SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the nothing-to-see-here-read-the-summary dept.
A toxic onslaught from the nation's petrochemical hub was largely overshadowed by the record-shattering deluge of Hurricane Harvey as residents and first responders struggled to save lives and property.
More than a half-year after floodwaters swamped America's fourth-largest city, the extent of this environmental assault is beginning to surface, while questions about the long-term consequences for human health remain unanswered.
[...] In all, reporters catalogued more than 100 Harvey-related toxic releases—on land, in water and in the air. Most were never publicized, and in the case of two of the biggest ones, the extent or potential toxicity of the releases was initially understated.
Hurricane Harvey's toxic impact deeper than public told
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Hyperturtle on Saturday March 24 2018, @02:58PM (3 children)
He also didn't actually read the article, or missed the details about which is expressed anger is directed (likely it has more to do with a problem with liberal elites in academia slanting discussion towards a viewpoint not agreed with, but that is just a guess). Directly under the headline, on the phys.org website page for the article itself, it states:
March 22, 2018 by Frank Bajak Of The Associated Press And Lise Olsen Of The Houston Chronicle
This article is on Phys.org in much the same way that it was here. No one here wrote it, but it may be of interest to the types of readers visiting the site.
That said, I believe that people shouldn't build in a flood plain, and if they do, the people building have a responsibility to claim more than just 'buyer beware'.
The buyer's should be aware, but the point is any concientous citizen can'tmake an informed decision if information is hidden, like the extent of the pollution and the health effects. Insurance companies need to know this too -- so they can deny the claim to rebuild but issue a check for the cost, if it turns out that just re-building on top of a new problem while doing hand waving about the known existing problems.. doesn't make any of it go away.
Probably it is a bad idea to build homes so close to things so toxic, but people apparently are ok with the prices involved to do that. You don't even need to know what is being hidden to realize that it's a dangerous precedent to mix toxins and people in a swampy bowl that will flood and mix the two together. It is only defensible because of the low housing costs, if you can consider that to be a defense. It's like the lesson from New Orleans that was learned was the wrong one--the lesson being that hurricanes and the resulting issues when they hit industrial sites that can release toxins only cause problems that happen to other people far away, because it'll never happen here.
(Score: 1) by cocaine overdose on Saturday March 24 2018, @03:18PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Saturday March 24 2018, @04:14PM
And that I agree with
(Score: 2, Interesting) by koick on Saturday March 24 2018, @05:08PM
Problem is when those lower prices to those individuals are offset by the payments of the greater community of tax/insurance payers when those individuals have massive health bills (like what may happen in this case) or when their whole community is turned into a superfund site. Because of this, shouldn't we (via government restrictions) have some say in limiting where people can call home, especially when we're funding someone's fourth home in a flood-plane or hurricane zone for example.