Talk:2014 Elk River chemical spill

Errors

Errors in the health section. Reference [9] is linked to the wrong chemical. Completely different chemical with different CAS#. The correct SDS from Eastman Chemical (producer of the chemical used in this leak) is found at: http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wvpn/files/201401/MSDS-MCHM_I140109214955.pdf

64.135.237.40 (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your attention to this. I've made the necessary corrections in the prose, and I've incorporated the Eastman material safety data sheet as an internally-cited source. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Freedom industries chemical spill

I can't say for 100% but in 1992 I would suspect he was working for Ellis and Everard. In the late 90's he became president of HVC Chemical Company located in the Cincinnati area. Around 2000-2001 VWR bought out Ellis and Everard. Later the name changed to Univar. Gary left the company in the late 2000 or early 2010. Gary southern did not found freedom industries in 1992. 67.216.148.82 (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• According to the cited source, it was. If there is another source with additional information, please identify it and share it here. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Gutman, David (January 10, 2014). "Freedom Industries execs are longtime colleagues". The Charleston Gazette. Retrieved January 10, 2014.

Why is there no link to an entry for Freedom Industries itself? Is it true this company is largely owned/controlled by the Koch brothers?Amyzex (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• An article for Freedom Industries hasn't been created yet, and because the company's section in this article provides an extensive background, a user redirected "Freedom Industries" to this article. Freedom Industries is a distributor of chemicals to Georgia-Pacific, a company in turn owned by Koch Industries. Freedom Industries itself is not a subsidiary of Koch Industries. -- Caponer (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Also, Freedom Industries by itself is not notable. The company's claim to fame for a Wikipedia article would be this chemical spill, so it is appropriate that Freedom Industries redirects here until the company does something else noteworthy. -- Caponer (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I see freedom industries has filed chap 11, [1]; [2] worth a mention?

wow, owes back taxes. when the corporate paper shield is this tangled, it makes you wonder what bug will be under the rock. interesting challenge for WV, pierce the corporate veil? Duckduckstop (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems like it rises to the point of having its own article now, considering it's getting more and more press. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I am new to this and uncomfortable to make changes. There is more information on the suit. Wsmurdoch (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Koch Industries?

Is it relevant to list Koch Industries as the owner of Georgia-Pacific? G-P is not said to be parent of Freedom Industries, and Eastman Chemical Company is said to be the source of the chemical that was released. The Koch name has certainly become politically-charged, but is it relevant here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.115.210 (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I concur--it does seem a bit out of place for that paragraph and is not relevant to the spill's background. Thank you for the catch! -- Caponer (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no wikipedia entry on FI, the documented affiliation can be mentioned. The larger picture includes regulations - which outcome might have contributed to the incident, though that is not within the scope of this entry. http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/01/koch-connection-west-virginia-chemical-spill-company/ Prokaryotes (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Prokaryotes, I appreciate your attention to this article, however, the mention of Koch Industries does indeed fall outside the article's scope, so it should not be included. This sort of information should be included in a Freedom Industries article, and just because one doesn't exist, it does not mean it has to be mentioned in this article. Again, I like your eye for detail, and I am usually an inclusionist, but in this case, I feel Koch Industries should be omitted. -- Caponer (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Question, I agree with this so far, however, if in the process of litigation, Koch were to pay any damages, would they then be relevant?Coal town guy (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• If Koch Industries were sued as a result of this chemical spill, then mention of the company would be added both to the background and litigation sections of the article. As of now, I don't believe Koch's subsidiary Georgia-Pacific was involved in the leak at the Freedom Industries facility, or receives chemicals stored at that facility. Freedom Industries does, however, distribute chemicals to Georgia-Pacific. -- Caponer (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

PERFECTION. That is exactly how it should be handled.....MANY thanks for the replyCoal town guy (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Was this caused by 2014 North American Cold Wave?

A newspaper columnist who was there said it was.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Explained in this recent article http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-owner-of-freedom-industries-must-face-fallout-of-west-virginia-chemical-spill/2014/01/17/77b1a572-7df2-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html Prokaryotes (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

"suggesting damage from water underneath that froze in the unusually harsh cold earlier that week" says pretty much the same thing I also heard on NPR. So we can say it is a possible cause?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked and didn't see a word about the cause. I don't want to be the one that starts the section on that.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Now I see the information about the investigation. I'll try this.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, no one said anything, but that's not part of the government response. There does need to be a section on the investigation into the cause, although at some point the government could get involved with that.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

Hey Folks- I have reverted about 4 instances of IP vandalism here...we may want to think about having this thing protected so that only registered folk can edit?Coal town guy (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)