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

The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 189 posts

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#161

Post by refurb »

Read up on the Love Canal disaster.

- Company buries toxic waste in 1920’s in drums that corrode

- Another company buys property, is aware of buried drums

- City seeks to buy property after company shuts down

- Company tells city there is toxic waste. City acknowledges.

- City talks about building on the dump site. City reminds city of toxic waste.

- Company finally sells land, makes city sign acknowledgment of toxic waste dump

- City then expands building school and new housing toxic waste dump

- People get sick, company gets sued

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#162

Post by throwaway0a5e »

mindslight wrote: post #158
njarboe wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your sentiment, but fear of asbestos is also another danger that has been highly exaggerated. Asbestos is only dangerous if it is particularized and inhaled in high quantities over a period of time. Men that changed breaks that had asbestos in them and thus lots of asbestos dust or men who worked on installing asbestos pipes and were cutting them all the time, were the ones who got cancer (or their wives…

Ultimately you're describing how asbestos is generally handled, apart from the rare exceptions of subsidies to preemptively replace it. But eventually, maintenance has to be performed on things made out of asbestos, which would then disperse it into the air and surrounding environment. So sure, asbestos is basically inert until it's disturbed, but once some part needs to be disturbed then it makes sense to do a full…

You're not wrong. When there's high dollar figured involved rationality tends to prevail over ideological screeching.

But what he described is exactly how asbestos is handled in discourse in any other context. People absolutely lose their minds over it.

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#163

Post by imtringued »

jessriedel wrote: post #17
kybishop wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have evidence to back up this claim? I'm aware CA puts many warning stickers on various products... but isn't it possible that profit-seeking corporations are, in fact, using cancer-causing materials simply because they're cheaper?

The point isn't that the amount of cancer caused is literally zero. Just by chance, everything will have some (generally infinitesimal) effect on cancer, and often it will be positive. The question is whether "causes cancer" is being applied to products that cause amounts of cancer that are so small that it's not worth warning people about. That consumer products and businesses are covered in these warning and few pe…

You're not going to get more customers by labeling your product with "99% less cancerous than what the standard requires" next to the warning that it causes cancer.

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#164

Post by perryizgr8 »

likeclockwork wrote: post #147
parineum wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone buys the adjacent property after you've made it unsafe without breaking any laws, who pays?

For someone to buy it someone has to sell it, no? The adjacent property is already owned and already being spoiled.

Not necessarily. Maybe it is unclaimed land. I don't know how the law works in that case, but there's certainly nobody who "sells it".

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#165

Post by jessriedel »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #122
jessriedel wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point isn't that the amount of cancer caused is literally zero. Just by chance, everything will have some (generally infinitesimal) effect on cancer, and often it will be positive. The question is whether "causes cancer" is being applied to products that cause amounts of cancer that are so small that it's not worth warning people about. That consumer products and businesses are covered in these warning and few pe…

No--it's based on the risk to someone who uses it a lot. Even if it's a product they're not going to use a lot.

I don't think we disagree?

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#166

Post by kube-system »

tdeck wrote: post #159
kube-system wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. It's the same market forces, though, just in reverse. Industrial businesses don't want to buy land at Park Avenue prices.

More like nobody wants the industrial buildings near them but poor and marginalized communities don't have the political power to resist.

That’s still not the fault of industrial businesses. No businessperson could change this dynamic even if they wanted to. It’s the fault of our political process to give equitable representation to people of all economic backgrounds.

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#167

Post by refurb »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #116
sokoloff wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you have a campfire (or fire in your fireplace), you are releasing polluting carcinogens. When you heat olive oil to the smoke point, you are releasing carcinogens. If/when you do those things, are you also doing something wrong?

> When you have a fire in your fireplace, you are releasing polluting carcinogens. When you do that, are you also doing something wrong? Yes. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51581817 https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/property/1430579/wood-b... For the reasons that you set out. It's fairly straightforward.

So you’re for banning almost all foods that brown through baking this form acrylomide, a known carcinogen?

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#168

Post by refurb »

pirate787 wrote: post #129
kaiju0 wrote: post #37

This is a pretty typical growth pattern. Industrial zone establishes and city is set far away in a safe area. City expands and resident need cheap housing. The cheap housing is built near the industrial zone as that is how economic forces work. People then see this and say they built industrial next to the poor people when the opposite occurred. Now the industry is giving cancer to poor people and needs to be punishe…

The largest new industrial facility in West Virginia, Rockwool in Ranson, is permitted as a top ten polluter for formaldehyde in the entire United States and was built 1,300 feet from an existing elementary school just last year.

Top 10 polluter tells me nothing. Is it over the allowable limit or not?

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#169

Post by refurb »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #121
missinfo wrote: post #59

This is really well presented, but wouldn't it be more accurate and useful with actual cancer case data instead of estimated cancer risk?

Too hard to figure out. I'm thinking of where I grew up. A local anti-establishment rag noted a cancer cluster in one part of town and wouldn't let go even when shown the truth. The end result of the mess was it went from a cheap but decent area to somewhere I wouldn't want to venture even by day. The only toxic stuff in the neighborhood was benzene from all the old cars about--the "cluster" was because it was the ch…

But the problem with estimated cancer risk is you end with the whole breast implant issue - it was “proven” silicone breast implants caused cancer until data proved they didn’t.

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#170

Post by wholinator2 »

kube-system wrote: post #154
mazamats wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who is right and who is wrong? In Alabama it would the industrial sector that is in the wrong. Nobody wants to pay for more expensive land, but we should force them to via regulation if they are going to spread cancer in the air.

Looking at the outcome of economic effects with "right and wrong" isn't really a helpful measurement. We should force them, not because they are "wrong" but because the economic incentives deliver an outcome that is undesirable.

Agreed, but I don't see how "economic incentives" and "undesirable outcomes" isn't just a different way of saying right and wrong.
Post reply on HN