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

L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 229 posts

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#201

Post by the_pwner224 »

vaccinator wrote: post #173
sschueller wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corexit was a way bigger crime than the oil spill itself and a huge amount of profit was made selling the chemical. Discusting.

I still boycott BP, to this day. But I am probably a minority. In some areas in Florida, they purchased most gas stations after the spill happened, so it is sometime not easy to avoid them.

I didn't bother boycotting BP because I assumed that all the big oil companies are similarly corrupt, put profit over the environment to the same degree, cover up their incidents, etc. BP is just the one that got unlucky and had a PR disaster about it. The article mentioned above implies that Corexit is commonly used - so nothing special about BP here.

> Corexit is a go-to product for energy companies like BP when they’re dealing with massive spills.

Wikipedia shows that BP's usage was by a very wide margin the largest use of Corexit, so I suppose I'm going to stop buying BP too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit#Use

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#202

Post by carapace »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #131
x87678r wrote: post #122

While this dumping is horrific you also have to understand how beneficial DDT was: > Between 1945 and 1965, DDT saved millions-even tens of millions-of lives around the world, perhaps more than any other man-made drug or chemical before or since. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/07/02/the-mosquito-k...

Couldn't bug nets have achieved the same effect without poisoning the biosphere?

Yes, people distribute mosquito nets to reduce incidence of malaria. It's a thing.

> The most effective means of preventing malaria is sleeping under a mosquito net, specifically a long-lasting insecticide treated net (LLIN).

~ https://www.againstmalaria.com/WhyNets.aspx

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#203

Post by vladTheInhaler »

jacobush wrote: post #181
darkcha0s wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether that punishment is jail time or a fine is secondary. The primary question is, should the decedents be punished for a crime they did not commit? Moreover, where do you draw the line? Should all the decedents of german families who got their wealth off the back of slave labor by jews also be forced to forfeit their wealth? What about the decedents of families of plantation owners? How do you go about handling t…

In the US there are plenty of "US vs $1000" cases already.

Though I generally agree with the sentiment that we should do more to claw back ill-gotten gains, civil asset forfeiture is a terrible precedent and should be eliminated, not expanded. The legal theory is that your money (and property) doesn't have the right to due process, since it's not a person. So basically you have to prove that it wasn't involved in a crime. Which just leads to police officers stealing from poor people who haven't been convicted of a crime.

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#204

Post by vel0city »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #105
eesmith wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's punishment for the children of the rich, then those children born to parents who are broke must also live a punished life, yes? If you are against children being punished because of the economics of their parents, then surely you are in support for a strong social safety network for children (universal subsidized/free childcare, including meals, and healthcare), yes? Which requires taxation or other funding…

The rich will still be rich. They'll come up with complex workarounds. They'll impart the money on their kids while they're still alive. The people who will be screwed are the middle class people who's only (if any) windfall in life is inheriting part of their parents house and using that to pay off their own mortgage or send their kids to college or whatever (and who's kids will likely inherit a share of the house a…

The US currently exempts $11.5 million per person for estate taxes (IANAL). A family inheriting their parent's estate does not pay taxes on the first $23 million dollars worth of assets. Even then, taxes only apply on amounts greater than that exemption amount, so to have an estate tax take a significant amount of your estate income would require way more than $23 million. With your example its hard to claim the family is "middle class" when they're already homeowners and are inheriting well more than $23 million.

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#205

Post by leptons »

leptons wrote: post #191
gpm wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems unlikely that this would be retroactive. It would probably fall under some pre existing statute like vandalism.

"Causing environmental catastrophe" seems like it should be covered by some kind of law in the last 70 or 80 years since DDT started production. They knew how toxic the substance was and how long-lived it was, there is no guessing game as to whether it was a bad idea, even at the time. It has more to do with tolerance of callousness and stupidity in previous decades than it has to do with there not being a specific l…

Something is seriously wrong with hacker news if I'm getting downvoted for this comment.

This place is worse than reddit, and that is hard to achieve.

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#206

Post by dahfizz »

charlesu wrote: post #95
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we should tax the crap out of everyone's estates on the premise that they probably wronged society and that society will need to pay to un-screw up whatever they did?!? Whatever happened to giving people the benefit of the doubt? Whatever happens to presumption of innocence? Firstly anyone with a brain is gonna conveniently go broke before they die if you try and pull something like that. Second I'm struggling to…

We should tax the crap out of everyone’s estates because it’s aligned with the American value of equal opportunity. Do you want to live in a society where everyone has a fair shot? Then you need the estate tax. It’s the great equalizer. We can the funds to improve our schools, roads, and social services so that everyone is a bit better off.

> We should tax the crap out of everyone’s estates because it’s aligned with the American value of equal opportunity. Do you want to live in a society where everyone has a fair shot?

I do not understand this sentiment one bit. To think that we should implement equality by pulling people down to the mean is, frankly, insane. That does nothing to help anyone - its a stance based solely on anger and jealousy. Your policy would literally decrease the average quality of life.

Would you be happy if everyone was destitute? At what point do you realize that actual quality of life matters more than perfect equality?

We achieve equality by bringing people up, not tearing them down. If you think we need more tax money to accomplish that goal, I would argue that we have much more of a budgeting problem than a tax income problem, but I understand the sentiment. But to think that the appropriate tax vehicle is to explicitly destroy lives is not an American ideal.

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#207

Post by Supermancho »

dahfizz wrote: post #190
Supermancho wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP implied that such a law doesn't exist, but there's nothing inherently unconstitutional about a new legislative act to enforce the concept. > That will never stand up in court. What's your point or objection to a hypothetical future?

> What's your point or objection to a hypothetical future? "Equality under the law" is a pretty strong argument. Corporations are legal people, and the law treats all people the same. Setting up classes of people with different laws that apply differently is absolutely not something that would fly.

> Corporations are legal people

That is incorrect. Under some contexts and situations, they are treated and considered the same as people. This is not the same thing. IBM isn't sent a ballot to vote, it is not a "legal person".

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#208

Post by ornornor »

It’s hard to fathom how much we’ve fucked up our environment and ourselves overall. I think we polluted ourselves into a corner and are headed for extinction (and taking most of life on earth with us)

It’s sad to think about but it’s hard to argue we don’t deserve it after all.

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#209

Post by vaccinator »

the_pwner224 wrote: post #201
vaccinator wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still boycott BP, to this day. But I am probably a minority. In some areas in Florida, they purchased most gas stations after the spill happened, so it is sometime not easy to avoid them.

I didn't bother boycotting BP because I assumed that all the big oil companies are similarly corrupt, put profit over the environment to the same degree, cover up their incidents, etc. BP is just the one that got unlucky and had a PR disaster about it. The article mentioned above implies that Corexit is commonly used - so nothing special about BP here. > Corexit is a go-to product for energy companies like BP when th…

It wasn't a huge PR mess for no reason...

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#210

Post by triceratops »

dahfizz wrote: post #190
Supermancho wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP implied that such a law doesn't exist, but there's nothing inherently unconstitutional about a new legislative act to enforce the concept. > That will never stand up in court. What's your point or objection to a hypothetical future?

> What's your point or objection to a hypothetical future? "Equality under the law" is a pretty strong argument. Corporations are legal people, and the law treats all people the same. Setting up classes of people with different laws that apply differently is absolutely not something that would fly.

> Corporations are legal people, and the law treats all people the same.

I've never heard of a corporation going to jail or being given the chair.

Post reply on HN