When supposition derails fact-finding, in East Palestine and beyond
The cleanup continues Feb. 24 at the site of a freight train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, that triggered a hazardous spill and controlled burn of toxic chemicals. Credit: AP/Matt Freed
More and more, it seems, we view public-safety problems through the distortive lens of prepackaged politics. Anyone who’s honestly interested in learning facts and considering solutions must listen past the noise amplified in our self-selected media ecosystems.
There is no firm indication, for example, that Trump-era deregulations caused last month’s Ohio train derailment that triggered a fearsome hazardous spill and controlled burn of toxic chemicals.
Not that it was proved a good idea for the former GOP White House to repeal a rule requiring upgraded braking systems for high-hazard flammable trains.
There is also no clear case that the Biden administration has ignored the developing health, safety and emergency needs of affected residents in East Palestine — or that a host of federal agencies weren’t fully responding to the accident.
And that doesn’t mean the Democratic White House didn’t blunder politically by waiting a full two weeks to have a cabinet-level official, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, appear on the scene.
Sorry, partisan propagandists. Evaluating public responses will have its ambiguities.
Federal investigators have not all agreed that the COVID-19 virus came from a lab leak in Wuhan, China. The most recent news is that fragmentary analysis from some officials leans further in that direction than earlier thought.
This is a probe without access to information that may be held by a distrusted authoritarian government. That in itself does not confirm or rule out our darkest suspicions. But some politicians and would-be influencers are clearly pushing for a certain outcome and would attack another finding as a cover-up.
This week, the Energy Department indeed decided to its satisfaction that an accidental laboratory leak in China most likely caused the pandemic.
But other intelligence-gathering agencies aren’t buying in just yet. Officials say the Energy Department’s conclusion was made with “low confidence.” Some reputable scientists still say it looks like the virus was transmitted from an animal to people, most likely in a market in Wuhan. The facts are unclear.
Skepticism makes sense. The news media and public should question the completeness and focus of a government investigation, and whether all relevant questions are being answered. What’s foolish is jumping to conclusions based purely on doubts. We don’t know what we don’t know, especially in a case like this.
The efficacy of masks in fighting COVID-19 is a topic dishearteningly politicized by people’s dug-in feelings.
The journal Cochrane Review came out last week with a study that suggested that masks probably made little difference in the pandemic. But the text carried one huge disclaimer: "The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect.”
In other words, they couldn’t be completely sure.
Political spin and ideology have a way of manipulatively filling in what is factually unknown.
That’s why it takes looking through a fog of internet-driven “theories” and occult “inquiries” to get at what public officials should do in a public-safety crisis.
We never know what we don’t know, but there are educated guesses and sensible strategies on which to base difficult decisions. The current “with-us-or-against-us” partisan split in public dialogue — especially on these technical and safety issues — only undermines important policy.
Columnist Dan Janison's opinions are his own.
Dan Janison is a member of the Newsday editorial board.
