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

221–229 of 229 posts

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

#221

Post by aaron695 »

NathanKP wrote: post #152
aaron695 wrote: post #101

DDT is effectively harmless. You can eat it and be fine for a bet. In an ocean, even if you swapped these barrels for a real poison it doesn't matter. It dilutes to nothing. The insanity on HN about this, I hope clarifies their intelligence on everything. To go to these commentators for their view on say, Rust, is just as insane. And this isn't about stupidity, the banning of DDT was criminal, it killed many many peo…

We know for a fact that DDT has a serious impact on wildlife. Humans aren't special. If something is causing tumors in wildlife as DDT did then it will cause increased cancer risk in humans as well. And studies have shown that DDT travels up the food chain to higher animals as they eat lower animals, gaining more and more concentration each time. Since humans are the ultimate apex predator that eats other stuff on th…

> If something is causing tumors in wildlife as DDT did

No it didn't. But we are a post fact world I guess?

It did cause eggshells to thin in some birds. But chocolate kills dogs.

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

#222

Post by jacobush »

vladTheInhaler wrote: post #203
jacobush wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US there are plenty of "US vs $1000" cases already.

Though I generally agree with the sentiment that we should do more to claw back ill-gotten gains, civil asset forfeiture is a terrible precedent and should be eliminated, not expanded. The legal theory is that your money (and property) doesn't have the right to due process, since it's not a person. So basically you have to prove that it wasn't involved in a crime. Which just leads to police officers stealing from poo…

Exactly.

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

#223

Post by macspoofing »

MrFantastic wrote: post #114
macspoofing wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>post-hoc punishment is the only reasonable punishment. Maybe a little charitable interpretation is warranted? I clearly meant, post hoc rationalization for the punishment. Typically you punish when AN EXISTING law is broken. In this case, OP is arguing for new punishment based on new laws that were broken in the past. >My guess, it was already illegal to poison the environment No. The devil is in the definition of '…

The SCOTUS basically ruled that Corporations are people in the Citizens United case.

If you look at the case, I cannot imagine how SCOTUS could have ruled any other way. The government actually tried to argue that they had to power to censor a book, even if that book had one line that they deemed to be advocating for a candidate [1]. Worse, the FEC standard was arbitrary and capricious. They censored an anti-Hillary documentary put out by a conservative group (Citizens United) but did nothing against Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 (which was expressly put out to advocate against Bush).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Argumen...

"During the original oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or labor union. In response to this line of questioning, Stewart further argued that under Austin the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring an author to write a political book."

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

#224

Post by macspoofing »

eesmith wrote: post #98
macspoofing wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No-one is talking about putting people in jail, but also (in my opinion) Every law, no matter how small and well-meaning, has implicit threat of prison behind it. You can't be so naïve as to believe that this enforcement action won't result in prison for some, destroyed lives for others, and because laws and enforcement are man-made, there's also a guarantee that your dragnet will punish some innocents, and let some…

Why do people keep making this claim? There are plenty of laws which don't have an implicit threat of prison behind it. Here's one: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/1 . Quoting Wikipedia: "This is a U.S. federal law, but only suggests voluntary customs for handling of the American flag and was never intended to be enforceable. The code uses non-binding language like "should" and "custom" throughout and does…

You're really stretching.

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

#225

Post by eesmith »

macspoofing wrote: post #224
eesmith wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people keep making this claim? There are plenty of laws which don't have an implicit threat of prison behind it. Here's one: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/1 . Quoting Wikipedia: "This is a U.S. federal law, but only suggests voluntary customs for handling of the American flag and was never intended to be enforceable. The code uses non-binding language like "should" and "custom" throughout and does…

You're really stretching.

I honestly don't know why I'm so downvoted.

There are laws naming post offices and other objects. There are law recognizing people and bestowing honors on them. There are laws which cancel previous laws.

There are plenty of laws which have no threat of punishment.

But I'll set that objection aside.

Let's go back to CJefferson's comment, to be more concrete. "inheritance should not be a right, when the original money was acquired illegally."

Money (at least as CJefferson refers to) exists because of laws, and the way we think of money exists because of laws. Inheritance is a legal concept, enforced by laws. So the right to inherit millions of dollars by your definition exists because of the implicit threat of prison.

Thus, changing the law as CJefferson describes doesn't necessarily add a new threat of violence - it could change the balance of the existing threat of violence, or even reduce it.

Thus, an argument against changing the law simply because laws carry a threat of punishment is really an argument to maintain the status quo for the existing threats of violence. It is not a strong argument against changing the law, which is what I think you meant it as.

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

#226

Post by webmaven »

TimPC wrote: post #169
chmaynard wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

If the settlement was reached based on incomplete or false information or representations from the company, the government may still have recourse.

So even if the settlement per-se remains in force, a substantial fine or even a new criminal case may still be possible.

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

#227

Post by webmaven »

charlesu wrote: post #100
athms wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only 0.002% of estates pay the tax every year. The best way to avoid paying the tax is to reduce the wealth of an estate by transferring it to insurance or separate entities like a foundation, limited liability company, family limited partnership, or charitable trust. Most wealthy people start estate planning long before retirement. The ones that end up paying are folks like Prince or the newly wealthy that die young…

All loopholes that can be legislated away with enough political will.

> All loopholes that can be legislated away with enough political will.

It was political will that created the loopholes in the first place. Getting rid of them unfortunately requires more political will than creating them did. This probably has something to do with loss-aversion.

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

#228

Post by webmaven »

xyst wrote: post #200

Speaking generally, can nanotechnology be applied to superfund site cleanups? As it currently stands, our tools for cleaning up these chemicals are extremely crude. Why can't we develop a nanobot that is able to detect the chemical in the soil or ocean and then break down or decompose that molecule?

> Speaking generally, can nanotechnology be applied to superfund site cleanups? As it currently stands, our tools for cleaning up these chemicals are extremely crude.

> Why can't we develop a nanobot that is able to detect the chemical in the soil or ocean and then break down or decompose that molecule?

We could, in theory, but a faster approach (that is already being used) is harnessing existing organisms.

Bioremediation is an approach being actively researched, and recent advances in genetic engineering (eg. CRISPR) ought to help a lot.

A search for "DDT bioremediation" will show you the research on this that is being done (not a huge amount, but progress is being made). There are probably some opportunities for B2G startups in this area.

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

#229

Post by antonvs »

darkcha0s wrote: post #162
antonvs wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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")

You're not "punishing family members" (there's that appeal to emotion), you're recovering stolen property.
Post reply on HN