Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The United States of Toxins

priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–28 of 28 posts

Re: The United States of Toxins

#21

Post by colordrops »

mschuster91 wrote: post #11
rayiner wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> when we use limited social capital to address a problem Let an actual free and fair market solve it. When externalities have to be included in pricings (be it insurance premiums for superfund cleanup, earmarked money in trusts for cleanup, or simply preventing emissions in the first place) instead of having them shouldered by society, the market will by itself weed out companies doing excessive environmental damage…

That seems like a convoluted definition of "free market". For that to work there needs to be some agreed upon definition of what effects are considered "externalities" and there also needs to be an enforcement mechanism. There's no way that's going to be handled other than central planning.

Re: The United States of Toxins

#22

Post by snuze »

mschuster91 wrote: post #11
rayiner wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> when we use limited social capital to address a problem Let an actual free and fair market solve it. When externalities have to be included in pricings (be it insurance premiums for superfund cleanup, earmarked money in trusts for cleanup, or simply preventing emissions in the first place) instead of having them shouldered by society, the market will by itself weed out companies doing excessive environmental damage…

> the market will by itself weed out companies doing excessive environmental damage

Do you have any data to support this fairytale?

Re: The United States of Toxins

#23

Post by vixen99 »

Amezarak wrote: post #5
mrob wrote: post #2

Pounds 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.

Yes and arsenic is an essential element for rats, hamsters, goats, chickens and probably humans. Go figure!

Re: The United States of Toxins

#24

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

vixen99 wrote: post #23
Amezarak wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes and arsenic is an essential element for rats, hamsters, goats, chickens and probably humans. Go figure!

I wasn't aware of this!

Although numerous studies with rats, hamsters, minipigs, goats and chicks have indicated that arsenic is an essential nutrient, the physiological role of arsenic is open to conjecture. Recent studies have suggested that arsenic has a physiological role that affects the formation of various metabolites of methionine metabolism including taurine and the polyamines. The concentration of plasma taurine is decreased in arsenic-deprived rats and hamsters. The hepatic concentration of polyamines and the specific activity of an enzyme necessary for the synthesis of spermidine and spermine, S-adenosylmethionine decarboxylase, are also decreased in arsenic-deprived rats. Thus, evidence has been obtained which indicates that arsenic is of physiological importance, especially when methionine metabolism is stressed (e.g. pregnancy, lactation, methionine deficiency, vitamin B6 deprivation). Any possible nutritional requirement by humans can be estimated only by using data from animal studies. The arsenic requirement for growing chicks and rats has been suggested to be near 25 ng g(-1) diet. Thus, a possible human requirement is 12 μg day(-1). The reported arsenic content of diets from various parts of the world indicates that the average intake of arsenic is in the range of 12-40 μg. Fish, grain and cereal products contribute most arsenic to the diet. - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24197927

Re: The United States of Toxins

#26

Post by mikerg87 »

The National Emissions Inventory is a more complete picture of our nations emsissions. The TRI is only conceded with permitted industrial sources. The NEI includes estimates from other source types including :

- On-Road mobile sources (cars / trucks ) - Non-Road mobile sources such as trains and plains and construction equipment - Non-Point emissions such as land-fills, agriculture burning and unpermitted sources such as dry cleaners

https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2014-national-...

Re: The United States of Toxins

#27

Post by dctoedt »

mschuster91 wrote: post #11
rayiner wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> when we use limited social capital to address a problem Let an actual free and fair market solve it. When externalities have to be included in pricings (be it insurance premiums for superfund cleanup, earmarked money in trusts for cleanup, or simply preventing emissions in the first place) instead of having them shouldered by society, the market will by itself weed out companies doing excessive environmental damage…

> Let an actual free and fair market solve it.

Ideally, yes, but that's like saying "we'll just use nuclear fusion to meet our energy needs."

Or: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assume_a_can_opener

Re: The United States of Toxins

#28

Post by bradknowles »

mschuster91 wrote: post #7
mrob wrote: post #2

Pounds 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…

What you want is weight divided by the LD50 dose of that toxin.

Less toxic stuff will have a lower rating per pound, while more toxic stuff would kill more people per unit of weight.

Post reply on HN