They were at the very least, using misleading descriptions. Possibly using the term 'controlled burn' from firefighting incorrectly applied to this chemical burn off. As they mean entirely different things in these two fields.
Without further evidence of intent, I don't think it matters though, as those in charge are still culpable for their wrongful actions.
Intentional burn would have been the most correct term. I think they burned it because it was less damaging than the option. I'm not an organic chemistry professor, so I could be wrong.
That is exactly what was said about it back when it happened 2or 3 weeks ago.
The report was that they dug a trench and punctured the tanker and burned it so that the tanker wouldn't explode. There was no control of the fumes, it was burned off to prevent a giant explosion and fumes. I think they claimed that burning the chemicals would be less harmful than if the explosion spread unburnt chemicals everywhere.
That was the narrative given, make of it what you will.
I don't think any of that part is a lie, personally. I think the lie is about just how very dangerous it actually is and what the lasting damage will be. Im not a chemical engineer by any means though.
I worked at a medical parts manufacturing facility. They were phasing out trichloroethylene cleaning. They did a controlled burn of the trike with natural gas until they were able to phase it out completely.
This guy is right that it was not a controlled burn.
It may be obvious to many, but we should all pause to take note how we identify someone speaking the truth.
You can see he talks very plainly, straightforward and in simple terms. You also get the impression he's holding back somewhat and couching his speech to best effect for the listener, neither too technical nor too dumbed down. This is all because you're seeing a person trying best to communicate what is in their mind to the minds of other people.
These are simple things, but if you hold them up to what we are so used to hearing all day long, you'll note how uncommon it really is.
They are using the term loosely, to try and put a good face on what they did.
He mentions that there is a hazardous waste disposal site nearby. Which leads us to many Questions.
Were they masking what was done there?
They were at the very least, using misleading descriptions. Possibly using the term 'controlled burn' from firefighting incorrectly applied to this chemical burn off. As they mean entirely different things in these two fields.
Without further evidence of intent, I don't think it matters though, as those in charge are still culpable for their wrongful actions.
A firefighters version of a controlled burn is different than a chemical waste disposal engineer's version.
Intentional burn would have been the most correct term. I think they burned it because it was less damaging than the option. I'm not an organic chemistry professor, so I could be wrong.
That is exactly what was said about it back when it happened 2or 3 weeks ago.
The report was that they dug a trench and punctured the tanker and burned it so that the tanker wouldn't explode. There was no control of the fumes, it was burned off to prevent a giant explosion and fumes. I think they claimed that burning the chemicals would be less harmful than if the explosion spread unburnt chemicals everywhere.
That was the narrative given, make of it what you will.
I'm not saying I buy their story, but I haven't heard of a chemical engineer saying they lied either
I don't think any of that part is a lie, personally. I think the lie is about just how very dangerous it actually is and what the lasting damage will be. Im not a chemical engineer by any means though.
I worked at a medical parts manufacturing facility. They were phasing out trichloroethylene cleaning. They did a controlled burn of the trike with natural gas until they were able to phase it out completely.
This guy is right that it was not a controlled burn.
Just like farts, if you can smell it, guess what you're breathing
It may be obvious to many, but we should all pause to take note how we identify someone speaking the truth.
You can see he talks very plainly, straightforward and in simple terms. You also get the impression he's holding back somewhat and couching his speech to best effect for the listener, neither too technical nor too dumbed down. This is all because you're seeing a person trying best to communicate what is in their mind to the minds of other people.
These are simple things, but if you hold them up to what we are so used to hearing all day long, you'll note how uncommon it really is.