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

331–340 of 352 posts

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

#331

Post by cyberax »

mikkupikku wrote: post #171
ch4s3 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chernobyl design was never in use in the US Commercially. Several early test reactors were essentially just graphite moderated piles not unlike Chernobyl, but they were abandoned for a reason.

Graphite moderated reactors are broadly fine, the problem was with some technical specifics of that specific reactor design, and the operational culture that surrounded it. After Chernobyl, those flaws were corrected and operation of other RBMK reactors has continued to this very day, with no repeats.

Graphite reactors are not a good idea because they inherently have, well, graphite. That can burn.

The worst possible case for water-moderated reactors is uncontained meltdown. And it's not _terribly_ horrible. You will get contamination with volatiles, mainly cesium. But there's not a lot of it in the reactor, so it'll affect only a small area around the plant. Some fuel might get initially mobilized by steam explosions, but again, only a fraction.

The worst case for a graphite reactor is an uncontained core fire. That can burn for weeks and spread a significant part of the fuel as particulates over large territories (Chernobyl).

Is it likely? Nope. But there are black swan events: earthquakes, mega-hurricanes, meteorite strikes, Godzilla attacks.

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

#332

Post by anonymars »

wolvoleo wrote: post #319
LorenPechtel wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Now let's do coal and oil/gas

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

#333

Post by anonymars »

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.)

Indeed. Banqiao Dam would like a word

And yet we still build hydroelectric dams

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

#335

Post by selimthegrim »

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…

I cannot for the life of me understand why Highway 61 is so poorly lit travelling by the Shell plants at night. It boggles my mind.

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

#336

Post by wolvoleo »

anonymars wrote: post #332
wolvoleo wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Now let's do coal and oil/gas

No let's do renewables.

Nobody's arguing for more fossil. But nuclear isn't an option either.

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

#337

Post by anonymars »

wolvoleo wrote: post #336
anonymars wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now let's do coal and oil/gas

No let's do renewables. Nobody's arguing for more fossil. But nuclear isn't an option either.

Are they so different?

There may be good reasons not to pursue nuclear (high complexity and upfront cost), but by the overall numbers I don't think pollution or death rate make that case

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

#338

Post by Ma8ee »

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 is fair and reasonable to demand that releasing a substance with new and unknown effects into the environment justify its existence with hard, scientifically verifiable data that it is safe, or else get chopped.

I think people's health is more important than corporate profits. If corporations played fair, I'd be more tempted to agree with your formulation than with mine, but history has shown that that isn't the case. Take a current example like PFAS, where as soon there is enough evidence to prohibit one variety because it is harmful, the industry just starts using a very similar one that the legislature hasn't had time to collect evidence against.

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

#339

Post by Ma8ee »

hilbert42 wrote: post #251
nxm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We saw this happen with the Montreal Protocol over CFCs/greehouse gases when everyone went mad and banned just about every fluorocarbon known to science. This was a case of zealotry and overregulation egged on by puritanical ideologs without full consideration of the consequences. We correctly banned fluorocarbons as refrigerants in systems where they would not be properly recycled, such as domestic refrigerators, ai…

The Montreal protocol contains exceptions for essential use, and many thousands of those were granted for many years, so I'm not sure what exactly you are whining about. Did some poor company make less money than they would have if they were allowed to destroy some more?

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

#340

Post by Ma8ee »

cfiggers wrote: post #277
mktk1001 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you aware of scientific evidence that supports mandating paper drinking straws?

I've long suspected that the ban of plastic drinking straws was a manufactured distraction to turn people against environmentalists. The environmental and economical effects are so small, while it so distinctly affects so many Americans every day.
Post reply on HN