Thomas Simpson is certainly correct that we need to “look beyond tank cars to prevent tragedies like Lac-Megantic” (Another View, Aug. 31).

On the other hand, his industry’s decision that it was OK to divert tank cars designed to carry dairy products or other nonflammable liquids to moving potentially explosive oil seems to have been at least ill-considered and quite possibly reckless.

Another aspect of the tank car question, insufficiently discussed or commented on in the wake of Lac-Megantic, is the fact that a train with 72 oil-carrying tank cars and five engines was in the care of a one-person crew.

The only way that could possibly make sense is if the profit requirement outweighed risk considerations by a huge amount.

Finally, looking well beyond tank cars, the whole question of how oil is going to be moved must be thoughtfully considered. Many voices have been raised against pipelines and ports, for instance, but until an inappropriately loaded, undermanned train blew up a small town and killed 47 people, trains were apparently no problem.

Believe it – oil will be moved! Regulators and other experts must be looking at the larger picture and evaluating the risks and benefits for each possible method.

We need to give those people a hearing, get their input into working out solutions and understand that safety isn’t free and that no method of moving millions of gallons of flammable liquid is without risk.

Patricia Garrett

Portland


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.