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

L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 229 posts

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#161

Post by cma »

tsdlts wrote: post #55
dusted wrote: post #2

It's amazing how little some people have cared, this was not that they didn't know, they certainly knew, otherwise, it'd not have resorted to hiding the stuff by dumping it into the sea.. It'd not be unreasonable to hunt down those responsible, and make them pay for cleaning it up. Sure, they're probably dead by now, but they probably left a lot of money. I don't think it's even relevant that "it was not illegal at t…

"I don't think it's even relevant that it was not legal at the time". Imagine setting the precedent that the government can unilaterally decide to steal your property based on something your great grandfather did which wasn't even a crime. Do you not see how such a power might be abused in future when you can retroactively punish people for laws where the ink has yet to dry and that they never even committed?

Liability for damages that you directly benefited from within one or two generations. That it wasn't illegal doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a tort your estate was liable for, even if harm was only understood later.

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#162

Post by darkcha0s »

antonvs wrote: post #39
darkcha0s wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes let us just start collective punishment, because we have such a justice boner. Jesus christ, sometimes HN has some wild opinions. Just to be absolutely clear -- it's not reasonable, and what you're suggesting is literally how North Korea handles crime. "Oh but you know here it's different" -- you're setting a precedent which, if allowed, would mean your family members could face jail time for crimes YOU commit.

If your inheritance was the result of a bank robbery, do you still think it should be untouchable? You're being very emotional about what seems like a pretty clear case of recovering ill-gotten gains.

I'm being emotional for saying we shouldn't punish family members of people who commit crimes? Sounds like you're the one following the emotional argument ("this feels right, because the gains are ill-gotten")

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#163

Post by mywacaday »

dusted wrote: post #2

It's amazing how little some people have cared, this was not that they didn't know, they certainly knew, otherwise, it'd not have resorted to hiding the stuff by dumping it into the sea.. It'd not be unreasonable to hunt down those responsible, and make them pay for cleaning it up. Sure, they're probably dead by now, but they probably left a lot of money. I don't think it's even relevant that "it was not illegal at t…

The tobacco and sugar industry were/are no different. Makes you wonder what else will be in same bucket in 20 years. Anyone care to hazard a guess?

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#164

Post by headmelted »

tsdlts wrote: post #55
dusted wrote: post #2

It's amazing how little some people have cared, this was not that they didn't know, they certainly knew, otherwise, it'd not have resorted to hiding the stuff by dumping it into the sea.. It'd not be unreasonable to hunt down those responsible, and make them pay for cleaning it up. Sure, they're probably dead by now, but they probably left a lot of money. I don't think it's even relevant that "it was not illegal at t…

"I don't think it's even relevant that it was not legal at the time". Imagine setting the precedent that the government can unilaterally decide to steal your property based on something your great grandfather did which wasn't even a crime. Do you not see how such a power might be abused in future when you can retroactively punish people for laws where the ink has yet to dry and that they never even committed?

All the more disincentive to carry out such evil and heinous acts in the first place.

I'm sure the people of Libby, Montana would have an interesting take on this.

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#165

Post by eesmith »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #138
dragonwriter wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is this not chosen as a form of punishment? It's only punishment if you think there is a natural right to control the disposition of property after death. Otherwise, it's just a argument as to why a purely optional benefit not grounded in rights should not be extended by the state. Not extending a benefit to which there is no entitlement is not inherently a punishment.

So the state should seize mom and pop shops when mom and pop dies? Then what? Try to sell it? Have it as state run enterprises? Now every generation must completely pull themselves up from zero, and the state seizing all value every time someone dies? Parents die accidentally - too bad for kids, the state seized all value and sent the kids into some state system. Countries that seize this much property don’t do too w…

When the owners of a husband and wife shop die, with no inheritors, then what?

If the children of the mom and pop shop die, and the children are preschool aged, with no other inheritors or people designated to handle the estate, then what?

Effectively no one says that "every generation must completely pull themselves up from zero".

Do you seriously think the children of working/labor class families, living in rental housing, and with no capital, completely pull themselves up from zero?

Since they don't, neither do the children you hypothesis. So what's the point of your argument other than to tug at our heartstrings about those orphans?

Oh, and if the mom and pop shop is bankrupt, or has little capital, and there isn't family or close friends able and willing to take care of the kids, then who will?

Oh, right, "some state system." So if you are so concerned about these children, perhaps we need better orphanages and better support for the foster system.

Now, how do we fund those improvements?

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#166

Post by darkcha0s »

CJefferson wrote: post #28
darkcha0s wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes let us just start collective punishment, because we have such a justice boner. Jesus christ, sometimes HN has some wild opinions. Just to be absolutely clear -- it's not reasonable, and what you're suggesting is literally how North Korea handles crime. "Oh but you know here it's different" -- you're setting a precedent which, if allowed, would mean your family members could face jail time for crimes YOU commit.

No-one is talking about putting people in jail, but also (in my opinion), someone shouldn't get to inherit millions of dollars just because their grandfather committed some terrible crime -- inheritance should not be a right, when the original money was acquired illegally.

Whether that punishment is jail time or a fine is secondary. The primary question is, should the decedents be punished for a crime they did not commit?

Moreover, where do you draw the line? Should all the decedents of german families who got their wealth off the back of slave labor by jews also be forced to forfeit their wealth? What about the decedents of families of plantation owners? How do you go about handling that with the institutions provided? What would they be charged with?

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#167

Post by Mitzi »

macspoofing wrote: post #77
dusted wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you noticed how we generally do not bear any responsible for the wrongs of our parents? For instance, we are not forced to pay their debts, yet, we're somehow entitled to any riches they may have left behind? Seems asymmetrical to me. I'd say, yeah, I guess if you accepted the money, you should accept at least some of the responsibility for how they were amassed.

>yet, we're somehow entitled to any riches they may have left behind The kids of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are getting a miniscule amount of their fathers' wealth - how is that possible if supposedly they have a right to it? So you have it all backwards. The descendent are not entitled to the wealth of their parents or ancestors. The right to property (including disbursement through inheritance) is given to those…

>The dollar I earn, I can do as a please with and has already been taxed.

Just chiming in for the 'has already been taxed' thing, as it is often brought up in opposition to taxing inheritance. No dollar is ever taxed 'finally', it's a continuous process that involves taxes in most steps. Say you earn a dollar, it gets taxed and 70 cents remain. You go to a store and want to use those 70 cents to buy something. You don't actually get 70 cents worth of product because of sales tax. (See also VAT.)

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#168

Post by sschueller »

vaccinator wrote: post #120
faitswulff wrote: post #9

> “We found actual photos of the workers at 2 in the morning dumping — not only dumping barrels off of the barges in the middle of the Santa Monica Basin,” he said, “but before they would dump the barrels, they would take a big ax or hatchet to them, and cut them open on purpose so they would sink.” Incredible.

I would make sure that it sunk too if I was dumping toxic stuff in the ocean... That is what BP did when they had that huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico... The dispersant (Corexit[1]) that they used to sink the oil was even more toxic then the oil itself, but at least it hid the mess. 1. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/04/bp-corexit-d...

Corexit was a way bigger crime than the oil spill itself and a huge amount of profit was made selling the chemical. Discusting.

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#169

Post by TimPC »

chmaynard wrote: post #89
billyhoffman wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think it's even relevant that "it was not illegal at the time" The idea that a government can make something illegal and retroactively punish previous offenders is so colossally bad that in the United States the Founding Fathers wrote a prohibition against it into the Constitution. It's not an amendment, such as the right to free speech. They wrote it into Article 1 . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_f…

On the other hand, I don't think it's unreasonable that the remaining assets of the Montrose Chemical Company should be used to help pay for the salvage and proper disposal of their DDT wastes.

Normally I'd agree. But if you read the article the government already chose to settle this with Montrose Chemical Company. I think it's a very dangerous precedent to be able to go after corporations for things they've already reached a settlement on. I think it was dumb for the government to settle this and they should have waited for more information.

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#170

Post by birdyrooster »

tsdlts wrote: post #55
dusted wrote: post #2

It's amazing how little some people have cared, this was not that they didn't know, they certainly knew, otherwise, it'd not have resorted to hiding the stuff by dumping it into the sea.. It'd not be unreasonable to hunt down those responsible, and make them pay for cleaning it up. Sure, they're probably dead by now, but they probably left a lot of money. I don't think it's even relevant that "it was not illegal at t…

"I don't think it's even relevant that it was not legal at the time". Imagine setting the precedent that the government can unilaterally decide to steal your property based on something your great grandfather did which wasn't even a crime. Do you not see how such a power might be abused in future when you can retroactively punish people for laws where the ink has yet to dry and that they never even committed?

Nope, and based on your explanation feel more comfortable moving forward with laws like this.
Post reply on HN