The United States of Toxins
priceonomics.com
The United States of Toxins
1–10 of 28 posts
Re: The United States of Toxins
#2Pounds weight is a terrible way to measure toxins. This report is basically meaningless, because it lumps together toxins with vastly different risks. Eg. sodium carbonate is included, which is just common washing soda. I wouldn't eat it but the risk is easily manageable. Compare with, eg. dimethylmercury, which is scary even at parts per billion concentration. An actually useful measurement would take into account both potency and persistence of toxins.
Re: The United States of Toxins
#3Pounds weight is a terrible way to measure toxins. This report is basically meaningless, because it lumps together toxins with vastly different risks. Eg. sodium carbonate is included, which is just common washing soda. I wouldn't eat it but the risk is easily manageable. Compare with, eg. dimethylmercury, which is scary even at parts per billion concentration. An actually useful measurement would take into account b…
Agree! Thank you! What a terrible way to compare, shows a complete lack of basic scientific literacy to compare based on mass, very deceiving.
To compare the states properly they would need to do a risk assessment essentially, which is difficult and complex to say the least...
Also most of the 'toxins'from mining are probably heavy metals which are pretty easy to treat and contain in that context.
Re: The United States of Toxins
#4Sad that this report is using the word "toxins", synthetic toxicants are not included in the definition of toxin.
Re: The United States of Toxins
#5Pounds weight is a terrible way to measure toxins. This report is basically meaningless, because it lumps together toxins with vastly different risks. Eg. sodium carbonate is included, which is just common washing soda. I wouldn't eat it but the risk is easily manageable. Compare with, eg. dimethylmercury, which is scary even at parts per billion concentration. An actually useful measurement would take into account b…
I didn't see sodium carbonate in the list, but you probably do eat it - it's a food additive.
Copper and manganese are on the list, and are absolutely necessary to live! If you completely cut them out, you would die.
Re: The United States of Toxins
#6Pounds weight is a terrible way to measure toxins. This report is basically meaningless, because it lumps together toxins with vastly different risks. Eg. sodium carbonate is included, which is just common washing soda. I wouldn't eat it but the risk is easily manageable. Compare with, eg. dimethylmercury, which is scary even at parts per billion concentration. An actually useful measurement would take into account b…
also, dividing by area wouldn't be inappropriate.
Re: The United States of Toxins
#7Pounds weight is a terrible way to measure toxins. This report is basically meaningless, because it lumps together toxins with vastly different risks. Eg. sodium carbonate is included, which is just common washing soda. I wouldn't eat it but the risk is easily manageable. Compare with, eg. dimethylmercury, which is scary even at parts per billion concentration. An actually useful measurement would take into account b…
> Pounds weight is a terrible way to measure toxins.
But it is one thing: undeniably objective. The alternative would include a "rating" system which the industry can use to say "yeah we emit x hundred tons per year of chemical y but it is next to harmless, better go after company z and their waste"... leading to inevitable chains of lawsuits dragged over years.
For what its worth for many industrial processes there exist technical means of greatly reducing emissions (e.g. for smoke stacks: gas washers, desulfurization technologies, fine-dust retainers), but as long as environmental costs don't get billed to companies or required by the state, companies have no incentive to reduce emissions, as every dollar spent is a dollar less profit.
Maybe it's time to introduce legislations that allow the government to hold the shareholders accountable e.g. for Superfund sites, that would at least provide a decent incentive for companies to clean up or to provide enough cash to compensate for environmental damages after closure - right now companies can simply close/be liquidated and the taxpayers have to foot the cleanup bill.
Re: The United States of Toxins
#8Pounds weight is a terrible way to measure toxins. This report is basically meaningless, because it lumps together toxins with vastly different risks. Eg. sodium carbonate is included, which is just common washing soda. I wouldn't eat it but the risk is easily manageable. Compare with, eg. dimethylmercury, which is scary even at parts per billion concentration. An actually useful measurement would take into account b…
> Pounds weight is a terrible way to measure toxins. But it is one thing: undeniably objective. The alternative would include a "rating" system which the industry can use to say "yeah we emit x hundred tons per year of chemical y but it is next to harmless, better go after company z and their waste"... leading to inevitable chains of lawsuits dragged over years. For what its worth for many industrial processes there…
This is the same as measuring developer productivity by counting lines of code: perfectly objective, but worse than useless.
Re: The United States of Toxins
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Pounds weight is a terrible way to measure toxins. But it is one thing: undeniably objective. The alternative would include a "rating" system which the industry can use to say "yeah we emit x hundred tons per year of chemical y but it is next to harmless, better go after company z and their waste"... leading to inevitable chains of lawsuits dragged over years. For what its worth for many industrial processes there…
This is the same as measuring developer productivity by counting lines of code: perfectly objective, but worse than useless.
Millions of tonnes of any waste released into the environment, no matter how "harmless", are too much. Humanity needs to tackle its waste problem, and that soon, or we are going to drown our kids in trash. Or, given that nitrates (which aren't that toxic per se) are the 3rd position in weight are perfect food for algae, we're drowning them in algae and without fish.
Not to mention that much of the stuff that gets released in huge quantities can actually be used as a natural resource. Instead of capturing and using it we're throwing all the stuff away.
Therefore, any way of looking at the environmental issues is good - anything that can be tackled should be tackled.
Re: The United States of Toxins
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the same as measuring developer productivity by counting lines of code: perfectly objective, but worse than useless.
Millions of tonnes of any waste released into the environment, no matter how "harmless", are too much. Humanity needs to tackle its waste problem, and that soon, or we are going to drown our kids in trash. Or, given that nitrates (which aren't that toxic per se) are the 3rd position in weight are perfect food for algae, we're drowning them in algae and without fish. Not to mention that much of the stuff that gets rel…
This is a terrible idea. People have repeatedly shown they are willing to give up very little to address environmental problems. That makes it even more important that when we use limited social capital to address a problem, it's the most important problem that can be addressed.