Stringent regulations could have prevented Ohio train derailment

Photo courtesy of Linda Thomas via Public Domain Pictures.

The 2023 train derailment that took place in East Palestine, Ohio, nods to how lack of federal regulation in railroad industries impacts communities.

By Silas Gemma ’26

Opinion Editor

The catastrophic Feb. 3 train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, has led to concern, uncertainty and rage as a host of highly toxic chemicals were released from the combustion of the cars. Residents and outside observers alike have voiced their preoccupations about the immediate and unknown long-term health effects of exposure to these substances. Many cite a lack of coordinated and accurate measures by government and environmental agencies to test for levels of the compounds in the air, water and soil. The wider online conversation between organizations, experts and citizens has incited calls for structural changes in the railroad industry and its government oversight. Ultimately, resistance against business regulation can be implicated in this disaster, as fewer safety measures were mandated and less oversight was provided to ensure the proper functioning of the train.

An article by The Washington Post explains that a train belonging to the railroad company Norfolk Southern derailed at approximately 9:00 p.m. on Feb. 3 in the Pennsylvania-Ohio border town of East Palestine, igniting a massive fire that engulfed the remainder of its cars, generating massive plumes of chemical-laden smoke. The same article explains that a security camera captured sparks underneath one of the cars 20 miles west of the derailment site, a foreboding sign of what would ultimately occur. Weeks after the derailment, residents, scientists and government officials are still trying to ascertain what happened, what chemicals were released and whether the residents have been, or are still being, exposed to toxic substances. 

A Feb. 21 Stat News article by Jill Neimark explains that much of the immediate aftermath of the derailment, particularly the citizens’ possible exposure to concentrated levels of toxic substances, remains unknown. Although an Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Michael Regan, gave a statement on Feb. 16 trying to placate the residents’ fears and assure them of the safety of the surrounding environment, many remain concerned. Neimark draws from statements by American University chemist Matt Hartings to remark that “air monitoring right now doesn’t answer questions about acute exposure that first night after the train derailment and the following day,” adding that the low temperature could be attributed to keeping the toxins lower to the ground throughout the first evening. These concerns are supported by Harting’s comments that vinyl chloride, one of the primary substances of concern, has a short half-life. In other words, the concentration of vinyl chloride in the air likely plummeted as time went by, but the initial concentration of it before tests were undertaken may never be known. This complicates the ability of scientists to forecast exactly what long-term effects residents may experience.

One of the primary efforts undertaken in the aftermath of this catastrophe has been to determine and record the substances generated and emitted not only immediately after the derailment, but also during the process of diffusion. Vinyl chloride has been a widespread concern because, as Neimark explains in the same article, it can decompose into other substances that pose health risks, such as hydrogen chloride and phosgene. The Washington Post article adds that two days after the disaster, there was a “controlled release of vinyl chloride,” coupled with a mandatory evacuation, due to concerns about a possible explosion. Neimark cites the National Cancer Institute to state that long-term exposure to vinyl chloride is associated with various forms of cancer, including leukemia and neurological cancers. The correlation between exposure to these substances and such chronic, sometimes lethal ailments necessitates a more thorough analysis of the initial and continuing environmental conditions. 

The continuing uncertainty as to the chemical composition of the air and soil raises concerns as to whether the residents are still being exposed to substances that may have chronic health implications. Neimark cites an Ideastream Public Media article to point to the EPA’s claims that there is a lack of evidence that toxins are present in dangerous amounts in the area. This article, published two weeks after the derailment, confirms the EPA’s statements that throughout the testing of 480 houses in the area, neither the presence of hydrogen chloride nor vinyl chloride has been indicated. The same article cites additional comments by the EPA that tests of the water have not detected hazardous substances, although the Ohio Department of Health still advised residents to drink bottled water at the time of the article’s publication on Feb. 17. An EPA article demarcating the timeline of its response to the disaster confirms that, as of Feb. 20, over 550 homes had been tested “with no exceedances for residential air quality standards.” An update to this timeline on Feb. 21 announced that the EPA ordered Norfolk Southern to bear all of the costs of the disaster it is responsible for and oversee restoration efforts, which will include the clean-up of local homes and businesses. While this represents substantive action on the part of the EPA, it is also important to consider ways in which they have been negligent in their management of this crisis, particularly in relation to their testing procedures. 

Although government agencies have tried to assuage local residents’ fears, some continue to present symptoms indicating a continued presence of toxins. Despite the EPA’s claims, there is evidence that their testing has not been thorough or comprehensive. A Vox article by Jariel Arvin states that much of the equipment they are using is not sensitive enough to detect low levels of these substances that could still possibly have grave long-term impacts. Neimark lists other chemicals that the train was carrying, such as butyl acrylate, ethylene glycol, isobutylene, ethylhexyl acrylate and benzene, that could lead to symptoms including nausea, dizziness, vomiting and skin irritation. A major concern, however, is the possible existence of dioxins, compounds emitted when polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, which was present on the train, combusts. Neimark highlights these dioxins because the EPA has not yet tested for them, and a train derailment in Germany in 2000 involving PVC yielded high concentrations of these highly carcinogenic compounds. Additional concerns have been raised about PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl substances, because of their resistance to natural decomposition. Evidently, the testing being conducted cannot ensure the absence of all possible dangerous chemicals in the air, water or soil. The reassuring statements by government agencies are based on limited testing and may not truly reflect the safety of the environment, creating a need for more granular and targeted testing. 

Immediate panic has spawned growing outrage at the lack of regulation enjoyed by Norfolk Southern and the railroad industry as a whole. This debate about railroad regulation, associated legislation and lobbying groups has translated into a partisan debate, with Republicans and Democrats placing reciprocal blame. Arvin explains that Democrats, particularly the Biden Administration’s Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, look to the Trump Administration’s rollback of Obama-era policies that mandated more effective braking systems for trains transporting hazardous substances. In particular, Electronically Controlled Pneumatic, or ECP brakes have been proposed as effective preventative technology for disasters such as this one, as they can drastically reduce braking times. The Stat News article adds that the hydraulic brakes currently used may amplify the danger of derailments, as the derailment of one car can incite a domino effect, veering the entire train off the track. Meanwhile, as the Guardian article mentions, Republicans such as Ted Cruz (TX-R) have suggested the lack of expeditious action by people such as Buttigieg as evidence of the shortcomings of Democrats in the response. The political norm of deflecting and placing blame on opposing parties continues even in the midst of a potentially life-threatening event, reflecting the precedence political agency is given over the health of constituents. 

Other underlying structural issues in the railroad industry, or more specifically Norfolk Southern, can be attributed to the risk factors of this incident. As per a Guardian article, Senator Sherrod Brown (D) of Ohio has been particularly vehement in calling out the culpability of Norfolk Southern in this disaster, citing its recent widespread lay-off of workers to reduce costs. An article by The Independent elaborates upon this, pointing out the elevated risk of the precision scheduled railroading approach used by Norfolk Southern. According to this article, this strategy entails increasing the number of cars on each train, with the weight of the cargo often disproportionately distributed. It may also include less monitoring by employees. The railroad industry is willing to risk grave environmental disasters that put the lives of people and animals at risk for the prospect of ever-increasing revenues, representing a danger that often comes with monopolistic firms’ placement of profits over safety.

Over three weeks after the disastrous train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, residents and politicians are still seeking answers as to the potential chronic health and environmental impacts of the chemicals emitted, as well as the causes of the crash. Underlying issues of corporate lobbying groups and anti-regulation policies have politicized an issue that is truly about serving and ensuring the safety of communities. In the aftermath of this disaster, we must consider the role of monopolistic business practices both in the endangerment of citizens and communities, as well as the accumulation of wealth for corporate figures. We must resist the lack of corporate regulation that allows businesses to amass revenue by circumventing practices essential for safety.

The fight for trans rights and bodily autonomy cannot be decoupled

The recent surge of anti-trans legislation, championed especially by extremist right-wing politics, is a direct attack on reproductive and racial rights. Photo courtesy of Ted Eytan via Flickr.

By Silas Gemma ’26

Staff Writer 

Content warning: This article discusses transphobia.

There has been an unparalleled number of proposed anti-transgender legislation within the United States, particularly within state legislatures, over the past few years. As an NPR article states, in conservative states, hundreds of bills have been proposed on familiar premises: banning trans people from using the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity, prohibiting gender-affirming care for youth, restricting trans participation in school sports as well as making changes in school curricula to exclude discussions surrounding gender identity and sexuality. The propagation of anti-trans rhetoric and its translation into legislative actions represent not only the influence of extremist right-wing political thought on policymaking, but also the inextricable link between transgender rights and other social justice issues such as reproductive and racial justice. Ultimately, the fight for transgender rights is one of bodily autonomy, especially pertinent after the landmark overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court last year. 

The sheer magnitude of proposed anti-trans legislation complicates successful cataloging and processing of it. A New York Times article lays out anti-trans ideas that come up repeatedly in rhetoric and legislation, such as the supposed connection of drag shows and trans-inclusive curricula with grooming.

 Legislation proposed in Oklahoma within the last few months highlights a particular anti-trans idea: bans on gender-affirming care as a form of saviorism. Jim Olsen, an Oklahoma state representative, sponsored a bill proposing a gender-affirming care ban for transgender individuals up to age 21. In another New York Times article, Olsen expressed his concern: “the desire [of the proposed bill] is simply to protect young people from choices that later on in their life … some of them will grow to regret.” This idea that young people should not be able to make gender-related healthcare decisions because they are still developing is unfounded. The same article states that principal medical associations, such as the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, reject these claims of protection in favor of empirically based evidence that gender-affirming care is beneficial. Arguments in opposition to trans or abortion care often shun science in favor of personal religion or ingrained views.

An Aug. 1, 2022, article by the American Prospect affirms the mental health benefits of gender-affirming care by tracing the connections between transgender rights, abortion rights and bodily autonomy. The authors confirm that anti-trans and anti-abortion movements often coincide geopolitically, as “twenty-five of the 26 states certain or likely to ban abortion have also introduced anti-transgender legislation in the past two years.” The article points out that far-right religious bodies of thought often buttress both anti-trans and anti-abortion discourse. Additionally, the article highlights the importance of reproductive clinics for transgender people, as they often do not have any other place to turn to for care. Thus, the attack on abortion is inherently an attack on trans bodily autonomy. 

Far-right religious ideologies have long been the scaffolding for conservative opposition to critical social justice issues. A PBS article by Kate Sosin outlines how garnering the support of far-right evangelicals has been essential for conservative politicians to boost their success rates at the polls. She states that figures such as Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan and conservative political thinker Paul Weyrich all found success in honing in on the concerns of extremist evangelicals to incite and propagate vitriol and promote voter turnout. Yet Sosin underscores a key consideration: far-right evangelicals are a significant minority in the electorate, including the conservative electorate. She cites author Chris Bull as she mentions that “Republican lawmakers have abandoned 80 percent of their voters to cater to a sliver of their voters.” Nonetheless, the disproportionately high turnout of evangelicals legitimizes their power as a voting bloc, despite their smaller size relative to the rest of the electorate. The litany of anti-trans and anti-abortion legislation exemplifies the tangible implications of such an influential voting group.

As the wave of anti-trans legislation continues to gain strength, new bills with more radical foundations have begun to emerge. A Vanity Fair article by Bess Levin points out that bills aiming to ban medical interventions, such as hormone replacement therapy or surgeries, have traditionally been targeted at youth. However, a proposed piece of legislation in Oklahoma has been gaining attention and stoking outrage among LGBTQ+, trans and social justice circles. Levin reports that within days of the start of 2023, Oklahoma state senator David Bullard proposed a bill that would unequivocally prohibit gender-affirming care for anyone under the age of 26. This additionally includes a medical license rescission for any healthcare professional who, as the bill quaintly puts it, engages in “unprofessional conduct.” An ABC article adds that this includes not only providing gender-affirming care but also recommending or referring patients to gender-affirming providers or resources. The article additionally mentions the coincidence of this legislation with the aforementioned Oklahoma bill sponsored by Jim Olsen, multiplying the backlash from trans rights advocates. 

Although the unceasing bills compound trauma for the trans community, it is important to remember the indefatigable resistance posed by trans leaders, advocates and allies. Although a state may be branded along political lines based on its governor or the majority party of its legislature, the recent protest in the Oklahoma State Capitol by trans rights activists poses a strong rebuke to this reductive thought. An LGBTQ Nation article reports that “around 150 protesters” gathered in the building on February 6 of this year in defense of trans rights and in fervent opposition to the two recent bills in the state aimed at restricting trans care. This strong front of resistance not only represents the power of collective action, but also the existence of trans communities within “red” states and their unfettered fight for their rights under a government that denies their humanity. 

The battery of anti-trans legislation brought forth every week in the U.S. is yet another manifestation of the imposing influence of extremist right-wing political figures, think tanks, organizations and theories. The proposal and enactment of anti-trans legislation exhibits a blatant attack on the human rights of trans people, including their ability to make their own choices about their bodies and the medical care they receive. In this manner, conservative political figures seek to codify their extremist religious thoughts in a nation founded on the premise of the division between Church and State. However, their attempts to deny trans existence will only be met with unceasing resistance and a commitment to trans liberation and joy.