The US authorities decision to burn the chemicals in Ohio was the worst they could do

There were only a few vagons of Vinil Chloride. The force of an explosion also depends on the total volume. When you release pressure, what is not known or poorly know is that the release is not instantenous in all the tank, its gradual. Theoretically and practically there would still be some pressure left in the tank. And as we see in the video there was some pressure left in the tank and a small explosion happened. With pressure it would have been bigger but not too big. People confuse pressure with the power of the chemical itself and with the total mass. Yes more pressure generates a more powerfull initial force as seen here: https://rumble.com/v291og8-explosion-bottles-gas-lpg.html but the total force depends on the nature of the chemical. In practical terms as you can see here with pressurised containers the risk is for a tank to fly up. Sure the tanks in these videos are of smaller mass but the pressure is higher so the initial force of explosion is actually higher. In the case of the Ohio disaster, the worse thing it could have happened under pressure was for the tank to explode and shoot up 20 metres or so then it would have come down. The total force of the explosion DOES depend on the total mass and the chemical didnt had a high total mass to like send a shockwave to the city, break windows, kill people, NO WAY. With an explosion, a natural one, the result would have been similar to what it is now. The thing is, the train had to be kept under pressure and EVACUATE THE AREA. And then what? Dump a large pile of Earth over it, evacuate the whole city, move the residents and thats it. The chemicals would have gone into the Earth sure and contaminate some local waters but thats it. This way the chemicals are much worse being burned and spread over a huge area with more people affected. So no, the decision to burn it was the WORST decision possible. And its stupid to think that with dangerous chemicals the ideea is to burn them, as a firefighter. No way. You can drop other chemicals over them to keep the compound stabilised. Then dump Earth so that even if there is an explosion the force would have been absorbed. Chemicals in Earth yes contaminate the local water supply but its LOCAL, limited to a few miles. Ultimately the chemicals are spilled more and more in Earth and neutralised (in a lot of years). Thats why we have zones where chemicals are dumped there and no one walks by. Where nuclear waste is stored. Sure in time the area could have been isolated with cement...for the chemicals to not be spilled after the "explosion threat" would have been neutralised. Take samples from local aqua reservoirs to see if the chemicals got to them and warn local people. In this scenario the effect would have only been local, not all the chemicals spilled over a large area. Its the most stupid decision ever, to burn the chemicals its the thing a real firefighter has to avoid AT ALL COSTS. Its like in every firefighter manual on what to do and what to not do.
A good way to detox from heavy metals and chemicals is this product, see more info here: https://dq271.isrefer.com/go/ENHANCE/AUL651/ Share Find ways to heal yourself using natural healing methods: https://t.me/HerbalismHealing
BREAKING: EPA releases manifest summarizing deadly chemicals that were released in East Palestine, Ohio:

- Three cars of Diethylene Glycol
- One car of Polypropyl Gylcol
- One car of Propylene Glycol
- Two cars of Polyethylene
- Two cars of Polyvinyl
- Five cars of Petroleum