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

Banned in California

bannedincalifornia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 749 posts

Re: Banned in California

#721

Post by inigyou »

akoboldfrying wrote: post #638
inigyou wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be hypocritical nimbyism if I wanted to use semiconductors containing arsenic, but didn't want my living room to be an arsenic warehouse? Or how far away does the arsenic warehouse have to be before it starts being hypocritical nimbyism for me to not like it there?

IMO it would be hypocritical nimbyism if the arsenic warehouse would need to be in someone's living room for those semiconductors to get manufactured.

So if an oil refinery doesn't need to go in a city, it's not hypocritical nimbyism to say you don't want an oil refinery in your city?

Re: Banned in California

#722

Post by joe_mamba »

Fischgericht wrote: post #647
joe_mamba wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But the industry and the jobs have shrunken a lot And those people left jobless still have the right to vote. So you'll have to bribe them with welfare or invest in their upskilling, otherwise they'll turn to crime to survive and vote the most extremist parties to power that will undo all your environmentalism. It also leaves you economically and militarily vulnerable to the countries you outsourced all your manufac…

Just to clarify: When it comes to myself, my post has been a provocative hypothetical scenario in which I would need to make that choice. In the real world, decided to move to a part of the planet where this question doesn't even come up, due to society having different priorities and a different base definition of "quality of life".

>Just to clarify: When it comes to myself, my post has been a provocative hypothetical scenario in which I would need to make that choice.

I know, that's why I wasn't judging it as being your own perspective but the general business perspective of the west that lead to the current situation.

> due to society having different priorities and a different base definition of "quality of life".

What is their definition of quality of life?

Re: Banned in California

#723

Post by ErroneousBosh »

ortusdux wrote: post #639
ErroneousBosh wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stuff my dad used for cleaning down beryllium copper sheets that then had silicon, gold, and nichrome deposited onto them to make tiny medical pressure sensors was generally various stages of xylene, amyl acetate, freon, and - on one notable occasion when a shipment of the sheet stock came heavily contaminated with tractor oil - plain ordinary petrol. This was back in the 80s. You are very much Not Allowed To Do…

I was trying to follow a piece of older equipment's cleaning procedures to the letter, but once I hit "flush with freon" I decided to go off-book.

Some 30-odd years later (more in fact, it's been over 30 years since he died) I can still smell the workshop.

That and the lathe oil in the machine shop where they made various mechanical components, too.

Re: Banned in California

#724

Post by akoboldfrying »

inigyou wrote: post #721
akoboldfrying wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO it would be hypocritical nimbyism if the arsenic warehouse would need to be in someone's living room for those semiconductors to get manufactured.

So if an oil refinery doesn't need to go in a city, it's not hypocritical nimbyism to say you don't want an oil refinery in your city?

Right, but the salient thing is the effect on people. By that I mean: Suppose we could locate all refineries outside of anywhere that is technically a "city", but in every possible such assignment of refinery locations, some refinery is still as close to someone's home as it would be if it were in a city. In this scenario, calling for a ban on refineries in your city would still be hypocritical nimbyism, since you are still requiring someone to be placed in a situation that you yourself would not accept.

In any case, California is a state, not a city.

Re: Banned in California

#725

Post by refurb »

nine_k wrote: post #598
Animats wrote: post #574

Plating operations are a huge headache. They have corrosive plating baths. They have to do some chemical processing on site to neutralize the corrosive chemicals and get them down to a neutral pH. Some years ago, a plating company in San Jose dumped a plating bath into the sewer system. This was so toxic that it killed the bacteria that reduce organic sludge at the sewerage plant. This knocked the whole plant offline…

Nuclear power plants have secondary and tertiary overflow reservoirs, intended to capture any uncontrolled dangerous outflow if things go wrong. I wonder if chemical plants have something similar, a way to contain an uncontrolled outflow of toxic stuff if the normal flow of neutralization fails. BTW this likely means quite a bit of land used up by such a reservoir which is ideally never needed, but must be present.

I worked at a plant and the answer is yes. The EPA requires it.

It can range from overflow tanks to capture spills to concrete “pools” around the entire operation that capture any catastrophic leaks and direct it to underground holding tanks.

There are a ton of highly toxic industrial processes. Properly designed plants and safety infrastructure means it’s never an issue.

Re: Banned in California

#726

Post by refurb »

gamblor956 wrote: post #584
daedrdev wrote: post #38

Listen y’all, it’s not just that we aren't letting companies spew chemicals into the air. The permitting and regulatory process is so extremely hostile that even when you want to and are able to do so safely and without emissions, it’s impossible. Instead you have to ship things from out of state and other countries, which generates emissions and pollution itself that might actually be more than local production. Its…

There is a lot of manufacturing in California. There are a lot of new factories in California. California manufactures almost as much as most of the Southeast combined. (Note that CA manufacturing is spread across dozens of industries.) The difference is that successful businesses in California just do. They don't whine about problems caused by their own incompetence.

I’m going to doubt your claim. Texas alone has a similar number people employed in manufacturing as CA.

How CA can manufacture more when you add all the other SE states?

And your statement is like saying “sure the food has poison in it, but people just tough it out and don’t whine”

How about not poising food? Seems like a worthy goal.

Re: Banned in California

#727

Post by saghm »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #342
saghm wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A sibling comment a few levels up provided it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47160514

Got anything from the last 50 years? There's a large middle ground between "Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone" and letting blatant polluters turn your neighborhood into a Superfund site. California solved the latter problem by going too far in the other direction.

You're asking for an example of an environmental disaster of the type the regulation is intended to prevent that happened since the regulation came into effect, with the implication that there aren't any is evidence that the regulation is bad? I'd argue there's no way to differentiate between perfectly calibrated regulation and regulation that's too onerous by the metric you're giving, so your conclusion isn't supported without more evidence.

Re: Banned in California

#728

Post by saghm »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #379
saghm wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any reason to assume that there's a dire need for more shops to apply paint in cars in California? If not, regulating to prioritize the air quality over increasing competition isn't unreasonable.

Is there any reason to assume that air quality standards can be maintained only by 50-year-old paint shops, and not by newer ones built to higher standards? See also the counterproductive legacy of the anti-nuclear movement.

There's reason to assume that _some_ paint shops are needed, based on the fact that the existing ones are staying in business, and reason to assume that more paint shops would mean more pollution, based on addition. There's not really any other way to limit the number of them other than regulation than gives the state the ability to prevent new ones, and while you obviously are against that idea in practice, I don't think it's nearly as obviously a bad policy goal as you're implying.

Re: Banned in California

#729

Post by cucumber3732842 »

overfeed wrote: post #599
qwe----3 wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't see if there is 1000+ dollars of fees for any small electrical change then there will be less actual work done in an area.

I understand why businesses would want to maximize work done in an area - I hope you're self-aware enough to realize this. The tension you may be blind to, is that society wants to maximize safety in an area - and any work done should be in service to that goal, and not an end unto itself. We shouldn't blindly maximize for work done in an area, we have to make sure the result is safe: this introduces rules and regula…

Many states are littered with work environments criss-crossed by extension cords because if it plugs in it doesn't need a permit, forklifts moving IBC totes because that's cheaper than the permitting it would take to install real process equipment and be regulated differently. Rain and snow covered parking and work areas that should have structures over them but can't due to the realities of environmental calculations and permitting.

Every time someone trips on a cord and smashes their face, gets mashed by a forklift, slips and falls on ice and can't work for 6mo, you personally, along with everyone else who's fetish for bureaucracy has driven up the cost of "better solutions" that would've prevented that has a little bit of that blood on their hands.

I'm not saying to just let anyone do a 3ph 480v panel swap and connect that shit to the utility. But at this point that might be better than letting you people continue to run things your way.

Re: Banned in California

#730

Post by markemer »

Qwertious wrote: post #695
coryrc wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why can’t we build a new nuclear plant in Manhattan We should, it would replace significant amounts of natural gas usage for space heating. Not doing so is literally cooking the planet.

I think a nuclear plant in Manhattan would cost far more than just building the plant in outer NY, and then running a big power line in to Manhattan. Sure, the power line would take up space, but so would the nuclear plant's cooling system.

Or, just turning back on the one we mothballed in Peekskill.
Post reply on HN