My career has been in CWA/SDWA/RCRA analyses. The reason I brought up EPAMethod 624.1 is that there is a requirement for the sample to be heated during analysis to 80C. The analysis gets tricky if the sample is preserved to pH<2 (it hydrolyzes and would give low bias on the results).

The PQLs for SVOCs are a different matter. They are higher than I would expect for storm water given the advances in technology available. I can think of several commercial labs that could achieve much lower limits, which would be more protective. And there are 3 different sites. Two have very low PQLs (the lowest verifiable concentration, usually the lowest standard in the calibration curves), but site 2 has much higher elevated PQLs. That leads me to believe they didn’t collect enough sample (a liter is required for SVOCs, whereas 40mL is required for VOCs). I assume the DRO/GRO/ORO are from the fuel spill of the train itself and not one of the cars.

How is this ethical?

[removed]

There were quite a few hits above the risk standards they referenced in surface water, but they seem to be localized to the immediate area near the spill. 1,4-Dioxane is typically found with chemicals like VC and TCE as an additive, so that isn't too surprising. Given that I am not so sure on the 8270, what SVOCs would you expect here? VC doesn't really degrade into anything I can think of on the SVOCs list, I could be wrong though. I don't really know what you mean by the 624.1 comment, that is for GC/MS laboratory analysis typically. I am not an expert in everything though, so if you would like to expand it may be helpful for everyone.

Look up Times Beach, Missouri

That’s some questionable numbers on the surface waters. A lot of J-flags, especially on compounds like Phenol. 8270-SIM could get better results on the SVOCs. I saw a hit for 1,4-dioxane too. Fascinating. I’d love to know if they used a heated purge, since that’s a requirement for 624.1.

What would you say is the greatest threat or plausible scenario?

If you could de-extinct 1 animal b/c of it's contribution to the environment which would it be? If you could de-extinct 1 just for coolness which would it be?

And if you could de-extinct one but wouldn't b/c it knows what it did, which would it be?

What would you say was the worst chemical spill known? What did it consist of?

[removed]

Have you studied about the Santa Susan Field Laboratory (old Rocketdyne facility) meltdown near Simi Valley CA that continues today to contaminate the area and it’s people with radiation? Would love to understand what you found.

Nvmd - I just realized my question is stupid.

Thanks for this! I have three quite general questions: What methods do you use and what data do you collect to study this?

How does thresholds of catastrophe differ to the planetary boundaries framework?

Can you share your paper on the speed of change and associated volcanoes?

Burning hazardous material is almost always a bad idea if it is uncontrolled. In controlled environments such as a flare or incinerator the risks are minimal. If they implemented the proper controls (e.g. air monitoring, evacuation, proper PPE) it can be a useful tool to prevent a worse outcome (e.g. a chemical explosion). I don't know the exact circumstances under which they had to make that decision but it should have been their last resort. If it comes out that there was a safer way and they just did it to save money or avoid rail line closure times, then that's pretty shitty and it potentially exposed the workers and nearby residents to hazardous chemicals for profit reasons.

Was burning the Vinyl Chloride a good or bad idea?

It’s cheaper than the alternative at 10x the cost.

As long as we mobilize to get people to work for free and we can set up that many systems in a timely manner, we can achieve it. But in reality it will take a few million to even come up with a plan and then several more billion to implement it before we can spend the half a trillion to actually do anything.

I understand that the Bronze Age collapse is often attributed, in parts, to environmental disruptions. Which other collapse events in history would you attribute to climate change? When comparing these societies, do you see common strategies that perpetuated the collapse?

Half a trillion dollars, bargain!

Estimated 14 trillion dollar cost of sea level rise if we don’t get the climate under control.

Thanks for the detail and perspective.

That's one aspect that seems striking that you touched on. The market is definitely hot with inflation, causing a lot of uncertainty, but the layoffs just do not make sense and appear to be a large overreaction that doesn't match the market.

Yiken (Certified) *is* my fave song from Priceless Da ROC!!

-DNS

Thanks for answering and the links

The ozone depletion was largely caused by CFCs. The reason the ozone is healing is a massive worldwide effort to cut the use of CFCs called “the Montreal protocol.“

I’m not sure why you’re bringing deforestation into this. Deforestation is bad, we should stop that too.

Hey! This is a pretty big question. There are a few main factors fueling these layoffs, but the driving factor is that companies are trying to recover from their pandemic-fueled hiring sprees.

During the pandemic, tech companies were seen as way more valuable (on the stock market, with record-high prices) due to the sudden, virtual nature of everything. But now that people are increasingly in-person, their stock values (and thus their company values too) have gone down.

When things were really good at tech companies, they were paying top dollar for talent and staffing up at ridiculous rates. But they grew too much too quickly, so many are now downsizing.

But! Here’s the plot-twist — do these massive companies actually need to lay people off to become profitable? Probably not. But these massive cuts appease investors who are getting nervous about their investments not making them as much money.

To be ultra-clear, companies are still profiting. They’re just not profiting as much as Wall Street would like. So when one company is making cuts, it’s easier for other companies to justify doing so too.

Headcount change versus stock price change is a pretty good indicator btw of possibly predicting whether a company might cut headcount. I made this chart last year, but it remains a relevant metric: https://www.businessinsider.com/chart-shows-most-unsustainable-tech-company-compensation-plans-rsus-equity-2022-5?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=IAmA-comment

-DNS

Thanks for the answer. I hadn't thought so much about materials. In theory, could wood be used a lot more than it is? I know nothing, yet seems strange why timber can be so expensive.

What role can AI play in tackling climate change?