At room temperature, vinyl chloride is a gas. Its boiling point is about 8 deg F. The tanks contained liquified vinyl chloride, which works only if it is under pressure or liquified. If the tanks were going to fail, the resulting vinyl chloride death cloud would be huge and would roll over the countryside, killing everything in its wake. The only alternative was to pre-empt THAT disaster by relieving the tanks of contents and burning them immediately to LESS DANGEROUS products. Still a bad scene, but it could have been MUCH worse.
It's entirely possible that an innocent clean-up crew was forced to make the tough decision you describe. I don't dismiss the possibility, so I'll upvote you. However, we have also seen numerous corrupt local governments over the years make questionable and sometimes deadly decisions that are obviously intended to harm this country. We don't know, and we have little reason to believe the official explanation of anything anymore.
It is epistemological procedure: the presumption of innocence, until guilt (of falsity) is proven. A perfectly justifiable procedure, based on thousands of years of experience.
I am mindful of the EPA breach of the contaminated water in the Gold King mine into the Colorado River. But we had to learn the facts before we could blame anyone. Same thing here. We have to wait and see. Jumping on the "it's a lie" wagon is unwarranted and leads to an unhealthy prejudice against information.
It is irrelevant whether the cleanup crew was "innocent." The only relevant consideration is whether that decision was warranted. Nobody has identified any practical or viable alternative. Sometimes you have to shoot the rampaging elephant before he gets into the village. Tough luck for the elephant.
Nobody has identified any practical or viable alternative.
Alternative: Bad actors interested in causing a major environmental disaster over farmland lied about the amount of pressure in the tankers so that local officials were forced to burn off the toxic chemical "out of an abundance of caution."
We simply don't know. And frankly, neither the government, the "experts," or the official narrative deserve the "presumption of innocence" these days.
Then you are lost, because it is never possible to prove innocence.
But you still haven't identified any alternative to the burn-off. Supposedly, it was an emergency response team that decided to conduct the burn-off, not local officials. Just because you are ignorant now, does not justify concluding someone is lying. If they are, we need to catch them in the lie. But that requires more information.
At room temperature, vinyl chloride is a gas. Its boiling point is about 8 deg F. The tanks contained liquified vinyl chloride, which works only if it is under pressure or liquified. If the tanks were going to fail, the resulting vinyl chloride death cloud would be huge and would roll over the countryside, killing everything in its wake. The only alternative was to pre-empt THAT disaster by relieving the tanks of contents and burning them immediately to LESS DANGEROUS products. Still a bad scene, but it could have been MUCH worse.
It's entirely possible that an innocent clean-up crew was forced to make the tough decision you describe. I don't dismiss the possibility, so I'll upvote you. However, we have also seen numerous corrupt local governments over the years make questionable and sometimes deadly decisions that are obviously intended to harm this country. We don't know, and we have little reason to believe the official explanation of anything anymore.
It is epistemological procedure: the presumption of innocence, until guilt (of falsity) is proven. A perfectly justifiable procedure, based on thousands of years of experience.
I am mindful of the EPA breach of the contaminated water in the Gold King mine into the Colorado River. But we had to learn the facts before we could blame anyone. Same thing here. We have to wait and see. Jumping on the "it's a lie" wagon is unwarranted and leads to an unhealthy prejudice against information.
It is irrelevant whether the cleanup crew was "innocent." The only relevant consideration is whether that decision was warranted. Nobody has identified any practical or viable alternative. Sometimes you have to shoot the rampaging elephant before he gets into the village. Tough luck for the elephant.
Alternative: Bad actors interested in causing a major environmental disaster over farmland lied about the amount of pressure in the tankers so that local officials were forced to burn off the toxic chemical "out of an abundance of caution."
We simply don't know. And frankly, neither the government, the "experts," or the official narrative deserve the "presumption of innocence" these days.
Then you are lost, because it is never possible to prove innocence.
But you still haven't identified any alternative to the burn-off. Supposedly, it was an emergency response team that decided to conduct the burn-off, not local officials. Just because you are ignorant now, does not justify concluding someone is lying. If they are, we need to catch them in the lie. But that requires more information.
see my comment above re: combustion products of vinyl chloride. Phosgene gas is NOT "less dangerous". You're just picking a different poison.
They are close at the threshold limit level. It apparently came down to whether to allow a tank explosion to occur, or burn off the vinyl chloride.
An interesting summary is already available on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Ohio_train_derailment