2 ms·

Yeah, it was really bad already so good on EPA for making it a lot worse. ("miniscule" is not applicable to this disaster and casual readers may see it as emoti

Yeah, it was really bad already so good on EPA for making it a lot worse. ("miniscule" is not applicable to this disaster and casual readers may see it as emotion-based hyperbole.)

ceejayoz 2y ago
Miniscule is absolutely the correct term for this. An already demolished ecosystem was briefly worse, in trying to clean up the built-up pollution from a closed mine. Compare it against the health damage the coal industry has done to billions of people over centuries and it looks pretty damned small. Trying to ding the EPA for "industry left a giant toxic mess and cleaning it up was tough" is just odd.
- paulnpace 2y ago
  That is the worst attempt at an argument - just throw everything from all of history to "win" your argument. We are talking about isolated events. You need to do something besides troll HN. It isn't beneficial to anyone.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Fine, let's talk isolated events. Your supposed "one of the largest" isn't on the list at all at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_disaster. Your link says things like "no evidence to that date of human injury or wildlife die-off", "the remaining contaminants will be diluted to a point where there will be no danger to users", "By August 11, pollutant levels at Durango returned to pre-incident levels", etc. It was a short-lived discharge of polluted waters into an area already devastated by the closed mine operations, the sort of discharge that pre-EPA went straight into the rivers as a matter of course. It's one of many mining and industry-related disasters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_disasters#Mining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_disaster...), appears to be not particularly notable amongst them, and it seems was singled out primarily by you for the "it was an EPA contractor that broke the plug" clickbait aspect.

Yeah, it was really bad already so good on EPA for making it a lot worse. ("miniscule" is not applicable to this disaster and casual readers may see it as emotion-based hyperbole.)

ceejayoz 2y ago

Miniscule is absolutely the correct term for this. An already demolished ecosystem was briefly worse, in trying to clean up the built-up pollution from a closed mine. Compare it against the health damage the coal industry has done to billions of people over centuries and it looks pretty damned small. Trying to ding the EPA for "industry left a giant toxic mess and cleaning it up was tough" is just odd.

paulnpace 2y ago
That is the worst attempt at an argument - just throw everything from all of history to "win" your argument. We are talking about isolated events. You need to do something besides troll HN. It isn't beneficial to anyone.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Fine, let's talk isolated events. Your supposed "one of the largest" isn't on the list at all at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_disaster. Your link says things like "no evidence to that date of human injury or wildlife die-off", "the remaining contaminants will be diluted to a point where there will be no danger to users", "By August 11, pollutant levels at Durango returned to pre-incident levels", etc. It was a short-lived discharge of polluted waters into an area already devastated by the closed mine operations, the sort of discharge that pre-EPA went straight into the rivers as a matter of course. It's one of many mining and industry-related disasters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_disasters#Mining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_disaster...), appears to be not particularly notable amongst them, and it seems was singled out primarily by you for the "it was an EPA contractor that broke the plug" clickbait aspect.