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

41–50 of 352 posts

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

#41

Post by diego_moita »

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…

> some environmental regulations work [...] while other [..] do more harm than good

You are (deliberately?) overlooking the elephant in the room: lobbies with money can distort the discussion.

Big tobacco knew for decades that smoking was bad but still managed to block restrictions in smoking. Oil companies knew lead was poisoning. Purdue knew Oxycontin was addicting. Facebook knows their product is toxic.

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

#42

Post by prasadjoglekar »

epistasis wrote: post #9
russdill wrote: post #6

Hopefully next we can help fix mercury in fish, the number one contributor right now is burning coal. Seems like it would be a easy decision.

Coal is mostly sticking around in the US because of federal overreach to keep unprofitable and ancient coal generators going long after anybody wants to pay for the high maintenance. Last week, a Colorado utility was "respectfully" asking to be able to close a plant: > TTri-State Generation and partner Platte River Power Authority had a “respectful” but emphatic response late Thursday to the Trump administration orde…

> There is no technical or economic reason to want coal power today.

A quick look at the PJM interconnect data would disagree with you. About a quarter of the live power is coal.

https://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations.aspx

That serves 65+ Million people in the north east and is keeping them from dying of cold this past week, including today (Temp outside in the mid-hudson valley is 15F / -9C), and overnight will be 8F / -13C).

Just for context - electricity somehow powers everything in most homes. Your oil or propane furnace needs a power hookup to ignite.

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

#43

Post by rayiner »

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…

Lead is a textbook example of a good regulation. It’s something where the industry was doing something very harmful-aerosolizing lead and pumping it into the air—which had quite small economic benefits and was relatively easily replaced.

Some regulation achieves this kind of improvement, and we’re probably under regulated in those areas. Particulate matter, for example, is extremely harmful. But many regulations do not have such clear cut costs and benefits.

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

#44

Post by gambiting »

Fun fact - leaded petrol isn't actually banned in the UK, you can legally buy it and use it. The legislation at the time of bans just made it so that leaded petrol could only be a small % of overall petrol sales by any given fuel station, arguing that it allowed time for owners of unleaded-incompatible cars to purchase it.

And....it worked pretty much exactly as designed - initially only the largest stations carried it because they could justify the storage costs, and eventually it disappeared from almost everywhere. Just before covid there were still 3 small garages selling leaded petrol by the drum, but afaik they all stopped doing so.

And regardless - you can stil buy actual real Tetraethyl Lead fuel additive which turns your petrol into actual real 4-star leaded petrol, just like in the old days:

https://www.demon-tweeks.com/tetraboost-e-guard-15-fuel-addi...

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

#45

Post by dfedbeef »

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.

Protecting a small company's ability to pollute is not a valid reason.

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

#46

Post by sunshinesnacks »

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.

> They constantly affect the poor more than the middle class.

That’s a very broad statement. I expect there are many cases where that is not true.

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

#47

Post by jkubicek »

dyauspitr wrote: post #29
edm0nd wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I wish we had more “propaganda” like this.

Sesame Street is still putting out new episodes. Turns out the "learn to count" and "be nice to your neighbors" industry wields a lot more power than anyone thought.

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

#48

Post by Faaak »

t1234s wrote: post #23

You used to be able to buy leaded 110 gas as Sunoco in the early 2000's. It would make your exhaust tips turn white and had a sort of candy like smell when combusted.

AFAIK that's why leaded paint is bad for children: it tastes sweet so they continue licking it/eating the chips of paint that fall off the wall

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

#49

Post by lingrush4 »

mktk1001 wrote: post #39
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.

Maybe ten comments below you there is someone stating "environmental regulations are a win."

No qualifiers whatsoever. All environmental regulations are good as far as this person is concerned.

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

#50

Post by ZeroGravitas »

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…

Your tone suggests you think they are generally not based on science and given cost benefit analysis. Probably a reflection of your media intake.

In 1981 Reagan made cost benefit analysis a requirement for EPA.

For example in 1984: the EPA " estimates that the benefits of reducing lead in gasoline would exceed the costs by more than 300 percent.... These benefits include improved health of children and others"

Trump has just scrapped the requirement to cost in human health.

I wonder if removing lead would meet the new standard.

Post reply on HN