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

The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 189 posts

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#31

Post by nawgz »

chrisseaton wrote: post #20
frazbin wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, California has raised the bar, and to do so it had to take risks. In particular, it risked looking silly-- and in penis-politics looking silly in front of your opponents is an existential risk. The good news is, some of these risks paid off and became national standards. So, thanks to California, you are poisoned a little less every day. Speaking personally: fuck you for making fun of that effort!

Don't know why you've chosen to use personal abuse? That's against the site guidelines here https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html please don't do that. I'm not making fun of it - I'm saying it's actively harmful because when people now see articles like this and read 'cancer-causing' they'll think 'like Starbucks coffee, so I'm happy with that risk - not a problem'.

> when people now see articles like this and read 'cancer-causing' they'll think 'like Starbucks coffee, so I'm happy with that risk - not a problem'.

Well, I can think of multiple site guidelines I see violated here too.

> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

Really, it'd be a compliment to call your comments facile. This article has as an opening graphic a stark juxtaposition of harsh industry and children attending school, which it then proceeds to discuss pretty thoroughly. It is difficult to believe you think the discussion there is about risks analogous to drinking a cup of coffee.

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#33

Post by mdp2021 »

zbrozek wrote: post #10
chrisseaton wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't seem to change their behaviour due to those warnings. Nobody's going into a coffee shop, seeing that warning sticker and thinking 'ah whoops better get out of here' are they? The warning 'cancer-causing' has no effect.

My social circle is in CA. None of us pay any attention whatsoever to prop65 labels. They're about as useful as any other type of product or business labeling: there's so much of it that it's just visual noise that's long-ago been brainfiltered out of existence.

They are interesting to the interested. Like «any other ... labeling».

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#34

Post by anonAndOn »

redleggedfrog wrote: post #22

"Before there was climate denial, there was cancer denial." Cancer is just a risk. Having a job an earning money will always outweigh that risk. People will put up with a lot of crummy environment to put food on the table.

What many corporations try to do is downplay the risk or flat out deny, and pay a fool's wages because the locals don't know they're slowly getting poisoned. Ignorance is great for business because it increases profit margins.

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#35

Post by chrisseaton »

nawgz wrote: post #31
chrisseaton wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't know why you've chosen to use personal abuse? That's against the site guidelines here https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html please don't do that. I'm not making fun of it - I'm saying it's actively harmful because when people now see articles like this and read 'cancer-causing' they'll think 'like Starbucks coffee, so I'm happy with that risk - not a problem'.

> when people now see articles like this and read 'cancer-causing' they'll think 'like Starbucks coffee, so I'm happy with that risk - not a problem'. Well, I can think of multiple site guidelines I see violated here too. > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone sa…

> It is difficult to believe you think the discussion there is about risks analogous to drinking a cup of coffee.

I don't think that! And that's the point - same warning, but not the same risk.

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#36

Post by blablabla123 »

howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #11

Before the emissions control feeding frenzy begins, let's try to remember that further regulation without industry input contributes to further inflation & moves more polluting production overseas where we have no control over its impact on the world. Yes, we should aim for zero emissions. Yes, the health impacts carry their own costs not to mention the human tragedy. However, good public policy is about rewarding go…

> further regulation ... moves more polluting production overseas where we have no control over its impact on the world.

Large corporations and not governments offshore production. Arguably this hasn't much to do with regulations but wholly different economies such that the comparative cost advantage is 10x or more. And of course it's possible to check under what conditions suppliers produce things.

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#37

Post by kaiju0 »

This is a pretty typical growth pattern. Industrial zone establishes and city is set far away in a safe area. City expands and resident need cheap housing. The cheap housing is built near the industrial zone as that is how economic forces work. People then see this and say they built industrial next to the poor people when the opposite occurred. Now the industry is giving cancer to poor people and needs to be punished. Who is right and who is wrong?

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#39

Post by lettergram »

kaiju0 wrote: post #37

This is a pretty typical growth pattern. Industrial zone establishes and city is set far away in a safe area. City expands and resident need cheap housing. The cheap housing is built near the industrial zone as that is how economic forces work. People then see this and say they built industrial next to the poor people when the opposite occurred. Now the industry is giving cancer to poor people and needs to be punishe…

Gonna have to side with city zoning being the wrong party here. It’s really the people who represent the tax base that should be protecting said tax base.

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#40

Post by thinkcontext »

howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #11

Before the emissions control feeding frenzy begins, let's try to remember that further regulation without industry input contributes to further inflation & moves more polluting production overseas where we have no control over its impact on the world. Yes, we should aim for zero emissions. Yes, the health impacts carry their own costs not to mention the human tragedy. However, good public policy is about rewarding go…

> let's try to remember that further regulation without industry input

Industry contributes all the time. Their contribution is to make sure nothing at all gets done by funding politicians, lawyers and fake science. This pattern has been repeated ad naseum with lead, asbestos, PCBs, climate, etc.

In a just world this kind of bad faith action would mean at a minimum industry is ignored in the policy process while a solution is imposed on them. Better would be to wipe out the shareholders in order to compensate for the externalities they've inflicted on others.

Post reply on HN