231–240 of 344 posts
>"But in the 20th century, TCE was used for many purposes, including making decaffeinated coffee" ... This is exactly the reason I never touched decaf coffee until I found Swiss water process (SWP) decaf. It never made sense to me to use hydrocarbon solvents in a food application
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TCE is present at Lowry in Denver, an old air force base that is now a huge development of multi-million dollar homes and townhomes. This article is from 2000, before the housing development began. People knew TCE was there but the housing development happened anyway https://extras.denverpost.com/news/news1126.htm It’s also at Stapleton, another huge residential area, and previously Denver’s primary airport: “At the…
Its certainly in the soil and groundwater - but why would it be in the air?
Widely used chemical *(that was generally phased out in the 70s) linked to Parkinson's. Still important, but you don't need to start searching product labels in 2023 for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but it’s not a lie to say it was phased out in the 70s. Your comment would be more substantial and useful if you made whatever nuance you’re trying to highlight clear.
> Yes but it’s not a lie to say it was phased out in the 70s I don't understand why you would write that, particularly after having read my comments and throwaway2037's comment on this thread. "This is a chemical that is currently produced in various forms by companies and used by people in 2023" and "it was phased out in the 1970s" would seem to be mutually contradictory facts. There's no "nuance" involved. I get th…
For example: Generally people don't make their own clothes, is a true statement even though there's still plenty of people who make their own clothes.
Widely used chemical *(that was generally phased out in the 70s) linked to Parkinson's. Still important, but you don't need to start searching product labels in 2023 for it.
It's used in dry cleaning in the USA, and their suppliers will deliver it to you by the gallon [0]. MSDS of course [1]. If you're in Australia and go to the dentist, there's this as well [2] although surely that container with its death's head and POISON label are kept well out of sight. Of course there's the lab supply chain, but that's usually more expensive. It's really easy and legal to get if you want it. I've k…
Widely used chemical *(that was generally phased out in the 70s) linked to Parkinson's. Still important, but you don't need to start searching product labels in 2023 for it.
It's used in dry cleaning in the USA, and their suppliers will deliver it to you by the gallon [0]. MSDS of course [1]. If you're in Australia and go to the dentist, there's this as well [2] although surely that container with its death's head and POISON label are kept well out of sight. Of course there's the lab supply chain, but that's usually more expensive. It's really easy and legal to get if you want it. I've k…
Does it remain in the fabric after use? Is there danger to the wearer of dry-cleaned clothes or only to the people working at dry cleaner businesses?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes but it’s not a lie to say it was phased out in the 70s I don't understand why you would write that, particularly after having read my comments and throwaway2037's comment on this thread. "This is a chemical that is currently produced in various forms by companies and used by people in 2023" and "it was phased out in the 1970s" would seem to be mutually contradictory facts. There's no "nuance" involved. I get th…
Mass, widespread, unchecked use and subsequent dumping of the chemical was phased out because that practice was understood to be harmful to people and the environment. The fact that it is now used in a controlled and regulated manner is entirely different. You either missed this nuance, or you are deliberately being obtuse to make a point that "it's technically still used" which, obviously, is true, and also doesn't…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes but it’s not a lie to say it was phased out in the 70s I don't understand why you would write that, particularly after having read my comments and throwaway2037's comment on this thread. "This is a chemical that is currently produced in various forms by companies and used by people in 2023" and "it was phased out in the 1970s" would seem to be mutually contradictory facts. There's no "nuance" involved. I get th…
You're ignoring the modifier - "generally phased out" is not the same statement as "completely phased out". For example: Generally people don't make their own clothes, is a true statement even though there's still plenty of people who make their own clothes.
Widely used chemical *(that was generally phased out in the 70s) linked to Parkinson's. Still important, but you don't need to start searching product labels in 2023 for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well one problem is that "Some of the most populated zones of" everywhere are superfund sites. Another, I learned long ago in the real estate business, is that superfund sites are just the sites they've taken the trouble to bother "cleaning up". As the article alludes to, it's not the documented TCE sites we need to worry about, it's the undocumented TCE sites that will likely get the average person. This same rule a…
I can't help but think we've gone too far in limiting liability Doing so may be an effective way to catalyze invention and economic activity but ignoring externalities becomes existentially risky as our capacities develop If we prefer human arbitration to nature's blind and brutal judgment, we had better put toothy disincentives in place Is it possible that occasionally punishing an honest mistake or absence of foret…
It's not even about punishing. If you cause a car or home accident because of a mistake, your insurance rates will go up, and if the damage exceeds your coverage, you'll pay out of pocket. There's nothing punitive about it, you're just responsible because of fault.
That shouldn't feel wrong. It should evoke pity, but not a feeling of wrongness.
For the heirs of the stockholders of these polluting companies we need a special tax to clean up the "accidents" of those companies. These taxes could be limited to the maximum value of the company, or better yet the proportion of the total wealth of the heirs that the company stock represented at the time they sold or dissolved the company. That's still limiting liability, but in the original sense of the term (clawback of sold and wipeout of retained shares).
For the heirs of anyone who made a purposeful decision to pollute despite knowing the harms, then the limited liability should be pierced to allow taxation of the fraction of the total wealth of the heirs that derive from the polluter.