Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 189 posts

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#71

Post by chrismeller »

vineyardmike wrote: post #65
kaiju0 wrote: post #37

This is a pretty typical growth pattern. Industrial zone establishes and city is set far away in a safe area. City expands and resident need cheap housing. The cheap housing is built near the industrial zone as that is how economic forces work. People then see this and say they built industrial next to the poor people when the opposite occurred. Now the industry is giving cancer to poor people and needs to be punishe…

> Now the industry is giving cancer to poor people and needs to be punished. Who is right and who is wrong? Yeah, if your industrial process causes cancer you need to re-engineer the process to be safer and polluting less, even if you were there first.

Sorry, but that seems a bit ignorant. A lot of the things we rely on every day have toxic byproducts.

I’m not saying this is good, but by your logic you should give up your car because someone moved in to the lot next to you and built a house.

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#72

Post by woodruffw »

kaiju0 wrote: post #37

This is a pretty typical growth pattern. Industrial zone establishes and city is set far away in a safe area. City expands and resident need cheap housing. The cheap housing is built near the industrial zone as that is how economic forces work. People then see this and say they built industrial next to the poor people when the opposite occurred. Now the industry is giving cancer to poor people and needs to be punishe…

> City expands and resident need cheap housing. The cheap housing is built near the industrial zone as that is how economic forces work.

In cities like Mobile, Alabama, the opposite is usually true[1]: people already lived in those areas, but companies (and local governments) don't consider their health sufficiently important. I'll leave it up to you to infer why that is.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/26/africatown-s...

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#73

Post by zardo »

ziddoap wrote: post #45
chrisseaton wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you have any evidence for this statement? The fact that every coffee shop in California is still open, despite people being warned for years that they sell products that cause cancer. The vast majority of people clearly do not care about the warning. And what do you think is the benefit of putting unsupported warnings on things? Do you think it's actively beneficial? Do you think it's harmless? If it's beneficia…

It's not clear to me if you're arguing just about warnings on coffee or if you're arguing that all warning labels are useless. > The fact that every coffee shop in California is still open, despite people being warned for years that they sell products that cause cancer. The vast majority of people clearly do not care about the warning. Or they care, but have balanced the risks vs. their enjoyment of coffee. But they…

The problem I see with these labels is they lack specificity. A sticker on the visor in a new car says this vehicle contains chemicals that cause cancer and /or birth defects. I know the paint does, as do all the fluids.

What about the steering wheel and the arm rests?

My pen doesn't have a warning, is that because the manufacturer chooses to consider exposure through skin contact only, but chewing on it is actually a sizeable risk?

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#74

Post by FireBeyond »

redleggedfrog wrote: post #22

"Before there was climate denial, there was cancer denial." Cancer is just a risk. Having a job an earning money will always outweigh that risk. People will put up with a lot of crummy environment to put food on the table.

You're entitled to informed consent.

You can argue about the merits of having that informed consent and still _choosing_ to put up with it, and whether that's truly free will or necessity, or something in between.

But time and time again, there are companies that will lie to everyone, employees included, about the risks.

That is _not_ informed consent, and is not defensible for any reason.

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#75

Post by friedman23 »

vineyardmike wrote: post #65
kaiju0 wrote: post #37

This is a pretty typical growth pattern. Industrial zone establishes and city is set far away in a safe area. City expands and resident need cheap housing. The cheap housing is built near the industrial zone as that is how economic forces work. People then see this and say they built industrial next to the poor people when the opposite occurred. Now the industry is giving cancer to poor people and needs to be punishe…

> Now the industry is giving cancer to poor people and needs to be punished. Who is right and who is wrong? Yeah, if your industrial process causes cancer you need to re-engineer the process to be safer and polluting less, even if you were there first.

The engineers didn't set out to create processes that resulted in toxic by-products, your statement is not helpful at all.

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#76

Post by clairity »

htek wrote: post #67

Jesus, this story is going to have all the bad takes. People's main takeaway from the article is, "it's just the way cities grow," "it's the zoning board's fault," "people moved near a cancer cluster, it's their fault," "you should be able to pollute an area you pay for." Seriously? The problem is the government allowing private corporations to poison the environment to benefit the bottom line of the corporations. I…

yes, internalize externalities first, starting with the most dangerous and egregious. most other ‘solutions’ are apologist distractions from this primary mitigation.

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#77

Post by makotech222 »

kaiju0 wrote: post #37

This is a pretty typical growth pattern. Industrial zone establishes and city is set far away in a safe area. City expands and resident need cheap housing. The cheap housing is built near the industrial zone as that is how economic forces work. People then see this and say they built industrial next to the poor people when the opposite occurred. Now the industry is giving cancer to poor people and needs to be punishe…

[dead]

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#78

Post by belltaco »

chrismeller wrote: post #71
vineyardmike wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now the industry is giving cancer to poor people and needs to be punished. Who is right and who is wrong? Yeah, if your industrial process causes cancer you need to re-engineer the process to be safer and polluting less, even if you were there first.

Sorry, but that seems a bit ignorant. A lot of the things we rely on every day have toxic byproducts. I’m not saying this is good, but by your logic you should give up your car because someone moved in to the lot next to you and built a house.

It's more like installing a catalytic converter on your car. Or adding a muffler.

The article says the factory does not have an ethylene oxide scrubber installed.

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#79

Post by dd36 »

kaiju0 wrote: post #37

This is a pretty typical growth pattern. Industrial zone establishes and city is set far away in a safe area. City expands and resident need cheap housing. The cheap housing is built near the industrial zone as that is how economic forces work. People then see this and say they built industrial next to the poor people when the opposite occurred. Now the industry is giving cancer to poor people and needs to be punishe…

Property rights. If the adjacent property is unsafe due to your actions, you should pay to fix the problem.

Re: The EPA allows polluters to turn neighborhoods into “sacrifice zones”

#80

Post by ceejayoz »

friedman23 wrote: post #75
vineyardmike wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now the industry is giving cancer to poor people and needs to be punished. Who is right and who is wrong? Yeah, if your industrial process causes cancer you need to re-engineer the process to be safer and polluting less, even if you were there first.

The engineers didn't set out to create processes that resulted in toxic by-products, your statement is not helpful at all.

The engineers have a responsibility to manage toxic byproducts their processes give off.
Post reply on HN