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

Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

attheu.utah.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 352 posts

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#21

Post by gwd »

epistasis wrote: post #9
russdill wrote: post #6

Hopefully next we can help fix mercury in fish, the number one contributor right now is burning coal. Seems like it would be a easy decision.

Coal is mostly sticking around in the US because of federal overreach to keep unprofitable and ancient coal generators going long after anybody wants to pay for the high maintenance. Last week, a Colorado utility was "respectfully" asking to be able to close a plant: > TTri-State Generation and partner Platte River Power Authority had a “respectful” but emphatic response late Thursday to the Trump administration orde…

> There is no technical or economic reason to want coal power today.

For anyone wanting a slightly ranty but also informed description of why, I enjoyed this Hank Green video on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfvBx4D0Cms&pp=ygUPaGFuayBnc...

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#24

Post by ZeroGravitas »

dnautics wrote: post #20
dyauspitr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not with Captain Planet tier cartoon villains in power.

you mean like the german environmentalists who singlehandedly kicked up german atmospheric mercury emissions?

Can you identify when exactly the German environmentalists did this thing you refer to? I'm assuming it's something coal related.

Total and per capita coal usage for Germany and a few other peer nations:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-by-count...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-per-capi...

I can see a bump in early 1980s but I see the same in other nations, possibly a response to oil embargoes, possibly just economic growth.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#25

Post by grubbs »

t1234s wrote: post #23

You used to be able to buy leaded 110 gas as Sunoco in the early 2000's. It would make your exhaust tips turn white and had a sort of candy like smell when combusted.

I remember people with various "tunes" at the racetrack would run this stuff. It definitely smelled like candy!

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#26

Post by edm0nd »

dyauspitr wrote: post #12
russdill wrote: post #6

Hopefully next we can help fix mercury in fish, the number one contributor right now is burning coal. Seems like it would be a easy decision.

Not with Captain Planet tier cartoon villains in power.

Did you know that Captain Planet was straight up created to be pro environmentalist and anti-oil propaganda?

>Captain Planet and the Planeteers (1990–1996) was a pioneering animated series designed by Ted Turner and producer Barbara Pyle as environmental, pro-social "edutainment" to influence children towards ecological activism. It aimed to combat pollution and encourage environmental stewardship, often using over-the-top, stereotypical villains to represent corporate greed and ecological destruction.

Our parents let us get brainwashed by hippies and corporations as kids haha

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#27

Post by mistrial9 »

no one has mentioned "The Secret History of Lead" published by The Nation in March 2000. The long and detailed article exposed the deliberate and long-standing cover-up of leaded gasoline's dangers by major corporations. Villians include General Motors, Du Pont, and Standard Oil of New Jersey (now Exxon).

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#28

Post by cfiggers »

In my opinion it is obvious and should be uncontroversial that some environmental regulations work and are great and should if anything be reinforced, while other environmental regulations do more harm than good and need to be reigned in or eliminated.

Turning "environmental regulation" into a unified bloc that must be either supported or opposed in totality is a manipulative political maneuver and it should be forcefully rejected.

Regulations are not people, and they don't have rights. It is fair and reasonable to demand that environmental regulation justify its existence with hard, scientifically verifiable data or else get chopped. Clearly, banning leaded gasoline has that kind of justification, and therefore I'm strongly in favor of maintaining that ban and extending it wherever it isn't in place yet. The same reasonable standard should be applied to other regulations across the board.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#29

Post by dyauspitr »

edm0nd wrote: post #26
dyauspitr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not with Captain Planet tier cartoon villains in power.

Did you know that Captain Planet was straight up created to be pro environmentalist and anti-oil propaganda? >Captain Planet and the Planeteers (1990–1996) was a pioneering animated series designed by Ted Turner and producer Barbara Pyle as environmental, pro-social "edutainment" to influence children towards ecological activism. It aimed to combat pollution and encourage environmental stewardship, often using over-t…

I wish we had more “propaganda” like this.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#30

Post by AdamN »

cfiggers wrote: post #28

In my opinion it is obvious and should be uncontroversial that some environmental regulations work and are great and should if anything be reinforced, while other environmental regulations do more harm than good and need to be reigned in or eliminated. Turning "environmental regulation" into a unified bloc that must be either supported or opposed in totality is a manipulative political maneuver and it should be force…

Basically everybody agrees with what you're saying which is what makes this an insidious comment.

In general the pressure against regulation comes from narrow winners (oil industry for instance) whereas the pressure for regulations generally comes from people focused on the greater good (even if they are misled by other narrow winners, for instance compliance firms).

Post reply on HN