I think this was a cooked story. The villain is classic anti-corporate greed and decadal plotting. It makes sense only if you assume what he is trying to prove. Nice details of omission and inclusion. Entirely punts the issue of why the vinyl chloride had to be dealt with. Adds footage of colorful sheen on water, when that is clearly the effect of oil, which floats on water and does not sink into the stream bed. The last bit about the reporter omits any context for the altercation, and seems to imply that reporters have a right to trespass in order to "do their job." As for coincidences, they happen. A guy named Robert Ripley started a syndicated news feature a hundred years ago (still published) that deals with such things as amazing coincidences.
In regards to the water, the presence of oil (or oil like substance) does not negate the presence of vinyl chloride contamination. We already know -- and have known -- that it can enter the air, soil and water when improperly disposed of.
Oil in the water would simply prove that it was contaminated from the incident in some fashion, which provides the vector of truth that it has entered the water.
The presence of oil is only the presence of oil; it doesn't "prove" anything else. Showing it as an illustration of more serious contamination is just being deceptive. The real problem with contaminated water is that it looks the same as uncontaminated water. And, in fact, the water may be acceptable...but the stream bed may contain contamination.
I think this was a cooked story. The villain is classic anti-corporate greed and decadal plotting. It makes sense only if you assume what he is trying to prove. Nice details of omission and inclusion. Entirely punts the issue of why the vinyl chloride had to be dealt with. Adds footage of colorful sheen on water, when that is clearly the effect of oil, which floats on water and does not sink into the stream bed. The last bit about the reporter omits any context for the altercation, and seems to imply that reporters have a right to trespass in order to "do their job." As for coincidences, they happen. A guy named Robert Ripley started a syndicated news feature a hundred years ago (still published) that deals with such things as amazing coincidences.
In regards to the water, the presence of oil (or oil like substance) does not negate the presence of vinyl chloride contamination. We already know -- and have known -- that it can enter the air, soil and water when improperly disposed of.
Oil in the water would simply prove that it was contaminated from the incident in some fashion, which provides the vector of truth that it has entered the water.
The presence of oil is only the presence of oil; it doesn't "prove" anything else. Showing it as an illustration of more serious contamination is just being deceptive. The real problem with contaminated water is that it looks the same as uncontaminated water. And, in fact, the water may be acceptable...but the stream bed may contain contamination.