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

151–160 of 257 posts

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

#151

Post by grumpy-de-sre »

gr_norm wrote: post #49
danparsonson wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but their starting point was different again - they already had the population, and were able to piggy back on technological progress from other countries by borrowing or stealing it. The other thing they have is an authoritarian government; a country can achieve a lot in a short time when it can freely sideline the concerns and needs of its citizens.

I'm not a China defender, but sidelining the concerns and needs of its citizens isn't why China is able to do things like high speed rail or build high density infrastructure in general. Lots there view having their property taken by the government and relocated as a good thing, because it almost always happens way above market rates. There are exceptions, of course, but my impression is that it is not the norm. Feel…

I always liked the bit where they often compensate folks not directly financially but rather with a generous share in what they are building. Eg. the building containing your one bedroom apartment gets torn down by developers and as compensation they offer you a three bedroom apartment in the new building.

Definitely plays an interesting role in combating/moderating NIMBYism.

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

#152

Post by monkeyelite »

nsriv wrote: post #140
monkeyelite wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Re: overlap with other agency's responsibility So you would prefer that only one agency speak with one voice on a subject? Sounds very counter to the "multiple perspectives revealing aspects of the truth" principle you espoused. In practice, government agencies often have disagreements in areas of overlap and hash it out before making a public recommendation, or settling on a course of action.

> So you would prefer that only one agency speak with one voice on a subject?

It’s generally better to know what each groups bias is and compensate than to pretend there are unbiased groups. That rhetorical move tends to be the most malicious and deceiving.

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

#153

Post by monkeyelite »

ordu wrote: post #122
monkeyelite wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Yes I don’t believe in unbiased sources. I believe in multiple perspectives revealing aspects of the truth. It is just metaphysics. I like it also, but it is impractical. I find it useful to train my mind to see things from different angles, but it is useless to talk about concrete things. Can you find examples of a biased reports on CSB's youtube channel? If not, it is a good example of uselessness of metaphysics.…

> It is just metaphysics

I would call it having a baseline understanding of organizations and media.

> Can you find examples of a biased reports on CSB's youtube channel?

Yes? Can you not?

The top video in this thread, “safety pays off“ highlights their successes and does not discuss their failures or costs. So yes that video was designed to make their organization appear in the best light possible.

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

#154

Post by monkeyelite »

vharuck wrote: post #119
monkeyelite wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

People who donate money or time to charity. Volunteer firefighters. There's a massive list, really. Overall, kindness is a very common trait. Why else would we have so many countries with welfare programs, even for classes of citizens the majority will never belong to?

Do you have any articles about firefighters voting to close or downsize the fire house?

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

#155

Post by monkeyelite »

ordu wrote: post #132
esseph wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are living in a post-truth world, and more specifically, a post truth country in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth_politics https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/informed-societies/post... https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=14214

Oh, it is all about dumb people who cannot navigate the current informational landscape. Or about people who relies on informational processing disabilities of others. It doesn't mean that smart people should reject the notions of truth and false.

I didn’t say anything about truth not existing. I said all organizations are presenting a perspective. It may contain truth, but it’s not an objective view.

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

#156

Post by noisy_boy »

flir wrote: post #46
noisy_boy wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of pent up hate and vitriol coming out now is incredible. People hated each other so much and more or less kept it somewhat in check for so many decades?

Bizarre as it sounds, I think a lot of people can hate on demand. Media starts beating the drum, and a proportion of the population go from apathetic to pretty damn frothy surprisingly fast.

Actually it doesn't sound bizarre; you are probably correct. Some people can switch to extreme emotions quickly and easily.

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

#157

Post by rectang »

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…

> Sure, we can say there is no objective source of truth and chastise the author for using that word

I regret my imprecise use of language which has taken us down this tiresome metaphysical subthread. I should have merely emphasized that the CSB presents an alternative point of view to that of the company. It was not essential to my point that the CSB be unassailable.

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

#158

Post by KindOne »

caseysoftware wrote: post #133

Admittedly, I'd never heard of the CSB until this article but their mission - from their "About Us" page - seems important: "The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating chemical incidents to determine the cause or probable cause." Out of curiosity, I looked up the East Palestine, Ohio train derailment in 2023 and can't find their investigation on their site in either the active or completed in…

Train Derailment is for FRA / NTSB.

CSB is for manufacturing / processing incidents.

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

#159

Post by bravesoul2 »

monkeyelite wrote: post #146
bravesoul2 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Randomly knocking out bricks of your house so you can sell them for 50c each to help pay the mortgage is not innovation.

Saying this thing is here so it must be important is not governance or wisdom. Just say why it’s a good idea.

That is not the lesson of chestertons fence. What you describe is cargo cult.

Chesterton fence says "stop! think".

What doge and Trump are doing is destroying stuff they don't understand.

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

#160

Post by CaliforniaKarl »

BurningFrog wrote: post #62

[flagged]

When something happens, the real cause of the problem is often due to a combination of the entity (the company/person/whatever that had the "something" happen), as well as external factors. Those external factors can include rules/guidance—or the lack of rules/guidance—from multiple agencies.

If a regulatory agency is also doing investigations, they may choose to focus less on their own 'failings' (that is, their agency's rules/guidance or lack of rules/guidance), and focus more on others' failings. Or, they may choose to focus less on other agencies' failings for political reasons.

Having a third party, with no regulatory ability, helps to reduce the appearance of bias, and increase trust in the industry that the third party investigates.

Post reply on HN