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

31–40 of 352 posts

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

#31

Post by throwway120385 »

cfiggers wrote: post #28

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…

It's really easy to sit and demand evidence before regulating something. But consider that if we waited for hard evidence to accumulate before banning lead in gasoline, we likely never would have banned it because the hard evidence wouldn't exist.

I also don't agree on the principle that regulations are "harmful" or "helpful." Rather, you have to define who the regulation harms, and who it helps. For example antitrust enforcement harms shareholders and some employees of very large firms, but it helps many employees and arguably improves the landscape for competition between many smaller firms. So whether a regulation is preferable comes down to values.

In the case of leaded gas, it harms basically everybody, but it helps fuel companies, so it was an easy thing to change.

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

#32

Post by yieldcrv »

nyc_data_geek wrote: post #5
yieldcrv wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

like what? are there more intelligent people? I've anecdotally heard this is a cause for crime reduction as people are less impulsive than they were, in conflict resolution? overall? don't really know what takeaway I'm supposed to know about

Are you really calling into question the well documented developmental effects of lead in human cognition and behavior

I don’t know anything about the effect of lead on human cognition and behavior, I’m asking you to tell me about it

If that’s even what their comment was about

How does that effect work?

your assumption wasn’t a “lead free” response, am I doing it right?

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

#33

Post by gosub100 »

AdamN wrote: post #30
cfiggers wrote: post #28

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…

Basically everybody agrees with what you're saying which is what makes this an insidious comment. In general the pressure against regulation comes from narrow winners (oil industry for instance) whereas the pressure for regulations generally comes from people focused on the greater good (even if they are misled by other narrow winners, for instance compliance firms).

There are valid reasons to oppose regulations. They can be used to create barriers of entry for small businesses, for example. They constantly affect the poor more than the middle class.

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

#34

Post by ck2 »

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...

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

#35

Post by zahlman »

edm0nd wrote: post #26
dyauspitr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not with Captain Planet tier cartoon villains in power.

Did you know that Captain Planet was straight up created to be pro environmentalist and anti-oil propaganda? >Captain Planet and the Planeteers (1990–1996) was a pioneering animated series designed by Ted Turner and producer Barbara Pyle as environmental, pro-social "edutainment" to influence children towards ecological activism. It aimed to combat pollution and encourage environmental stewardship, often using over-t…

> Did you know that Captain Planet was straight up created to be pro environmentalist and anti-oil propaganda?

Well, yes, it isn't subtle.

It turns out that some propaganda is just correct, however.

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

#36

Post by throwway120385 »

edm0nd wrote: post #26
dyauspitr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not with Captain Planet tier cartoon villains in power.

Did you know that Captain Planet was straight up created to be pro environmentalist and anti-oil propaganda? >Captain Planet and the Planeteers (1990–1996) was a pioneering animated series designed by Ted Turner and producer Barbara Pyle as environmental, pro-social "edutainment" to influence children towards ecological activism. It aimed to combat pollution and encourage environmental stewardship, often using over-t…

Brainwashing has the connotation of going through cult programming. Captain Planet doesn't involve the kind of tight control over your interpersonal relationships that requires. To the extent any of us were "brainwashed" it would have been because the people around us were largely in agreement with the messaging in that show. I submit that many people still are.

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

#37

Post by lenerdenator »

I really want to see elimination of lead (projectiles, lead styphnate primers, etc.) in firearms next.

When I go to the range, every once in a while, I'll see one of the older marksmen who's there with his squirrel hunting rifle, chambered in .22 LR. I've noticed that he seems to have a tremor in his hands when he's loading his magazines. Essential tremor is linked to lead exposure [0]

Most .22 LR projectiles are either just lead or have a copper "wash" over the lead, not a proper jacket like you see on other rounds.

I wonder, if you shoot those loads for long enough, and breathe in enough gunsmoke, do you get that problem?

As for the proof being in our hair... well, not mine. Chrome dome over here XD

[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1241711/

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

#38

Post by throwway120385 »

yieldcrv wrote: post #32
nyc_data_geek wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really calling into question the well documented developmental effects of lead in human cognition and behavior

I don’t know anything about the effect of lead on human cognition and behavior, I’m asking you to tell me about it If that’s even what their comment was about How does that effect work? your assumption wasn’t a “lead free” response, am I doing it right?

Lead exposure gives you brain damage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning. If you damage your frontal lobes, you generally become more impulsive and less measured in your response to things. Ergo, chronic lead poisoning causes populations to become more aggressive and more likely to engage in crime.

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

#39

Post by mktk1001 »

cfiggers wrote: post #28

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…

Who is proposing for environment regulation without proper scientific evidence? You both sided the argument without giving any claims about environment regulation that turned out to be not helpful.

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

#40

Post by andychase »

cfiggers wrote: post #28

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…

Note that the current administration closed its research and science office.

https://www.science.org/content/article/blow-environment-epa...

Post reply on HN