I would like to make a text-to-self connection from the article associated with the Hot Topic Headline for this module. In this article is speaks consistently of the chemicals that the people in the area have to interact with/are in danger because of the presence of the chemicals. I think it is interesting that the article asks, “The biggest question remaining is what, if anything, is still being released from the site, first and foremost,” said Peter DeCarlo, an environmental health professor at Johns Hopkins University. “If there are still residual chemical emissions, then that still presents a danger for people in the area.” This is an interesting question by DeCarlo because what we cannot see, we are unsure of the risks, and it is a dangerous game to play with risks like chemicals. It is interesting how natural disasters really do begin to beg the question of how people respond and ethically respond both personally, in the community, and on a larger scale (state/government response). On a personal note, my house caught on fire a few weeks ago and my family couldn’t stay there because of the chemicals involved in the fire. My family analyzed the responses of the neighbors, community, insurance companies, family members, etc. Seeing how they responded to the unexpected disaster was interesting. I also think it is noteworthy to share how my family responded to their safe call to move back in. Although they had the go ahead to move back into the house after it was cleaned and examined for chemicals, they weighed the risks/benefits and chose to stay in a hotel for a few more days until they felt safe and comfortable to move back in.

East Palestine residents wonder whether it’s safe to return after derailment – The Washington Post