Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by zahlman » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 4:09 PM UTC

II2II wrote: post #91

zahlman wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did you know that Captain Planet was straight up created to be pro environmentalist and anti-oil propaganda? Well, yes, it isn't subtle. It turns out that some propaganda is just correct , however.

Captain Planet always bothered me as a kid, even though I was (and continue to be) supportive of environmental protection. There was too much evil for the sake of evil. People don't destroy the environment because they want to. The destroy it because they don't care. They don't care because they are driven by greed, or some other motivation that is ultimately damaging to the environment, society, and civilization.

Yes, that's an entirely fair criticism. Media for children often has this kind of non-realism, and I think it's mostly for the worse.

Strangely enough, I was raised with quite a bit of environmental responsibility, but only a relatively dim awareness of the show existing.

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

#112

Post by lacunary » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 4:09 PM UTC

breakyerself wrote: post #86

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…

Almost every environmental regulation has come after it was already shown that there was some harm that needed to be mitigated. The worst environmental crisis in human history is going largely unchecked. I find it hard to take seriously any argument that environmental regulation has gone too far as opposed to not nearly far enough. If there's a specific regulation that can be shown to be doing more harm than good I'm…

what kind of common sense wisdom are we talking about here, can you give an example? understanding the impact of regulation designed to impact both the environment and the economy, two incredibly complex systems our experts are only beginning to understand, isn't generally a matter of common sense

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

#113

Post by 1970-01-01 » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 4:10 PM UTC

buildsjets wrote: post #93

1970-01-01 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would lead be in the gunsmoke? Everything leaded should be coming out the business end of the firearm, and it should be coming out with some gusto.

Are you proposing that the base of the bullet which is exposed to the burning propellant magically remains at room temperature, and none of the lead in the base of the bullet is vaporized? What about the process of forcing the projectile into the barrel's spiral grooves at very high speed, leaving grooves in the side of the bullet. Where do you suppose that displaced and/or vaporized material ends up? What about the…

I am directly questioning whether the .22LR bullet creates more lead vapor than any other round as per OP statement.

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

#114

Post by soperj » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 4:10 PM UTC

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…

> while other environmental regulations do more harm than good and need to be reigned in or eliminated.

Prove it.

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

#115

Post by adrianN » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 4:14 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #24

dnautics wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Arguably Germany should have turned off a few lignite plants and kept their nuclear power a little bit longer.

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

#116

Post by Braxton1980 » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 4:14 PM UTC

gosub100 wrote: post #33

AdamN wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

There are valid reasons to oppose regulations. They can be used to create barriers of entry for small businesses, for example. They constantly affect the poor more than the middle class.

There are valid reasons to oppose specific regulations not all.

Imagine I open a auto repair center and I perform oil changes. It would cost me money to have used oil hauled away or I could dump it down the drain. You probably support a requirement that I pay for the service.

I'm sure there are regulations that cause actual harm to small businesses that have little or no value but I wonder what percentage it would be of the total.

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

#117

Post by adrianN » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 4:15 PM UTC

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…

Next you tell me that teaching children not to piss in the pool is propaganda.

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

#118

Post by an_account » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 4:15 PM UTC

breakyerself wrote: post #86

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…

Almost every environmental regulation has come after it was already shown that there was some harm that needed to be mitigated. The worst environmental crisis in human history is going largely unchecked. I find it hard to take seriously any argument that environmental regulation has gone too far as opposed to not nearly far enough. If there's a specific regulation that can be shown to be doing more harm than good I'm…

CEQA in California is very often used to block apartments in existing urban areas.

So, instead, California continues to mostly build single family housing sprawl into natural habitats.

A clear example of environmental regulation hurting the environment and the climate. And of course the affordability of housing.

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

#119

Post by Braxton1980 » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 4:17 PM UTC

abfan1127 wrote: post #53

sunshinesnacks wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They constantly affect the poor more than the middle class. That’s a very broad statement. I expect there are many cases where that is not true.

"greater good" is arguably the most broad statement with a large history of hurting many people based on the "greater good".

For each instance did it help more than it hurt?

Not to simplify but if you have to make a decision shouldn't you always decide to help the most people?

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

#120

Post by nokcha » Tue, Feb 03, 2026, 4:17 PM UTC

breakyerself wrote: post #86

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…

Almost every environmental regulation has come after it was already shown that there was some harm that needed to be mitigated. The worst environmental crisis in human history is going largely unchecked. I find it hard to take seriously any argument that environmental regulation has gone too far as opposed to not nearly far enough. If there's a specific regulation that can be shown to be doing more harm than good I'm…

I'd argue that environmental regulations that impede building modern nuclear power plants to replace coal power plants are net harmful. Nuclear power safety has advanced a lot since Chernobyl.