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.
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.
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.