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

151–160 of 189 posts

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

#151

Post by sseagull »

vineyardmike wrote: post #143
sseagull wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of the things we rely on every day have toxic byproducts And we should stop and fix that. Why do we accept this as ok? Of course. But it is not always easy. You can’t always wave your hand and make non-harmful alternatives. Sometimes it is due to incentives, but also sometimes it is really just chemistry or physics. See the “tin whisker” phenomenon when they took lead out of solder.

> Sometimes it is due to incentives, We can fix those. If you could sue a chemical plant (or it's engineers!) that design/implement carcinogenic pollution, i bet the incentives get better fast. > but also sometimes it is really just chemistry or physics. >You can’t always wave your hand and make non-harmful alternatives I think we can more often then we give it credit for. Especially if there was more money flowing i…

> Especially if there was more money flowing into R&D, and more regulatory efforts.

You won’t hear any argument from me there.

To put it into perspective, the annual budget of the entire (US) National Science Foundation is $8 billion. Now compare that the revenue or even profit of google, apple, etc.

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

#152

Post by joe_the_user »

8note wrote: post #107
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?

I'd say still you. That wasn't your property to make unsafe. If it's your own property that you've made unsafe, then sell it, I'd consider it on the buyer, unless you hid that it was unsafe

If it's your own property that you've made unsafe, then sell it, I'd consider it on the buyer, unless you hid that it was unsafe.

No one should be able to build houses or establish habitations on poisonous and polluted area. You can sell poisonous land to someone else but anyone owning poisonous land needs to take precautions to keep people off.

It's like one should be able to sell spoiled food (to eat) or lead contaminated toys. Warning people here isn't enough because some people will be foolish or desperate.

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

#153

Post by hcurtiss »

vineyardmike wrote: post #89
chrismeller wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but that seems a bit ignorant. A lot of the things we rely on every day have toxic byproducts. I’m not saying this is good, but by your logic you should give up your car because someone moved in to the lot next to you and built a house.

There is a difference between a person driving a car, and a factory spewing off a criminally high level of carcinogenic chemicals. > A lot of the things we rely on every day have toxic byproducts And we should stop and fix that. Why do we accept this as ok? > by your logic you should give up your car because someone moved in to the lot next to you and built a house. My logic says we should phase out cars that we know…

The "optimal" level of pollution is not zero. While there may be exceptions to individuals, to society as a whole, the benefits of an activity may very outweigh the costs. This is true of every human endeavor. There are always costs. The question is whether they are worth it.

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

#154

Post by kube-system »

mazamats wrote: post #127
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.

> 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.

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

#155

Post by gramie »

yellow_lead wrote: post #30

Some anecdotes as someone who lived near one of these locations growing up (fortunately about 30 mi away) 1) Every now and then, our entire town would smell terrible, presumably from the winds carrying the emissions to us 2) A friend who moved here during my high school had to move away since his whole family suffered from asthma and it was made much noticeably worse here 3) Heard a couple huge explosions during my l…

I did an internship at a pulp mill that was on the Canada-U.S. border (Canadian side). There was an elementary school literally besides the plant (~50m away).

If there was a release of sulphur dioxide that was going to stay on the Canadian side, the plant management notified the relevant authorities. Sometimes the kids were told not to go outside for recess.

If the SO2 was potentially going to drift over the border, the entire plant was shut down because the U.S. EPA would hit them with millions of dollars in fines.

Was someone talking about ethics and morality?

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

#156

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rezendi wrote: post #150
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article is not very convincing. I mean sure, the thing about coffee was over the top, but they also stopped requiring that one. Meanwhile the other examples it uses are that you have to be warned when you're being exposed to things like diesel exhaust. Which, um, actually does cause cancer.

Wood dust on furniture? The prospect of alcohol in hotel rooms? Tiffany lamps? Seriously?

Motor oil? Mercury? Cigarettes?

And kids will lick a lampshade.

Regulations always have dumb results. If you put the warning on anything with lead in it, people make fun of the warning on a Tiffany lamp. If you don't, people are shocked that you don't have the label on a child's toy with lead paint.

Regulators are never going to thread the needle that well. They're not capable of it. This is a huge problem when they're banning stuff. When they're labeling stuff, eh. People will figure it out.

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

#157

Post by cool_dude85 »

hcurtiss wrote: post #153
vineyardmike wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between a person driving a car, and a factory spewing off a criminally high level of carcinogenic chemicals. > A lot of the things we rely on every day have toxic byproducts And we should stop and fix that. Why do we accept this as ok? > by your logic you should give up your car because someone moved in to the lot next to you and built a house. My logic says we should phase out cars that we know…

The "optimal" level of pollution is not zero. While there may be exceptions to individuals, to society as a whole, the benefits of an activity may very outweigh the costs. This is true of every human endeavor. There are always costs. The question is whether they are worth it.

The optimal level in your opinion probably depends heavily on how close you live to that factory.

Anyway even if you want to live in Cass Sunstein land where everything is a cost benefit analysis then you have to work on some really hard problems like how it's not really possible to fairly cost something like a person getting cancer. It's also really hard to fairly compare them to the extremely diffuse "benefits", like the oil company doesn't need to spend a million bucks to install a scrubber so everyone's gas is 1 one trillionth cent per gallon cheaper on average.

Point is this kind of cost benefit stuff is a buck passing truism unless and until we can solve these problems and more. I won't be holding my breath.

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

#158

Post by mindslight »

njarboe wrote: post #43
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This works, if you have 20 coffee shops, and one of them has "there's asbestos in this building" warning. If you have warnings literally everywhere, for minor things, that noone really cares about, because the risks are miniscule, people will start ignoring even the dangerous but identical-looking signs. "this item causes cancer" ... are we talking about asbestos, or are we talking about a roasted potato? If the labe…

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 scale remediation rather than setting up expensive containment and only finishing part of the job.

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

#159

Post by tdeck »

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.

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

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

#160

Post by yellow_lead »

gramie wrote: post #155
yellow_lead wrote: post #30

Some anecdotes as someone who lived near one of these locations growing up (fortunately about 30 mi away) 1) Every now and then, our entire town would smell terrible, presumably from the winds carrying the emissions to us 2) A friend who moved here during my high school had to move away since his whole family suffered from asthma and it was made much noticeably worse here 3) Heard a couple huge explosions during my l…

I did an internship at a pulp mill that was on the Canada-U.S. border (Canadian side). There was an elementary school literally besides the plant (~50m away). If there was a release of sulphur dioxide that was going to stay on the Canadian side, the plant management notified the relevant authorities. Sometimes the kids were told not to go outside for recess. If the SO2 was potentially going to drift over the border,…

Not particularly but for what it's worth things like bad smells and explosions haven't happen in a really long time here. I am not sure if there's an increased cancer rate where I am located but will likely be researching that soon.
Post reply on HN