Ohio Train Derailment

[leahgoogle]

I’ve been following this story for a couple of reasons. I hate railroad companies (my husband works for one) and I live within a couple of miles of tracks and know all the hazardous materials that are shipped daily (thanks, husband).

As recently as yesterday, I was sending my husband pictures of the damage while he was at work. Upper management was praising Norfolk’s response and how fast they were able to get the tracks cleared and the trains running again. My husband asked them how they could praise the response when it was killing livestock and fish and sending toxic chemicals into the air and water. They said it was fake news. Until its reported by a government agency none of what’s reported is connected.

Railroad companies only care about profits. They don’t care about people or the environment. They have a tremendous amount of power and influence within the government. I have very little faith that this ecological disaster will get the recognition and response it deserves.

Yes, the railroad and the government want to clear the tracks and put this behind them as quickly as they can ignoring the people, animals and the environment it is impacting. I'm waiting for the next big headline to try and draw attention away from it. Social media seems to have kept it in the forefront, thank goodness!

 

[BroadwayHermione5]

If it wasn't for social media I think it probably would have stayed buried.

100%

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

I think it's funny that people are saying it wasn't on mainstream news and was only picked up because of social media accounts and then simultaneously say they don't follow mainstream news because they are 'gaslit' by it.

So if someone makes a point of not following mainstream news, how are they aware of what is or what is not on it, and when it first appeared there?

It was all over my mainstream news feeds as soon as it happened.

Oh, and also they are wanting mainstream news to make a bigger deal of it, to the exclusion of other stories, while also saying they don't trust stuff that mainstream news says. So if mainstream news pushed the train story really hard, maybe some would then believe it hasn't occurred at all?

 

[DLgal]

I think the majority of people across all income levels would struggle to pick up move and start over on a dime. That's a huge financial burden,

That's very true. But you know what is a bigger financial burden? Massive medical bills from the inevitable health issues that will be caused by this. It will take at least a decade, if not more, for *someone* to take the blame and pay out for this disaster. Like, the PACT act JUST passed, providing care for veterans who were exposed to burn pits nearly 20 years ago. In the meantime, you'll be on the hook for yourself.

There is no good answer, but people do have to make hard choices when faced with a disaster like this.

 

[AndreaDM]

That's very true. But you know what is a bigger financial burden? Massive medical bills from the inevitable health issues that will be caused by this. It will take at least a decade, if not more, for *someone* to take the blame and pay out for this disaster. Like, the PACT act JUST passed, providing care for veterans who were exposed to burn pits nearly 20 years ago. In the meantime, you'll be on the hook for yourself.

There is no good answer, but people do have to make hard choices when faced with a disaster like this.

This is for my fellow Ohio peeps, who else is waiting for Tim Misney to MAKE THEM PAY!?

 

[GreatLakes]

I don't have a clue why he turned it down. I'm scratching my head as well. But I'm not ready to say a sitting Governor would turn down assistance because of politics. I feel like there has to be more to that story.

I'm not exactly sure and I live here. I can say while DeWine has some political leaning I do not agree with he is not one to kowtow to the party line. He has opposed the Republican powers that be on numerous occasions but that is all I can really say without getting points.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

So if someone makes a point of not following mainstream news, how are they aware of what is or what is not on it, and when it first appeared there?

I agree there. I don't really get into extreme sources so I have to admit that I don't know all that gets said there even if I pick up on some things here and there. But it is a pattern with some people (here and IRL) that mainstream media gets spoken about the way you described it but then they said they don't pay attention or stopped paying attention. It can't be both ways either you're fully aware of what whatever is or isn't discussing or you're not.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

So on the topic of White House aid it has just come out that the Governor is asking for Federal assistance.

This is just an article I saw on Google https://www.wlwt.com/article/mike-d...l-assistance-white-house-derailment/42939046#

Now what's interesting is the Governor is saying FEMA told him he's not been eligible for assistance, which from what I'm gleaning is why he is now requesting assistance from the Federal government via different means.

My big question is will FEMA come out with a statement either supporting or refuting that claim that they have said they are not eligible for aid? And is that really the case? Given what has been said about the EPA being involved and whatnot I'm struggling to figure out what would bar FEMA from helping out in this disaster unless they are saying a trail derailment doesn't fall under what they consider disasters? Does anyone know has FEMA helped on other train derailments?

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

While the train situation is obviously terrible for all in that community and the surroundings, what I find also very worrying is the lack of concern from many about the quieter, slower moving environmental catastrophes.

the 30% increase in ocean acidity and the effects of that
declines in pollinator populations worldwide and the effects of that
bird populations decreased by 3 billion in North America since 1970 and the effects of that
84% reduction in the crab population in Alaskan waters over the past few years
microplastics showing up in our bodies and in the animals we consume
efforts to weaken the clean air act and clean water act
pfas chemicals in our bodies and our environment
the increase in fungal disease and 'superbugs' created by antibiotic resistance

For many, environmental problems are only a concern if they can see quick and direct cause and effect. The issues that take years or decades to manifest and which disproportionally affect the poor in the world aren't treated seriously enough.

 

[DCLMP]

That's very true. But you know what is a bigger financial burden? Massive medical bills from the inevitable health issues that will be caused by this. It will take at least a decade, if not more, for *someone* to take the blame and pay out for this disaster. Like, the PACT act JUST passed, providing care for veterans who were exposed to burn pits nearly 20 years ago. In the meantime, you'll be on the hook for yourself.

There is no good answer, but people do have to make hard choices when faced with a disaster like this.

...but they are being told it's safe.
One thing people should take away from this is you can't depend on anyone, but to yourself to save you. It's important to be as self reliant as you can afford to be.

 

[DLgal]

...but they are being told it's safe.
One thing people should take away from this is you can't depend on anyone, but to yourself to save you. It's important to be as self reliant as you can afford to be.

Of course they are being told that. No one openly admits to things being unsafe until they are forced to.

If people living nearby are experiencing weird symptoms ALDEADY, they need to listen to their own bodies, not whoever is telling them not to worry.

 

[TwoMisfits]

Ways to get FEMA assistance - apparently, it's a slow process and you have to show the state and locality can't handle it to get federal assistance...and it normally must be a natural occurrence (whereas, here, the decision to burn was not technically "natural")...

https://www.fema.gov/disaster/how-declared

 

[DCLMP]

Of course they are being told that. No one openly admits to things being unsafe until they are forced to.

If people living nearby are experiencing weird symptoms ALDEADY, they need to listen to their own bodies, not whoever is telling them not to worry.

So you see why people don't trust the media or the government.

 

[leahgoogle]

If you first heard about this on Twitter, I'm sorry but you are using terrible news sources.

Case in point....Did you hear about the Van Buren Township train derailment outside of Detroit today? No, well that is because it is not front page on CNN or MSNBC. It is trending on Twitter, however....lol. Twitter can be a jumping off point for researching something further.

 

[leahgoogle]

I think it's funny that people are saying it wasn't on mainstream news and was only picked up because of social media accounts and then simultaneously say they don't follow mainstream news because they are 'gaslit' by it.

So if someone makes a point of not following mainstream news, how are they aware of what is or what is not on it, and when it first appeared there?

It was all over my mainstream news feeds as soon as it happened.

Oh, and also they are wanting mainstream news to make a bigger deal of it, to the exclusion of other stories, while also saying they don't trust stuff that mainstream news says. So if mainstream news pushed the train story really hard, maybe some would then believe it hasn't occurred at all?

I never said I don't see or follow mainstream media. I said they gaslight us. I do still see headlines (how could you not?). And, I do read mainstream media sometimes to get one side of the story and then I research more. Actually, we should all be doing that.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Ways to get FEMA assistance - apparently, it's a slow process and you have to show the state and locality can't handle it to get federal assistance...and it normally must be a natural occurrence (whereas, here, the decision to burn was not technically "natural")...

https://www.fema.gov/disaster/how-declared

Yeah I was thinking about the disaster part because normally FEMA is natural but the EPA part is kinda what got me. In the link you shared (and thank you for that) it mentions hazard mitigation. Even without the burn the fact that chemicals and what they were and that they were in the area with enough residents would give me more pause.

I looked into a Chemical Incident for FEMA https://www.fema.gov/cbrn-tools/key-planning-factors-chemical/prologue/1

And reading into that EPA, etc all play a role. I've broken the paragraph down to make it easier to read but this was all lumped together

• "There are several escalating layers of systems for the federal response to chemical incidents, allowing for appropriately-scaled responses to incidents that range from the less serious to those that may have catastrophic impacts."
• "In the case of smaller incidents, the state, local, tribal and territorial (SLTT) governments, and/or the Responsible Party (RP) are often able to effectively address the response on their own."
• "As incidents become larger and the responses more complex, the NCP may be activated, requiring a Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) from the EPA or USCG. In response to the most serious incidents, for example those cases involving a Presidential Disaster Declaration under the Stafford Act, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides enhanced resource coordination under the National Response Framework in support of FOSC authorities."

So EPA is involved and has been since it was first reported, that checks the box of becoming a larger scale situation. But the way this reads are they effectively needing to wait until the President deems it a Federal disaster before providing actual assistance or am I reading this incorrectly? Because then I see in the link I shared this bottom part "Even emergencies that do not rise to the level requiring a Stafford Act declaration may tax local abilities to respond and recover."
So then pertinent to this issue with a train derailment carrying chemicals would be this link https://www.fema.gov/cbrn-tools/key-planning-factors-chemical/prologue/4

But would a burn mean FEMA is like you're on your own at the moment? It sounds like residents experienced issues before the burn even occurred. the evacuation was needed because they viewed the burned as the better solution and the burn could create other harmful chemicals.

And if you read all of that then yes I think we can def. agree this sounds very complex. I'm really interested to hear what if any public statements get released from various entities.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I never said I don't see or follow mainstream media. I said they gaslight us. I do still see headlines (how could you not?). And, I do read mainstream media sometimes to get one side of the story and then I research more. Actually, we should all be doing that.

In fairness you said

All mainstream media does is gaslight us anyway so I use alternative sites

I was sick of being gaslit by mainstream media. Twitter actually has some great news sources for people that want to actually hear both sides of the story.

Which leads me to believe you stopped looking into mainstream media (what you viewed as it) and instead shifted to whatever alternative sources you mean.

"So I use" and "was sick of" are like past tense present action kind of things. I can understand why someone would make the comment they did. Either way there is a pattern of people saying mainstream media doesn't cover so and so but then you find out they don't use mainstream media as their main source to go to, how do you know that which you either don't use at all or hardly ever use in what they are and aren't covering

 

[bcla]

Yeah I was thinking about the disaster part because normally FEMA is natural but the EPA part is kinda what got me. In the link you shared (and thank you for that) it mentions hazard mitigation. Even without the burn the fact that chemicals and what they were and that they were in the area with enough residents would give me more pause.

I looked into a Chemical Incident for FEMA https://www.fema.gov/cbrn-tools/key-planning-factors-chemical/prologue/1

And reading into that EPA, etc all play a role. I've broken the paragraph down to make it easier to read but this was all lumped together

• "There are several escalating layers of systems for the federal response to chemical incidents, allowing for appropriately-scaled responses to incidents that range from the less serious to those that may have catastrophic impacts."
• "In the case of smaller incidents, the state, local, tribal and territorial (SLTT) governments, and/or the Responsible Party (RP) are often able to effectively address the response on their own."
• "As incidents become larger and the responses more complex, the NCP may be activated, requiring a Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) from the EPA or USCG. In response to the most serious incidents, for example those cases involving a Presidential Disaster Declaration under the Stafford Act, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides enhanced resource coordination under the National Response Framework in support of FOSC authorities."

So EPA is involved and has been since it was first reported, that checks the box of becoming a larger scale situation. But the way this reads are they effectively needing to wait until the President deems it a Federal disaster before providing actual assistance or am I reading this incorrectly? Because then I see in the link I shared this bottom part "Even emergencies that do not rise to the level requiring a Stafford Act declaration may tax local abilities to respond and recover."
So then pertinent to this issue with a train derailment carrying chemicals would be this link https://www.fema.gov/cbrn-tools/key-planning-factors-chemical/prologue/4

But would a burn mean FEMA is like you're on your own at the moment? It sounds like residents experienced issues before the burn even occurred. the evacuation was needed because they viewed the burned as the better solution and the burn could create other harmful chemicals.

And if you read all of that then yes I think we can def. agree this sounds very complex. I'm really interested to hear what if any public statements get released from various entities.

My understanding is that the Governor still hasn't requested declaration of a federal disaster and the President can't unilaterally declare a federal disaster to enable FEMA to act.

https://www.fema.gov/disaster/how-declared​

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act) §401 states in part that: "All requests for a declaration by the President that a major disaster exists shall be made by the Governor of the affected State." A State also includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The Republic of Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia are also eligible to request a declaration and receive assistance through the Compacts of Free Association.​

As far as the burn goes, I believe the general idea was that they would rather have a controlled release and burn rather than risk that it might explode like a fertilizer bomb. But that's just what it sounded like to me.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

My understanding is that the Governor still hasn't requested declaration of a federal disaster and the President can't unilaterally declare a federal disaster to enable FEMA to act.

Well that's why I added the last part quoted here

"Even emergencies that do not rise to the level requiring a Stafford Act declaration may tax local abilities to respond and recover."

It sounds like yes the President can declare this and FEMA step in and help but that it doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't qualify for help using the burden for a state/city/area could have. Like there's almost a middle ground where it's too much to handle on their own but not enough for the President to declare it without the governor doing so.

However, you bring up a point, does the Governor need to declare an emergency/disaster in order to get assistance if the President doesn't do it? I know that's common for governors to do because it means they get access to things like National Guard, resource, funding, etc depending on the reason and type they declare. If so maybe that's more the reason...just a quick search says this is being pushed more and more to do it.

As far as the burn goes, I believe the general idea was that they would rather have a controlled release and burn rather than risk that it might explode like a fertilizer bomb. But that's just what it sounded like to me.

I agree there

 

[mom2rtk]

I think the majority of people across all income levels would struggle to pick up move and start over on a dime. That's a huge financial burden,

People did it in large number across the country during Covid. There's a difference between struggling to do it and flat out cannot do it. Average family income in this area is very low. Many of them flat out cannot afford to do it.