More ongoing uncertainty in East Palestine

And issues with poor sampling and lack of toxicology data.

Edit: “information” was taken out of the title. I guess I left that in when making a last minute title swap.

Yesterday the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) held a press briefing on their preliminary data on the East Palestine train derailment.

I probably should have had it in my mind to be aware that the NTSB would not have any information about environmental agents released from the controlled fire (I’ll blame the abbreviation!).

Given that predicament, this post is intended to highlight some of the additional information I have found with respect to the ongoing East Palestine issue. Note that plenty of information is circulating around, including on social media apps such as Tik Tok which have added to the overarching issue of misinformation as it is driving clicks more than it is providing information. With that said, note that the information here should not be taken at face value. Some of the information (like with all information I present) should be taken with a bit of skepticism. Remember that this situation is rife with uncertainty, and any indication of certainty should be met with caution.

For the prior posts on East Palestine please refer to the following links:

• Vinyl Chloride and Part I of East Palestine

• Follow-up (note the comments on the vinyl chloride should be met with caution in this post. It was only after the article was nearly done did I realize that my assertions on the VC cloud may have been overblown)

• Was the fire worse than the leak (notes on dioxin)

• Available sample data so far (focusing on water sample data)

Here come the feds

Many reporters have made their way to East Palestine in the past few days, including journalists such as Savanah Hernandez who confronted Pete Buttigieg for not traveling to East Palestine until almost 20 days after the accident had occurred.

Savanah Hernandez @sav_says_

I confronted Pete Buttigieg once again on being 3 weeks later after he tried to dance around questions on slow federal response. I then asked if he thinks 1,000 train derailments per year was okay with him, since that was his initial response to the East Palestine derailment

Hernandez was also the journalist who tried confronting Buttigieg’s press secretary about the delayed arrival from the federal government, who was then asked by the press secretary that cameras be put away when asking her questions as it appeared “aggressive”.

Savanah Hernandez @sav_says_

I asked Sec. Buttigieg why it took him almost 3 weeks to come and speak to residents of East Palestine. His press Secretary then told me I was aggressive for trying to ask questions on camera:

Plenty of questions are still left to be answered, and unfortunately much of the attention may have been pulled away from the actual locals towards partisan issues such as railroad regulations.

Not to say that Savanah Hernandez is doing this— I think she’s right in asking why such a delayed response from the federal government has occurred with President Biden still having yet to arrive.

However, the arrival of Trump has certainly caused politicians and political pundits alike to point fingers even as many locals are left in the dark as to whether they can trust the water in their own homes or if their children can play outside given the unknown pollution of the soil and air.

What’s that smell?

Even as of now several people continue to report a strong chemical smell. Hernandez has apparently commented to friends that her skin began feeling irritated/burning when she arrived, with a strong chemical smell still present.

Reports of smells are important because they at least provide some profile for what may be in the air. Consider the smell of a ripe banana, freshly brewed coffee, or exhaust from a bus—in all cases the odor profile created comes from compounds released from these sources. Remember that smells have to be derived from somewhere.

In the same way the chemical smell persisting in East Palestine would have to be derived from something relating to the fire. Unfortunately, the big question is wondering what compounds in particular are contributing to the smell, and whether the compounds in question are toxic at the levels that they are able to be detected via olfactory senses.

That is probably one of the biggest questions not yet answered.

An article published yesterday on the Substack The Free Press provides an additional account from a local about a sweet smell that pervades the town, with the article having a rather apt title.

‘We Don’t Know What We Are Breathing’: A Report from East Palestine

Thus, what counts as a “chemical spell” remains ambiguous. Different compounds can smell completely different between individuals, but even with that being said it’s strange that no one has collected accounts of individuals to create an odorant profile.

And again, even at the point an odor becomes detectable one has to question whether the detectable levels are enough to cause harm. Vinyl chloride may be recognized as a sweet smell at ppms in the thousands, way above levels that would be considered toxic in humans after prolonged exposure.

And as reported previously, several other residents noted a smell akin to bleach. One plausible source could be hydrogen chloride which is known to be one of the main products from vinyl chloride combustion and has a low acute toxicity threshold. So was the bleach-like smell akin to hydrogen chloride in the early days of the fire? Unfortunately hydrogen chloride is easily ionizable so any test for this acute harm would rely on retrospective tissue and organ analyses for damage. The same occurs with phosgene exposure which may rely on chest X-rays for lung damage after the exposure.

But back to smells—in the EPA’s FAQ Sheet for the accident they make the following remarks about odors, which doesn’t help to assuage concerns. The document comes from Pennsylvania’s EPA. However, note that the derailment occurred less than a mile from the Pennsylvania border so the information is still pertinent.

What are these chemicals with “low odor thresholds”? Again, lots of unknowns here.

Sampling fumbles

When glossing over some of the sample data I made a note that some of the samples had air trapped within them which can cause issues with sample analysis.

However, I should have looked more closely into the reports as there appear to be more issues than what I initially reported on.

Fortunately, someone at The Huffington Post appeared to have done so, noting that there were several issues with the samples collected.

Article from The Huffington Post, sourced from MSN.

As reported in the article it was not only air that was an issue, but that some of the samples were not at the proper pH level (i.e. not acidic enough).

For instance, the final report from February 10th makes the following notes:

The method in particular here is due to differences in compound characteristics that may require different analytical approaches. That would get into the weeds of technicalities, and I’d rather not bore readers more than they may already be bored, but note that these issues can compromise analyses of the samples.

This issue seems to occur with the municipal water sources in particular. With the surface water tests there’s another issue with the sampling.

In order to figure out how much pollution has occurred in a given region one would have to have some baseline prior to the incidence to reference. If you want to know if butyl acrylate has leeched into the rivers then you’d want to know how much butyl acrylate there is to begin with.

But apparently this may not be the case with the surface water testing.

If you look at the map for water sample locations you’ll note that many of the background samples taken appear to be nearby water sample tests, such as the two sites below:

A zoomed-in portion of the surface water sample collection map. The two cites above indicate water sample regions, as well as a background region which may be considered nearby. If taken on the same day it raises questions as to whether the sample is an accurate background measure of organic compounds.

Blue is the water sample site while green is the background site. When looking at sample dates I couldn’t find any indication as to the timing of the background sample collection. However, the samples— if the surface level test information is to be believed— would suggest that all of the samples were collected on the same day.

If that was the case then it’d be hard to argue that background samples are actually representative of a proper background. Again, it’s possible that there are explanations to justify the background sampling that I have not come across, but if not then this does raise some concerning issues.

dioxin-specific testing may be needed?

Dioxin has become the hot-button compound, with many raising viable concerns over the extent of possible dioxin exposure to the East Palestine residents.

Remember that right now any claims of certainty over dioxin exposure are not possible—there’s no way of knowing how much dioxin would be produced due to the polyvinyl and other compounds located at the derailment site. Even when considering possible exposure to dioxin and other endocrine disruptors remember that we are all exposed to these polychlorinated hydrocarbon chemicals to some degree. We all use plastic in some way or another throughout our day and are thus exposed to these compounds. At the same time that the municipal water is being questioned for its safety many locals are drinking from plastic bottles which would no doubt contain phthalates and other endocrine disruptors.

Remember that many of the compounds found at the derailment site are used to make plastics, and so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that many of the locals may be exposed to compounds in plastic in the same way that we are typically exposed to them on a daily basis, only at a possibly much grander level (to which we still lack certainty).

So more important than just mere exposure to dioxin is the actual level of the exposure—it’s the dosage that makes the poison.

But then how much dioxin was present, if present at all?

I made mention that the GC/MS tests on surface water and municipal water did not appear to indicate dioxin, possibly due to sensitivity or lack of background. However, a more reasonable idea is that the methods used are not conducive to dioxin quantification. Again, more technical gibberish, but different methods of extraction/analysis would need to be used in order to quantify different compounds.

To that, special GC columns are likely needed in order to properly separate and quantify the dioxin, such as the one below provided by ThermoFisher Scientific:

Many labs may not be equipped to quantify dioxins or other organic compounds that may have been produced by the fire, either due to instrument limitations or through lack of accreditation and training for these specific methods of detection and quantification.

And so it’s the unfortunate circumstance that many toxic chemicals may not be quantified due to analytical limitations.

So far it appears that the message has been that everything is safe, but you can’t quite consider things safe if you don’t test for the things that are supposedly the causes for concern.

Soil and water continue to be questioned for their toxicity and the persistence of these “forever chemicals”, but if not detectable given the method limitations then there’s no way of arguing one way or another.

Strangely, the Ohio EPA website has made the following remark about the films of hydrocarbons found when disturbing water:

You have likely seen the videos of people stirring up the water in creeks and streams causing a sheen to form on the water. Some of the hydrocarbons from the initial fire bonded with sediments. Stirring stagnant sediment from any body of water has the potential to create a sheen. However, we are not seeing these contaminants in the water itself unless disturbed because they have bonded to the sediment. Sediment removal will be addressed as part of the longer-term cleanup from this event. 

Don’t worry East Palestine residents; the sediment is settled!

Air Monitoring Tests

Speaking of limitations in detection, the EPA has actually provided documents on their air monitoring, which I completely missed albeit linking to the website which actually has the documents on the side.

These documents on air quality can be found at this EPA link. The air monitoring includes real-time, 24-hour measures to detect for various compounds. Note that air monitoring is different than air sampling, with the former relying on electrical, routine monitoring of the air while the latter involves specific collection of air to test for more robust testing such as the surface water samples taken for GC/MS analysis.

As such, air monitoring isn’t as sensitive and provides a more narrow window of assessment.

To that, one EPA document notes that their air monitoring systems collected data on the following:

The phrase volatile organic compounds (VOCs) comes up quite often, and it’s an important reminder that this broad category doesn’t mean ALL volatile organic compounds. The compounds measured will always be limited by the testing method used, so don’t see VOCs and assume that every VOC possible is being picked up.

Interestingly, the document at least answers my concerns over detection of hydrogen chloride which is not an organic compound. It appears one of the air monitoring systems used can detect mineral acids such as hydrogen chloride.

The information here provides a window into the air quality both before and immediately after the controlled fire. A map of the air monitoring regions can be found here.

When it comes to air quality prior to the burning no compounds being tested were noticed aside from noticeable levels of particulates in the air (PM):

Strangely, the testing sites all fell outside of the 1-mile radius of the derailment (noted in the map from the above link). Also, note that many of the possible compounds such as phosgene and hydrogen chloride were not measured by many of the air monitoring systems, as noted by the grey boxes above. This could be due to the specific air monitoring system in question as some may only be able to detect specific compounds (they Honeywell SPM appears to measure both phosgene and HCl in particular).

Air monitoring data on the day of the fire noted a noticeable level of VOCs, hydrogen cyanide (HCN), and hydrogen chloride (HCl) at the designated sites, although the levels appear to be below the screening levels aside for HCN which appears at that threshold. Noticeably elevated levels of particulate matter were noted as well.

Unlike the pre-controlled fire burn there’s no indication as to what air monitors were where on the map provided, so there’s no way of corroborating the air measures relative to the site of the fire.

It’s interesting that HCN levels were elevated, which appear to have been overlooked as a possible concern. Monitoring in the days afterward don’t appear to note any detectable levels of HCN, but this does raise questions as to whether some people may have been exposed during the initial start of the fire to some level of HCN.

HCN gives off an odor akin to bitter almonds around a concentration of 1ppm, although many may not notice that smell at that concentration which may also be blocked out by the other chemicals being released by the fire.

More information on HCN can be found here.

So far several hundred residents have had their home monitored, and when trying to find any information on the actual testing done I couldn’t find anything aside from this image provided from a local resident Charlie Hutchens found in this Bloomberg article.

East Palestine resident Charlie Hutchens shows the results of an air monitoring test done in his home. The Bloomberg article notes that this test was done by the EPA, but this test was conducted by CTEH as noted by the logo in the top left. CTEH has come under scrutiny for their past testing methods and with many concerns being raised as to whether they may be serving private interest over the safety of the residents. Image from Bloomberg with photography credit given to Matthew Hatcher.

The image suggests that the air monitoring occurred over the course of 15 minutes. It’s hard to make out the exact time points on the left, but note that the only compounds monitored were VOCs, which were assumed to be under 0.1 ppm. There’s no indication as to what the VOCs being measured were, or how they were measured.

Supposedly, the remarks from Hutchens in the Bloomberg article may suggest that some sort of quick, real-time monitoring was done:

Hutchens also opted to get the in-home screening. “My wife got nervous about it,” he says. “She’ll feel better when she sees the results of the scans. And they were everywhere with all kinds of strange looking equipment doing a lot of ticking and humming. So they know what they are doing, they are professionals. Glad to have them here.”

It’s unfortunate that this remark by Hutchens is an example of the fallacy of authority. Just because people look professional does not mean they are professional. It’s not a good heuristic to rely upon when assessing a situation.

Where’s the toxicology data?

With the opening of the medical clinic one would hope that toxicology data is being collected.

Unfortunately, it appears that the medical clinic only served as a farce for an actual medical assessment, with many locals leaving disappointed with the clinic.

From CBS Pittsburgh

The CBS Pittsburgh article reports:

People were hoping to get answers. Instead, people who spoke with KDKA-TV's Erica Mokay said they left with the same questions they had and even more frustration. 

Resident Ted Murphy said he thought the clinic was a waste of time. 

"I wanna know what I sucked in and I thought that's what I was coming for here today, to do a chemical test and you get results. I got an evaluation," Ted Murphy said. 

Registered nurses and mental health specialists were at the clinic for people who have any medical questions or concerns. 

Matthew Stokes works near the derailment site and said he didn't see a doctor, "just some lady that asked me questions." 

The biggest problem is that many of the staff deployed are not likely to be knowledgeable on toxicology. The lack of information on what residents are being exposed to, what signs and symptoms may be representative of which compounds, and possible treatment options means that the medical clinic can only provide superficial answers.

If the safety of East Palestine residents is a true concern more efforts should be placed on actually profiling the locals and screening for toxic compounds, rather than arguing over partisan divides and regulations.

---

Substack is my main source of income and all support helps to support me in my daily life. If you enjoyed this post and other works please consider supporting me through a paid Substack subscription or through my Ko-fi. Any bit helps, and it encourages independent creators and journalists such as myself to provide work outside of the mainstream narrative.

Click on the image above or visit the website at https://ko-fi.com/moderndiscontent