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

U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

ishn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 257 posts

Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

#101

Post by forgotoldacc »

tcoff91 wrote: post #89
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California can just keep doing its thing and the rest of the country benefits from their regulations. Prop 65 is to thank for all the Harbor Freight stores no longer reeking of outgassing plastics.

Supreme Court will just strip us of our state regulations by invoking the commerce clause.

If there's one thing California needs to learn from these past 6 months, it's that you can simply ignore what the courts say. When you're rich and powerful, you can literally just say "I do not consent" when legal consequences are presented to you.

Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

#103

Post by Arubis »

yongjik wrote: post #30
pixl97 wrote: post #4

Save lives?: X Increase safety?: X Make more money?: YES The USCSB makes life safer for everyone in this country, especially people that work around potentially dangerous chemicals and pressurized equipment.

[flagged]

If we keep blowing up the economy this way they’ll only be able to afford to rent the libs.

Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

#105

Post by kurikuri »

monkeyelite wrote: post #79
rectang wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CSB investigations still represent an objective source of truth which competes with the PR that companies put out absolving themselves of blame in the event of any mishap. Removing the CSB frees up companies to "self-regulate" and blast out bogus framings.

> an objective source of truth An alternative source with different incentives and culture, not an objective one.

Nuance is not always a good thing. This type of nuance doesn’t forward the discussion in any way and, in this case, muddies the waters and leads to some odd implications. Sure, we can say there is no objective source of truth and chastise the author for using that word, but the term objective in this case has meaning that the author is trying to articulate… most likely that there is some overtly unbiased information source, in opposition to the information sourced from the company which has obvious incentives.

Additionally, by stating that the CSB provides an ‘alternative source’ of truth, as a correction to an originally described objective one, you are (possibly inadvertently) claiming that the company is also providing a different source of truth, rhetorically raising the value of the information the company provides while lowering the value of the CSB information.

Don’t be the person who adds nuance for the sake of nuance.

Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

#106

Post by harimau777 »

monkeyelite wrote: post #92
usefulcat wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

50 employees with a budget of $14.4 million doesn’t even qualify as a rounding error in the federal budget. Don’t pretend this has anything remotely to do with “government waste”.

A low number is a good reason not to spend resources auditing it. But why would it be a good reason to keep something around you found you don’t need?

I don't think that anyone has demonstrated that we don't need it.

Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

#107

Post by forgotoldacc »

randerson wrote: post #13
pixl97 wrote: post #4

Save lives?: X Increase safety?: X Make more money?: YES The USCSB makes life safer for everyone in this country, especially people that work around potentially dangerous chemicals and pressurized equipment.

It's always a matter of time before a facility explodes for preventable reasons and costs the company billions in property damage and lawsuits. This decision to stop learning from mistakes and spreading awareness will hurt profits in the long run, not make more money. It'll also be harder to find people willing to work around chemicals if they can't trust the safety measures.

> costs the company billions in property damage and lawsuits.

The reality: the company makes a new company (that's identical to the old company in assets and operations) and says "we had nothing to do with the old company" and they're left off with zero consequences while the old company (that has no assets but holds legal liability) goes bankrupt and pays nothing.

There's also a new and improved method that avoids even this small amount of effort. Alex Jones introduced it. When you're found liable for a billion dollars in damages, just say, "I won't pay it. Fuck you." And there's absolutely nothing they can do.

The legal system means absolutely nothing now.

Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

#108

Post by spauldo »

monkeyelite wrote: post #99
rectang wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's technically true but underplays the extent to which company self-enforcement PR is malicious nonsense at odds with reality. Companies are amoral piles of money which will do anything to become larger piles of money, and will resolutely resist any interpretation of events which harms their narrow self-interest.

> and will resolutely resist any interpretation of events which harms their narrow self-interest. I don’t know any group who intentionally acts against their interests.

Voters?

Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

#109

Post by monkeyelite »

kurikuri wrote: post #105
monkeyelite wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an objective source of truth An alternative source with different incentives and culture, not an objective one.

Nuance is not always a good thing. This type of nuance doesn’t forward the discussion in any way and, in this case, muddies the waters and leads to some odd implications. Sure, we can say there is no objective source of truth and chastise the author for using that word, but the term objective in this case has meaning that the author is trying to articulate… most likely that there is some overtly unbiased information…

> there is some overtly unbiased information source, in opposition to the information sourced from the company which has obvious incentives.

Yes I don’t believe in unbiased sources. I believe in multiple perspectives revealing aspects of the truth.

> you are (possibly inadvertently) claiming that the company is also providing a different source of truth

Correct. And I don’t buy the dichotomy you are framing of biased companies vs unbiased government.

> Don’t be the person who adds nuance for the sake of nuance.

The term “objective truth” was just thrown around. Might as well just say it’s an “absolutely good”. The level of discourse in these threads is science = good, agency with science in name = science. Cuts against agency = bad.

What are the costs and benefits to this organization? It appears some sub threads have identified a possible overlap with other agency’s responsibility. It would be interesting to know the extent that is true.

Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

#110

Post by monkeyelite »

harimau777 wrote: post #106
monkeyelite wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A low number is a good reason not to spend resources auditing it. But why would it be a good reason to keep something around you found you don’t need?

I don't think that anyone has demonstrated that we don't need it.

No. But rather than telling us the merits they appear to be telling us it’s so small it’s not worth doing so.
Post reply on HN