bears right down on the controversy we are discussing here.  I suggest reading the second paragraph and consider what it says.  I have seen this brought up in other articles as well.  People are skeptical about the declared motive for the controlled burn. 

NS was not alone in the room when this decision was made.  The US EPA, PA EPA, and Ohio NG all own a piece of this decision, too.  Maybe NS sold them a bill of goods - but they all are still responsible.  

Unmentioned in any of the reports are the chemical industry representatives who were likely on site as well.

Attempts to cast NS as the sole culprit here are misguided at best.

[Euclid]

No matter which side you are on, this article bears right down on the controversy we are discussing here.  I suggest reading the second paragraph and consider what it says.  I have seen this brought up in other articles as well.  People are skeptical about the declared motive for the controlled burn. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/02/17/ohio-derailment-controlled-burning-toxic/

 

The article covers many other points including quotes by people warning that the explosion was likely to occur very soon.  They almost made it sound like it could happen any moment. In my opinion, their sense of urgency was directed at creating a sense of panic in order to get the burn-off approved rather than conveying a true sense of the danger. 

[BaltACD]

I would suggest for those that can - view the entire series on Netflix that is titled 'Three Mile Island'.

One can then form you own opinions about how a 'catastrophic' type happening was handled.

[tree68]

Euclid

It would have been far better to get everyone out of harm's way than to take a chance with the giant cloud with potential fallout of vinyl chloride and dioxin. 

They evacuated the immediate area almost immediately, followed by the more strongly worded evacuation order the next day, which covered a one mile by two mile area - as outlined in the previously linked press release from Ohio's governor.

How big an area do you think they should have evacuated?

Five days after the incident, it was determined - by  monitoring the air and water - that it was safe for people to return home.  Health complaints have followed, to be sure.  

It should also be noted that most images, as well as the planned evacuation area, seem to indicate that the bulk of the village of East Palestine was actually upwind of the burning material.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/evacuation-order-lifted-east-palestine-ohio-train-derailment/

No question - it's not over yet.  

[Convicted One]

Cotton Belt MP104

You don't seem to understand the intent of "extinction".

Sigh?  It's a shame you and I do not share more common ground on this issue.

What I object to is when a standard member of the forum attempts to elevate themselves to moderator by trying to control the discussion of others.   And when you try to invoke "extinction", that's the way it comes across.   Like you are trying to prevent further discussion of (whatever) topic.

I don't believe that any of us has the right to try and silence other members, is what it boils down to.  

Just seems a bit beyond bounds to my observation..  No hard feelings

[Euclid]

tree68

 

 

Euclid

In this case, the outcome of path not taken was easy to predict.  They could have just gotten everyone out of the way and waited to see what happened.  So what if it blew up?  People are more important than buildings.  And insurance would have paid for the damage.  But instead, they cast a dark cloud over the residents’ health future just to protect some building from damage.  That is unless there was something else in their equation. 

 

 

What about the product? It's now spread all over the blast field, a clean-up nightmare that makes what did happen look like childs play.  The physical damage from the actual explosion would be relatively minor.

 

It would have been far better to get everyone out of harm's way than to take a chance with the giant cloud with potential fallout of vinyl chloride and dioxin.  That matter is far from being resolved, but it is too late if it turns out to have been a dangerous exposure.  They had the time to get everyone out of the entire true range of danger.  They should have done that and kept the people out until now or even later.  They should have gotten everybody out and put them into comfortable accommodations.  

 

And if they did that full evacuation immediately, they could have still gone ahead with their burn off.  The evacuation would not have needed to preclude the burn off, which was deemed necessary to avoid a possible explosion. 

[Cotton Belt MP104]

Convicted One

FWIW, I vote against "extinction". I am mature enough that I can simply ignore discussion that, for whatever reason, seems misguided to me.  Controlling others ability to contribute does not seem like a desirable outcome, no matter how much I might disagree with the subject matter. 

You don't seem to understand the intent of "extinction". YOU practice it yourself. When you said you do not waste time replying. That is MY term, from a class I attended long ago. And it taught how to be an effective teacher. One DOES NOT on this thread DISALLOW ANY comment. Those who want to go back and forth ad naseaum and "seemingly" get irritated about it all.......need to do what YOU do. Don't respond. That is a method, some call extinction. endmrw0317231803

[BaltACD]

Euclid

 

BaltACD 

Euclid

Well, it’s water over the dam now.  The tank car did not explode.  The vinyl chloride was intentionally released and burned.  A big black cloud was produced that apparently dropped fallout over East Palestine for a couple days; leaving a question as to what the fallout consisted of. To answer that question, testing of water, air, and soil is underway.  

That is the one thing about making a decision - you never REALLY KNOW what the outcome of the path not taken would have turned out. 

In this case, the outcome of path not taken was easy to predict.  They could have just gotten everyone out of the way and waited to see what happened.  So what if it blew up?  People are more important than buildings.  And insurance would have paid for the damage.  But instead, they cast a dark cloud over the residents’ health future just to protect some building from damage.  That is unless there was something else in their equation. 

Explosions, by their very nature are uncontrolled - and should never be viewed as best practice.  With a HAZMAT explosion in a wreck scene - you have no control over where or when it happen, unless you set charges to initiate the explosion.  With the wrecked cars of of unknown structural integrity you have no real idea of what will happen with the cars and the shrapnel that they may become. 

[tree68]

Euclid

In this case, the outcome of path not taken was easy to predict.  They could have just gotten everyone out of the way and waited to see what happened.  So what if it blew up?  People are more important than buildings.  And insurance would have paid for the damage.  But instead, they cast a dark cloud over the residents’ health future just to protect some building from damage.  That is unless there was something else in their equation. 

What about the product? It's now spread all over the blast field, a clean-up nightmare that makes what did happen look like childs play.  The physical damage from the actual explosion would be relatively minor.

[Euclid]

BaltACD

 

 

Euclid

Well, it’s water over the dam now.  The tank car did not explode.  The vinyl chloride was intentionally released and burned.  A big black cloud was produced that apparently dropped fallout over East Palestine for a couple days; leaving a question as to what the fallout consisted of. To answer that question, testing of water, air, and soil is underway. 

...

 

 

That is the one thing about making a decision - you never REALLY KNOW what the outcome of the path not taken would have turned out.

 

In this case, the outcome of path not taken was easy to predict.  They could have just gotten everyone out of the way and waited to see what happened.  So what if it blew up?  People are more important than buildings.  And insurance would have paid for the damage.  But instead, they cast a dark cloud over the residents’ health future just to protect some building from damage.  That is unless there was something else in their equation. 

[mudchicken]

(now you are talking about what I was curious about with anyone in the on-site huddle having AAR/TTC Rattlesnake Junction training (Hazmat Ops) where they really run you through the grinder on the decision-making process before graduating you)

[BaltACD]

Euclid

Well, it’s water over the dam now.  The tank car did not explode.  The vinyl chloride was intentionally released and burned.  A big black cloud was produced that apparently dropped fallout over East Palestine for a couple days; leaving a question as to what the fallout consisted of. To answer that question, testing of water, air, and soil is underway. 

...

That is the one thing about making a decision - you never REALLY KNOW what the outcome of the path not taken would have turned out.

[CSX Robert]

Cotton Belt MP104

I was going to privately explain. Probably your use of the word is not what I have explained before on another thread. As a teacher we were taught the technique of "extinction" when situations were boging down the furtherance of a point to be made in class. I tried to PM you but can only PM w/former PM buddies of the past. endmrw0316232336

 

I understand where you were going with this now.  I've read a lot of comments other places claiming this "sudden rash" of derailments is evidence of population control, either overall or a certain subgroup, and I was afraid you were heading in that direction.  I'm glad to realize you weren't.

[Convicted One]

Cotton Belt MP104

Anybody????? Does the PM function not work any longer when trying to start a chat with a new PM person?????

A few years ago,  browser updates started including additional privacy and security settings that are turned on by default.  And these protections break the PM function here.

It is possible to over ride these protections and get the PM to work, I've done it. But it is highly inadvisable.   You just open yourself up too much to "get there".

Additionally, there is a setting in this forum's software allowing the user to accept PM's ONLY from approved friends.  If your intended target has that feature enabled, you won't be able to send them any PM regardless if you are otherwise doing everything right.

 

FWIW, I vote against "extinction". I am mature enough that I can simply ignore discussion that, for whatever reason, seems misguided to me.  Controlling others ability to contribute does not seem like a desirable outcome, no matter how much I might disagree with the subject matter. 

 

Unless of course, the discussion veers off into a prohibited topic. 

[Euclid]

Well, it’s water over the dam now.  The tank car did not explode.  The vinyl chloride was intentionally released and burned.  A big black cloud was produced that apparently dropped fallout over East Palestine for a couple days; leaving a question as to what the fallout consisted of. To answer that question, testing of water, air, and soil is underway. 

 

The process of burn off had the potential to produce dioxin and/or unburned droplets of vinyl chloride.  I am guessing that when this material is properly incinerated in a facility, absolutely no objectionable chemicals are emitted into the atmosphere.  It would not be acceptable for the process to allow that.  The effects of incinerating in a large open fire apparently are unpredictable.  Otherwise you would not have people doing extensive site testing to learn what the effects were.

 

The potential of those effects could be deadly.  If those chemicals were produced, they may not have fallen out over east Palestine.  So that leaves a question as to where else they may have fallen out.    

[tree68]

Cotton Belt MP104

Anybody????? Does the PM function not work any longer when trying to start a chat with a new PM person????? endmrw0316232331

PM has been misbehaving for quite a while, actually.  And, yes, it is a pain.

[Cotton Belt MP104]

I was going to privately explain. Probably your use of the word is not what I have explained before on another thread. As a teacher we were taught the technique of "extinction" when situations were boging down the furtherance of a point to be made in class. I tried to PM you but can only PM w/former PM buddies of the past. endmrw0316232336

[CSX Robert]

Cotton Belt MP104

Robert,

Have you ever heard the term "extinction"?  endmrw0316232302

 

Yeah, why?

[Cotton Belt MP104]

Anybody????? Does the PM function not work any longer when trying to start a chat with a new PM person????? endmrw0316232331

[Cotton Belt MP104]

Robert,

Have you ever heard the term "extinction"?  endmrw0316232302

[CSX Robert]

Euclid

He did not say it could happen at any moment.  I think it is also fair to say he did not imply it either.  But when he said it could happen, he put no limit on how early it could happen.  So the warning had to include the possibility that it could have happened at any moment.  But again, he never actually said that

Exactly!

Euclid

and I never quoted him as saying that.

But you did say that that was what he said: "They said that an explosion could happen at any moment and so that mandated the controlled burn."

Euclid

So saying that it could have happened at moment was just stating a fact that was established when he said it could happen.

But you weren't just "stating a fact", you were saying that that was what they said.  It's an important difference because you said "The story does not add up.  In my opinion, if they really believed what they told us..", well what they told is is an explosion could happen, and they believed that.  An explosion could happen "at any moment" is not what they told us, so if they did really believe what they told us, the story does add up.

[Euclid]

CSX Robert

 

 

Euclid

I agree.  They never did say it was definite.  I never said it was definite.  I never said they said it was definite.  

 

 

Sorry, when you asked why assume that the explosion would have happend, I thought you were implying they assumed it would happen.  Regardless, he still did not imply it could happen "at any moment."

 

He did not say it could happen at any moment.  I think it is also fair to say he did not imply it either.  But when he said it could happen, he put no limit on how early it could happen. 

So the warning had to include the possibility that it could have happened at any moment.  But again, he never actually said that, and I never quoted him as saying that.  I only said it was possible because we all agree that it was possible, and nothing was stipulated as to how soon after the warning it could have happened.  So saying that it could have happened at moment was just stating a fact that was established when he said it could happen.  He did not insert a clause that if it happened, it would be after some certain time in the future. 

Once they decided that it could happen, how could anybody know when it would happen, if it did happen? In one of the last posts on the previous page, I explained my point of my comment about "could happen any moment."  It is an important point.