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

U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

ishn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 257 posts

Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

#91

Post by heavyset_go »

randerson wrote: post #13
pixl97 wrote: post #4

Save lives?: X Increase safety?: X Make more money?: YES The USCSB makes life safer for everyone in this country, especially people that work around potentially dangerous chemicals and pressurized equipment.

It's always a matter of time before a facility explodes for preventable reasons and costs the company billions in property damage and lawsuits. This decision to stop learning from mistakes and spreading awareness will hurt profits in the long run, not make more money. It'll also be harder to find people willing to work around chemicals if they can't trust the safety measures.

> It'll also be harder to find people willing to work around chemicals if they can't trust the safety measures.

Don't worry, they're counting on us all being so desperate we'll take those jobs, anyway.

Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

#92

Post by monkeyelite »

usefulcat wrote: post #77
gosub100 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

50 employees with a budget of $14.4 million doesn’t even qualify as a rounding error in the federal budget. Don’t pretend this has anything remotely to do with “government waste”.

A low number is a good reason not to spend resources auditing it. But why would it be a good reason to keep something around you found you don’t need?

Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

#93

Post by heavyset_go »

tehjoker wrote: post #86
heavyset_go wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think this is pretty consistent with the old school 1950s views of the current administration. The effects are functionally the same, but I think the ideology and rhetoric behind then and now have changed. There really isn't a purportedly "principled" system of logic behind these decisions, in the past these decisions would be dressed in principled rhetoric no matter how heinous they realistically were. They aren…

The principle is the rate of profit is falling, competing countries are rising, and they want to unleash the private sector in the hopes of raising GDP growth significantly enough to retain hegemony. This won't work, because they're fucking stupid, and they'll damage the health of the population and the productivity of the land and waters going forward, but there is a logic to it.

I agree, I'm commenting on the outward justifications that are used to placate the public.

In the past, a mountain of ideology and rhetoric would justify these decisions to the common person in an effort manufacture consent. They aren't even bothering to do that.

Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

#94

Post by juancampa »

The article mentions redundancy but doesn't specify what organization is claimed to make CSB redundant. I'm guessing it's the NIH since, to be fair, Vance announced an investigation into the East Palestine chemical spill five days ago: https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/nih-long-term-health-research...

Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

#95

Post by monkeyelite »

kumarvvr wrote: post #17

It is highly surprising that the narrative in the US has morphed the expenses on public institutions of enormous importance, into wastage , something that has to be cut or eliminated. Why is it that no one is pointing out the contribution of these institutions to the US and the world? The US, has a society, has grown so materialistic, that they fail to see anything beyond money. Somethings cannot be measured by money…

> The US, has a society, has grown so materialistic, that they fail to see anything beyond money.

And which society are you contrasting this with?

Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

#96

Post by andrewflnr »

fallingknife wrote: post #82
andrewflnr wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny as it sounds, the real problem (or at least one of them) is that no one cares about long run profits anymore.

Why do profits, and the stock market, continue going up then? I've heard this nonsense about corporate short termism for decades, and the long term just never seems to arrive.

The stock market tracks short term profits; most stock buyers are also short-termers. Profits that could have been had but were not, due to shortsighted decisions, are hard to measure and don't usually make the news. Similar for companies that slowly hollow out, or get killed by newer companies still in their market-building phases before they start turning the screws.

Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

#97

Post by jmcgough »

almosthere wrote: post #87
Rebelgecko wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they want to fund a group that calls them out for taking deadly shortcuts to save money?

That's how the FDA works, so, should we just shut them down?

There are chemicals that are routinely used but aren't considered foods or drugs

Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

#98

Post by z3c0 »

noisy_boy wrote: post #40
yongjik wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The amount of pent up hate and vitriol coming out now is incredible. People hated each other so much and more or less kept it somewhat in check for so many decades?

I have a background in NLP (pre-LLM) and like to study extremist rhetoric, and, while I don't think you're being reductionist, it's a little more removed than that. I'd replace with "hate" with "problems and stress". Once you can attribute that stress to a group... that's when the hate develops. There are certain global powers who have recognized this and weaponized it. Agreeing with the most extreme of both sides, loudly, is the modern standard for propaganda.

Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

#99

Post by monkeyelite »

rectang wrote: post #84
monkeyelite wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an objective source of truth An alternative source with different incentives and culture, not an objective one.

That's technically true but underplays the extent to which company self-enforcement PR is malicious nonsense at odds with reality. Companies are amoral piles of money which will do anything to become larger piles of money, and will resolutely resist any interpretation of events which harms their narrow self-interest.

> and will resolutely resist any interpretation of events which harms their narrow self-interest.

I don’t know any group who intentionally acts against their interests.

Re: U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

#100

Post by mistrial9 »

heavyset_go wrote: post #65
drjolly wrote: post #16

I think this is pretty consistent with the old school 1950s views of the current administration. Companies can prioritize profits over people again. Yeah, dump in the rivers, dump in the woods, just drive around in circles dumping in an empty lot. You don’t need masks- give everyone cancer and blow some shit up, maybe get some acid burns. Super-fund sites? When was the last one we had anyway- we need more of ‘em- lot…

> I think this is pretty consistent with the old school 1950s views of the current administration. The effects are functionally the same, but I think the ideology and rhetoric behind then and now have changed. There really isn't a purportedly "principled" system of logic behind these decisions, in the past these decisions would be dressed in principled rhetoric no matter how heinous they realistically were. They aren…

looking at this at a different angle, some companies do practice health and safety AND there are egregious acts of pollution.. consider this next part .. many practices in the early 1900s would be outrageous today and even bad actor companies have changed since then, as a given. It is IMHO both the avoidable, known acts today AND the unknown, under-counted actions of today that will be so painfully obvious at some time decades from now. A legal environment where cost cutting in the cost centers of environmental compliance are openly prioritized, includes disasters of knowns and the unknowns.

In closing, I do not think it is like the 1950s in that basic science has identified and amplified many fundamental advances since then, materials science is sci-fi now compared to then, but it is similar in the economic-first and actively thumbing the nose at all things green and eco regarding the market.

Post reply on HN