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

171–180 of 229 posts

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

#171

Post by fosk »

San Francisco also hosts radioactive waste close by, located at the Farallon Islands[1].

> From 1946 to 1970, the sea around the Farallones was used as a nuclear dumping site for radioactive waste under the authority of the Atomic Energy Commission at a site known as the Farallon Island Nuclear Waste Dump. Most of the dumping took place before 1960, and all dumping of radioactive wastes by the United States was terminated in 1970. By then, 47,500 containers (55-gallon steel drums) had been dumped in the vicinity, with a total estimated radioactive activity of 14,500 Ci. The materials dumped were mostly laboratory materials containing traces of contamination. Much of the radioactivity had decayed by 1980.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farallon_Islands

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

#172

Post by stjohnswarts »

MrFantastic wrote: post #113
tsdlts wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

Corporations live forever. They should have an unlimited Statue of Limitations as well.

That will never stand up in court.

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

#173

Post by vaccinator »

sschueller wrote: post #168
vaccinator wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I still boycott BP, to this day. But I am probably a minority. In some areas in Florida, they purchased most gas stations after the spill happened, so it is sometime not easy to avoid them.

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

#174

Post by x87678r »

alpha_squared wrote: post #151
x87678r wrote: post #122

While this dumping is horrific you also have to understand how beneficial DDT was: > Between 1945 and 1965, DDT saved millions-even tens of millions-of lives around the world, perhaps more than any other man-made drug or chemical before or since. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/07/02/the-mosquito-k...

And what is the cost, long-term, in human lives from the downstream effects of these actions? And how much longer will it keep costing us?

The article didn't really say much specific, I guess its really hard to know who is affected. Californians has one of the lowest cancer rates https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/cancer_mortality/c...

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

#175

Post by staplers »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #131
x87678r wrote: post #122

While this dumping is horrific you also have to understand how beneficial DDT was: > Between 1945 and 1965, DDT saved millions-even tens of millions-of lives around the world, perhaps more than any other man-made drug or chemical before or since. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/07/02/the-mosquito-k...

Couldn't bug nets have achieved the same effect without poisoning the biosphere?

Those nets would be made of plastic and likely end up in the ocean at some point. If we mass-distributed them, even worse.

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

#176

Post by wnoise »

tsdlts wrote: post #109
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point. Where's the line between knowingingly circumventing the spirit of the law by following the letter. For example Teflon has been replaced with chemically similar compounds that just aren't Teflon. It'll take decades for the studies to come in, in the mean time every human is being exposed to these chemicals in significant amounts. Then we have bpa, Neonicotinoids and other pesticides. We have cases…

Isn't this a regulation failure though? The fact that these chemicals who we don't know the full effects of are let to market is the problem. Preventative measures make more sense than criminalizing things only when we find out there's a problem. Also, what if the company has been acquired since then, is it still on the hook? What if they've since switched markets entirely? What if the company disbanded and the found…

> Isn't this a regulation failure though?

Both/And. It's a regulation failure, and the unscrupulous take advantage it.

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

#177

Post by masklinn »

jeltz wrote: post #157
refurb wrote: post #3

I’d probably be more worried about the nerve gas and mustard gas munitions dumped into the ocean after WW2. Far more toxic.

Nah, sarin has only has a shelf life of a few months. I would not worry too much. A lot of worse stuff has been dumped in the sea than sarin.

> Nah, sarin has only has a shelf life of a few months.

That it has a shelf life of a few months doesn't mean it's innocuous afterwards. WWI mustard gas ammunitions remain dangerous today.

And if they're anything like explosives, some of those compounds would become more dangerous over time, not less, due to getting less stable. Not to mention the degradation of the delivery system itself.

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

#178

Post by Supermancho »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #172
MrFantastic wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations live forever. They should have an unlimited Statue of Limitations as well.

That will never stand up in court.

The OP implied that such a law doesn't exist, but there's nothing inherently unconstitutional about a new legislative act to enforce the concept.

> That will never stand up in court.

What's your point or objection to a hypothetical future?

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

#179

Post by [deleted] »

refurb wrote: post #142
charlesu wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great argument for an absurdly high estate tax. You can’t inherit ill-gotten gains if you don’t inherit anything at all!

Agreed! That Hispanic couple who immigrated to the US, built a small business and want to pass it to their kids, screw them! Tax it all away. Let their kids start over!

[deleted]

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

#180

Post by ska »

bzbarsky wrote: post #118
macspoofing wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

This is very country-dependent. In a number of European countries, the children are in fact entitled to some minimal share of the wealth of their parents (in France this share is between 50 and 75%, depending on the number of children for example), and what Buffet and Gates are doing would be illegal, as I understand it.

This sounds counter-intuitive. Are children really entitled to a fraction of all the wealth generated by their parents, or are they entitled to a fraction of the estate ? These are very different things.
Post reply on HN