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

191–200 of 352 posts

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

#191

Post by mapt »

breakyerself wrote: post #147
an_account wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CEQA in California is very often used to block apartments in existing urban areas. So, instead, California continues to mostly build single family housing sprawl into natural habitats. A clear example of environmental regulation hurting the environment and the climate. And of course the affordability of housing.

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amended, but do you want to go back to polluted air and water just because a small minority of regulations need to be repealed or amended?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?

All of the regulations that are used to "limit sprawl" in the US functionally prohibit the construction of new dense city blocks even moreso, and this in turn forces suburban sprawl to occur.

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

#192

Post by freshpots »

danlitt wrote: post #89
cassepipe wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you tell more about particulate matter ? You mean small particles in the air right, so air pollution right ?

Particulate matter is relatively large particles, so far as air pollution goes. Think things like soot or smoke, rather than specific chemicals. Burning wood and coal produces far more particulates than, say, natural gas or gasoline-gas.

They're not necessarily large, and the worst for humans is small particulate which gets into the bloodstream through lungs, PM2.5.

https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/indoors/air/pmq_a.ht...

Breathing in unhealthy levels of PM2.5 can increase the risk of health problems like heart disease, asthma, and low birth weight. Unhealthy levels can also reduce visibility and cause the air to appear hazy.

Outdoor sources include vehicle exhaust, burning wood, gas and other fuels, and fires. Particle pollution can also travel long distances from its source; for example from wildfires hundreds of miles away. Outdoor particle pollution levels are more likely to be higher on days with little or no wind or air mixing.

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

#193

Post by _DeadFred_ »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #122
zug_zug wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the point -- the point is that gasoline companies KNEW ABOUT alternative lead-free substitutes for anti-knock (such as ethanol) and chose lead because they perceived it was less profitable. [1] Specifically because ethanol wasn't patentable and TEL was, and ultimately it WAS patented. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-...

Ethanol has a propensity to suck up ambient moisture and is more demanding of rubbers and happily attacks aluminum. In an age of natural rubber components, poorly sealed fuel systems with steel tanks and aluminum carburetors pretty much anything other than ethanol is the "right choice". And once they ruled out ethanol they settled on lead because it was cheap/profitable. Obviously they chose wrong, they should've pic…

The kinda are/were

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.

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

#195

Post by UltraSane »

danlitt wrote: post #92
UltraSane wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could have and should have replaced all coal with nuclear but no, we couldn't do that.

It could have been replaced by almost anything, there is nothing particularly special about nuclear in this context (except its extremely high price).

Coal and nuclear are both dispatchable electricity sources. It is much easier to replace a dispatchable source with another dispatchable source.

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

#196

Post by _DeadFred_ »

abfan1127 wrote: post #53
sunshinesnacks wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They constantly affect the poor more than the middle class. That’s a very broad statement. I expect there are many cases where that is not true.

"greater good" is arguably the most broad statement with a large history of hurting many people based on the "greater good".

When left to their own cigaret companies tell congress cigarettes are safe and non addictive. Left alone companies pay in scrip only usable at the company store.

The 'greater good' has arguably PREVENTED much more hurt of people than it has ever hurt. Meanwhile companies have PROVEN time and time again that they WILL hurt people when left to their own devices. In environmental policies. In pay policies. In employment policies. In EVERY aspect possible.

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

#197

Post by lo_zamoyski »

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.

This sounds good as a general default, but there are differences of approach. The US, for example, tends to be more permissive with new chemicals while the EU tends to take a more precautionary approach. Which is better on the whole, weighing the various competing goods, I don't know. I generally favor health over economic prowess, however.

> a manipulative political maneuver

Yes, under the pretext of concern for the environment. There are well-known cases where the political opposition will commission a bogus ecological studies to stifle construction projects they either don't agree with or as a petty way to simply make the ruling party appear less successful. And naturally, the ecological study will find something, as virtually no major construction project will leave the environment unaltered, which is not to say seriously or irretrievable damaged.

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

#198

Post by gwbas1c »

breakyerself wrote: post #86
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…

Almost every environmental regulation has come after it was already shown that there was some harm that needed to be mitigated. The worst environmental crisis in human history is going largely unchecked. I find it hard to take seriously any argument that environmental regulation has gone too far as opposed to not nearly far enough. If there's a specific regulation that can be shown to be doing more harm than good I'm…

> If there's a specific regulation that can be shown to be doing more harm than good

In Massachusetts you can't clear shoreline. Specifically, if you buy waterfront property on a pond / lake, you can't clear the shoreline to make a beach in your backyard. You can only use what used to be there before the law was passed. There's even restrictions on building close to shorelines, so if you want to build, you need to find an existing building and renovate.

Now, I'm not a wetland expert, so maybe someone will chime in and tell me why every inch of freshwater shoreline must be undisturbed. But I like freshwater swimming and suspect that we can allocate some space for human recreation.

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

#199

Post by petsfed »

an_account wrote: post #118
breakyerself wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost every environmental regulation has come after it was already shown that there was some harm that needed to be mitigated. The worst environmental crisis in human history is going largely unchecked. I find it hard to take seriously any argument that environmental regulation has gone too far as opposed to not nearly far enough. If there's a specific regulation that can be shown to be doing more harm than good I'm…

CEQA in California is very often used to block apartments in existing urban areas. So, instead, California continues to mostly build single family housing sprawl into natural habitats. A clear example of environmental regulation hurting the environment and the climate. And of course the affordability of housing.

I don't know if its still true, but I recall reading once that CEQA had never been used to actually prevent or even slow the building of a dam or a mine or something. It had only ever been used to hobble otherwise neutral development. Its a good idea in theory, but I feel like the plaintiff ought to be able to articulate what environmental impact they are concerned about and maybe require a study from them in support of that claim too.

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

#200

Post by JKCalhoun »

soulofmischief wrote: post #71
xp84 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but I bet the executives and lawyers don’t live anywhere near there, and they probably visit those sites as little as possible. In the thought experiment that wouldn’t be allowed.

I live in Cancer Alley and people down here drink the koolaid. Cut to Midgely pouring TEL all over his hands.

Yeah, Thomas Midgley Jr., from Wikipedia [1]:

"…played a major role in developing leaded gasoline and some of the first chlorofluorocarbons…; both products were later banned from common use due to their harmful impact on human health and the environment. He was granted more than 100 patents over the course of his career."

As someone else said, this guy's work was so toxic to the planet we ought to ban everything else he ever invented—just in case.

(And weirdly, one of his own machines took his life as well—whether by design or not.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.

Post reply on HN