East Palestine train wreck may have created largest dioxin plume in world history

Oh my Gawd! You're loaded with cliches! LOL…. Heck, you even used some Big Words! This is too easy.

I've read through the threed’s comments as of this posting and will cherry pick a few items that caught my attention. I'll be paraphrasing because I work off my iPhone and am not going to copy/paste one word at a time. Off we go.

Your 40 post had a pic with your comments to the effect conflating the tanker derailment fire (accurate) with the notion that it was an intentional or controlled burn. At the time the pic was taken, the fire was probably uncontrolled. The notion that there was any I any intentional setting of a fire is ludicrous. Tanker leaks + flammable contents + ignition source = fire. The ignition source was sparks from metal on metal friction during the derailment. No mysterious little green men with flame throwers or Bic lighters were around. Lol!

BTW…. As an acknowledgment of your sponsor…. !Chemical Violence Chemical Violence!

I am lazy so am not going to go back to check on if it was you or one of the other posters that wrote this. The thrust of the comment IIRC was a chemical engineer called into a radio show and said that controlled burns are never used. I'll disregard the several degrees of hearsay of this and go to the comment.

In the context of a typical production unit, this is going to be accurate. The reason is that it is extremely rare for one production unit to be a solo island - It's surrounded by adjacent units and the top level focus is to keep the fire zone from expanding to something far worse. Production plants are also surrounded with fire monitors that put out immense amounts of water from a long distance in functionally unlimited amounts and often have connections to where a chemical cart can be wheeled up to shoot suppression foam instead of straight water.

The Ohio derailment was in a very rural area, fire fighters only had the water that could be tanked in and the best that could be done for much if not most of the active fire duration was containment to the degree their resources could stretch. Containment is not the equivalent of controlled burn when the total circumstances are considered.

Or, do you advocate a valiant but futile effort by the firefighters and they commit suicide?

There are circumstances where a controlled burn of chemicals has been and will continue to be used. Where I have seen this is where the fire is on a few acres of land and the risk of spreading catastrophically is low. Examples are warehouses or small production plants that are freestanding. Typically al it's again a matter of suicide to march firefighters into the inferno so they instead work from father back to cool and contain.

The controlled burn comment frivolously tossed around this threed is crap for the context of this derailment. They did let the fire largely burn out with the strategies of initially (and successfully) knocking down the temperature of the fires to reduce the risk of explosions and later when resources piled in layered in efforts to reduce water pollution.

I'll sign off for now. But please know that you're in my wheelhouse on this subject. I'm a chemical engineer and microbiologist. Petrochemical, refining, pharmaceuticals, food, mining, steel, transportation, power, oil production, HAZOPs, safety, etc. Projects on 4 continents, ports, oceans.

I visualize you sleeping at night dreaming of Rambo with you in lead role, cuddling your dream blaster while murmuring sweet nothings into the receiver. Get a life man. Oh you see! I can insult also! Lol…

Beware of the fringe and !Chemical Violence Chemical Violence! is loony tune land.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.