there are quite a few analytical labs... if it were me i would contact one hundreds of miles away so they arent likely to be politicized and find out the pricing... or check with colleges to see if anyone could use your data in their thesis
Unfortunately, even with the testing done by the PACE lab which Norfolk requested the hundreds of compounds tested would likely cost in the thousands or tens of thousands. These sorts of tests can end up being super costly due to the instruments needed, and to top off the possibility of needing a special GC column to do the test then most labs would rather not conduct said tests.
The data above is based on what I have been able to scavenge so far. I made an assumption on the dioxin, however the document from PACE makes several comments about not being accredited for the methods needed for certain compounds and likely used different methods. This sort of analysis is highly technical but if the government were so certain that things are OK you would think they would do all of the testing possible rather than the bare minimum.
is there a list of what norfolk had tested? sorry if you posted it before... broke both wrists and keeping up is harder now... :(... friend sells those instruments and yes they are pricey .... everyone would have to go together or crowd source funding... if they do it when someone has a heart attack on the football field youd think they could be successful with this
The samples were collected by Norfolk and sent to a lab (PACE laboratories I believe) and their results of their GC/MS analysis are there. However, there were a few issues such as some samples having air and one not being at the right pH for the municipal water, so there's some issues in sample collection. The Ohio EPA and I believe the federal EPA are doing their own testing as well but the results haven't come out yet for that.
The air monitoring results above are derived from the EPA specifically I believe.
I think the biggest problem now is that the acute toxicity side is nearing its end and long-term toxicity and probable events in the coming years are what may be the biggest concern now. Unfortunately, as time passes it makes it more difficult to provide a causative role to the derailment unless nearly everyone in the town develops cancer or something else that can't be hard to overlook.
That's why the first few days are critical, and not nearly 3 weeks after the burn itself that people are now testing. Apparently the town hired independent analysts to test the waters and soil who may know what to test for...I think... I'm not sure and I'd have to see what their results provide as well.
But aside from all that I hope your wrists make a full recovery! Take care of yourself!
thank you!...my husband is an analytical chemist of many years and he just skimmed thru the pace report... if you want to know his opinion he's happy to talk...
Ah really? That's interesting! My analytical knowledge is based on one class and an analytical lab I was an RA in during college, which is why I was at least able to understand some of the methodology for the GC/MS.
However I've never seen a report so I was having trouble parsing the information. I was confused to the PQL, MDL, and the DF. However, I've taken them to refer to detection thresholds for each compound given the method used with MDL appearing to be the value used? So when a result falls below the MDL it's given as a "<MDL value" because the level was below the detection threshold while those that were above had the actual result value listed?
That's what my general confusion is, but if he has an opinion on some of the results that'd be interesting as well! If my assessment is correct then I'd be curious if he noticed that tons of vinyl chloride and n-butyl acrylate actually made it into the water... I noticed this more clearly when I looked at the Ohio EPA data and realized it was a bit too consistent for it to just be something related to detection parameters...
yes.. mdl is detection level so when it says less than that same number as mdl then there is no detectable amount or basically zero. practical quantitation limit... df is dilution factor.... as we continue on this backwardation into 3rd world mentality we are seeing less than excellent work done by the workers.. its sad that we will become cynics but maybe we have now learned to question everything ... in a couple places it says they did not have sufficient sample ... who collected this? a bit sloppy not to get enough and thats where the air mistake was made. epa work at first glance looks more promising but not as easy to read in that scrolling sidebar thing they have.
Are you referring to the ones from the tweet? It works for me, but Substack has this weird thing where if you embed a tweet and view it from the "viewer window" (not sure what it's exactly called) it won't let you view the video. You have to open it up the actual post.
When Substack did an update to their inbox to have articles open up in a separate window without opening the actual Substack it didn't allow for embedded Twitter videos to be seen, so you had to click on the article title and go to the actual page. Hopefully they fix it.
there are quite a few analytical labs... if it were me i would contact one hundreds of miles away so they arent likely to be politicized and find out the pricing... or check with colleges to see if anyone could use your data in their thesis
Unfortunately, even with the testing done by the PACE lab which Norfolk requested the hundreds of compounds tested would likely cost in the thousands or tens of thousands. These sorts of tests can end up being super costly due to the instruments needed, and to top off the possibility of needing a special GC column to do the test then most labs would rather not conduct said tests.
The data above is based on what I have been able to scavenge so far. I made an assumption on the dioxin, however the document from PACE makes several comments about not being accredited for the methods needed for certain compounds and likely used different methods. This sort of analysis is highly technical but if the government were so certain that things are OK you would think they would do all of the testing possible rather than the bare minimum.
is there a list of what norfolk had tested? sorry if you posted it before... broke both wrists and keeping up is harder now... :(... friend sells those instruments and yes they are pricey .... everyone would have to go together or crowd source funding... if they do it when someone has a heart attack on the football field youd think they could be successful with this
Sorry about the broken wrists! No worries I don't mind being asked.
The post prior to this one had information on 3 surface water tests and 2 municipal water tests (i.e. they tested water inside 2 people's homes).
https://moderndiscontent.substack.com/p/east-palestine-sample-data-so-far
The samples were collected by Norfolk and sent to a lab (PACE laboratories I believe) and their results of their GC/MS analysis are there. However, there were a few issues such as some samples having air and one not being at the right pH for the municipal water, so there's some issues in sample collection. The Ohio EPA and I believe the federal EPA are doing their own testing as well but the results haven't come out yet for that.
The air monitoring results above are derived from the EPA specifically I believe.
I think the biggest problem now is that the acute toxicity side is nearing its end and long-term toxicity and probable events in the coming years are what may be the biggest concern now. Unfortunately, as time passes it makes it more difficult to provide a causative role to the derailment unless nearly everyone in the town develops cancer or something else that can't be hard to overlook.
That's why the first few days are critical, and not nearly 3 weeks after the burn itself that people are now testing. Apparently the town hired independent analysts to test the waters and soil who may know what to test for...I think... I'm not sure and I'd have to see what their results provide as well.
But aside from all that I hope your wrists make a full recovery! Take care of yourself!
thank you!...my husband is an analytical chemist of many years and he just skimmed thru the pace report... if you want to know his opinion he's happy to talk...
Ah really? That's interesting! My analytical knowledge is based on one class and an analytical lab I was an RA in during college, which is why I was at least able to understand some of the methodology for the GC/MS.
However I've never seen a report so I was having trouble parsing the information. I was confused to the PQL, MDL, and the DF. However, I've taken them to refer to detection thresholds for each compound given the method used with MDL appearing to be the value used? So when a result falls below the MDL it's given as a "<MDL value" because the level was below the detection threshold while those that were above had the actual result value listed?
That's what my general confusion is, but if he has an opinion on some of the results that'd be interesting as well! If my assessment is correct then I'd be curious if he noticed that tons of vinyl chloride and n-butyl acrylate actually made it into the water... I noticed this more clearly when I looked at the Ohio EPA data and realized it was a bit too consistent for it to just be something related to detection parameters...
yes.. mdl is detection level so when it says less than that same number as mdl then there is no detectable amount or basically zero. practical quantitation limit... df is dilution factor.... as we continue on this backwardation into 3rd world mentality we are seeing less than excellent work done by the workers.. its sad that we will become cynics but maybe we have now learned to question everything ... in a couple places it says they did not have sufficient sample ... who collected this? a bit sloppy not to get enough and thats where the air mistake was made. epa work at first glance looks more promising but not as easy to read in that scrolling sidebar thing they have.
Are you referring to the ones from the tweet? It works for me, but Substack has this weird thing where if you embed a tweet and view it from the "viewer window" (not sure what it's exactly called) it won't let you view the video. You have to open it up the actual post.
When Substack did an update to their inbox to have articles open up in a separate window without opening the actual Substack it didn't allow for embedded Twitter videos to be seen, so you had to click on the article title and go to the actual page. Hopefully they fix it.