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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
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)