random6x7 t1_jar4x14 wrote
Out of date, now. The EPA has ordered testing for dioxins. In order to figure out what is due to the derailment, they'll test areas that weren't affected nearby and compare. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/02/epa-dioxin-testing-ohio-train-crash-00085339. So the outcry worked.
IamSauerKraut t1_jar7lif wrote
Guardian published the article yesterday but govt officials last week stated they would be testing. Journalistic malpractice, imho.
AntaresBounder t1_jare9nn wrote
It's an opinion piece, so not journalism.
IamSauerKraut t1_jargbqz wrote
The opinion piece should have been posted 2 weeks ago when it might have been based on facts.
enemy_of_your_enema t1_jarckjv wrote
I also don't really buy the basic thesis of the article, which despite being teased in the headline, was backed up by only three sentences:
"So why is EPA unwilling to test for dioxins in the soil? My guess is
because they know they will find it. And if they find it, they’ll have
to address the many questions people are asking."
It is literally the EPA's job to do this kind of testing and then "respond to questions." They didn't cause the derailment, so why would they be motivated to cover up the impact? I'm not sure why the author thinks that the EPA has no incentive to do its job and they certainly didn't explain why.
Anonymous_Otters t1_jarwvr0 wrote
People have gone full tin foil hat over this whole thing and are damaging the environmental movement in thr process.
heili t1_javslj4 wrote
Erin Brockovich is creaming her pants for another huge paycheck.
OhioJeeper t1_jarby4r wrote
You'd have to consider what The Guardian posts to be journalism for that to be true lmao.
hahahoudini OP t1_jaryc32 wrote
From another article:
Further context reveals that the EPA previously claimed they wouldn't test for dioxins because they hadn't tested for baseline levels in East Palestine prior to the crash, making the cause of current levels uncertain; a rationale that at least one scientist refers to as "lame."
"Our toxicologists are taking a look. Unfortunately, we don’t have any baseline information about the levels of dioxins which are produced also by wildfires, by backyard grilling, by a host of other things,” Shore said. Lester says he has no knowledge of backyard grilling producing a dangerous amount of dioxin. “I’ve never heard anybody, any researcher talk about cookouts. Because that’s an infinitesimal concentration, if at all. Because dioxins form not just cause there’s burning, you need a chlorine source,” Lester said.
Lester says even if there is no baseline from prior testing to compare levels, the EPA should still be able to do testing to determine if the level that’s there is a risk."
Source
This whole incident casts a lot doubt on the integrity of the EPA.
RaceSignificant1794 t1_jarnz98 wrote
They are taking their sweet time to even BEGIN testing.... That article clearly states that the EPA is only in the planning stage to create a "reliable test" to correctly measure the toxin in the soil. The last paragraph says it all:
"EPA is also currently reviewing a draft plan by Norfolk Southern to develop a dioxin “fingerprint” for soil sampling. EPA anticipates that developing a dioxin fingerprint for East Palestine will require use of certified laboratories that can perform high-resolution gas chromatography and mass spectrometry to identify various isomers of dioxins. If this dioxin fingerprint can be developed with reliable methodologies, it will help EPA determine whether any dioxin particularly from the train derailment and controlled burn impacted the local environment."
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-requires-norfolk-southern-sample-dioxins-east-palestine
It's all too little, too late
random6x7 t1_jarq87l wrote
Making Norfolk Southern do it is not uncommon for regulatory agencies. You tell the project proponent they have to do something, they hire consultants to do the thing, you make sure their work is correct and up to standards. Regulatory agencies would need a much, much higher budget if they did that all in-house, and why not make Norfolk Southern do all the work and pay for it, as long as the EPA makes them do it properly.
The fact that they already have a draft plan in review is fast for the government. Yes, it sucks, but there are so many levels of oversight, plus the consultants near me and probably in Ohio are already hella busy, that it's not a surprise. Should the EPA already know the base background dioxin contamination across the US? Sure, but now we go back to budgeting issues. No one wants to pay for this stuff until the tragedies happen.
KentSmashtacos t1_jas2ion wrote
Several points.. Why couldn't the EPA simply require payment for the necessary supplies and costs to perform said tests in-house by charging NS the bill. Seems obvious.
The background dioxin contamination would likely be recorded in surrounding areas by referencing commercial farms that perform regular soil tests.
random6x7 t1_jas7w0z wrote
They're probably just not set up for it. It takes time to do the necessary surveys and testing and report preparation. It takes less time, but still a lot of it, to write contracts, send them out for bid, and choose a consultant to do the work. The government at all levels is already understaffed thanks to years of hiring freezes and budget cuts, and I can guarantee the Trump years did a number on people's willingness to join the EPA.
Plus, what do they do when Norfolk Southern stalls on paying the bill? Add higher interest rates? I mean, sure, but levying huge fines while they get dragged through the court of public opinion would be worse than just a bill they refuse to pay while everyone else forgets about the incident.
hahahoudini OP t1_jarynkl wrote
Because something is not uncommon does not make it a good practice.
random6x7 t1_jas8tmb wrote
It's not as nefarious as you think it is. There are absolutely bad actors, and some agencies and/or field offices within agencies just suck. But no one gets into environmental review to strike it rich or destroy the environment, except -maybe- the political appointees.
This also isn't the EPA telling Norfolk Southern to do whatever they want. This is more likely them saying "you -will- clean up your mess and do it right". If you doubt that, well, a lot of the regs have transparency and public outreach built in so the interested public can keep an eye on things. Alas, though, the interested public often doesn't care until it directly affects them.
hahahoudini OP t1_jasdu8u wrote
Those dying from 9/11's aftermath would like a word with you about that. Source
random6x7 t1_jasiaib wrote
Like I said, there are absolutely bad actors. Those orders came from the political appointees, too. I'm just saying, the way things are set up now isn't a conspiracy. It has problems, but it was set up mostly in good faith by people doing the best they could with what they had and knew.
hahahoudini OP t1_jatjzlk wrote
Yeah, my perspective isn't that the EPA is some nefarious organization, i'm just saying no one paying attention should take anything they say or do wholesale, you know?
BluCurry8 t1_jaso02i wrote
Why is it too late? They are trying to get to the facts. This town was an industrial town like so many others and it is likely that the soli was already contaminated. What they will be able to do after the fingerprint of the chemicals being carried is to determine what came from the derailment and what was preexisting. It is likely going to dredge up contaminants from prior industrial use.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments