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.
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.