Banned in California

Post by coryrc » Thu, Feb 26, 2026, 5:56 PM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #236

culi wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a map of superfund sites in the US. https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/EPA::superfund-national-prio... Using this I see that within 10 miles of me are - a microprocessor testing facility that contaminated soil and groundwater with 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, Freon 113, 1,1-dichloroethane, and tetrachloroethane which affects 300k nearby residents - a semiconductor manufacturer that led to "trichloroe…

Non sequitur. Superfund sites come from poor industrial process byproduct controls. They can still happen from highly regulated industries that are approved. Posting a list of them as a justification for red tape that blocks industries does not make sense.

Post by coryrc » Thu, Feb 26, 2026, 5:58 PM UTC

mint5 wrote: post #88

Oh I didn’t realize pineapple farms were banned in California and Alaska. I thought they hadn’t been built for other reasons over the last decade. But according to this, not being built means banned. TIL! Started reading this site but the massive gaps in logic and reasoning are like nails on a chalkboard. No new fabs being built in CA means fabs are banned?! Okay well fabs are banned in pretty much the whole country…

Post by marcosdumay » Thu, Feb 26, 2026, 6:00 PM UTC

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #291

Fischgericht wrote: post #243

There is a reason these kind of things are no longer possible in much of the western world and especially Europe-like US states like California: After the deindustrialization people started to enjoy healthy air and clear water. As always when it comes to "the good old times" or "make great again", your brain will remember very selectively. I used to live next to a large river for about 35 years. As a kid, it was forb…

As someone born in a socialist country that doesn't exist anymore (i'm still here), a very common progress of time over here was: - a factory is built relatively far away from populated areas - workers were moving closer to the factory, building houses (when factory workers could still afford them and were allowed to build them) closer and closer to the factory - workers retire, die, their now adult children live in,…

Post by wewtyflakes » Thu, Feb 26, 2026, 6:06 PM UTC

akoboldfrying wrote: post #188

wewtyflakes wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fine if other states want to ban them too. I'm also fine if ultimately running oil refineries is uneconomical. I do not care if this is nimbyism; other communities are free to set their own rules.

So you're okay with no refineries after all. So, no combustion-based private or public transportation, no detergents, no aspirin, paracetamol or ibuprofen. It would still be possible to drive an EV, though. You could keep it lubricated with whale oil.

Post by expedition32 » Thu, Feb 26, 2026, 6:11 PM UTC

kardianos wrote: post #265

Fischgericht wrote: post #243

There is a reason these kind of things are no longer possible in much of the western world and especially Europe-like US states like California: After the deindustrialization people started to enjoy healthy air and clear water. As always when it comes to "the good old times" or "make great again", your brain will remember very selectively. I used to live next to a large river for about 35 years. As a kid, it was forb…

Those are the incorrect choices. You CAN actually do these processes, and still keep the environment clean. I believe in procedural symmetry: if you ACTUALLY care about people and the environment, then you wouldn't let other poorer do these thing. The USA being richer, can afford to do it right and safer, not through regulation, but through process. There is a difference. So what would you do if you ACTUALLY cared ab…