Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

tak18 t1_j8s8a3t wrote

I do agree but it's good to get different viewpoints. Both sources are using different modeling, similar to hurricane tracking or other weather events.

What is most interesting now is that NOAA figure has been removed from the article. I'm curious as to why. And I have not seen any other articles that don't focus on anything but the vicinity of the burn site. Really strange how little is being covered on this, but I suppose I'm not surprised.

1

DigTreasure t1_j8s9x9e wrote

Because the rail and chemicals are owned by vanguard which has enormous share stakes in media outlets.

1

Zealousideal-Face946 t1_j8x4qf3 wrote

All the corruption rearing its ugly head. Where's all the ground reporters live at the scene? Scared and far away but it's ok to live there and drink the water.

1