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

EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

archpaper.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 366 posts

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#241

Post by gonehome »

ericb wrote: post #229
dang wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't post unsubstantive comments.

Would "should be considered" be more appropriate wording and less hyperbolic? I'm being serious. I think cash contributions for legislation fundamentally subvert our democracy, and my comment was intended to raise that point for discussion. I don't see discussion of the perversion of democracy as unsubstantive.

Not really, no - you need to expand on the why in order to have some sort of substantive discussion (especially when using politically loaded language).

Lobbying in its positive form is about experts trying to explain things to representatives that don't understand the specifics of the field. When done right a representative should get perspective from different areas and be able to understand the issues/regulations that are being discussed from multiple parties that have their own different incentives.

Your comment that's it's 'treasonous' absent any discussion doesn't really offer any explanation of how congressional representatives are supposed to be informed about any subject they don't already know about.

People that do this work are going to be paid by the companies trying to explain things.

Political contributions to campaigns are a different issue and I think do pose a corrupting influence, this talk does a good job explaining the issue: https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_...

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#242

Post by Arubis »

jpindar wrote: post #203
bruinjoe wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so true. We should just ban lobbying because it is only used by rich corporations and individuals.

Would you include the ACLU, EFF, etc. in your ban?

Yes; if lobbying were truly reduced/eliminated across the board, at least they'd have an even playing field. Loopholes will inevitably be used by those with the most money and power.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#243

Post by dsfyu404ed »

EamonnMR wrote: post #2

The risks have been known for years. At this point isn't not pollution or negligence to use it, it's homicide.

I have a huge problem with this attitude. Just because consumers shouldn't side their houses and insulate their pipes with it doesn't mean nobody should have it.

Asbestos is amazingly fire resistant. If the use case is extreme enough to make it worth it (working with dangerous materials is $$$) then I don't see why it shouldn't be used. Plenty of nasty materials and chemicals are used in all sorts of industries. I don't see why asbestos should get special treatment. I think the current status quo of "you can't use it in certain things and you need permission if you want to use it in anything else" is perfectly fine. If some company is willing to do what they need to use a dangerous material in 2018 (PPE, procedures for handling, insurance, etc, etc) and articulate a use case and why the alternatives don't work then why shouldn't they be able to use asbestos?

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#244

Post by amluto »

yorwba wrote: post #231
amluto wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But many people seem to think chlorine isn't toxic because it's so common. > Note: There is _no_ known antidote to chlorine poisoning. (an example of how there is a toxin around us everyday, in our drinking water, in our pools, on our clothes, cleaning products, etc...) Why is there no outrage over this? There’s probably no credible outrage for two major reasons: - Chlorine in water is not actually a meaningful pro…

> There aren’t credible alternatives. Other countries (e.g. Germany) do not routinely chlorinate their drinking water and seem to do fine.

After a bit of reading, it seems that this is mainly achieved by having a much newer and better maintained water distribution system. It would be great to have that in the USA.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#245

Post by mirimir »

hindsightbias wrote: post #196
mirimir wrote: post #137

Wow. I mean, wow. I'm impressed. These idiots in government really only care about their bribes. And the idiots who are bribing them only care about making money. Everyone else can just fuck off and die. But hey. The Reagan era was horrible too. I mean, eight fucking years! Plus four more of Bush I. And then, all too soon, another eight years of Bush II. ... Actually, I was going for optimism. But I just can't get it…

Obamacare has bit of legacy with Nixoncare, which flopped because Henry Kaiser got to him and Ted Kennedy's Senate didn't want to give him a topper to LBJ's Great Society. Wonder what that alt-future would look like today. I tell younger people we're living in Reagan's world. Fear is saying that in another 20 years might actually be... optimistic?

Yeah, Reagan's world, for sure.

Funny story. I was in Moscow when Reagan's joke was leaked:

> My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.

Most people understood that he was joking. But still, it was frightening. I mean, Soviet Central Television broadcast the audio, with a translation.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#246

Post by TimTheTinker »

a3n wrote: post #198
bruinjoe wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so true. We should just ban lobbying because it is only used by rich corporations and individuals.

Any attempt to ban lobbying would be heavily lobbied against.

Haha, yes - but so true.

Lobbyism forms a power structure that effectively cuts off and circumvents the will of the people. So by definition, it's actually a form of tyranny.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#247

Post by TooBrokeToBeg »

wvenable wrote: post #125
DougWebb wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We" didn't vote for this. A bit less than 25% of us voted for it, a bit more than 25% voted against it, and nearly 50% of us didn't bother to vote at all. (3rd parties got a small number of votes in the middle there too.) Neither of the major parties has a majority, or anything like a "mandate" about what the American people want. The majority wants "none of the above". If anyone figures out how to get that majority…

The 50% of people who didn't vote basically have said, we don't care to choose. So they got exactly what they voted for.

Just because a candidate had a stated (or misstated or unstated) viewpoint doesn't mean a vote for that candidate is a vote for that viewpoint. That's not how any representative-elected political system has ever worked.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#248

Post by dragonwriter »

mindslight wrote: post #237
wvenable wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 50% of people who didn't vote basically have said, we don't care to choose. So they got exactly what they voted for.

Actually, the 50% of people who didn't vote in the presidential election have said we don't care to choose between which of the two pieces of shit we're going to be forced to eat , and we're not going to legitimize our own oppression by helping pretend its consensual. If Kodos had been elected, this likely would not be happening at the EPA (nor that shitshow over at the FCC). But other similarly destructive corruptio…

> Actually, the 50% of people who didn't vote in the presidential election have said we don't care to choose between which of the two pieces of shit we're going to be forced to eat

If they had voted in the primaries, they would have different choices, but 71% of those eligible to vote in primaries didn't bother (Turnout was only 29% of those eligible in the 2016 primaries). [0] So, cutting the field back to those “two pieces of shit” didn't drive people away.

The poor set of general election choices is a product of apathy, not it's cause.

[0] https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Ffairvote.box.com...

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#249

Post by RobertRoberts »

mikeash wrote: post #213
RobertRoberts wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There seems to be group think present even here on HN. I don't downvote comments if that at least attempt to make a coherent argument with supporting facts. But, when I got rid of asbestos insulation around some water pipes I followed every precaution. But many people seem to think chlorine isn't toxic because it's so common. Note: There is _no_ known antidote to chlorine poisoning. (an example of how there is a toxi…

Does persistent low-level exposure to chlorine cause health problems?

That's a good question, does it? I know that there was a time when not a single doctor in the world believed there was such a thing as latex allergy.

My family is in the chemical business and my father (chemist) won't put chlorine in his pool, he uses a bromide of some kind.

But, if something is popular (asbestos was at one point) it must be just fine.

Re: EPA is allowing asbestos back into manufacturing

#250

Post by peterwwillis »

trhway wrote: post #239
ekianjo wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lobbying is just a legal form of corruption. Ban it, and it will still continue to exist underground anyway. What we need is to stop voting for idiot politicians.

For that you need to stop produce idiot voters.

Exactly. Garbage in, garbage out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpWrsEpWgrc
Post reply on HN