New River on the other hand was not a force of nature

I wonder whether the expression "New River on the other hand was not a force of nature" is grammatical.

The meaning of it is clear, which refers to " New River Incidence on the other hand was not a result of the force of nature."

Context:

Trump and his termites are doing immeasurable harm to America and the sad part is that most people will never realize what is happening. Trump has proudly bragged that he will do away with two regulations for every new regulation. The Republicans have made regulation a bad word with no consideration whether a regulation serves a purpose. In the last century a regulation put in place forbade child labor up until it was passed child labor was the norm. I saw a picture of the workers at a mine and none of the employee looked to be more than twelve. We take a lot for granted we think the world has always been the way we found it. Certain incidences are expunged from the history that we are taught. I lived in West Virginia and was taught West Virginia history but there were two big events that were expunged one was the New River Disaster and word disaster usually describes a flood or tornado something far beyond the control of man. New River on the other hand was not a force of nature but an intentional act of men. Buying respirators for several hundred men would have been expensive but management when inspecting the tunnel was provided respirators. This wasn’t done out of ignorance since the time of the Romans it was known what exposure silica did to men. The fact that 600 workers a year are still dying of silicosis is criminal. For Trump to do away with regulations meant to stop people from dying at work is criminal.

Source