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

181–189 of 189 posts

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

#181

Post by nerpderp82 »

philips wrote: post #91
htek wrote: post #67

Jesus, this story is going to have all the bad takes. People's main takeaway from the article is, "it's just the way cities grow," "it's the zoning board's fault," "people moved near a cancer cluster, it's their fault," "you should be able to pollute an area you pay for." Seriously? The problem is the government allowing private corporations to poison the environment to benefit the bottom line of the corporations. I…

Absolutely! I have started a project to encourage municipalities to use land use to protect their water and other sensitive spots from service stations. The EPA has all sorts of silly guidelines like saying setback a gas station 500 feet from school or wetlands if they pump over 3.6MM gallons a year. Under that? 25 feet. https://postpump.org is the project so far. A crazy thing I learned recently is the cost of clean…

This is solid work. I appreciate it.

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

#182

Post by refurb »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #171
refurb wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you’re for banning almost all foods that brown through baking this form acrylomide, a known carcinogen?

I'm for banning uncontrolled infliction of that and other carcinogens on one's neighbours, yes.

Say bye bye to BBQ grills and any sort of frying then!

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

#183

Post by dekhn »

refurb wrote: post #167
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you have a fire in your fireplace, you are releasing polluting carcinogens. When you do that, are you also doing something wrong? Yes. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51581817 https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/property/1430579/wood-b... For the reasons that you set out. It's fairly straightforward.

So you’re for banning almost all foods that brown through baking this form acrylomide, a known carcinogen?

nobody has demonstrated that bread acrylamide poses a true risk to public health.

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

#184

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

refurb wrote: post #182
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm for banning uncontrolled infliction of that and other carcinogens on one's neighbours, yes.

Say bye bye to BBQ grills and any sort of frying then!

Bye bye.

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

#185

Post by refurb »

dekhn wrote: post #183
refurb wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you’re for banning almost all foods that brown through baking this form acrylomide, a known carcinogen?

nobody has demonstrated that bread acrylamide poses a true risk to public health.

That’s my point. OP has already said “no carcinogens” flat out

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

#186

Post by tsol »

pfortuny wrote: post #2

The map itself: https://projects.propublica.org/toxmap/

I'm surprised by the levels in Houston. I wouldn't expect so much pollution in such a populated area. Louisiana gets a bonus mention-- there are quite a few polluters along the Mississippi just north of New Orleans. I can only imagine the impact this has on their water quality

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

#187

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

refurb wrote: post #185
dekhn wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nobody has demonstrated that bread acrylamide poses a true risk to public health.

That’s my point. OP has already said “no carcinogens” flat out

"no carcinogens flat out" is an obvious straw man mis-characterisation, but neither can we dismiss small effects over many people and over time. This comment gets it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29193928

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

#188

Post by nawgz »

chrisseaton wrote: post #62
nawgz wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are strongly whitewashing your own comments. Your first comment - as mentioned re: personal agendas - was about 75% dedicated to to railing against California. The other 25% was where you expressed your opinion of the article: "probably nobody cares" Please write more carefully if you mean what you say when pressed, because these thoughts are not without merit, but the top level comment was completely off-topic a…

> derogatory to the article I’m really not sure how you managed to take that away from the top level comment! I didn't say anything derogatory about it if you re-read it. I think you're possibly bringing in some kind of preconception. The article is important but its impact is watered down by people making ‘cancer-causing’ a daily warning. That was the point.

You are a sad person to use language like such a snake

> I didn't say anything derogatory about it if you re-read it

he says in response to a comment clearly outlining why it reads as derogatory regardless of author intention, ignoring those points to instead imply I am the problem.

> The article is important but its impact is watered down by people making ‘cancer-causing’ a daily warning. That was the point.

You can't really tell me that was the point - where do you suggest the article is important in your initial comment? Answer with a quotation please.

To me, and any reasonable reader, the point was that you hate California, and everything else was just a weak justification to make that comment on this article.

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

#189

Post by chrismeller »

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…

I know I’m late to the party, but I wanted to let you know you’re an idiot in the kindest of ways.

No, there is no difference between a person and a factory. A factory is many people, so change your equivalence to “my suburb” or “my town”, by the time you get to “my city” there are hundreds of studies that prove car usage has much more widespread health effects - they’re slower to materialize and lifelong, but they also impact 100% of people over a much wider area.

You also assume electric vehicles are inherently better, which is a shockingly common logical fallacy. Where does the power come from? Once you trace that back, based on a geographical area, you can start to make comparisons.

For instance a lot of power (to your house and the car you’re charging in the garage, to the city’s charging points, to the Tesla charging points), still comes from burning coal or things like shale (particularly in certain areas of Europe). Know what you’ve done with your “green” EV? Take the pollution you spread out across the city/county/state/country and concentrate it around the local power plant.

What about the oil that lubes the moving parts? The tires? The metals in the batteries? The acid in the batteries?

And now you, your family, your friends, are all basically as bad as the chemical plant. Still sleeping ok at night up on your high horse?

Post reply on HN