Live data from Hacker News

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

attheu.utah.edu

201–210 of 352 posts

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

#201

I remember going to LA in the late 80's and my eyes watering (I also remember the pants-less man on the side of the strode but that is a different story). Environmental regulations are a win. Unfortunately there is a large segment of the population that doesn't believe something until it happens to them directly. That makes it a challenge to maintain environmental, or any regulations for that matter, over generations…

In Louisana there’s a stretch around all the refineries nicknamed Cancer Alley. The locals work the plants. Everyone gets sick. And they vote for expansion because it brings in more jobs. You need the regulations.

In the bay area you can throw a rock from one super fund site and hit another yet it's full of libertarians saying 'stop over regulating'.

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

#203
post #194

The concerning thing is how lead, arsenic are being found in things they are not reported in or labelled as being safe.

I wonder how big a factor this is in creating podcast bros/tech bros. Is there actually a pipeline from 'get guy to start working out' to becoming a dumb bro?

https://www.consumerreports.org/lead/protein-powders-and-sha...

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

#204

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.

Government should be active and in charge of urban planning. It is a matter of the common good.

One of the biggest problems today is that urban planning has basically evaporated. Local and state governments don't plan towns anymore. Things are left to developers who have no other concern than to run a street off a major road and plop a few houses down, sell, and move on to the next project. No thought is given to traffic or public services or walkability or public transportation. No care is given to integration with existing urban structures. Instead of mixed-use zoning or building houses around a common public space, which are historically the more common and sensible form of urban planning, we end up with car-dependent suburban dead zones, suburban sprawl.

This should be receiving more attention from environmentalists, as urban planning is intimately related to environmental issues.

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

#205
I wish someone would do a large RCT of water fluoridation in pregnant women looking at long term cognitive outcomes if fetuses. It would be an easy study to do (just randomize each group to receive free deliveries of either fluoridated or not fluoridated water) and then look at their offspring’s scores on cognitive tests every few years. I think reputable scientists don’t touch this because they’re afraid of being labelled kooky.

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

#206
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Louisana there’s a stretch around all the refineries nicknamed Cancer Alley. The locals work the plants. Everyone gets sick. And they vote for expansion because it brings in more jobs. You need the regulations.

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 grew up in Cancer Alley. Here's my old neighborhood: https://maps.app.goo.gl/3DZbiz8Bgyx5tx7v9

That wedge surrounded by green is a neighborhood that was created by landfilling a patch of swamp and building a levee around it. The northeast side of the wedge is the "nice" part of the neighborhood. You can see the houses are much bigger and there is a golf course running through it. There's a country club and lot of very nice houses. That's where a lot of upper level oil company employees live. (We lived here, my stepfather was a research chemist at DuPont.)

The southwest side of the neighborhood (much of it literally on "the other side of the tracks") is the cheaper houses and some apartments where a lot of blue collar employees work.

Zoom out a bit and you see Shell Norco to the northwest, the very heart of (and cause of) Cancer Alley. Ormond Estates was basically created to be a commuter neighborhood for Shell. Across the river is Dow Chemical. Look east and you see the IMTT St. Rose chemical plant. Keep going upriver and you get to DuPont and the Marathon Refinery.

Most of the executives responsible for cancer here do live in the area. People of all stripes have an impressive ability to maintain cognitive dissonance and live in denial when they are incentivized to do so.

Southern Louisiana is an intense microcosm of this. Seafood is one of the biggest industries there and you would think the local culture would be intensely protective of the environment, especially after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. But environmentalism is woven into liberal culture that is in opposition to the religious conservative culture of the area, so it often gets actively rejected even though poor people in Louisiana are the ones who suffer for their choice.

"Strangers in Their Own Land" is an excellent social science book if you want to know more about the area.

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

#207

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…

That's why the people that would rather policy be based on their personal interests work so hard to discredit all data and the scientific method so that you can't even have that conversation.

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

#208

> The Utah part of this is so interesting because of the way people keep track of their family history. Definitively interesting that they could get so many old hair samples with good provenance.

It's interesting that the paper doesn't mention this, but the answer here is Latter Day Saints. They have a very strong culture of genealogy and preserving family history. The study authors are all in Salt Lake City, which is the Mormon capital of the world.

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

#210
post #34

unless you live next to an airport or even remotely close to it then lead is being sprayed all over you, your car and home, daily for THREE DECADES NOW no rush, not like it's poison or does permanent damage to your health/IQ https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...

Yeah it's absurd how aviation is somehow exempt from these rules, especially since piston engine aircraft carry virtually no vital role in anything except people flying them for fun. There have been viable alternatives for a long long time now.

I guess people who have money for personal airplanes also have the money to lobby when it matters for their interests. Pricks, I hope they die of dementia.

Post reply on HN