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

261–270 of 352 posts

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

#261

Post by triceratops »

slavik81 wrote: post #255
epistasis wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The closest I've gotten to somebody finding environmental regulations that were driving up the cost of nuclear was with some of the latest stuff with people trying to get rid of the LNT model of how radiation affects people. Getting rid of LNT would allow higher doses to workers, and the way it makes nuclear cheaper is by having less shielding around the reactor. But if you look at how recent reactors like the AP1000…

The £700M (960M USD) spent on fish protection measures at Hinkley Point C would be a topical example [1]. It's expected to save an average of a few hundred twaite shad, six river lamprey, and eighteen allis shad per year, plus one salmon every twelve years, and a trout every thirty-six years. https://www.salmonbusiness.com/nuclear-plants-new-700-millio...

The article you linked says "According to a government-commissioned review, Hinkley Point C’s suite of “fish protection measures” will cost more than £700 million".

I spent 10 minutes and have not been able to find said "government-commissioned review". Is this even true?

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

#262

Post by soperj »

cfiggers wrote: post #259
soperj wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> while other environmental regulations do more harm than good and need to be reigned in or eliminated. Prove it.

I have proven it to my own satisfaction. It's a pretty trivial proof. I'm sure you could derive your own, if you tried. How's this: if, at some point, it seems to me that your agreement would benefit me or advance something I care about, I promise I'll consider trying to convince you.

"trust me bro"

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

#263

Post by triceratops »

nxm wrote: post #62
FatherOfCurses wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be uncontroversial that introducing shit into an environment where it doesn't belong is a bad idea, yet many people remain unconvinced that dumping tons of carbon dioxide a year into the atmosphere or tons of fertilizer by-products into the oceans is a bad idea.

It's less that but rather the hypocrisy of promoting burdensome regulations and bans implemented in one county (e.g. Germany) which hurts domestic industry and raises costs for its citizens, all while being silent on countries like China and India continuing to massively build more and more coal fired power plants

China's carbon emissions decreased last year. They build more renewables than anyone else.

If India and China build coal plants, it's because they have coal. If they had natural gas, like the US, they'd build natural gas plants.

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

#264

Post by zzo38computer »

ck2 wrote: 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...

There is unleaded airplane fuel, although leaded fuel is still used. What I have been told is that it would take some time for the unleaded airplane fuel (which is compatible with the existing airplanes that use leaded fuel) to be distributed to enough places to be commonly available enough, which it isn't yet.

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

#265

Post by jmward01 »

munificent wrote: post #206
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 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 v…

Points taken. After seeing this and other similar posts I suspect my thought experiment would fail and the areas would be highly polluted. Maybe instead we need pollution parks? The big point is we need some sort of constant reminder of how bad things were and could be again if we don't keep our guard up. We are victims of our success. People look around and see reasonable water and breath reasonable air and get mad when you tell them 'rolling coal' exhaust systems should be a felony that puts you in jail for a year in addition to a fine. Basically, what will get people to listen and remember?

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

#266

Post by JumpCrisscross »

HowardStark wrote: post #178
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.

CEQA itself is a mixed bag. I want to be clear that there are very important things the CEQA does to improve our environmental conditions[0]! The very real issue of CEQA being “weaponized”[1] stems from how environmental complaints have to be re-litigated in their entirety every time one is filed. Say there’s a coalition of neighbors who do not want something built. They can each file a lawsuit alleging environmental…

> there are very important things the CEQA does to improve our environmental conditions

Which fits with OP’s assertion that it does “more harm than good.” (Fortunately, restricting the private right of action would curtail a lot of the harm. On the national level I’m pretty much at the point of wanting NEPA repealed.)

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

#267

Post by munificent »

lysace wrote: post #212
munificent wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans were able to successfully fry food for hundreds of years before Teflon was invented. I still like non-stick pans for eggs, but for almost everything else, I prefer stainless steel, cast iron, or enameled cast iron. You do have to pay a little more attention to technique (knowing what temperature to heat the pan to before you put food on, etc.), but the end result is just about as good as a non-stick pan with m…

I remember seeing a bunch of research showing that any teflon you ate was just pooped out, so to speak. This ceramic pan I bought from IKEA lasted like 3-5 months until I was unhappy with it. Historically, the teflon pans I have bought from there have lasted 12-18 months easily.

For comparison:

* I don't know how old my cast iron skillet is because I literally bought it from an antique store but I've had it for over a decade and it's in better shape than ever.

* My $60 Lodge Dutch oven is over a decade old and has been used hundreds of times.

* My stainless steel All-Clad skillet is relatively new at 5-6 years but is no worse than the day I got it.

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

#268

Post by munificent »

jmward01 wrote: post #265
munificent wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 v…

Points taken. After seeing this and other similar posts I suspect my thought experiment would fail and the areas would be highly polluted. Maybe instead we need pollution parks? The big point is we need some sort of constant reminder of how bad things were and could be again if we don't keep our guard up. We are victims of our success. People look around and see reasonable water and breath reasonable air and get mad…

> People look around and see reasonable water and breath reasonable air

In Louisiana after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, people could literally see crude oil washing up on the same shores where they went out to catch redfish and bring it home for dinner.

And yet those same people voted for the exact same politicians that enabled that stuff to happen.

It's not a simple visibility problem. It's a complex cultural issue that relates to the interests of the elites, communication systems, religion, etc.

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

#269

Post by lysace »

munificent wrote: post #267
lysace wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember seeing a bunch of research showing that any teflon you ate was just pooped out, so to speak. This ceramic pan I bought from IKEA lasted like 3-5 months until I was unhappy with it. Historically, the teflon pans I have bought from there have lasted 12-18 months easily.

For comparison: * I don't know how old my cast iron skillet is because I literally bought it from an antique store but I've had it for over a decade and it's in better shape than ever. * My $60 Lodge Dutch oven is over a decade old and has been used hundreds of times. * My stainless steel All-Clad skillet is relatively new at 5-6 years but is no worse than the day I got it.

(I also used to default to comment in bullet lists, because that's how I think. I have realized most people don't do that, so I have worked on writing in a more fluent style in order to appear less rigid. :) )

I think my main complaint is with e.g. IKEA changing their default frying pan coating dramatically without clear communication.

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

#270

Post by jmward01 »

munificent wrote: post #268
jmward01 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Points taken. After seeing this and other similar posts I suspect my thought experiment would fail and the areas would be highly polluted. Maybe instead we need pollution parks? The big point is we need some sort of constant reminder of how bad things were and could be again if we don't keep our guard up. We are victims of our success. People look around and see reasonable water and breath reasonable air and get mad…

> People look around and see reasonable water and breath reasonable air In Louisiana after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, people could literally see crude oil washing up on the same shores where they went out to catch redfish and bring it home for dinner. And yet those same people voted for the exact same politicians that enabled that stuff to happen. It's not a simple visibility problem. It's a complex cultural iss…

I agree the problem has more than one aspect, but we made real progress that we are now backtracking on nationally. Local problems will always be local. Go to a town and they will likely be pro that industry but as a nation we recognized local pollution didn't stay local and created things like the EPA and implemented regulations that worked. Now we are backtracking because, I think, people haven't felt the problems themselves. I remember burning eyes and amazing sunsets, others don't. How can we get those that never experienced inoculated so they will keep the regulations that made things better?
Post reply on HN