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

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

attheu.utah.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 352 posts

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

#161

Post by breakyerself »

derektank wrote: post #149
breakyerself wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I'm not in favor of sprawl. It sounds like it needs to be amended, but do you want to go back to polluted air and water just because a small minority of regulations need to be repealed or amended? Wouldn't it make more sense to just revisit whatever regulations are having unintended consequences?

>do you want to go back to polluted air and water just because a small minority of regulations need to be repealed or amended? >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 forcefully rejected.

When I say they're mostly good, but we should fix what's broken and people start hitting me with examples of broken regulation I can only interpret that as an example for why environmental regulation should be opposed by default. So I respond accordingly.

I've never said all environmental regulation is good. That would be stupid, but you should have evidence based reasons for wanting to repeal or modify a regulation.

Existing regulation was put in place for a reason and those reasons likely still matter. Even if the regulation is falling short of having unintended consequences.

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

#162

Post by jcattle »

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…

> It is fair and reasonable to demand that environmental regulation justify its existence with hard, scientifically verifiable data or else get chopped

Here is a strawman for you: studies for regulation A show that it is successfull in improving habitat for endangered species. Studies also show that the regulation increases tax burden and decreases competitiveness of national agriculture.

Should the regulation be chopped?

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

#163

Post by MisterTea »

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.

Which "other" regulations are harmful and what harm are they doing?

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

#165

Post by MisterTea »

jajuuka wrote: post #121
II2II wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a cartoon meant to sell merch. It wasn't exactly meant to be a nuanced reflection of reality.

This. Most cartoons produced on the 80's/90's were made to sell merch like toys. You can thank Gi-Joe. The irony here is a TV show about environmentalism generated pollution in the process of making plastic action figures and branded clothing which mostly wind up in the dump.

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

#166

Post by tim333 »

gambiting wrote: post #44

Fun fact - leaded petrol isn't actually banned in the UK, you can legally buy it and use it. The legislation at the time of bans just made it so that leaded petrol could only be a small % of overall petrol sales by any given fuel station, arguing that it allowed time for owners of unleaded-incompatible cars to purchase it. And....it worked pretty much exactly as designed - initially only the largest stations carried…

Light aircraft still run on leaded avgas.

Sounds like the government is being lax. From the aircraft owners and pilots association:

>So the Government's indifference is not going to help us in the UK if the *supply of leaded AVGAS is stopped, the UK CAA have not appoved new fuels, there is no infrastucture or supply chain in the UK. We keep beating the doors at the CAA and DfT...

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

#167

Post by lysace »

During the past year I have discovered that almost all retailers here in Sweden have voluntarily replaced their usual Teflon/polytetrafluoroethylene/PTFE frying pan coatings with something called 'ceramic'. (This includes IKEA globally, I assume.)

The thing is - it's simply not as good. The worst case is probably frying frozen gyoza. They will get stuck when they get gelatinous on that 'ceramic' surface.

I ended up looking up some slightly offbrand stores to get the pan that I wanted.

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

#168

Post by [deleted] »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #113
buildsjets wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#169

Post by aaronblohowiak »

NicuCalcea wrote: post #140
coob wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah some environmental regulation is batshit. Literally, in the UK you can’t build if there’s a protected bat species in the area.

Why do you think that is batshit?

Guano

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

#170

Post by bevr1337 »

davidw wrote: post #151
bevr1337 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article doesn't speak to me. What I read is, "Won't someone think of the poor UC system?" But the UC system is _massive_ > But Casa Joaquin’s neighboring, overwhelmingly white homeowners could have used CEQA to demand costly studies and multiple hearings before Berkeley officials. Important to note that white people are well-represented at UC Berkley too. https://opa.berkeley.edu/campus-data/uc-berkeley-quick-fa…

They're talking about using environmental rules to block homes for people to live in, inside cities. Using land efficiently in walkable places is one of the most environmentally friendly things we can be doing, and supposed "environmentalists" sought to block it using "environmental" rules! If that's not NIMBYism to you, you have blinders on.

I didn't say there was NO NIMBYs, but that this article suggests NIMBYs were the primary protestors. That doesn't seem truthful. Additionally, the UC system does have a large impact on the environment.

I'm sure there are better examples to illustrate your point

> homes for people to live in

Student housing. Which likely means partially-furnished studios with shared bathrooms and a kitchenette at best. This isn't the useful housing folks are asking for.

Post reply on HN