There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

A chemical train derailed in Kentucky. As residents return home, questions remain

After spending Thanksgiving camped out in a school hall, evacuated Livingston residents are now going home. But the cause of the train derailment remains a mystery. Amelia Neath reports

In the small, remote town of Livingston, Kentucky, residents had been preparing their turkeys and setting their tables for Thanksgiving the following day.

The roughly 200 people had no idea that a train carrying chemicals had derailed off the tracks nearby.

In total, 16 large train cars derailed – two containing molten sulphur. The chemicals instantly caught fire and sent large clouds of smoke billowing into the air.

The atmosphere quickly filled with toxic sulphur dioxide, prompting authorities to declare an emergency and evacuate residents from their homes, sending them to shelter in hotels, lodgings, and even a local middle school.

magikmw ,

Can’t wait for this episode of Well There’s Your Problem.

billwashere ,

Well I can guess the cause, some rich dude cutting corners to save a buck.

Burn_The_Right ,

Well, the good news is conservative residents have no reason to be concerned. Science is totally fake and doctors are all liars, so there is nothing at all to worry about. Also, the bible doesn’t say anything about chemicals being dangerous.

Normal (non-conservative) residents should be alarmed and concerned, though. Get the hell away from that polluted place!

KSPAtlas ,
@KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz avatar

Oh, the kentucky one, that makes sense

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Burning molten sulfur also creates hydrogen sulfide, which is also toxic.

Burn_The_Right ,

Not to conservatives. Only pussy liberals are scared of a little hygruh-jin sulfer-aid. Wutchu so skeert of?

Salamendacious ,
@Salamendacious@lemmy.world avatar

Why the hell aren’t these chemical railcars designed to withstand a derailment?

Reverendender ,

That would clearly be far too expensive.

SheeEttin ,

It’s more cost-effective to just not have them derail in the first place.

Of course, that requires railway maintenance. But if you can skip that and let the government pick up the bill for the inevitable disaster, that’s even better!

WashedOver ,
@WashedOver@lemmy.ca avatar

This is reportedly been happening in Canada too listening to some sources that say it’s cheaper to deal with derailment than to maintain the tracks properly.

I find it hard to believe but we are talking about a lot of track. I can’t imagine the disruptions to service and clean ups doesn’t add up quickly not to mention the loss of life costs.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Why the hell aren’t we making an industrial infrastructure so we don’t have to send molten sulfur across the country on rail cars?

Oh right, money.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines