2 ms·

So, keep in mind that this story is over two weeks old at this point. Most of the residents are back home and the chemicals are not showing up even in trace te

So, keep in mind that this story is over two weeks old at this point. Most of the residents are back home and the chemicals are not showing up even in trace tests anymore. The reason this story is still picking up traction is because Chinese state media made a concerted push starting on Friday to make this a Big Deal, along with the idea that you shouldn't trust our media, agencies, etc. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64633990 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64633990

VagueMag 4y ago
So, your thesis is that this is showing up in Western media because China is trying to distract from the very crucial super important balloon issue by pointing to something trivial like a large industrial accident with still unknown downstream effects? Did Reuters decide to run a story on it yesterday to placate the Chinese? > along with the idea that you shouldn't trust our media, agencies, etc. Imagine that. Although, I'm more accustomed to the idea people only ever think this sort of thing because of those dastardly Russian disinfo campaigns.
- legitster 4y ago
  No, but when this story ran the first time two weeks ago the downstream effects were very well documented and understood: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/06/1154760911/ohio-train-derailment https://www.npr.org/2023/02/06/1154760911/ohio-train-derailm... Again, this was an intentional burn coordinated by 3 separate agencies. Reuters article is only a reiteration of material we already know to placate demand on social media. I understand that locals will continue to have health concerns, but any official reports that this is an "unprecedented environmental disaster" or an intentional cover up all originated from Chinese state media weeks after the fact: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202302/1285450.shtml?id=11 https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202302/1285450.shtml?id=11
  - advisedwang 4y ago
    > the downstream effects were very well documented and understood Incorrect. At that time there was no discussion of pollutants in the Ohio river. As this article mentions, we now know that there is water contamination. This article in fact says not to drink well water, which seems like important new information people in the area should receive.
    - legitster 4y ago
      As a precaution I think it was pretty clear that the implication of the burn off was going to be some acid rain and other surface pollutants. But seeing as the Ohio river is already one of the most polluted rivers in America it's hard to see this as a major concern for the overall water supply.
advisedwang 4y ago
Or maybe the story has interest (and hence coverage) because people are scared and want updates on a potential environmental hazard? One closely related to a recent nation-wide labour dispute? Most people care more about their health than a balloon that - even if it is a nefarious - has no impact on their lives.
jareklupinski 4y ago
Between someone trying to cover up the balloon story with this toxic spill story, and someone trying to cover up this toxic spill story with the balloon story, I'm wondering what I really missed in the "turmoil"...

VagueMag 4y ago

So, your thesis is that this is showing up in Western media because China is trying to distract from the very crucial super important balloon issue by pointing to something trivial like a large industrial accident with still unknown downstream effects? Did Reuters decide to run a story on it yesterday to placate the Chinese? > along with the idea that you shouldn't trust our media, agencies, etc. Imagine that. Although, I'm more accustomed to the idea people only ever think this sort of thing because of those dastardly Russian disinfo campaigns.

legitster 4y ago
No, but when this story ran the first time two weeks ago the downstream effects were very well documented and understood: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/06/1154760911/ohio-train-derailment https://www.npr.org/2023/02/06/1154760911/ohio-train-derailm... Again, this was an intentional burn coordinated by 3 separate agencies. Reuters article is only a reiteration of material we already know to placate demand on social media. I understand that locals will continue to have health concerns, but any official reports that this is an "unprecedented environmental disaster" or an intentional cover up all originated from Chinese state media weeks after the fact: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202302/1285450.shtml?id=11 https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202302/1285450.shtml?id=11
- advisedwang 4y ago
  > the downstream effects were very well documented and understood Incorrect. At that time there was no discussion of pollutants in the Ohio river. As this article mentions, we now know that there is water contamination. This article in fact says not to drink well water, which seems like important new information people in the area should receive.
  - legitster 4y ago
    As a precaution I think it was pretty clear that the implication of the burn off was going to be some acid rain and other surface pollutants. But seeing as the Ohio river is already one of the most polluted rivers in America it's hard to see this as a major concern for the overall water supply.

advisedwang 4y ago

Or maybe the story has interest (and hence coverage) because people are scared and want updates on a potential environmental hazard? One closely related to a recent nation-wide labour dispute? Most people care more about their health than a balloon that - even if it is a nefarious - has no impact on their lives.

jareklupinski 4y ago

Between someone trying to cover up the balloon story with this toxic spill story, and someone trying to cover up this toxic spill story with the balloon story, I'm wondering what I really missed in the "turmoil"...