3 ms·

Isn't this the case for just about every hurricane that goes through Louisiana? How many are 'new' since the last major hurricane?

bamboozled 5y ago
I don’t think I really see the point here. It’s an issue regardless of how many hurricanes go through. Maybe you’re saying it’s not news? But it’s a problem worth highlighting.
- NtochkaNzvanova 5y ago
  It's political advocacy disguised as news. And like 95% of news today, it's fear/outrage journalism: "here's something you should be worried/angry about, even though you can't do anything about it".
  - pm90 5y ago
    I’m not sure if there was ever a time when news was mostly actionable? If a hurricane is barreling down through your countries’ petrochemical heartland, I think it’s totally fair for journalists to focus on this fact. There were similar reports when Harvey hit Houston.
  - addicted 5y ago
    Literally every sentence in your comment is wrong. 1) Political advocacy? What exactly political are they advocating? They are laying down facts with the scientist saying people need to be aware of the risks so they can make personal decisions and then they devote as much space to the companies whose toxic waste is stored to talk about how they expect everything to hold up. 2) Its obviously news that a massive storm might pass a huge number of toxic sites that might potentially poison your wastewater or leave toxic wastes literally on your homes, something that has happened before. 3) There’s a lot people can do about stuff like this. The only reason you aren’t breathing much more toxic air, aren’t consuming much more toxic food, probably not getting doused by acid rain every year, not inhaling lead from cars around you, not inhaling lead from the walls in your home, not dying of asbestos poisoning when a wall gets damaged, etc is because news has made people aware of these issues which have then led to changes.
    - NtochkaNzvanova 5y ago
      > Literally every sentence in your comment is wrong. It was only two sentences, so I don't consider that an accomplishment. I'll have to try harder next time. > There’s a lot people can do about stuff like this. The only reason you aren’t breathing much more toxic air, aren’t consuming much more toxic food, probably not getting doused by acid rain every year, not inhaling lead from cars around you, not inhaling lead from the walls in your home, not dying of asbestos poisoning when a wall gets damaged, etc is because news has made people aware of these issues which have then led to changes. I guess you figured out what politics they are advocating.
      - chownie 5y ago
        The politics of being aware of your surroundings, groundbreaking.

bamboozled 5y ago

I don’t think I really see the point here. It’s an issue regardless of how many hurricanes go through. Maybe you’re saying it’s not news? But it’s a problem worth highlighting.

NtochkaNzvanova 5y ago
It's political advocacy disguised as news. And like 95% of news today, it's fear/outrage journalism: "here's something you should be worried/angry about, even though you can't do anything about it".
- pm90 5y ago
  I’m not sure if there was ever a time when news was mostly actionable? If a hurricane is barreling down through your countries’ petrochemical heartland, I think it’s totally fair for journalists to focus on this fact. There were similar reports when Harvey hit Houston.
- addicted 5y ago
  Literally every sentence in your comment is wrong. 1) Political advocacy? What exactly political are they advocating? They are laying down facts with the scientist saying people need to be aware of the risks so they can make personal decisions and then they devote as much space to the companies whose toxic waste is stored to talk about how they expect everything to hold up. 2) Its obviously news that a massive storm might pass a huge number of toxic sites that might potentially poison your wastewater or leave toxic wastes literally on your homes, something that has happened before. 3) There’s a lot people can do about stuff like this. The only reason you aren’t breathing much more toxic air, aren’t consuming much more toxic food, probably not getting doused by acid rain every year, not inhaling lead from cars around you, not inhaling lead from the walls in your home, not dying of asbestos poisoning when a wall gets damaged, etc is because news has made people aware of these issues which have then led to changes.
  - NtochkaNzvanova 5y ago
    > Literally every sentence in your comment is wrong. It was only two sentences, so I don't consider that an accomplishment. I'll have to try harder next time. > There’s a lot people can do about stuff like this. The only reason you aren’t breathing much more toxic air, aren’t consuming much more toxic food, probably not getting doused by acid rain every year, not inhaling lead from cars around you, not inhaling lead from the walls in your home, not dying of asbestos poisoning when a wall gets damaged, etc is because news has made people aware of these issues which have then led to changes. I guess you figured out what politics they are advocating.
    - chownie 5y ago
      The politics of being aware of your surroundings, groundbreaking.