Ohio train disaster

[jesmu84]

Seems bad, eh?

That area gonna become a superfund site

[Shaka Shart]

Good thing Union Joe got them all back to work! Most of analysts suggests this could have been avoided if they were focusing on buy backs

[jesmu84]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/11/ohio-train-derailment-wake-up-call

Maybe the unions were right?

[tower912]

This story is going to get bigger.

[jesmu84]

This story is going to get bigger.

Because?

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Because?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/ohio-derailment-that-released-toxic-chemicals-raises-railroad-safety-questions

[tower912]

The short, intermediate, and long term effects of the hazardous materials on the environment.   Cattle, wildlife, groundwater, farmland.   Oh yeah, and the effect on human health.  No bueno.

[Babybluejeans]

White Noise — released as a great film adaptation just several weeks before — predicts this almost to the T.

[jesmu84]

The short, intermediate, and long term effects of the hazardous materials on the environment.   Cattle, wildlife, groundwater, farmland.   Oh yeah, and the effect on human health.  No bueno.

Allegedly, short term has been cleared for safety by the EPA.

[4everwarriors]

Nothing to see here. Just some stray chemicals. Been happening for years. Carry on, hey?

[jesmu84]

Nothing to see here. Just some stray chemicals. Been happening for years. Carry on, hey?

Thanks to boomers like yourself, that's the trend.

[Babybluejeans]

Nothing to see here. Just some stray chemicals. Been happening for years.

Many decades, including in our water supply. Finally you dipchitz are taking notice.

[jesmu84]

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/3456138/the-scenes-out-of-east-palestine-ohio-after-a-rail-car-carrying-deadly-chemicals-exploded-into-flames-are-wild

Lots of stuff here. Some of the Twitter stuff...eh

[jesmu84]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/norfolk-southern-giving-25-000-200000640.html

$25000 for local residents

[jesmu84]

Pets dying. Fish in streams dying. Chickens dying

This seems bad.

And this doesn't take into account long term environmental aspects. Likely cancer clusters.

Questions about how much spilled into the Ohio river and could impact lots of the Midwest.

Faulty brakes on the train. Obama introduced regulations for train brakes, Trump cancelled, Biden didn't re-introduce and Pete has no interest in doing it now.

[JWags85]

Pets dying. Fish in streams dying. Chickens dying

This seems bad.

And this doesn't take into account long term environmental aspects. Likely cancer clusters.

Questions about how much spilled into the Ohio river and could impact lots of the Midwest.

Faulty brakes on the train. Obama introduced regulations for train brakes, Trump cancelled, Biden didn't re-introduce and Pete has no interest in doing it now.

Is there confirmation on that?  I saw reports of it but then it was referring to dead chickens

[jesmu84]

Is there confirmation on that?  I saw reports of it but then it was referring to dead chickens

https://www.wdtn.com/news/ohio/health-concerns-mounting-as-animals-become-sick-after-ohio-train-derailment/

Foxes here

[Jockey]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/norfolk-southern-giving-25-000-200000640.html

$25000 for local residents

Or, in layman's terms, $5 per resident.

Who says corporate leaders aren't responsible?

[dgies9156]

A couple of thoughts:

1) We're using railroads to transport many things that are better served transported through pipelines. I can't speak to what was on the Ohio train, but every day, 100 car trains full of Canadian crude travel through Chicago, the western suburbs of Milwaukee and along the NS/CSX corridors to refineries in the east. If one of those cars derails, one hopes the latest FRA crashworthiness standards prevail. We'd be better off with a pipeline, but, oops, that ship has sailed.

2) Was the car carrying the chemicals a doubled-hulled tank car? If it was, then uhh oh. If it wasn't, then there were some issues with the quality of the car, as the car probably was old.

3) On a national basis, we need to decide what risks we are going to take. The notion that we can eliminate ALL environmental risks is foolish unless we want to eliminate our standard of living and return to how we lived around 1900. We need to accept the fact that we're human, we make mistakes and we need to manage the risk. It means that crap is going to happen but it also means we should be really good at addressing how to mitigate the risk we take. Note: Mitigate and eliminate are two different words.

[Hards Alumni]

A couple of thoughts:

1) We're using railroads to transport many things that are better served transported through pipelines. I can't speak to what was on the Ohio train, but every day, 100 car trains full of Canadian crude travel through Chicago, the western suburbs of Milwaukee and along the NS/CSX corridors to refineries in the east. If one of those cars derails, one hopes the latest FRA crashworthiness standards prevail. We'd be better off with a pipeline, but, oops, that ship has sailed.

2) Was the car carrying the chemicals a doubled-hulled tank car? If it was, then uhh oh. If it wasn't, then there were some issues with the quality of the car, as the car probably was old.

3) On a national basis, we need to decide what risks we are going to take. The notion that we can eliminate ALL environmental risks is foolish unless we want to eliminate our standard of living and return to how we lived around 1900. We need to accept the fact that we're human, we make mistakes and we need to manage the risk. It means that crap is going to happen but it also means we should be really good at addressing how to mitigate the risk we take. Note: Mitigate and eliminate are two different words.

This particular accident was 100% preventable.  Read the story.

[jesmu84]

A couple of thoughts:

1) We're using railroads to transport many things that are better served transported through pipelines. I can't speak to what was on the Ohio train, but every day, 100 car trains full of Canadian crude travel through Chicago, the western suburbs of Milwaukee and along the NS/CSX corridors to refineries in the east. If one of those cars derails, one hopes the latest FRA crashworthiness standards prevail. We'd be better off with a pipeline, but, oops, that ship has sailed.

2) Was the car carrying the chemicals a doubled-hulled tank car? If it was, then uhh oh. If it wasn't, then there were some issues with the quality of the car, as the car probably was old.

3) On a national basis, we need to decide what risks we are going to take. The notion that we can eliminate ALL environmental risks is foolish unless we want to eliminate our standard of living and return to how we lived around 1900. We need to accept the fact that we're human, we make mistakes and we need to manage the risk. It means that crap is going to happen but it also means we should be really good at addressing how to mitigate the risk we take. Note: Mitigate and eliminate are two different words.

When profit/growth/efficiency is the goal, risk is an afterthought

[dgies9156]

This particular accident was 100% preventable.  Read the story.

Most accidents are. That's why they call them accidents.

Consider the infamous DC10 crash at ORD in 1979. It was an accident but it happened because (a) A group of maintenance pros changed the way the took the jet engine and pylon off the wing, without a thorough vetting of the implications; (b) The DC10 operating manual had the exact opposite procedure that should have been followed for a left wing stall; and, (c) The hydraulic fluid lines were not capable of sealing themselves largely because no one ever imagined an accident akin to what happened at ORD.

Now look at almost every car accident known to mankind. The primary cause was driver error, or someone not paying attention to conditions around them. That could be anything from a bald tire or bad brakes or other equipment to focusing too much on a sign or roadside distraction. Or maybe breaking rules of the road.

The core issue I raised remains. We have to accept that we're human and will make mistakes. We all do. Some are bigger than others. In the DC10 case, the FAA banned the one-step engine removal, United and American revised their operating manuals and we didn't have any more DC10 engine fall-offs. Instead, we had one crash into a Mountain in Antarctica and another blow an engine fan over Nebraska. For railroads, the objective is an NTSB investigation (which will happen) and a series of recommendations that will mitigate the risk.

[jesmu84]

Most accidents are. That's why they call them accidents.

Consider the infamous DC10 crash at ORD in 1979. It was an accident but it happened because (a) A group of maintenance pros changed the way the took the jet engine and pylon off the wing, without a thorough vetting of the implications; (b) The DC10 operating manual had the exact opposite procedure that should have been followed for a left wing stall; and, (c) The hydraulic fluid lines were not capable of sealing themselves largely because no one ever imagined an accident akin to what happened at ORD.

Now look at almost every car accident known to mankind. The primary cause was driver error, or someone not paying attention to conditions around them. That could be anything from a bald tire or bad brakes or other equipment to focusing too much on a sign or roadside distraction. Or maybe breaking rules of the road.

The core issue I raised remains. We have to accept that we're human and will make mistakes. We all do. Some are bigger than others. In the DC10 case, the FAA banned the one-step engine removal, United and American revised their operating manuals and we didn't have any more DC10 engine fall-offs. Instead, we had one crash into a Mountain in Antarctica and another blow an engine fan over Nebraska. For railroads, the objective is an NTSB investigation (which will happen) and a series of recommendations that will mitigate the risk.

Where do you stand on government regulations to reduce risk? Where do you stand on corporations spending money on lobbying to fight those same regulations?

[Hards Alumni]

Most accidents are. That's why they call them accidents.

Consider the infamous DC10 crash at ORD in 1979. It was an accident but it happened because (a) A group of maintenance pros changed the way the took the jet engine and pylon off the wing, without a thorough vetting of the implications; (b) The DC10 operating manual had the exact opposite procedure that should have been followed for a left wing stall; and, (c) The hydraulic fluid lines were not capable of sealing themselves largely because no one ever imagined an accident akin to what happened at ORD.

Now look at almost every car accident known to mankind. The primary cause was driver error, or someone not paying attention to conditions around them. That could be anything from a bald tire or bad brakes or other equipment to focusing too much on a sign or roadside distraction. Or maybe breaking rules of the road.

The core issue I raised remains. We have to accept that we're human and will make mistakes. We all do. Some are bigger than others. In the DC10 case, the FAA banned the one-step engine removal, United and American revised their operating manuals and we didn't have any more DC10 engine fall-offs. Instead, we had one crash into a Mountain in Antarctica and another blow an engine fan over Nebraska. For railroads, the objective is an NTSB investigation (which will happen) and a series of recommendations that will mitigate the risk.

Again, read the story.  It was pure negligence, not an oopsie poopsie.

Equipment was asked for, repairs were demanded, maintenance worker hours were shortened.

I'm not discounting what you're suggesting overall.  But there are accidents, and there is criminal negligence.  This is the latter.

[Jockey]

Now look at almost every car accident known to mankind. The primary cause was driver error, or someone not paying attention to conditions around them. That could be anything from a bald tire or bad brakes or other equipment to focusing too much on a sign or roadside distraction. Or maybe breaking rules of the road.

The core issue I raised remains. We have to accept that we're human and will make mistakes. We all do. Some are bigger than others. In the DC10 case, the FAA banned the one-step engine removal, United and American revised their operating manuals and we didn't have any more DC10 engine fall-offs. Instead, we had one crash into a Mountain in Antarctica and another blow an engine fan over Nebraska. For railroads, the objective is an NTSB investigation (which will happen) and a series of recommendations that will mitigate the risk.

Should we remove all government safety regulations because accidents happen?