• Warl0k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Okay, you can’t be serious with this one. DOT releases time-sensitive public health information all the time. The EPA is in no way the sole agency responsible for this - BLM, OSHA, 911 dispatch, hell even the parks department are empowered to give public warnings. He absolutely has the authority and remit to have made this announcement. His agency is specifically tasked with public health warnings for transit accidents. It’s literally their job. That’s what DOT placards are about.

      • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          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.

          • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

            • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              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.

              • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                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:

                Officials also believed the agency had enough authority to respond to the derailment without declaring an emergency.

                Which is discussing long term incident response, as clarified in another article on the same topic from The Independent:

                The aftermath of last year’s fiery train derailment in eastern Ohio doesn’t qualify as a public health emergency because widespread health problems and ongoing chemical exposures haven’t been documented, federal officials said.

                It doesn’t talk about the immediate incident response, the thing I’m criticizing Buttigieg for.

                • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  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.

                  • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    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.

            • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              3 months ago

              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)