Railroads and dangerous cargoes
Once again the local news has folks spouting out all sorts of things about the oil train derailment while back near Mosier.
Many of the folks getting shown are, frankly, idiots.
One was going on about how oil was only 5% of the cargo the railroad carried and they must be making lots of money on it to be unwilling to quit carrying it.
And she and others go on about he danger.
Ok, no argument, *something* was wrong for the railroad to not have spotted those broken bolts during inspections.
That said, these folks are *woefully* off base on the rest of things.
First off, railroads are common carriers. Legally, that means that they are not *allowed* to refuse cargo unless it is illegal or fails to meet safety rules. Period.
Second, they are oh so worried about the trains carrying oil. Yes, there was a fire. and if it hadn't been a calm day, it'd have been a lot worse.
However, there are *far* more dangerous cargoes carried by rail. I used to work next door to a plant that had long lines of tank cars outside. they weren't carrying oil. They were full of caustic soda (only dangerous if it gets splashed on something), hydrochloric acid (very nasty if it was to be in a wreck), and *chlorine*. Liquified chlorine gas under pressure.
If that wreck had had chlorine tanks instead of oils tanks, Mosier would be a ghost town.
Hopper cars full of ammonium nitrate? Big crater.
Lots of other common cargoes would result in major disasters. Relatively speaking, oil trains are only a *moderate* hazard. Mostly environmental, with other hazards *if* a fire starts.
Once again we see proof that humans are *horrible* at risk assessment. We could be a lot better, but that'd require an *educated* population. Not merely with facts, but also with logic and math. Logic to recognize bad arguments and bad logic. Math so you can recognize what all those numbers *mean*.
Many of the folks getting shown are, frankly, idiots.
One was going on about how oil was only 5% of the cargo the railroad carried and they must be making lots of money on it to be unwilling to quit carrying it.
And she and others go on about he danger.
Ok, no argument, *something* was wrong for the railroad to not have spotted those broken bolts during inspections.
That said, these folks are *woefully* off base on the rest of things.
First off, railroads are common carriers. Legally, that means that they are not *allowed* to refuse cargo unless it is illegal or fails to meet safety rules. Period.
Second, they are oh so worried about the trains carrying oil. Yes, there was a fire. and if it hadn't been a calm day, it'd have been a lot worse.
However, there are *far* more dangerous cargoes carried by rail. I used to work next door to a plant that had long lines of tank cars outside. they weren't carrying oil. They were full of caustic soda (only dangerous if it gets splashed on something), hydrochloric acid (very nasty if it was to be in a wreck), and *chlorine*. Liquified chlorine gas under pressure.
If that wreck had had chlorine tanks instead of oils tanks, Mosier would be a ghost town.
Hopper cars full of ammonium nitrate? Big crater.
Lots of other common cargoes would result in major disasters. Relatively speaking, oil trains are only a *moderate* hazard. Mostly environmental, with other hazards *if* a fire starts.
Once again we see proof that humans are *horrible* at risk assessment. We could be a lot better, but that'd require an *educated* population. Not merely with facts, but also with logic and math. Logic to recognize bad arguments and bad logic. Math so you can recognize what all those numbers *mean*.