Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

vahntitrio t1_jcnwp3q wrote

Reply to comment by AJ_De_Leon in Levels of carcinogenic chemical near Ohio derailment site far above safe limit by Additional-Force-795

Probably not. 1/r² principal probably applies. So levels will drop off very quickly with increasing distance. I couldn't find the distance they measured high levels at, but if they are only at ground zero the contamination is unlikely to spread more than a mile at harmful levels.

4

Gorgoth24 t1_jcot10z wrote

Inverse square doesn't work well for most ground contaminants. Rainfall tends to collect the contaminant back into streams and rivers then transport it downstream where concentration is based on different math. Initial concentration * e ^ (-1 * constant * time) where the constant varies per material is how it's typically simplified for point discharge. There are a variety of factors in a material that was concentrated, released in various forms, re-concentrated as runoff, then transported downstream as it settles.

My understanding is that decent modeling software exists but it takes time and money to get decent environmental engineers to do an analysis.

8

losterweil t1_jcqgkvw wrote

After contributing to this thread I went on a little research project… what I concluded is lawyers are only collecting people from a 30 mile radius. That’s about it. There is diddly squat besides that.

1

Gorgoth24 t1_jcqhz16 wrote

Expected profitability for a lawsuit probably follows inverse square math

2

losterweil t1_jcstesw wrote

You’re on the scent. I also have read a source(I don’t remember) which said contaminates most likely blew over 200 hundred miles.

1

iBlag t1_jcofx0o wrote

The 1/r^2 probably doesn’t apply due to many assumptions that don’t hold in this case.

6