3 ms·
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/2023/02/06/1154760
by 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 agoAs 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.