The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones” • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by LorenPechtel » Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 8:43 PM UTC

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 cheapest decent area in town, people who got sick and had medical bills and couldn't work ended up moving there. The rate of *diagnosis* of cancer there was below average, the cluster was purely due to immigration.

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

#122

Post by LorenPechtel » Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 8:44 PM UTC

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…

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.

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

#123

Post by woodruffw » Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 8:47 PM UTC

NittLion78 wrote: post #21

As I've said for years, any time you see a glittering urban core full of glass towers, steel bridges, and classic old stone architecture, somewhere there's a Mordor nearby that made all that happen.

I think this is a fantastic way to think about pollution.

But to make sure that it doesn’t veer into city bashing (as HN is sometimes wont to do): the only difference between the glistening urban core and 300 square miles of suburban sprawl is the number of trucks needed to distribute the raw materials involved. All things being equal, the pollution involved in building the former is both lesser and more sustainable.

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

#124

Post by readams » Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 8:49 PM UTC

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…

"Cancer clusters" by themselves are not really surprising, since statistically if you look at enough small subsets it's certain you'll see such seemingly-anomalous "clusters." It's interesting only as the first step in an investigation, and not at all interesting as evidence.

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

#125

Post by kube-system » Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 8:51 PM UTC

woodruffw wrote: post #72

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…

> City expands and resident need cheap housing. The cheap housing is built near the industrial zone as that is how economic forces work. In cities like Mobile, Alabama, the opposite is usually true[1]: people already lived in those areas, but companies (and local governments) don't consider their health sufficiently important. I'll leave it up to you to infer why that is. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018…

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

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

#126

Post by macintux » Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 9:02 PM UTC

azinman2 wrote: post #112

riversflow wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And we should stop and fix that. By exporting it to a poorer country? Because that's what happens.

That happens because the incentives and supply chain machinery allow it to. Externalities are never priced in regardless of where things are made. Price in externalities, regardless of origin, and things would change. That's just one example of a potential solution, and one that many are trying to do with carbon taxes/credits.

That seems to be the fatal trap we're in: government can compensate for the fact that capitalism is effectively unable to price in externalities, but the big winners from capitalism have the resources to simultaneously lobby government for less regulation and persuade voters that government is evil.

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

#127

Post by mazamats » Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 9:13 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #125

woodruffw wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> City expands and resident need cheap housing. The cheap housing is built near the industrial zone as that is how economic forces work. In cities like Mobile, Alabama, the opposite is usually true[1]: people already lived in those areas, but companies (and local governments) don't consider their health sufficiently important. I'll leave it up to you to infer why that is. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018…

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

> 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.

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

#128

Post by mazamats » Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 9:15 PM UTC

scottyah wrote: post #111

vineyardmike wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, not really. Boston area has no big chemical/hard industrial industry, and nothing on that map. Neither does seattle (but the map shows some small process in areaa). Id wager a lot of modern "intellectual" cities (where knowledge worker industries dominate) can be devoid of such processes. Tourism cities too - eg, Vegas and Miami don't have such a history and their maps are clean. Obviously SFBay is a notable exce…

All that stuff is still being made and polluting, "mordor" is just further away.

Isn't that the whole point? To keep it away from urban populations?

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

#129

Post by pirate787 » Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 9:17 PM UTC

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.

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

#130

Post by klyrs » Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 9:18 PM UTC

friedman23 wrote: post #75

vineyardmike wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now the industry is giving cancer to poor people and needs to be punished. Who is right and who is wrong? Yeah, if your industrial process causes cancer you need to re-engineer the process to be safer and polluting less, even if you were there first.

The engineers didn't set out to create processes that resulted in toxic by-products, your statement is not helpful at all.

Engineers don't set out to design a bridge that will collapse, either, but folks still want them to be held to account when it happens; folks still expect bridge failures to result in root cause analysis and an update to standard practices after the cause is understood.