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

61–70 of 352 posts

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

#61

Post by prmoustache »

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.

That is usually the opposite because the absence of regulations usually put the smallest players in a state of dependence of some huge monopolistic groups.

Think pesticides and genetically modified plants for example.

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

#62

Post by nxm »

FatherOfCurses wrote: post #55
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 should be uncontroversial that introducing shit into an environment where it doesn't belong is a bad idea, yet many people remain unconvinced that dumping tons of carbon dioxide a year into the atmosphere or tons of fertilizer by-products into the oceans is a bad idea.

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

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

#63

Post by cassepipe »

rayiner wrote: post #43
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 n…

Can you tell more about particulate matter ? You mean small particles in the air right, so air pollution right ?

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

#64

Post by xp84 »

yellottyellott wrote: post #52
jmward01 wrote: post #14

I remember going to LA in the late 80's and my eyes watering (I also remember the pants-less man on the side of the strode but that is a different story). Environmental regulations are a win. Unfortunately there is a large segment of the population that doesn't believe something until it happens to them directly. That makes it a challenge to maintain environmental, or any regulations for that matter, over generations…

In Louisana there’s a stretch around all the refineries nicknamed Cancer Alley. The locals work the plants. Everyone gets sick. And they vote for expansion because it brings in more jobs. You need the regulations.

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.

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

#65

Post by nxm »

lingrush4 wrote: post #49
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.

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.

good but at what cost is the issue and who bears that cost

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

#66

Post by cassepipe »

jmward01 wrote: post #14

I remember going to LA in the late 80's and my eyes watering (I also remember the pants-less man on the side of the strode but that is a different story). Environmental regulations are a win. Unfortunately there is a large segment of the population that doesn't believe something until it happens to them directly. That makes it a challenge to maintain environmental, or any regulations for that matter, over generations…

Did you intend to write "stroad" (street + road used to decry car-centric city design) ?

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

#67

Post by latexr »

Faaak wrote: post #48
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

You’re conjuring an image of children licking walls, but just the dust from the flaking paint chips is harmful.

https://www.cdc.gov/lead-prevention/prevention/paint.html

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

#68

Post by jhallenworld »

rayiner wrote: post #56
throwway120385 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 antitrus…

We had research to support the EPA phase down of lead. Also, your assertion that lead “helps fuel companies” is fundamentally mistaken. Gasoline is a mass-produced commodity. Oil companies have single digit profit margins. These companies aren’t making Big Tech profit margins where they can absorb higher costs without passing them along to consumers. Cost savings from things like gasoline additives accrue to consumer…

Lead helped fuel company profits because it was cheaper than the other anti-knock additives, like ethanol.

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

#69

Post by 1970-01-01 »

lenerdenator wrote: post #37

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 eit…

Why would lead be in the gunsmoke? Everything leaded should be coming out the business end of the firearm, and it should be coming out with some gusto.

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

#70

Post by sunshinesnacks »

abfan1127 wrote: post #53
sunshinesnacks wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

"greater good" is arguably the most broad statement with a large history of hurting many people based on the "greater good".

Maybe. But the original context here is an article about removing lead from gasoline. Which I’m pretty sure that helped many people based on the “greater good”.

There’s no copper sulfate in canned green beans or borax in beef. Those seem all around good.

Let’s agree that impacts of regulations are nuanced, and not try to condense it down to something overly simplistic like, “regulations hurt poor people”.

Post reply on HN