well the top spilled 9,700 barrels which took 12 days to repair, the 7th largest in-land spill in the US, with 0 dead 0 injuries. The oil was removed, the topsoil was replaced and reseeded and the leak did about $10 million in damages.
the bottom spilled 38,000 barrels. Its been 5 years and its not rebuilt. It killed 47 people, made 169 homeless, completely destroyed 57,000 square metres of town, left 558,000 metric tonnes of soil contaminated, contaminated the waterways and was not able to be cleaned up.

also
https://forward.com/fast-forward/421107/circumcision-democratic-presidential-candidate-2020-andrew-yang/

"Gee, how can I get in on this hawt anti-semitism trend"

Her district is actually full of people like herself: lounge socialists, young entitled millenials, people trying to ride on the identity politics train despite growing up with plenty of privilege. And the hispanic population in her district, which has seen explosive growth in recent years, surely likes her vocal opposition to the wall, ICE and so on.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 19 2019 02:41pm

An oil spill in a town causes more destruction than one in the middle of nowhere. Not really surprising tbh.

I'm not saying you're generally wrong, but the example you're citing here doesnt prove it.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 19 2019 02:39pm

I would like to see some sort of further information or verification for this. Most of what I can find is state-wide polling such as this: https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/16/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-polls-like-trump-poll-of-the-week/index.html

Would you be able/willing to clarify her district? I mean, 691K people is a lot of people. I can't really imagine that many people being socialists in one tiny confined space in upstate New York...

that's where the train tracks are.
Its pretty well established that rail disasters have far more destructive maximum events.

What do you mean, upstate new york? Her district lies in the Bronx and covers parts of Queens:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_14th_congressional_district



So, say we compare a pipeline oil spill taking place in a town with a freight train which was derailed in the middle of nowhere - which one will cause more destruction?

I agree with you that pipelines are a better idea than trains as long as the pipeline is monitored and maintained with enough care. But your example is still dubious.
The differences between various means of oil transportation pale in comparison to the difference in impact of accidents happening in densely populated urban places versus unpopulated wasteland.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 19 2019 02:56pm

but thats kind of like, the point. Rail advocates point to the difficulties of cleaning up remote oil spills on pipelines, but proximity to civilization on rail is more destructive. But seeing as pipeline accounts for 25x as much transit, if rail wanted to actually replace it- even though the costs are obviously prohibitive- the tracks would have to be built remote, mooting the issue. But even in that hypothetical, rail has a habit of catastrophic explosive failure whereas pipelines generally just uh, spill.

Ink was citing CRS numbers on the relative rates of volumes of spills per billion-ton-miles between the two transport methods, but that same study pointed out how volume is irrelevant, what actually matters is where the oil spills and how destructive it is when it does. If pipelines are built relatively failsafe and cleaned up tidily, that's a marked difference from holy-shit-a-flaming-death-ball-just-exploded-with-the-force-of-a-fucking-miniature-nuclear-bomb


fact is, pipeline is the safest way to transport oil. The #1 knock against pipelines is their vulnerability to malicious actors and failure during times of social strife. Just look at whats happening in Mexico right now when the cartels are tapping into pipelines and stealing oil, and the locals are on their side because a gallon of crude is worth more than they make in a month. And then the next thing you know, 100+ people are fucking burning to death
you wanna take on a train, you have to go old west.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Mar 19 2019 03:08pm

I don't understand what you're saying. Her district is NYC and upstate NY: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstate_New_York#/media/File:Map_of_New_York_Highlighting_New_York_City.svg

Regardless, do you have any actual data to support your claim?

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Mar 19 2019 03:16pm

"upstate new york" refers to the parts of new york state which lie outside of new york city. you were saying " I can't really imagine that many people being socialists in one tiny confined space in upstate New York..."



I have some indirect data:

https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/politics/campaigns-elections/gentrification-younger-voters-ocasio-cortez-crowley-biaggi-patel-nixon-incumbents

"At first, it was assumed that demographic turnover in his district, which spans northwestern Queens and the northeastern Bronx, had harmed Crowley, as the Italian and Irish populations have been supplanted by Latinos and Asians.

Demographic turnover was indeed to blame for Crowley’s loss, but not the kind that was widely assumed. But some of the election districts in which Ocasio-Cortez performed best were in mostly white neighborhoods in western Queens. The congressman fell victim to gentrification and that force may upend expectations in Democratic primaries throughout Manhattan and western Brooklyn and Queens. And the rise of younger voters who are newer to their districts and unattached to incumbents could power insurgent candidates throughout New York City."


"David Shor, senior data scientist at Civis Analytics, a data analytics firm, compiled data showing that younger voters in majority-white districts turned out in high numbers for Ocasio-Cortez."


"However, Shor noted that Ocasio-Cortez generally received at least 30 to 45 percent of the vote in black, Hispanic and Asian precincts. Race may also be less of a predictor for how a person votes than age. “When I was looking at Latino precincts, there was variance in terms of how (Ocasio-Cortez) did, and the biggest predictor we saw was that she did a lot better in the newer, more-mobile Latino neighborhoods than in the older and more established ones,” said Shor. For example, in East Elmhurst, which has a longstanding Latino population, Crowley received more votes. In neighborhoods where a greater share of voters had moved in recently – and therefore didn’t have a relationship with the incumbent – and had fewer people in their households on average, Ocasio-Cortez performed better across racial lines. In white precincts, the relationship between youth and voting for Ocasio-Cortez was incredibly strong."






She did best in electoral districts with many newly arrived residents, and EDs with particularly young voters, and EDs with particularly strong gentrification (this type of area is typically predominantly white).


Another interesting read:
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/06/ocasio-cortez-won-by-fusing-identity-politics-with-populism.html?gtm=bottom&gtm=top

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 19 2019 03:41pm