12 ms·

Vinyl Chloride and the Ohio Train Derailment

121 points by georgecmu 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
loeg 4y ago
The subtitle raises a great question "Why was such a large amount of this chemical being transported by rail in the first place?" which the article wholly fails to address, for some reason. (It addresses the industrial applications of the chemical, but doesn't ever dive into the "being transported by rail" part.)
- geysersam 4y ago
  How else should it be transported? By truck?
  - beebmam 4y ago
    By truck (or by plane!) sounds even more dangerous, to me
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    The conventional alternative are pipelines, but for small loads such as vinyl chloride they would likely be problematic even ignoring the likelihood of eventual leaks. A better alternative is to keep using trains, but have sufficient protection built in to survive a derailment and fires.
    - bagels 4y ago
      It's going to take a lot of pipelines to transport every hazardous substance this way.
      - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        I think there are ways to use a single pipeline for multiple kinds of loads (in serial), but yeah a bunch of new pipelines would be needed to get the loads to a bunch of new places.
        BlueTemplar 4y ago
        Like this one ? https://channelnz.com/what-we-do/terminal-pipeline-services https://channelnz.com/what-we-do/terminal-pipeline-services Not sure how dangerous it would be though to have one transport wildly different chemicals...
        giardini 4y ago
        "single pipeline for multiple kinds of loads (in serial)" <--recipe for pipeline explosion. Who wants a pipeline behind their home that transports chlorine gas one hour and ethylene gas the next?
    - mindslight 4y ago
      All but one vinyl chloride tank did survive the derailment intact! Vinyl chloride is a gas at standard temperature and pressure, and so AFAICT it's transported in insulated tanks, staying cool enough throughout its journey to be at a manageable pressure (<~200psi). The adjacent fire meant the clock was ticking on how long before it would rise in pressure and be vented through the tanks' relief valves. It was then a deliberate decision to preemptively vent the tanks and burn the contents. A lot of hubbub is being made about the chemical, but in the gamut of chemistry it's really not that bad of a chemical nor are its combustion products, at least as far what has been demonstrated. I'm not throwing that out there as a justification for deliberately releasing industrial quantities of chemicals into the environment (including residential areas), but rather examining the decision process. An alternative approach would have been bringing in mobile chillers and replacement tank cars to cool and recover the vinyl chloride. But of course that would have cost more than simply discarding the product. Everyone is talking about railroad safety, and that needs addressing for sure. But the situation with the vinyl chloride specifically was a direct result of a deliberate decision, and not accidental. If we want this decision process to be different in the future, then we need to focus on that.
      - Gibbon1 4y ago
        > it's really not that bad of a chemical nor are its combustion products Dioxins are a result of low temperature burning of chlorinated hydrocarbons.
        mindslight 4y ago
        The article touches on that, but I haven't seen any mention of testing revealing a large number of dioxins. That's why I hedged with "as far as what has been demonstrated". I can totally see the scenario where the people signing off on the burn look at the ideal combustion products (only CO2, H2O, and a little HCl), while a much more imperfect burn creates a bunch of other crap, that becomes significant due to the quantities involved. FWIW do you know which dioxins are possible? The only specifics I've seen seemed to be people fearmongering about things like 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which seemed implausible to form from vinyl chloride, at least as far as my rudimentary knowledge of ochem would suggest.
  - deelowe 4y ago
    Require it to be produced on site just like many other hazardous chemicals.
    - quickthrowman 4y ago
      How do you get the precursor chemicals on-site? At some point, something needs to be transported.
      - deelowe 4y ago
        Obviously, you produce the less hazardous precursors off premises.
        quickthrowman 4y ago
        What if the precursors are more dangerous? Chlorine is a precursor to Vinyl Chloride and is far more dangerous than Vinyl Chloride.
- virtuallynathan 4y ago
  How else would it be transported? Rail seems like a safe/efficient way of doing so.
  - cdiddy2 4y ago
    It can be made on site where it is going to be used. Generally combined with a manufacturing plant
    - pixl97 4y ago
      Are railcars filled with pure chlorine any better? Chlorine gas leaks are deadly. Unless you're talking about in situ chlorine production, which has its own list of issues.
    - red-iron-pine 4y ago
      So how do you get the precursors to the plant? You're either transporting chlorine, or you're manufacturing it in huge quantities locally, which has plenty of it's own headaches. Either trucks or trains, and trains are more cost effective.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  I noticed that as well, but the conclusion is "it's all about money (not safety)". I presume the answer to "why was..." is the same answer.
  - BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
    Rail freight is almost always more cheap, efficient, and safe compared to trucking the same cargo. You also benefit from economies of scale, as adding extra rail cars doesn’t take as much manpower as sending out another truck.
- mrbombastic 4y ago
  It does though?, PVC is manufactured using this chemical and rail is an efficient means of transporting it, it is not much deeper than that.
  - thallium205 4y ago
    Yeah and the author said it was the third most used plastic. Pretty much answered it there.
  - danielsju6 4y ago
    From what I heard most countries don’t allow this chemical to be transported, only produced on site with much safer to transport precursors.
    - Accujack 4y ago
      Not exactly "safe". The precursors are ethylene and chlorine. Chlorine everyone knows about - it's quite a bit more of a problem when it spills than vinyl chloride. Ethylene is a "colorless and combustible gas used to fumigate some agricultural products, sterilize medical equipment and in the production of other industrial chemicals. The gas is a carcinogen that has been linked to breast, lymphoid, leukemia and other types of cancers." Ethylene is transported as a cryogenic liquid, which means when it leaks it immediately boils to gas form. Once released it takes 2 to 4 days to break down in the atmosphere. Chlorine takes years.
      - candiddevmike 4y ago
        I thought chlorine breaks down rather quickly in sunlight?
        graycat 4y ago
        Chlorine is an element and, thus, by ordinary chemical means, never "breaks down". Maybe some people are assuming the old remark: "The solution to pollution is dilution."
- serf 4y ago
  it's one of the best means to transport lots of something, and many industrial chemical groups have buildings that have railroad tie-ins that facilitate direct unloading from the car.
- bagels 4y ago
  How do you propose it be transported?
  - gnopgnip 4y ago
    Transport less dangerous chemicals, less dangerous finished products and only make the dangerous intermediaries onsite
    - pixl97 4y ago
      And what about the 100's of billions in fallout regarding this massive shift in US manufacturing?
      - danielsju6 4y ago
        Oh no, some billionaires will need smaller yachts.
        asdff 4y ago
        More like billionaires will short that stock and get bigger yachts, while huge swaths of this country see job loss with no replacement or much of a social safety net.
    - bsder 4y ago
      Why do you believe that the regulations for the onsite manufacturing of chlorine or ethylene are going to be any better? The issue is that the companies have been playing fast and loose with safety. If you don't choose to reverse that, it doesn't matter whether you transport the chemical or manufacture it on site.
    - testTED 4y ago
      During travel the other day, I saw a molten sulfur train car.
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  I read elsewhere (perhaps NYT or WSJ, but i can't find it from days ago) that rail is most safe, statistically. If so, it remotivates an analogue of TCP's MTU: if the size of shipments were small, but the number of shipments high, would a single "packet loss"/derailment be less catastrophic?
- abigail95 4y ago
  public really hate pipelines
scotty79 4y ago
Should all involved companies be sued/fined into oblivion? If not, why not?
- jjeaff 4y ago
  I'm in favor of a corporate death penalty. In cases where a company is found guilty of gross negligence leading to terrible disasters and loss of life, give a jury the option to give the death penalty. All equity holders AND debt holders are washed out and the assets are sold off to pay victims and severance pay for low level employees.
  - ticviking 4y ago
    Revoking their charter and seizing their assets seems just for a lot of this stuff.
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      Their charters are often from other states (such as Delaware). This would complicate the issue by entwining state's rights and federal rights.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    For the USA, an easy mechanism for a corporate death penalty (for large enough corporations) without running afoul of takings clause would be to bar the corporation from engaging in interstate commerce, and to bar the equity holders from selling to themselves or relatives.
    - torstenvl 4y ago
      If you're talking about judicial action, the Takings Clause isn't a problem. If you're talking about Congressional action, your proposed alternative runs into the prohibition on Bills of Attainder. In my view, the L&E approach of punitive damages calculated to be greater than the profit incentive of the negligent/reckless behavior is the best approach. Additionally, to the extent that an executive's actions were clearly not in the long-term interest of the corporation, they should be made personally liable.
chiefalchemist 4y ago
> Neither was it equipped with electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, a safety measure that the railway industry lobbied against vigorously when Congress proposed a law to have them installed on trains because of the costs involved. Safety has a cost. Lack of safety has a cost. The former the cost is financial. The latter it's lives, peace of mind, health, etc. One is replaceable. One is not. Sadly Congress protected the replaceable one.
- chii 4y ago
  > One is replaceable. cost is cost. You can put a financial figure on lives, health, peace of mind etc. Insurance companies do this every time they insure something. So the question really is whether the cost of safety will outweigh the economic loss of implementing that safety.
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    In theory. But would you (and fam) trade places with anyone living in that area? For 2x the price the insurance company would pay?
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    The real problem with this math is that the cost of the braking system would be borne by the company, but the costs of the derailment are borne by the public. So even if the derailment cost >>> the brake system cost, it's an easy decision for the industry to make. That whole privatized profits / socialized losses issue that keeps showing up.
    - moremetadata 4y ago
      > That whole privatized profits / socialized losses issue that keeps showing up. The Banksters demonstrated that back in 2008.
  - sqeaky 4y ago
    Insurance companies doing this to help people manage risk and are often attempting to help people in moments of grief and tragedy, and those people opted into the contract. Train companies doing this to unsuspecting towns are stochastic monsters killing people because the victims are a financial externality and therefore cheaper dead than alive. They knew that a disaster could happen but chose good balance sheets over externalized risk. Boiling this down to pure economics is monstrous; Flip this around. What if I get to decide if you live or die based on my spreadsheets? Clearly the dollar value of thing isn't the only thing that matters. We should make these as safe as we can afford to, to the point that mass death or even mass destruction doesn't happen while billionaires are made from it. We can't afford infinite safety but while we can afford more safety we should. It is even correct from a macroeconomic standpoint, people who don't die or suffer from disasters go on to be more productive in the economy than dead people.
htag 4y ago
It's becoming more clear that in the US health and safety are taking a back seat to corporate profits. It's shameful to read safety equipment that could have prevented this derailment was lobbied against by the railway industry.
- lettergram 4y ago
  <Insert “always has been” meme> By definition the EPA, FDA, etc give corporations protections from events, not the other way around. For instance, even if a company is provably causing me harm, say through a drug injury, I can’t sue the company for false advertising — FDA approved. How about the EPA? Same deal, I can’t sue a company for causing me injuries due to carbon dioxide, so long as they follow EPA regulations. Historically, before all these agencies you could sue for any injury that caused harm (ie the law).
  - sqeaky 4y ago
    You present a view preposterously one-sided. The FDA fines and sues companies not following the rules. They set a floor for behavior and mitigate frivolous lawsuits. This help companies and society, this is better for both. This isn't a pie we are dividing, this is complex system we are building together. The current system isn't perfect but things are clearly better with than without. Businesses know what they can and can't be sued for and overall less bad shit happens to the populace. It isn't like I have the ability to sue people dumping CO2 into the air. Because lawsuits need more than someone polluting, they need someone to break a rule or cause direct harm and for the victim to know who to sue and have money to do it with We could theoretically make these systems better by making the rules better and sometimes we even do.
- jerkstate 4y ago
  I read a quote that electronically controlled brakes could have prevented this, but haven’t heard a good explanation of why (based on the initial NTSB reporting that the cause was a failed wheel bearing) - I looked up the ex-government person who the quote was attributed to and they now seem to work in private industry selling electronic control systems for trains. Not to definitively say the safety equipment mentioned that was lobbied against would not have prevented this disaster, but do you know more about it?
e40 4y ago
There was a really good comment on reddit that I duplicated here (with references to original): https://e40.github.io/2023-02-18-train-safety.html https://e40.github.io/2023-02-18-train-safety.html It explains why there are so many derailments these days.
- arthurfm 4y ago
  Wendover Productions posted an interesting train-related video recently. https://youtu.be/qQTjLWIHN74?t=466 https://youtu.be/qQTjLWIHN74?t=466 It would appear that the issues with Amtrak can be traced back to freight rail as well. See 07:46 onwards for more details.
  - e40 4y ago
    Very interesting, indeed. The issues in this video with the track issues ... what a shitshow.
- giardini 4y ago
  This. Great link that shows the RR car spewing sparks miles before the spill.
- gruez 4y ago
  >Dems backed it because they didn’t want the optics from a rail strike paralyzing shipping, and the GOP backed it because they’re the GOP and do anything for their pocketbooks. Yet, most of the nays came from the GOP and in the house most GOP voted against the bill? https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022490 https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022490
  - goostavos 4y ago
    Can a smart person explain what that bill means? The summary[0] reads like the government just saying "you'll take the existing terms and like it" (I didn't know that the government could do this). Is that the same thing as making it "illegal to strike" as the linked comment suggests? How does all this work? [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-joint-resolution/100/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-joint-res...
29athrowaway 4y ago
[flagged]
- dang 4y ago
  Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN.
Accujack 4y ago
Sadly, the author of this article doesn't provide any proof of his statements regarding chemicals "draining into the Ohio river"... he just seems to accept the statements made in other news sources without question. Here's the latest news from Cincinatti: https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/water/news/ohio-river-test-results-show-no-contaminants/ https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/water/news/ohio-river-test-res... Various conspiracy minded and politically motivated groups continue to push the Ohio derailment as some sort of environmental apocalypse in social media and elsewhere online when the evidence seems to indicate the spill was successfully contained.
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  The EPA reported the runoff into local creeks and damage to aquatic wildlife.. and further testing found at minimum ethyl hexyl acrylate in a creek that directly drains into the Ohio River.. not sure how much more "proof" you'd need for that.. > 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. (https://response.epa.gov/site/site_profile.aspx?site_id=15933 https://response.epa.gov/site/site_profile.aspx?site_id=1593...) > Water quality sampling taken Feb. 10 shows very low levels of two contaminants, butyl acrylate and ethyl hexyl acrylate, in Leslie Run which dissipates quickly, and no detects of butyl acrylate in North Fork Little Beaver Creek or Little Beaver Creek. There was a much lower level of ethyl hexyl acrylate found in North Fork Little Beaver Creek. Little Beaver Creek did not have any ethyl hexyl acrylate. No vinyl chloride has been detected in any of these waterways. Sulfur Run flows into Leslie Run, which flows into North Fork Little Beaver Creek, which flows into Little Beaver Creek, which discharges into the Ohio River. (https://epa.ohio.gov/monitor-pollution/pollution-issues/east-palestine https://epa.ohio.gov/monitor-pollution/pollution-issues/east...) I don't even disagree that this is being slightly overblown if you look solely at the nature of the leaked chemicals -- but a bit of artistic license in service of fewer derailments and chemical leaks seems fair enough.
spants 4y ago
"Most of these leaked out of the cars without vapourizing and ended up in the Ohio river causing some damage to wildlife." SOME? I have seen lot of pictures that show a complete anhilation of the local fish population and contamination of the water supplies (strange deposits when boiled). I think that there is a huge coverup ongoing.
- op00to 4y ago
  Please provide said photos, and while you're at it, proof that these photos are indeed recent and taken in the watershed affected by the incident. I hear this over and over and over, but I've never seen actual evidence that these pictures are authentic AND reflect the widespread condition of the area.
  - McSwag 4y ago
    I honestly haven’t seen much detailed information in the major news outlets other than there was a train derailed, a burn, some fish died, some people were evacuated, everything okay and safe now, “by the way we shot down some UFOs”, “do aliens exist?” It’s possible I’m missing something but for whatever reason I don’t feel like it’s getting the coverage it really deserves which, by itself, raises questions.
    - op00to 4y ago
      It’s the only thing I’ve heard about. I think there’s some rat fuckery going on, I agree. I’m not so sure it’s a cover up orchestrated or enabled by the government as much as other actors using the opportunity to stoke distrust in the government.
      - PM_me_your_math 4y ago
        After the last two years, you don't need anything to help distrust the government. This administration has been a total disaster in all key policy areas. From energy to transportation to foreign policy. A total mess for seemingly no reason.
giardini 4y ago
I wonder if this is somehow related to Congress' recent intervention in the railroad strike? https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/02/01/bnsf-f01.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/02/01/bnsf-f01.html: FTFA ">Only days after the law was passed, BNSF, Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern announced pilot programs to reduce crew sizes from two to one.<" Norfolk Southern is the railroad company that suffered the Ohio spill. wsws is hardly an unbiased source but they clearly support the RR workers. So this incident could be sabotage or "faked sabotage" (damage done to falsely impute malfeasance by the workers/union). Also saw a video of the train passing thru a prior town with one RR car axle spewing sparks.
- delecti 4y ago
  The two possibilities seem to be either 1. that they warned (among other things) about crumbling infrastructure, and that crumbling infrastructure then crumbled, or 2. they did a terrorism. I've been hearing about the US's crumbling infrastructure for decades, so 1 sure seems a lot more likely.
vondur 4y ago
I assumed that’s why they burned the gas off. It produces hydrochloride acid, while initially very dangerous, it will eventually be diluted into the environment. The effects of which you can see on the melting paint on nearby cars. I thought this stuff was transported in two walled containers. Apparently not.

121 points by georgecmu 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

loeg 4y ago

The subtitle raises a great question "Why was such a large amount of this chemical being transported by rail in the first place?" which the article wholly fails to address, for some reason. (It addresses the industrial applications of the chemical, but doesn't ever dive into the "being transported by rail" part.)

geysersam 4y ago
How else should it be transported? By truck?
- beebmam 4y ago
  By truck (or by plane!) sounds even more dangerous, to me
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  The conventional alternative are pipelines, but for small loads such as vinyl chloride they would likely be problematic even ignoring the likelihood of eventual leaks. A better alternative is to keep using trains, but have sufficient protection built in to survive a derailment and fires.
  - bagels 4y ago
    It's going to take a lot of pipelines to transport every hazardous substance this way.
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      I think there are ways to use a single pipeline for multiple kinds of loads (in serial), but yeah a bunch of new pipelines would be needed to get the loads to a bunch of new places.
      - BlueTemplar 4y ago
        Like this one ? https://channelnz.com/what-we-do/terminal-pipeline-services https://channelnz.com/what-we-do/terminal-pipeline-services Not sure how dangerous it would be though to have one transport wildly different chemicals...
      - giardini 4y ago
        "single pipeline for multiple kinds of loads (in serial)" <--recipe for pipeline explosion. Who wants a pipeline behind their home that transports chlorine gas one hour and ethylene gas the next?
  - mindslight 4y ago
    All but one vinyl chloride tank did survive the derailment intact! Vinyl chloride is a gas at standard temperature and pressure, and so AFAICT it's transported in insulated tanks, staying cool enough throughout its journey to be at a manageable pressure (<~200psi). The adjacent fire meant the clock was ticking on how long before it would rise in pressure and be vented through the tanks' relief valves. It was then a deliberate decision to preemptively vent the tanks and burn the contents. A lot of hubbub is being made about the chemical, but in the gamut of chemistry it's really not that bad of a chemical nor are its combustion products, at least as far what has been demonstrated. I'm not throwing that out there as a justification for deliberately releasing industrial quantities of chemicals into the environment (including residential areas), but rather examining the decision process. An alternative approach would have been bringing in mobile chillers and replacement tank cars to cool and recover the vinyl chloride. But of course that would have cost more than simply discarding the product. Everyone is talking about railroad safety, and that needs addressing for sure. But the situation with the vinyl chloride specifically was a direct result of a deliberate decision, and not accidental. If we want this decision process to be different in the future, then we need to focus on that.
    - Gibbon1 4y ago
      > it's really not that bad of a chemical nor are its combustion products Dioxins are a result of low temperature burning of chlorinated hydrocarbons.
      - mindslight 4y ago
        The article touches on that, but I haven't seen any mention of testing revealing a large number of dioxins. That's why I hedged with "as far as what has been demonstrated". I can totally see the scenario where the people signing off on the burn look at the ideal combustion products (only CO2, H2O, and a little HCl), while a much more imperfect burn creates a bunch of other crap, that becomes significant due to the quantities involved. FWIW do you know which dioxins are possible? The only specifics I've seen seemed to be people fearmongering about things like 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which seemed implausible to form from vinyl chloride, at least as far as my rudimentary knowledge of ochem would suggest.
- deelowe 4y ago
  Require it to be produced on site just like many other hazardous chemicals.
  - quickthrowman 4y ago
    How do you get the precursor chemicals on-site? At some point, something needs to be transported.
    - deelowe 4y ago
      Obviously, you produce the less hazardous precursors off premises.
      - quickthrowman 4y ago
        What if the precursors are more dangerous? Chlorine is a precursor to Vinyl Chloride and is far more dangerous than Vinyl Chloride.
virtuallynathan 4y ago
How else would it be transported? Rail seems like a safe/efficient way of doing so.
- cdiddy2 4y ago
  It can be made on site where it is going to be used. Generally combined with a manufacturing plant
  - pixl97 4y ago
    Are railcars filled with pure chlorine any better? Chlorine gas leaks are deadly. Unless you're talking about in situ chlorine production, which has its own list of issues.
  - red-iron-pine 4y ago
    So how do you get the precursors to the plant? You're either transporting chlorine, or you're manufacturing it in huge quantities locally, which has plenty of it's own headaches. Either trucks or trains, and trains are more cost effective.
chiefalchemist 4y ago
I noticed that as well, but the conclusion is "it's all about money (not safety)". I presume the answer to "why was..." is the same answer.
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
  Rail freight is almost always more cheap, efficient, and safe compared to trucking the same cargo. You also benefit from economies of scale, as adding extra rail cars doesn’t take as much manpower as sending out another truck.
mrbombastic 4y ago
It does though?, PVC is manufactured using this chemical and rail is an efficient means of transporting it, it is not much deeper than that.
- thallium205 4y ago
  Yeah and the author said it was the third most used plastic. Pretty much answered it there.
- danielsju6 4y ago
  From what I heard most countries don’t allow this chemical to be transported, only produced on site with much safer to transport precursors.
  - Accujack 4y ago
    Not exactly "safe". The precursors are ethylene and chlorine. Chlorine everyone knows about - it's quite a bit more of a problem when it spills than vinyl chloride. Ethylene is a "colorless and combustible gas used to fumigate some agricultural products, sterilize medical equipment and in the production of other industrial chemicals. The gas is a carcinogen that has been linked to breast, lymphoid, leukemia and other types of cancers." Ethylene is transported as a cryogenic liquid, which means when it leaks it immediately boils to gas form. Once released it takes 2 to 4 days to break down in the atmosphere. Chlorine takes years.
    - candiddevmike 4y ago
      I thought chlorine breaks down rather quickly in sunlight?
      - graycat 4y ago
        Chlorine is an element and, thus, by ordinary chemical means, never "breaks down". Maybe some people are assuming the old remark: "The solution to pollution is dilution."
serf 4y ago
it's one of the best means to transport lots of something, and many industrial chemical groups have buildings that have railroad tie-ins that facilitate direct unloading from the car.
bagels 4y ago
How do you propose it be transported?
- gnopgnip 4y ago
  Transport less dangerous chemicals, less dangerous finished products and only make the dangerous intermediaries onsite
  - pixl97 4y ago
    And what about the 100's of billions in fallout regarding this massive shift in US manufacturing?
    - danielsju6 4y ago
      Oh no, some billionaires will need smaller yachts.
      - asdff 4y ago
        More like billionaires will short that stock and get bigger yachts, while huge swaths of this country see job loss with no replacement or much of a social safety net.
  - bsder 4y ago
    Why do you believe that the regulations for the onsite manufacturing of chlorine or ethylene are going to be any better? The issue is that the companies have been playing fast and loose with safety. If you don't choose to reverse that, it doesn't matter whether you transport the chemical or manufacture it on site.
  - testTED 4y ago
    During travel the other day, I saw a molten sulfur train car.
jjtheblunt 4y ago
I read elsewhere (perhaps NYT or WSJ, but i can't find it from days ago) that rail is most safe, statistically. If so, it remotivates an analogue of TCP's MTU: if the size of shipments were small, but the number of shipments high, would a single "packet loss"/derailment be less catastrophic?
abigail95 4y ago
public really hate pipelines

scotty79 4y ago

Should all involved companies be sued/fined into oblivion? If not, why not?

jjeaff 4y ago
I'm in favor of a corporate death penalty. In cases where a company is found guilty of gross negligence leading to terrible disasters and loss of life, give a jury the option to give the death penalty. All equity holders AND debt holders are washed out and the assets are sold off to pay victims and severance pay for low level employees.
- ticviking 4y ago
  Revoking their charter and seizing their assets seems just for a lot of this stuff.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    Their charters are often from other states (such as Delaware). This would complicate the issue by entwining state's rights and federal rights.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  For the USA, an easy mechanism for a corporate death penalty (for large enough corporations) without running afoul of takings clause would be to bar the corporation from engaging in interstate commerce, and to bar the equity holders from selling to themselves or relatives.
  - torstenvl 4y ago
    If you're talking about judicial action, the Takings Clause isn't a problem. If you're talking about Congressional action, your proposed alternative runs into the prohibition on Bills of Attainder. In my view, the L&E approach of punitive damages calculated to be greater than the profit incentive of the negligent/reckless behavior is the best approach. Additionally, to the extent that an executive's actions were clearly not in the long-term interest of the corporation, they should be made personally liable.

chiefalchemist 4y ago

> Neither was it equipped with electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, a safety measure that the railway industry lobbied against vigorously when Congress proposed a law to have them installed on trains because of the costs involved. Safety has a cost. Lack of safety has a cost. The former the cost is financial. The latter it's lives, peace of mind, health, etc. One is replaceable. One is not. Sadly Congress protected the replaceable one.

chii 4y ago
> One is replaceable. cost is cost. You can put a financial figure on lives, health, peace of mind etc. Insurance companies do this every time they insure something. So the question really is whether the cost of safety will outweigh the economic loss of implementing that safety.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  In theory. But would you (and fam) trade places with anyone living in that area? For 2x the price the insurance company would pay?
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  The real problem with this math is that the cost of the braking system would be borne by the company, but the costs of the derailment are borne by the public. So even if the derailment cost >>> the brake system cost, it's an easy decision for the industry to make. That whole privatized profits / socialized losses issue that keeps showing up.
  - moremetadata 4y ago
    > That whole privatized profits / socialized losses issue that keeps showing up. The Banksters demonstrated that back in 2008.
- sqeaky 4y ago
  Insurance companies doing this to help people manage risk and are often attempting to help people in moments of grief and tragedy, and those people opted into the contract. Train companies doing this to unsuspecting towns are stochastic monsters killing people because the victims are a financial externality and therefore cheaper dead than alive. They knew that a disaster could happen but chose good balance sheets over externalized risk. Boiling this down to pure economics is monstrous; Flip this around. What if I get to decide if you live or die based on my spreadsheets? Clearly the dollar value of thing isn't the only thing that matters. We should make these as safe as we can afford to, to the point that mass death or even mass destruction doesn't happen while billionaires are made from it. We can't afford infinite safety but while we can afford more safety we should. It is even correct from a macroeconomic standpoint, people who don't die or suffer from disasters go on to be more productive in the economy than dead people.

htag 4y ago

It's becoming more clear that in the US health and safety are taking a back seat to corporate profits. It's shameful to read safety equipment that could have prevented this derailment was lobbied against by the railway industry.

lettergram 4y ago
<Insert “always has been” meme> By definition the EPA, FDA, etc give corporations protections from events, not the other way around. For instance, even if a company is provably causing me harm, say through a drug injury, I can’t sue the company for false advertising — FDA approved. How about the EPA? Same deal, I can’t sue a company for causing me injuries due to carbon dioxide, so long as they follow EPA regulations. Historically, before all these agencies you could sue for any injury that caused harm (ie the law).
- sqeaky 4y ago
  You present a view preposterously one-sided. The FDA fines and sues companies not following the rules. They set a floor for behavior and mitigate frivolous lawsuits. This help companies and society, this is better for both. This isn't a pie we are dividing, this is complex system we are building together. The current system isn't perfect but things are clearly better with than without. Businesses know what they can and can't be sued for and overall less bad shit happens to the populace. It isn't like I have the ability to sue people dumping CO2 into the air. Because lawsuits need more than someone polluting, they need someone to break a rule or cause direct harm and for the victim to know who to sue and have money to do it with We could theoretically make these systems better by making the rules better and sometimes we even do.
jerkstate 4y ago
I read a quote that electronically controlled brakes could have prevented this, but haven’t heard a good explanation of why (based on the initial NTSB reporting that the cause was a failed wheel bearing) - I looked up the ex-government person who the quote was attributed to and they now seem to work in private industry selling electronic control systems for trains. Not to definitively say the safety equipment mentioned that was lobbied against would not have prevented this disaster, but do you know more about it?

e40 4y ago

There was a really good comment on reddit that I duplicated here (with references to original): https://e40.github.io/2023-02-18-train-safety.html https://e40.github.io/2023-02-18-train-safety.html It explains why there are so many derailments these days.

arthurfm 4y ago
Wendover Productions posted an interesting train-related video recently. https://youtu.be/qQTjLWIHN74?t=466 https://youtu.be/qQTjLWIHN74?t=466 It would appear that the issues with Amtrak can be traced back to freight rail as well. See 07:46 onwards for more details.
- e40 4y ago
  Very interesting, indeed. The issues in this video with the track issues ... what a shitshow.
giardini 4y ago
This. Great link that shows the RR car spewing sparks miles before the spill.
gruez 4y ago
>Dems backed it because they didn’t want the optics from a rail strike paralyzing shipping, and the GOP backed it because they’re the GOP and do anything for their pocketbooks. Yet, most of the nays came from the GOP and in the house most GOP voted against the bill? https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022490 https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022490
- goostavos 4y ago
  Can a smart person explain what that bill means? The summary[0] reads like the government just saying "you'll take the existing terms and like it" (I didn't know that the government could do this). Is that the same thing as making it "illegal to strike" as the linked comment suggests? How does all this work? [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-joint-resolution/100/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-joint-res...

29athrowaway 4y ago

[flagged]

dang 4y ago
Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN.

Accujack 4y ago

Sadly, the author of this article doesn't provide any proof of his statements regarding chemicals "draining into the Ohio river"... he just seems to accept the statements made in other news sources without question. Here's the latest news from Cincinatti: https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/water/news/ohio-river-test-results-show-no-contaminants/ https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/water/news/ohio-river-test-res... Various conspiracy minded and politically motivated groups continue to push the Ohio derailment as some sort of environmental apocalypse in social media and elsewhere online when the evidence seems to indicate the spill was successfully contained.

mikeyouse 4y ago
The EPA reported the runoff into local creeks and damage to aquatic wildlife.. and further testing found at minimum ethyl hexyl acrylate in a creek that directly drains into the Ohio River.. not sure how much more "proof" you'd need for that.. > 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. (https://response.epa.gov/site/site_profile.aspx?site_id=15933 https://response.epa.gov/site/site_profile.aspx?site_id=1593...) > Water quality sampling taken Feb. 10 shows very low levels of two contaminants, butyl acrylate and ethyl hexyl acrylate, in Leslie Run which dissipates quickly, and no detects of butyl acrylate in North Fork Little Beaver Creek or Little Beaver Creek. There was a much lower level of ethyl hexyl acrylate found in North Fork Little Beaver Creek. Little Beaver Creek did not have any ethyl hexyl acrylate. No vinyl chloride has been detected in any of these waterways. Sulfur Run flows into Leslie Run, which flows into North Fork Little Beaver Creek, which flows into Little Beaver Creek, which discharges into the Ohio River. (https://epa.ohio.gov/monitor-pollution/pollution-issues/east-palestine https://epa.ohio.gov/monitor-pollution/pollution-issues/east...) I don't even disagree that this is being slightly overblown if you look solely at the nature of the leaked chemicals -- but a bit of artistic license in service of fewer derailments and chemical leaks seems fair enough.

spants 4y ago

"Most of these leaked out of the cars without vapourizing and ended up in the Ohio river causing some damage to wildlife." SOME? I have seen lot of pictures that show a complete anhilation of the local fish population and contamination of the water supplies (strange deposits when boiled). I think that there is a huge coverup ongoing.

op00to 4y ago
Please provide said photos, and while you're at it, proof that these photos are indeed recent and taken in the watershed affected by the incident. I hear this over and over and over, but I've never seen actual evidence that these pictures are authentic AND reflect the widespread condition of the area.
- McSwag 4y ago
  I honestly haven’t seen much detailed information in the major news outlets other than there was a train derailed, a burn, some fish died, some people were evacuated, everything okay and safe now, “by the way we shot down some UFOs”, “do aliens exist?” It’s possible I’m missing something but for whatever reason I don’t feel like it’s getting the coverage it really deserves which, by itself, raises questions.
  - op00to 4y ago
    It’s the only thing I’ve heard about. I think there’s some rat fuckery going on, I agree. I’m not so sure it’s a cover up orchestrated or enabled by the government as much as other actors using the opportunity to stoke distrust in the government.
    - PM_me_your_math 4y ago
      After the last two years, you don't need anything to help distrust the government. This administration has been a total disaster in all key policy areas. From energy to transportation to foreign policy. A total mess for seemingly no reason.

giardini 4y ago

I wonder if this is somehow related to Congress' recent intervention in the railroad strike? https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/02/01/bnsf-f01.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/02/01/bnsf-f01.html: FTFA ">Only days after the law was passed, BNSF, Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern announced pilot programs to reduce crew sizes from two to one.<" Norfolk Southern is the railroad company that suffered the Ohio spill. wsws is hardly an unbiased source but they clearly support the RR workers. So this incident could be sabotage or "faked sabotage" (damage done to falsely impute malfeasance by the workers/union). Also saw a video of the train passing thru a prior town with one RR car axle spewing sparks.

delecti 4y ago
The two possibilities seem to be either 1. that they warned (among other things) about crumbling infrastructure, and that crumbling infrastructure then crumbled, or 2. they did a terrorism. I've been hearing about the US's crumbling infrastructure for decades, so 1 sure seems a lot more likely.

vondur 4y ago

I assumed that’s why they burned the gas off. It produces hydrochloride acid, while initially very dangerous, it will eventually be diluted into the environment. The effects of which you can see on the melting paint on nearby cars. I thought this stuff was transported in two walled containers. Apparently not.