8 ms·

Before everyone loses there mind, because this story has oddly been on blast 2 weeks after the incident: VC is a gas a room temperature. None of the VC cars we

Before everyone loses there mind, because this story has oddly been on blast 2 weeks after the incident: VC is a gas a room temperature. None of the VC cars were ruptured in the crash. They were vented and ignited by workers to avoid explosion. Burning VC produces carbon oxides, HCl, phosgene, and formaldehyde. HCl, Phosgene become hydrochloric acid in the atmosphere. The total amount of hydrochloric acid this could possibly produce would hardly register in the water table. Formaldehyde would be trace too, similar to fruits and vegetables. EPA site details without the hysteria: https://response.epa.gov/site/site_profile.aspx?site_id=15933 https://response.epa.gov/site/site_profile.aspx?site_id=1593... List of cars in the accident: https://response.epa.gov/sites/15933/files/TRAIN%2032N%20-%20EAST%20PALESTINE%20-%20derail%20list%20Norfolk%20Southern%20document.pdf https://response.epa.gov/sites/15933/files/TRAIN%2032N%20-%2...

badrequest 4y ago
[flagged]
- Workaccount2 4y ago
  There probably already is 250,000 gallons (if it was 10 cars and all 10 converted perfectly to HCl, and all of it went into the water supply) into a water table of, lets be conservative with 10 billion gallons, is 0.00002% concentration or .02ppm Compare this to your stomach, which has an hydrochloric acid concentration of 5000ppm. So yes, I would have no issue with it. All the water you drink mixes with a much higher concentration of HCl every time you drink it. Like I said, their is a hysteria building around this and a total lack of nuance and understanding.
  - throwaheyy 4y ago
    That amount of hydrochloric acid doesn't just magically dilute evenly into the water table in one instant.
    - Workaccount2 4y ago
      It's actually more mixed than you would think since it forms HCl in the atmosphere and falls down with rain. For reference 1 inch of rain over 1 sq. mile is approximately 18 million gallons. So even if we concentrated the full 250k gallons (remember that HCl is just one byproduct too, so we are being very generous with 250k gallons, most of the byproducts are carbon monoxide/dioxide), but 250k gallons into 1 sq mile of rain fall....138ppm In reality this will fall over thousands of square miles too.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    HCl itself isn't going to be a direct issue in the water supply. HCl interaction with all those other things in the environment that were otherwise inert is the big problem here. If you dump your HCl in a limestone environment, we'll you'll dissolve a bunch of rocks. It gets more problematic when there heavy metal compounds get dissolved into solution and suddenly people can't use their wells or municipal water has to shut down or work extra hard at filtration. Problem is the only way you know if this is occurring is constant sampling and testing over the affected region by a competent and trustworthy set of testing groups.
MrOwnPut 4y ago
Agreed on not losing your mind, that's never good to do, but downplaying it is too far on the other scale. Seems too early to tell doesn't it? I don't think you can safely say "it would hardly register" without knowing the results from the contaminated regions... -- Water Runoff Responding crews discovered contaminated runoff on two surface water streams: Sulphur Run and Leslie Run. Under Ohio EPA oversight, Norfolk Southern emergency response contractors installed booms and underflow dams to restrict the flow of contaminated water as well as contain and collect floating product. U.S. EPA took water samples at the streams and has sent them to a laboratory for analysis. Emergency response staff noticed impacted aquatic life and notified the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Department of Interior. Ohio DNR is on site and is assessing the situation and the impacts to aquatic life. Downstream water utilities were also notified.
- Workaccount2 4y ago
  It's seems most likely the run off is from the ruptured tanks, petroleum lube oil, diethylene glycol, polypropyl glycol, and butyl acrylates. And likely primarily the non flammable ones, the oil and the glycols.
  - MrOwnPut 4y ago
    Interesting, do you have details on that, or is that a guess?
    - Workaccount2 4y ago
      Generally flammable things burn in a fire.
      - MrOwnPut 4y ago
        So a guess then, that's disappointing. Generally things don't burn 100% perfectly. Unless you were onsite testing what was in the runoff and have the results, you're speculating.
perihelions 4y ago
You didn't read the article, in the particular the new list of chemicals they released that were previously undisclosed. (It's not just the same story on repeat). I don't think organic acrylates conveniently break down in water; I suspect they'd be persistent environmental pollutants, in addition to being carcinogens.
- Workaccount2 4y ago
  The list in the article is the same one I linked to.
  - perihelions 4y ago
    I'm responding to the substance of your comment: "The total amount of hydrochloric acid this could possibly produce would hardly register in the water table." The other stuff will certainly register, and if you didn't mention it, then it can read to imply a negative.
fabian2k 4y ago
You're assuming that the vinyl chloride burns perfectly and all of it will be converted without residue, which I don't think is a safe assumption. The products of burning it are less problematic than the original, but setting it on fire doesn't simply solve all problems here.
colpabar 4y ago
The reason people are so upset isn't necessarily because of the environmental impact, it's because the people who work on these trains have been warning things like this could happen for years, and when they tried to strike over it, the federal government stepped in and crushed them into submission. There was a car on that train that was on fire for at least 20 miles before the derailment. If I can get pulled over for having a busted tail light, a train full of toxic chemicals should get stopped for being on fire. You've been frantically telling everyone to calm down in every thread about this story for some reason. People are upset because it's another case of the government completely failing to do their jobs of keeping regular people safe, and before you claim that people on reddit are saying crazy things again, this isn't reddit and no one is saying those things here.
- kortilla 4y ago
  >If I can get pulled over for having a busted tail light, a train full of toxic chemicals should get stopped for being on fire. What makes you think this isn’t what normally happens? Trains aren’t just cruising around constantly on fire.
  - chaps 4y ago
    I think you deeply underestimate how many derailments happen each year in the US https://www.wric.com/news/u-s-world/how-often-do-trains-derail-more-than-you-think/ https://www.wric.com/news/u-s-world/how-often-do-trains-dera...
    - kortilla 4y ago
      If you think “derailment” means “on fire”, we have bigger issues.
      - chaps 4y ago
        You've missed the forest for the trees, friend.
unethical_ban 4y ago
It should not be seen as business as usual when these kinds of things happen. It was at least tolerable due to my ignorance when you talked about these chemicals boiling off, but then to say "no biggie that petroleum spilled everywhere, I'm sure it burned off too." The whistle has been blown on the rails and the rail companies for some time, and now a catastrophe has occurred. We should be severely punishing the rail companies if not nationalizing them. We should make sure every citizen is taken care of and their homes are safe to live in. I don't have to believe in a conspiracy theory to be angry at negligence causing an environmental disaster in a city.
- xwdv 4y ago
  Nationalizing is an overreach. This is why events like this have to be downplayed because if you don’t the vultures will swoop in with their own agendas and try to stir up emotions to garner support for unpopular causes.
  - unethical_ban 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - kneebonian 4y ago
      Well given the way they've been running Amtrack I don't trust their ability to run shipping.
    - TechBro8615 4y ago
      It's confusing to me why you think nationalizing the rail company would solve any problem. The government can't even keep us safe when it's telling the rail company what to do. In fact, the issue here doesn't seem to be "rail company not listening to government" so much as "government not listening to rail workers." So you think that same government - which just legislatively forced those workers back to work - can run the rail company, while complying with all the same (and new) regulations, and also not turning it into a loss-making operation funded by taxpayers in perpetuity (or at least as long as the country/economy still exists)?
ajross 4y ago
This take needs more coverage. In fact the current freakout is almost entirely due to the deliberate burn and the big plume it caused, with almost no one taking the time to explain that the combustion products are simply much safer than the products that were leaking. But everyone wants to cover how it smells in East Palestine and not what the options were. (And to everyone replying with "But it's ACTUALLY about the train safety issue": no it isn't. This train was sitting in a pile for more than a week and no one cared. People only cared once they could see the plume.)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lm28469 4y ago
  > This train was sitting in a pile for more than a week and no one cared. No one cared because it wasn't reported in the media, even today it barely is. I've seen locals talk about it since day 1 on reddit and twitter. The fact that it didn't make much noise in the media until now is a good indicator of authorities trying to minimise the issue.
- mindslight 4y ago
  The ultimate problem is the breakdown in trust of our institutions to get this right - the overriding incentives are wrong at every level. Burning a product because it would have otherwise needed to be recovered and transported under pressure seems like exactly the kind of amoral tradeoff a company would take, not particularly caring about the combustion products apart from what they can legally get away with. As far as the actual technicals, your assertion that "the combustion products are simply much safer than the products that were leaking" would seem to just be the opposing take in a fact-free debate. First, combustion products have been dispersed in the air. And second, with large quantities of anything, trace amounts of impurities or other combustion products become significant.
  - ajross 4y ago
    > Burning a product because it would have otherwise needed to be recovered and transported under pressure I don't think that's correct. It was leaking. No recovery was feasible. The options at hand were "let it leak" or "burn it", and burning it was the right choice. Now, maybe you don't believe that. And of course I believe it on faith. But real chemical engineers are making these decisions, not yahoos on HN. And the fact that you perceive a "breakdown in trust" of those engineers doesn't make them wrong. If you want them to be wrong you need to provide evidence yourself.
alldayeveryday 4y ago
The EPA famously declared the air safe following 9/11. Their credibility is, at least for me personally, negligible. The flint water crisis and the Gold King Mine are other examples. People are rightfully worried and angered. Your dismissal of them as "losing their mind" or "hysterical" is at best tone deaf, and at worst an intentional tactic to downplay the event. Appeals to governmental authority falls flat when the trust of the people no longer exists for their governmental institutions. From the article: U.S. EPA continues to assist Norfolk Southern and Columbiana Emergency Management Agency with voluntary residential air screening. ... To increase the rate of screening, Norfolk Southern—with U.S. EPA assistance—is bringing more teams and equipment to East Palestine. You expect Norfolk Southern to perform honest screening which would result in millions upon millions in damages to be paid out? Why isnt the EPA in charge of this rather than following the lead of Norfolk?
- xxpor 4y ago
  The EPA has absolutely nothing to do with Flint.
  - alldayeveryday 4y ago
    Did you even bother checking? https://www.epa.gov/flint https://www.epa.gov/flint > Since January 2016, EPA has been monitoring compliance with its emergency administrative order (as amended) to ensure that Flint’s drinking water system continues to improve. Flint’s system currently meets regulatory criteria for lead and copper. EPA will continue to oversee the City’s efforts to transition to a long-term drinking water source and also monitor its replacement of lead (and galvanized) service lines throughout Flint
  - dns_snek 4y ago
    Even if that were true, it would only make them look worse.
  - infamouscow 4y ago
    You should probably let the EPA know then: https://www.epa.gov/flint https://www.epa.gov/flint
flavius29663 4y ago
So how do you explain the dead fish, chickens, and people with rashes etc.?
- Workaccount2 4y ago
  Because the accident released a ton of nasty chemicals in one spot. However they are pretty volatile and naturally dissipate. If you see recent pictures from the crash site, nobody is wearing PPE and the EPA has deemed the area as safe to be in.
  - slenk 4y ago
    EPA also said the dust from the towers collapsing on 9/11 was safe.
    - legitster 4y ago
      The actual EPA pronouncement was that the air and water in NY city were safe (not to warrant an evacuation). They still recommended that first responders and people in the vicinity wear respirators.
      - slenk 4y ago
        Didn't realize that distinction - thank you. Do you know if they recommended it right away or after a few days?
        legitster 4y ago
        Well, I don't think the EPA was in a position to make any statements right away - they weren't going to stop people from running in and trying to save lives so they could take air samples back to a lab. The amount of blame that got pinned on them after the fact was probably pretty unfair.
        grepfru_it 4y ago
        Lived across the water and my family lived in the city during 9/11. Everyone (news, first responders, agency officials) was saying avoid ground zero unless you have respiratory equipment. That didn't stop heros from running in maskless to help people, or stop people from running through the dust to get to safety. But as you moved uptown and to other boroughs, the particle density dropped significantly, even though the wind was sending dust and debris over brooklyn/staten island. It was immediately well known that people were going to get sick from the fallout If I can remember later, I'll come back and post a NASA satellite image showing the particle density that I saved from that morning
akira2501 4y ago
Is there any reason to assume the burn, under these conditions, would be complete enough to fully consume the product such that there would be zero danger to the environment? These are guys on a side of a track ostensibly just winging it. I think it's reasonable to assume the "under laboratory conditions" assessment might not completely apply to this scenario.

badrequest 4y ago

[flagged]

Workaccount2 4y ago
There probably already is 250,000 gallons (if it was 10 cars and all 10 converted perfectly to HCl, and all of it went into the water supply) into a water table of, lets be conservative with 10 billion gallons, is 0.00002% concentration or .02ppm Compare this to your stomach, which has an hydrochloric acid concentration of 5000ppm. So yes, I would have no issue with it. All the water you drink mixes with a much higher concentration of HCl every time you drink it. Like I said, their is a hysteria building around this and a total lack of nuance and understanding.
- throwaheyy 4y ago
  That amount of hydrochloric acid doesn't just magically dilute evenly into the water table in one instant.
  - Workaccount2 4y ago
    It's actually more mixed than you would think since it forms HCl in the atmosphere and falls down with rain. For reference 1 inch of rain over 1 sq. mile is approximately 18 million gallons. So even if we concentrated the full 250k gallons (remember that HCl is just one byproduct too, so we are being very generous with 250k gallons, most of the byproducts are carbon monoxide/dioxide), but 250k gallons into 1 sq mile of rain fall....138ppm In reality this will fall over thousands of square miles too.
- pixl97 4y ago
  HCl itself isn't going to be a direct issue in the water supply. HCl interaction with all those other things in the environment that were otherwise inert is the big problem here. If you dump your HCl in a limestone environment, we'll you'll dissolve a bunch of rocks. It gets more problematic when there heavy metal compounds get dissolved into solution and suddenly people can't use their wells or municipal water has to shut down or work extra hard at filtration. Problem is the only way you know if this is occurring is constant sampling and testing over the affected region by a competent and trustworthy set of testing groups.

MrOwnPut 4y ago

Agreed on not losing your mind, that's never good to do, but downplaying it is too far on the other scale. Seems too early to tell doesn't it? I don't think you can safely say "it would hardly register" without knowing the results from the contaminated regions... -- Water Runoff Responding crews discovered contaminated runoff on two surface water streams: Sulphur Run and Leslie Run. Under Ohio EPA oversight, Norfolk Southern emergency response contractors installed booms and underflow dams to restrict the flow of contaminated water as well as contain and collect floating product. U.S. EPA took water samples at the streams and has sent them to a laboratory for analysis. Emergency response staff noticed impacted aquatic life and notified the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Department of Interior. Ohio DNR is on site and is assessing the situation and the impacts to aquatic life. Downstream water utilities were also notified.

Workaccount2 4y ago
It's seems most likely the run off is from the ruptured tanks, petroleum lube oil, diethylene glycol, polypropyl glycol, and butyl acrylates. And likely primarily the non flammable ones, the oil and the glycols.
- MrOwnPut 4y ago
  Interesting, do you have details on that, or is that a guess?
  - Workaccount2 4y ago
    Generally flammable things burn in a fire.
    - MrOwnPut 4y ago
      So a guess then, that's disappointing. Generally things don't burn 100% perfectly. Unless you were onsite testing what was in the runoff and have the results, you're speculating.

perihelions 4y ago

You didn't read the article, in the particular the new list of chemicals they released that were previously undisclosed. (It's not just the same story on repeat). I don't think organic acrylates conveniently break down in water; I suspect they'd be persistent environmental pollutants, in addition to being carcinogens.

Workaccount2 4y ago
The list in the article is the same one I linked to.
- perihelions 4y ago
  I'm responding to the substance of your comment: "The total amount of hydrochloric acid this could possibly produce would hardly register in the water table." The other stuff will certainly register, and if you didn't mention it, then it can read to imply a negative.

fabian2k 4y ago

You're assuming that the vinyl chloride burns perfectly and all of it will be converted without residue, which I don't think is a safe assumption. The products of burning it are less problematic than the original, but setting it on fire doesn't simply solve all problems here.

colpabar 4y ago

The reason people are so upset isn't necessarily because of the environmental impact, it's because the people who work on these trains have been warning things like this could happen for years, and when they tried to strike over it, the federal government stepped in and crushed them into submission. There was a car on that train that was on fire for at least 20 miles before the derailment. If I can get pulled over for having a busted tail light, a train full of toxic chemicals should get stopped for being on fire. You've been frantically telling everyone to calm down in every thread about this story for some reason. People are upset because it's another case of the government completely failing to do their jobs of keeping regular people safe, and before you claim that people on reddit are saying crazy things again, this isn't reddit and no one is saying those things here.

kortilla 4y ago
>If I can get pulled over for having a busted tail light, a train full of toxic chemicals should get stopped for being on fire. What makes you think this isn’t what normally happens? Trains aren’t just cruising around constantly on fire.
- chaps 4y ago
  I think you deeply underestimate how many derailments happen each year in the US https://www.wric.com/news/u-s-world/how-often-do-trains-derail-more-than-you-think/ https://www.wric.com/news/u-s-world/how-often-do-trains-dera...
  - kortilla 4y ago
    If you think “derailment” means “on fire”, we have bigger issues.
    - chaps 4y ago
      You've missed the forest for the trees, friend.

unethical_ban 4y ago

It should not be seen as business as usual when these kinds of things happen. It was at least tolerable due to my ignorance when you talked about these chemicals boiling off, but then to say "no biggie that petroleum spilled everywhere, I'm sure it burned off too." The whistle has been blown on the rails and the rail companies for some time, and now a catastrophe has occurred. We should be severely punishing the rail companies if not nationalizing them. We should make sure every citizen is taken care of and their homes are safe to live in. I don't have to believe in a conspiracy theory to be angry at negligence causing an environmental disaster in a city.

xwdv 4y ago
Nationalizing is an overreach. This is why events like this have to be downplayed because if you don’t the vultures will swoop in with their own agendas and try to stir up emotions to garner support for unpopular causes.
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - kneebonian 4y ago
    Well given the way they've been running Amtrack I don't trust their ability to run shipping.
  - TechBro8615 4y ago
    It's confusing to me why you think nationalizing the rail company would solve any problem. The government can't even keep us safe when it's telling the rail company what to do. In fact, the issue here doesn't seem to be "rail company not listening to government" so much as "government not listening to rail workers." So you think that same government - which just legislatively forced those workers back to work - can run the rail company, while complying with all the same (and new) regulations, and also not turning it into a loss-making operation funded by taxpayers in perpetuity (or at least as long as the country/economy still exists)?

ajross 4y ago

This take needs more coverage. In fact the current freakout is almost entirely due to the deliberate burn and the big plume it caused, with almost no one taking the time to explain that the combustion products are simply much safer than the products that were leaking. But everyone wants to cover how it smells in East Palestine and not what the options were. (And to everyone replying with "But it's ACTUALLY about the train safety issue": no it isn't. This train was sitting in a pile for more than a week and no one cared. People only cared once they could see the plume.)

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lm28469 4y ago
> This train was sitting in a pile for more than a week and no one cared. No one cared because it wasn't reported in the media, even today it barely is. I've seen locals talk about it since day 1 on reddit and twitter. The fact that it didn't make much noise in the media until now is a good indicator of authorities trying to minimise the issue.
mindslight 4y ago
The ultimate problem is the breakdown in trust of our institutions to get this right - the overriding incentives are wrong at every level. Burning a product because it would have otherwise needed to be recovered and transported under pressure seems like exactly the kind of amoral tradeoff a company would take, not particularly caring about the combustion products apart from what they can legally get away with. As far as the actual technicals, your assertion that "the combustion products are simply much safer than the products that were leaking" would seem to just be the opposing take in a fact-free debate. First, combustion products have been dispersed in the air. And second, with large quantities of anything, trace amounts of impurities or other combustion products become significant.
- ajross 4y ago
  > Burning a product because it would have otherwise needed to be recovered and transported under pressure I don't think that's correct. It was leaking. No recovery was feasible. The options at hand were "let it leak" or "burn it", and burning it was the right choice. Now, maybe you don't believe that. And of course I believe it on faith. But real chemical engineers are making these decisions, not yahoos on HN. And the fact that you perceive a "breakdown in trust" of those engineers doesn't make them wrong. If you want them to be wrong you need to provide evidence yourself.

alldayeveryday 4y ago

The EPA famously declared the air safe following 9/11. Their credibility is, at least for me personally, negligible. The flint water crisis and the Gold King Mine are other examples. People are rightfully worried and angered. Your dismissal of them as "losing their mind" or "hysterical" is at best tone deaf, and at worst an intentional tactic to downplay the event. Appeals to governmental authority falls flat when the trust of the people no longer exists for their governmental institutions. From the article: U.S. EPA continues to assist Norfolk Southern and Columbiana Emergency Management Agency with voluntary residential air screening. ... To increase the rate of screening, Norfolk Southern—with U.S. EPA assistance—is bringing more teams and equipment to East Palestine. You expect Norfolk Southern to perform honest screening which would result in millions upon millions in damages to be paid out? Why isnt the EPA in charge of this rather than following the lead of Norfolk?

xxpor 4y ago
The EPA has absolutely nothing to do with Flint.
- alldayeveryday 4y ago
  Did you even bother checking? https://www.epa.gov/flint https://www.epa.gov/flint > Since January 2016, EPA has been monitoring compliance with its emergency administrative order (as amended) to ensure that Flint’s drinking water system continues to improve. Flint’s system currently meets regulatory criteria for lead and copper. EPA will continue to oversee the City’s efforts to transition to a long-term drinking water source and also monitor its replacement of lead (and galvanized) service lines throughout Flint
- dns_snek 4y ago
  Even if that were true, it would only make them look worse.
- infamouscow 4y ago
  You should probably let the EPA know then: https://www.epa.gov/flint https://www.epa.gov/flint

flavius29663 4y ago

So how do you explain the dead fish, chickens, and people with rashes etc.?

Workaccount2 4y ago
Because the accident released a ton of nasty chemicals in one spot. However they are pretty volatile and naturally dissipate. If you see recent pictures from the crash site, nobody is wearing PPE and the EPA has deemed the area as safe to be in.
- slenk 4y ago
  EPA also said the dust from the towers collapsing on 9/11 was safe.
  - legitster 4y ago
    The actual EPA pronouncement was that the air and water in NY city were safe (not to warrant an evacuation). They still recommended that first responders and people in the vicinity wear respirators.
    - slenk 4y ago
      Didn't realize that distinction - thank you. Do you know if they recommended it right away or after a few days?
      - legitster 4y ago
        Well, I don't think the EPA was in a position to make any statements right away - they weren't going to stop people from running in and trying to save lives so they could take air samples back to a lab. The amount of blame that got pinned on them after the fact was probably pretty unfair.
      - grepfru_it 4y ago
        Lived across the water and my family lived in the city during 9/11. Everyone (news, first responders, agency officials) was saying avoid ground zero unless you have respiratory equipment. That didn't stop heros from running in maskless to help people, or stop people from running through the dust to get to safety. But as you moved uptown and to other boroughs, the particle density dropped significantly, even though the wind was sending dust and debris over brooklyn/staten island. It was immediately well known that people were going to get sick from the fallout If I can remember later, I'll come back and post a NASA satellite image showing the particle density that I saved from that morning

akira2501 4y ago

Is there any reason to assume the burn, under these conditions, would be complete enough to fully consume the product such that there would be zero danger to the environment? These are guys on a side of a track ostensibly just winging it. I think it's reasonable to assume the "under laboratory conditions" assessment might not completely apply to this scenario.