4 ms·

>Sounds good to me. Not every happening in the country needs a dedicated slush fund. If officials determine that this does, FEMA has already been in close conta

>Sounds good to me. Not every happening in the country needs a dedicated slush fund. If officials determine that this does, FEMA has already been in close contact with the people who they need to be in close contact with. You want to be the one who determines this? Run for office or apply for the job. You may be satisfied by tweets when it comes to government accountability but the point is not that they should have it's an explanation why not. > Did you do any research at all or just expect the media to spoon feed you answers? The sourcing in the article you provided is not the govt. It's random people from tiktok and a random expert (who didn't make the claim you're asserting). It appears you're the one not doing the research. Try reading before condescending. >Not something that can be answered by anything but waiting and seeing. absolutely false. The difference here is not one of opinion, it's how easily satisfied you are with the information that is already out there. FEMA tweets vaguely, a tiktoker explains hazmat science, and satisfies your every curiosity. I'm not so easily satiated for one of the largest eco disasters in recent memory at least.

jakear 4y ago
> You may be satisfied by tweets when it comes to government accountability but the point is not that they should have it's an explanation why not. Does not parse grammatically. Try again. > The sourcing in the article you provided is not the govt The only people you trust are the government? Odd. Very odd. But since you insist, here's the governor of Ohio saying the same: https://governor.ohio.gov/media/news-and-media/east-palestine-update-evacuation-area-extended-controlled-release-of-rail-car-contents-planned-for-3-30-pm-02062023 https://governor.ohio.gov/media/news-and-media/east-palestin... > absolutely false. Justify. > I'm not so easily satiated for one of the largest eco disasters in recent memory at least. If this were true I'd expect you to be the one to have found all the sources I've been linking to, answering the questions you've been asking. But instead I have. And I'm sick and tired of running around doing your research for you while you move the goalposts. From now on: if you choose to respond, include a source.
- corbulo 4y ago
  You may be satisfied by tweets when it comes to government accountability but the point is, not that they should have, it's an explanation why not. Source what? Lmao you're the one making claims citing crap sources that you're not even reading telling me to do my own research. I'm not making claims, i'm asking questions. The government would be the ones who were party to the decision. Are you even reading what you're replying to? >Justify. Not a new compound, long history of use near and on humans. >And I'm sick and tired of running around doing your research for you while you move the goalposts. Search queries and skimming headlines is not research.
  - jakear 4y ago
    > Not a new compound, long history of use near and on humans. Then find the answer yourself. > claims citing crap sources Hilarious. I cite experts, you say they don't count unless they're in the government. I cite the government, you call it a "crap source". Quit digging through HN replies and read an article. > I'm not making claims, i'm asking questions. > > Here's an issue that has very grave implications for us all and suddenly they're not interested in asking the right questions of the right people anymore. That's a claim the questions you presented (What went into the decision to burn it off?) weren't asked. And I resoundly proved it false. But you've gone on to move the goalposts to kingdom come. Do you even have an argument at this point?
    - corbulo 4y ago
      >Then find the answer yourself. I'm not qualified in the field of hazmat exposure. I do know there are experts in it, and it is extensively studied. The answer i'm looking for is bespoke to this particular situation. I don't have live stats on the PPM dilution of Vinyl Chloride or its byproducts in every area it has reached. I didn't call your gov link a crap source. I was referring to the newsweak article you didn't read that cited a tiktok account as a source. >That's a claim the questions you presented (What went into the decision to burn it off?) weren't asked. And I resoundly proved it false. The gov article you linked is from 2/6, today the Governor came out and revealed info that demonstrates that article is a very limited perspective of what went into the decision to burn it off (such as consulting the DoD). There's still a lot more information that needs to be fleshed out pertaining to that question; it hasn't been fully answered. It may never be. Are you arguing to argue? I'm not sure what your argument is . Our only difference this entire time is what amount of information satisfies us as i've already pointed out. You've said Jesse Watters and Tiktok accounts should be plenty satisfying, i'm saying this requires lots of questions and investigation it hasn't yet gotten.

jakear 4y ago

> You may be satisfied by tweets when it comes to government accountability but the point is not that they should have it's an explanation why not. Does not parse grammatically. Try again. > The sourcing in the article you provided is not the govt The only people you trust are the government? Odd. Very odd. But since you insist, here's the governor of Ohio saying the same: https://governor.ohio.gov/media/news-and-media/east-palestine-update-evacuation-area-extended-controlled-release-of-rail-car-contents-planned-for-3-30-pm-02062023 https://governor.ohio.gov/media/news-and-media/east-palestin... > absolutely false. Justify. > I'm not so easily satiated for one of the largest eco disasters in recent memory at least. If this were true I'd expect you to be the one to have found all the sources I've been linking to, answering the questions you've been asking. But instead I have. And I'm sick and tired of running around doing your research for you while you move the goalposts. From now on: if you choose to respond, include a source.

corbulo 4y ago
You may be satisfied by tweets when it comes to government accountability but the point is, not that they should have, it's an explanation why not. Source what? Lmao you're the one making claims citing crap sources that you're not even reading telling me to do my own research. I'm not making claims, i'm asking questions. The government would be the ones who were party to the decision. Are you even reading what you're replying to? >Justify. Not a new compound, long history of use near and on humans. >And I'm sick and tired of running around doing your research for you while you move the goalposts. Search queries and skimming headlines is not research.
- jakear 4y ago
  > Not a new compound, long history of use near and on humans. Then find the answer yourself. > claims citing crap sources Hilarious. I cite experts, you say they don't count unless they're in the government. I cite the government, you call it a "crap source". Quit digging through HN replies and read an article. > I'm not making claims, i'm asking questions. > > Here's an issue that has very grave implications for us all and suddenly they're not interested in asking the right questions of the right people anymore. That's a claim the questions you presented (What went into the decision to burn it off?) weren't asked. And I resoundly proved it false. But you've gone on to move the goalposts to kingdom come. Do you even have an argument at this point?
  - corbulo 4y ago
    >Then find the answer yourself. I'm not qualified in the field of hazmat exposure. I do know there are experts in it, and it is extensively studied. The answer i'm looking for is bespoke to this particular situation. I don't have live stats on the PPM dilution of Vinyl Chloride or its byproducts in every area it has reached. I didn't call your gov link a crap source. I was referring to the newsweak article you didn't read that cited a tiktok account as a source. >That's a claim the questions you presented (What went into the decision to burn it off?) weren't asked. And I resoundly proved it false. The gov article you linked is from 2/6, today the Governor came out and revealed info that demonstrates that article is a very limited perspective of what went into the decision to burn it off (such as consulting the DoD). There's still a lot more information that needs to be fleshed out pertaining to that question; it hasn't been fully answered. It may never be. Are you arguing to argue? I'm not sure what your argument is . Our only difference this entire time is what amount of information satisfies us as i've already pointed out. You've said Jesse Watters and Tiktok accounts should be plenty satisfying, i'm saying this requires lots of questions and investigation it hasn't yet gotten.