Is Train Cargo Confidentiality Agreements Necessary?

[WestCoastRunner]

A southern BC Community Mayor has come out blasting the necessity for train cargo confidentiality agreements. As it now stands, citizens of communities across Canada have no idea of the cargo that is travelling through our towns, villages and cities. This confidentiality agreement only allows use of the cargo information made available to first responders and emergency planners. This appears to be a way to deflect public scrutiny away from CN, CP and the Harper government (he loves his secrecy, don't you know).

Their argument is that the confidentiality agreement is for security reasons against terrorists etc. and to protect the confidentiality of the businesses using this transportation method.

This doesn't make sense when we know where pipelines are located (and can cause significant damage if ruptured), we see tanker trucks rolling through our communities with propane, chemicals etc.; we know the goods that ships carry that are sittng in the Vancouver port.

So, why the need for these confidentiality agreements?

[GostHacked]

If they do not want you to know what the trains are carrying, then it should be investigated. And we will wonder what went wrong when we have another 'Lac Megantic'.

[Shady]

Yes these agreements are necessary.

[guyser]

So, why the need for these confidentiality agreements?

Because trains are full of horrible products no one wants.

I had a long chat with an executive (former actually) from a very large minerals/salvage/toxic waste company who told me point blank that he knows that trains get filled with all manners of horrible products.

Waste uranium or something similar (I cannot recall exactl;y) and his company did this because it was cheaper than actually dealing with it. They paid CN every month and kept moving these products around to nowhere.

CN was happy, they were happy.

He closed by saying if ever a spill occurs the shite will hit the fan......bad.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Guyser2

[guyser]

Yes these agreements are necessary.

Why?

[GostHacked]

Yes these agreements are necessary.

Why?

[eyeball]

So, why the need for these confidentiality agreements?

To reduce public scrutiny, like the Mayor White Rock says. I mean, it makes perfect sense that a politician would instinctively recognize a benefit of secrecy when he/she sees one.

Edited May 7, 2014 by eyeball

[GostHacked]

To reduce public scrutiny, like the Mayor White Rock says. I mean, it makes perfect sense that a politician would instinctively recognize a benefit of secrecy when he/she sees one.

Live close to trains at all? Corrupt politicians and corrupt corporations absolutely LOVE secrecy.

Now if they have the ability to hold secret what is in train cars, what about tractor trailer trucks out there on the same roads with us? Is that truck next to me holding radioactive materials? Should I be worried?

[Shady]

Why?

Because it's none of your business.

[cybercoma]

Because it's none of your business.

Why? (Try answering without a tautology this time)

[Shady]

Why? (Try answering without a tautology this time)

Well then everybody should have to make public what's being transported in their cars, trucks etc. Also what people are storing anywhere, including their homes.

[cybercoma]

Well then everybody should have to make public what's being transported in their cars, trucks etc. Also what people are storing anywhere, including their homes.

That still doesn't answer why.

[Big Guy]

What would be the advantage to a community to have access to the information of what materials are to be transported through their area?

Could they then protest the shipment?

Might they try to stop the trains and cause a possible tragedy?

Would the people leave the area when a particularly toxic shipment was coming through?

Is there a sense that the materials being transported that are "illegal" to transport?

BTW - I believe that trucks that can carry radioactive materials have to have that decal on the vehicle.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Big Guy

[GostHacked]

Because it's none of your business.

Absolute nonsense.

[guyser]

That still doesn't answer why.

Because he does not have any answer , none at all.

Really, look at the post "Also what people are storing anywhere, including their homes. "

He equates having trains running through/by public space full of who knows what with what someone has in their basement.

[GostHacked]

Well then everybody should have to make public what's being transported in their cars, trucks etc. Also what people are storing anywhere, including their homes.

What if there was nuclear waste in the cars that blew up at Lac Megantic.... why would you not want to know what is in them? And most people on the road are not carrying trainloads of hazardous materials. Even at that, a single car crash with some of that material is a drop in the bucket to a train derailment with a multitude of cars carrying hazardous waste.

We have rules on the roads and rails concerning the safe transportation of dangerous goods.

[Michael Hardner]

We have rules on the roads and rails concerning the safe transportation of dangerous goods.

I thought you were against having government eavesdrop on private matters, even if some consider the contents 'dangerous'. Why the double standard ?

[Shady]

Because he does not have any answer , none at all.

Really, look at the post "Also what people are storing anywhere, including their homes. "

He equates having trains running through/by public space full of who knows what with what someone has in their basement.

Yes I do equate that. What's the difference. What's the difference between somebody's car or truck running through public space full of who knows what?

[Shady]

I thought you were against having government eavesdrop on private matters, even if some consider the contents 'dangerous'. Why the double standard ?

Great point Michael. It seems to come and go. Apparently he's not as against the government getting involved in people's private business as we have been led to believe.

[GostHacked]

I thought you were against having government eavesdrop on private matters, even if some consider the contents 'dangerous'. Why the double standard ?

The double standard is not being held by me.

A private company using public roads carrying dangerous goods, adhering to government regulations is not the same as the government spying on it's citizens. Why do they spy on me and allow the secret transportation of very dangerous materials?

If I am a company moving these types of goods, I would have to jump through hoops, make sure the paperwork is in order and all materials claimed and accounted for. I would have to have proper vehicles with the proper warnings and signage. What if some of the material was stolen? How do you resolve that?

Scenario. A truck crashes into a building and materials are leaking. Since the materials are secret, how does the fire department or a hazardous waste team begin to assess the situation?

[guyser]

Yes I do equate that. What's the difference. What's the difference between somebody's car or truck running through public space full of who knows what?

[Shady]

Good answer.

[GostHacked]

Good answer.

The answer was as good as the question posed.

[Michael Hardner]

The double standard is not being held by me.

A private company using public roads carrying dangerous goods, adhering to government regulations is not the same as the government spying on it's citizens. Why do they spy on me and allow the secret transportation of very dangerous materials?

The railroads aren't public roads - aren't we talking about the railroads ?

[guyser]

Good answer.

Best I could come up with to counter such an asinine response such as yours.

Anyone who equates the trunk of a car to a train load is really not dealing with a full deck.

In light of such, I figured you could at least recognize.

Equate this, the oil tanker that ran aground should serve the same penalty as you when your car drips oil on the driveway.

Ergo....