264
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
264 points (98.2% liked)
United States | News & Politics
1866 readers
524 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
A little education as to why even the EPA didn’t have the authority in the East Palestine incident:
https://apnews.com/article/east-palestine-derailment-epa-public-health-emergency-be238b72219ecc4b6e5c7b88eefbf6f9
Instead of rage-posting with your profound ignorance, perhaps you should actually do some research before saying such silly things and looking foolish.
I'm sorry but... That isn't even slightly relevant here. That's an article about an entirely separate agency, it's got nothing to do with DOT incident response, it's talking about community health reporting. It even brings up the issue of medical under-reporting being the used justification for not declaring a public health emergency in the aftermath.
This goes back to the problem of you only seeing what you wish to see, as I mentioned in an earlier comment.
The article discusses who had authority and who didn’t and why. If you fail to comprehend that, that’s your own problem, but it doesn’t magically make you correct.
I've read the article though, and the only section discussing immediate incident response is about how the governor and fire chief claim they weren't told that they didn't need to burn it, which (if you believe them) supports what I'm saying.
But it... doesn't talk about that at all? Seriously, you're being a huge dick to me about all this, but once again it's just not in there. The closest we get is this:
Which is discussing long term incident response, as clarified in another article on the same topic from The Independent:
It doesn't talk about the immediate incident response, the thing I'm criticizing Buttigieg for.
So I've... just shown you're wrong, and now you're just going to copy-paste the same thing to be churlish? I mean, go ahead I guess. But this sure feels like every time I explain myself coherently or make a decent point, you pivot your tactics to insulting or dismissing me.
You're... kinda making my case for me, you know?
For you
Starting to feel like I might not be the one fishing for attention here...
The rest of it is discussing aftermath management, which is reasonable to go through the EPA and is not at all what I have an issue with (though, I'd be very curious about the healthcare access for residents, as it would illuminate if the residents are simply attributing normal illness to the crash or if the EPA's lack of a response due to medical under-reporting is a poor strategy to take in long term management of public health incidents like this)