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

311–320 of 352 posts

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

#311

Post by LorenPechtel »

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.

It is just pooped out. The problem is the remaining solvent isn't.

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

#312

Post by LorenPechtel »

chhxdjsj wrote: post #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 la…

Does the word Tuskegee mean anything to you? Because that's basically what you are asking for.

Nor is there any need for such a study as we have a natural one: some areas have more fluorine in the water than others. We started putting fluorine in the water because we noticed that the places with higher natural levels had better teeth. There comes a point where it's too much and downsides appear, but, again, we already knew that. Note that this is a completely normal thing--there is nothing which is not toxic in sufficient quantity. Including *everything* that is necessary for human life. What would be strange is if there wasn't some maximum safe level. Some things the body easily eliminates and the range between minimum and maximum is quite wide. Things which are not so easily eliminated have narrower ranges. Thus we have the situation where overdose of water-soluble vitamins is basically unheard-of, but overdose of fat-soluble vitamins very definitely happens.

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

#313

Post by Denatonium »

As if tetraethyl lead in gasoline wasn't bad enough, they also added ethylene dichloride and/or ethylene dibromide, which acted as a lead scavengers, preventing deposits of insoluble lead (II) oxide from forming and clogging up engines/exhaust equipment. Instead, water-soluble-at-high-temperatures lead (II) chloride and lead (II) chloride were blasted out the tailpipes of vehicles using tetraethyl lead. These are mildly soluble at ambient temperatures, allowing the lead to permeate even further than it otherwise would have.

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

#314

Post by sagarm »

gosub100 wrote: post #33
AdamN wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The poor disproportionately bore the brunt of lead pollution.

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

#315

Post by ciupicri »

jajuuka wrote: post #121
II2II wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Captain Planet always bothered me as a kid, even though I was (and continue to be) supportive of environmental protection. There was too much evil for the sake of evil. People don't destroy the environment because they want to. The destroy it because they don't care. They don't care because they are driven by greed, or some other motivation that is ultimately damaging to the environment, society, and civilization.

It's a cartoon meant to sell merch. It wasn't exactly meant to be a nuanced reflection of reality.

I was under the impression that Captain Planet was sort of Ted Turner's pet project who wanted something a bit less violent and more educational. And if I'm not mistaking it also led to the end of Swat Kats.

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

#316

Post by stinkbeetle »

breakyerself wrote: post #86
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…

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…

The unscientific regulation, and in some countries bans or practical stoppages and embargoes on approvals and research, of nuclear power under the guise of saving the environment has been probably the most environmentally destructive initiative ever to come about, and the largest self-imposed contributor to "the worst environmental crisis in human history". The coal industry loves it though.

Needless to say, I disagree with your assessment. Every [action by governments and bureaucrats] is motivated by the desire for personal gain or to perpetuate the power of the state or both.

Environmental regulation, workers rights, drilling for oil in Alaska, making up stories about WMDs to invade Iraq, domestic spying are all fruit of the same tree. Don't let them fool you, the good of these things is never the primary goal, and in many cases does not even exist. And "environmental regulation" is a big culprit.

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

#317

Post by hammock »

stinkbeetle wrote: post #316
breakyerself wrote: post #86

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…

The unscientific regulation, and in some countries bans or practical stoppages and embargoes on approvals and research, of nuclear power under the guise of saving the environment has been probably the most environmentally destructive initiative ever to come about, and the largest self-imposed contributor to "the worst environmental crisis in human history". The coal industry loves it though. Needless to say, I disagr…

> Almost every environmental regulation has come after it was already shown that there was some harm that needed to be mitigated.

>> The unscientific regulation, and in some countries bans or practical stoppages and embargoes on approvals and research, of nuclear power

Parent comment language isn’t entirely clear, but depending how you interpret it, it can be said that far more harm has been shown, in reality, from nuclear power than from climate change.

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

#318

Post by stinkbeetle »

hammock wrote: post #317
stinkbeetle wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unscientific regulation, and in some countries bans or practical stoppages and embargoes on approvals and research, of nuclear power under the guise of saving the environment has been probably the most environmentally destructive initiative ever to come about, and the largest self-imposed contributor to "the worst environmental crisis in human history". The coal industry loves it though. Needless to say, I disagr…

> Almost every environmental regulation has come after it was already shown that there was some harm that needed to be mitigated. >> The unscientific regulation, and in some countries bans or practical stoppages and embargoes on approvals and research, of nuclear power Parent comment language isn’t entirely clear, but depending how you interpret it, it can be said that far more harm has been shown, in reality, from n…

> Parent comment language isn’t entirely clear, but depending how you interpret it, it can be said that far more harm has been shown, in reality, from nuclear power than from climate change.

But it can not be said that far more harm has been shown, in reality, from nuclear power than from burning coal for electricity. It's actually the opposite.

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

#319

Post by wolvoleo »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #303
WorldMaker wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chernobyl may have done a lot to inflame cultural imagination of what could happen in the worst cases, but the US still had its own high profile disasters like Three Mile Island. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

A "disaster" that killed nobody. Likewise, an even bigger "disaster" at Fukushima--that killed nobody. (The deaths from the evacuation are not deaths from the incident--they wouldn't have died if they had stayed put.)

Human deaths aren't the only measure of a disaster. The pollution was huge and even detected on the other side of the Pacific.

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

#320

Post by wolvoleo »

Cerium wrote: post #97
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know of any research or calculations of what that number ought to be?

If you wanted to pay for direct air capture of CO2 to directly "undo" your climate effect of driving, the cost would currently be about $6 per gallon. Price comes from [1], found [2] looking for a second opinion on current direct air capture cost. [1] https://theclimatecapitalist.com/articles/gas-should-cost-13... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/phildeluna/2024/11/29/will-dire...

Direct air capture is just not feasible at a world scale.

And the whole circus around it, manufacturing (and extracting the natural resources for that) of all the machinery for it, clearing land to place it (and all the NIMBY circus), all the energy generation for it, the transmission lines, the maintenance, the burying of the captured carbon. It's all going to lead to lots of pollution and CO2 emissions even if the things are powered by 100% green energy.

It's just a pipe dream of the people looking for a quick fix so we can continue doing what we've been doing.

But we'll just need so hellish many of them to make a dent in global CO2 levels in time to prevent the worst effects of climate change. It's just impossible.

The only way to really fix things is not emitting the stuff in the first place but most people prefer putting their fingers in their ears.

Post reply on HN