7 ms·

The United States of Toxins

106 points by SimpleLogin 9y ago

mrob 9y ago
Pounds weight is a terrible way to measure toxins. This report is basically meaningless, because it lumps together toxins with vastly different risks. Eg. sodium carbonate is included, which is just common washing soda. I wouldn't eat it but the risk is easily manageable. Compare with, eg. dimethylmercury, which is scary even at parts per billion concentration. An actually useful measurement would take into account both potency and persistence of toxins.
- maiagaia 9y ago
  Agree! Thank you! What a terrible way to compare, shows a complete lack of basic scientific literacy to compare based on mass, very deceiving. To compare the states properly they would need to do a risk assessment essentially, which is difficult and complex to say the least... Also most of the 'toxins'from mining are probably heavy metals which are pretty easy to treat and contain in that context.
- Amezarak 9y ago
  I didn't see sodium carbonate in the list, but you probably do eat it - it's a food additive. Copper and manganese are on the list, and are absolutely necessary to live! If you completely cut them out, you would die.
  - vixen99 9y ago
    Yes and arsenic is an essential element for rats, hamsters, goats, chickens and probably humans. Go figure!
    - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
      I wasn't aware of this! Although numerous studies with rats, hamsters, minipigs, goats and chicks have indicated that arsenic is an essential nutrient, the physiological role of arsenic is open to conjecture. Recent studies have suggested that arsenic has a physiological role that affects the formation of various metabolites of methionine metabolism including taurine and the polyamines. The concentration of plasma taurine is decreased in arsenic-deprived rats and hamsters. The hepatic concentration of polyamines and the specific activity of an enzyme necessary for the synthesis of spermidine and spermine, S-adenosylmethionine decarboxylase, are also decreased in arsenic-deprived rats. Thus, evidence has been obtained which indicates that arsenic is of physiological importance, especially when methionine metabolism is stressed (e.g. pregnancy, lactation, methionine deficiency, vitamin B6 deprivation). Any possible nutritional requirement by humans can be estimated only by using data from animal studies. The arsenic requirement for growing chicks and rats has been suggested to be near 25 ng g(-1) diet. Thus, a possible human requirement is 12 μg day(-1). The reported arsenic content of diets from various parts of the world indicates that the average intake of arsenic is in the range of 12-40 μg. Fish, grain and cereal products contribute most arsenic to the diet. - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24197927 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24197927
- ouid 9y ago
  also, dividing by area wouldn't be inappropriate.
- mschuster91 9y ago
  > Pounds weight is a terrible way to measure toxins. But it is one thing: undeniably objective. The alternative would include a "rating" system which the industry can use to say "yeah we emit x hundred tons per year of chemical y but it is next to harmless, better go after company z and their waste"... leading to inevitable chains of lawsuits dragged over years. For what its worth for many industrial processes there exist technical means of greatly reducing emissions (e.g. for smoke stacks: gas washers, desulfurization technologies, fine-dust retainers), but as long as environmental costs don't get billed to companies or required by the state, companies have no incentive to reduce emissions, as every dollar spent is a dollar less profit. Maybe it's time to introduce legislations that allow the government to hold the shareholders accountable e.g. for Superfund sites, that would at least provide a decent incentive for companies to clean up or to provide enough cash to compensate for environmental damages after closure - right now companies can simply close/be liquidated and the taxpayers have to foot the cleanup bill.
  - evanpw 9y ago
    This is the same as measuring developer productivity by counting lines of code: perfectly objective, but worse than useless.
    - mschuster91 9y ago
      Millions of tonnes of any waste released into the environment, no matter how "harmless", are too much. Humanity needs to tackle its waste problem, and that soon, or we are going to drown our kids in trash. Or, given that nitrates (which aren't that toxic per se) are the 3rd position in weight are perfect food for algae, we're drowning them in algae and without fish. Not to mention that much of the stuff that gets released in huge quantities can actually be used as a natural resource. Instead of capturing and using it we're throwing all the stuff away. Therefore, any way of looking at the environmental issues is good - anything that can be tackled should be tackled.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        This is a terrible idea. People have repeatedly shown they are willing to give up very little to address environmental problems. That makes it even more important that when we use limited social capital to address a problem, it's the most important problem that can be addressed.
- crx087 9y ago
  If someone could make a version of this report that weighted toxicants for TD50 per km², it would be interesting to see the data plotted against epidemiology rates in the same areas.
- lend000 9y ago
  "Fatal units" might be more useful.
ucaetano 9y ago
Sad that this report is using the word "toxins", synthetic toxicants are not included in the definition of toxin.
giardini 9y ago
This is misleading. Huge amounts of nitrates are injected into the Midwest's soil, so much so that children cannot drink the groundwater and must be given bottled water. Yet the chart shows Nebraska and Kansas as having low levels of toxins released into the environment. Many other toxins must have been omitted from this study.
spodek 9y ago
They show the supply side. I'd like to see the demand side. How much toxic waste does each person's behavior promote being used? How much is embodied in each product?
JonasJSchreiber 9y ago
They listed cities by square mile, why don't they do the same for states. It's a glaring omission. When we hear that Alaska has released the most toxins of any state and Rhode Island has released the least, it's reasonable to conclude that's because of the area of the two states.
scotty79 9y ago
> Three of the top 5 cities -- Humboldt, Lander, and Eureka -- are in Nevada. All are known to contain multiple, active gold mines that collectively release hundreds of millions of pounds of toxins. Here's interesting tidbit for arguing with people who say bitcoin is killing the planet.
cpr 9y ago
So piling up lead/zinc ore leftovers outside the mine in Alaska is clearly polluting? Would need more data.
mikerg87 9y ago
The National Emissions Inventory is a more complete picture of our nations emsissions. The TRI is only conceded with permitted industrial sources. The NEI includes estimates from other source types including : - On-Road mobile sources (cars / trucks ) - Non-Road mobile sources such as trains and plains and construction equipment - Non-Point emissions such as land-fills, agriculture burning and unpermitted sources such as dry cleaners https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2014-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2014-national-...

106 points by SimpleLogin 9y ago

mrob 9y ago

Pounds weight is a terrible way to measure toxins. This report is basically meaningless, because it lumps together toxins with vastly different risks. Eg. sodium carbonate is included, which is just common washing soda. I wouldn't eat it but the risk is easily manageable. Compare with, eg. dimethylmercury, which is scary even at parts per billion concentration. An actually useful measurement would take into account both potency and persistence of toxins.

maiagaia 9y ago
Agree! Thank you! What a terrible way to compare, shows a complete lack of basic scientific literacy to compare based on mass, very deceiving. To compare the states properly they would need to do a risk assessment essentially, which is difficult and complex to say the least... Also most of the 'toxins'from mining are probably heavy metals which are pretty easy to treat and contain in that context.
Amezarak 9y ago
I didn't see sodium carbonate in the list, but you probably do eat it - it's a food additive. Copper and manganese are on the list, and are absolutely necessary to live! If you completely cut them out, you would die.
- vixen99 9y ago
  Yes and arsenic is an essential element for rats, hamsters, goats, chickens and probably humans. Go figure!
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    I wasn't aware of this! Although numerous studies with rats, hamsters, minipigs, goats and chicks have indicated that arsenic is an essential nutrient, the physiological role of arsenic is open to conjecture. Recent studies have suggested that arsenic has a physiological role that affects the formation of various metabolites of methionine metabolism including taurine and the polyamines. The concentration of plasma taurine is decreased in arsenic-deprived rats and hamsters. The hepatic concentration of polyamines and the specific activity of an enzyme necessary for the synthesis of spermidine and spermine, S-adenosylmethionine decarboxylase, are also decreased in arsenic-deprived rats. Thus, evidence has been obtained which indicates that arsenic is of physiological importance, especially when methionine metabolism is stressed (e.g. pregnancy, lactation, methionine deficiency, vitamin B6 deprivation). Any possible nutritional requirement by humans can be estimated only by using data from animal studies. The arsenic requirement for growing chicks and rats has been suggested to be near 25 ng g(-1) diet. Thus, a possible human requirement is 12 μg day(-1). The reported arsenic content of diets from various parts of the world indicates that the average intake of arsenic is in the range of 12-40 μg. Fish, grain and cereal products contribute most arsenic to the diet. - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24197927 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24197927
ouid 9y ago
also, dividing by area wouldn't be inappropriate.
mschuster91 9y ago
> Pounds weight is a terrible way to measure toxins. But it is one thing: undeniably objective. The alternative would include a "rating" system which the industry can use to say "yeah we emit x hundred tons per year of chemical y but it is next to harmless, better go after company z and their waste"... leading to inevitable chains of lawsuits dragged over years. For what its worth for many industrial processes there exist technical means of greatly reducing emissions (e.g. for smoke stacks: gas washers, desulfurization technologies, fine-dust retainers), but as long as environmental costs don't get billed to companies or required by the state, companies have no incentive to reduce emissions, as every dollar spent is a dollar less profit. Maybe it's time to introduce legislations that allow the government to hold the shareholders accountable e.g. for Superfund sites, that would at least provide a decent incentive for companies to clean up or to provide enough cash to compensate for environmental damages after closure - right now companies can simply close/be liquidated and the taxpayers have to foot the cleanup bill.
- evanpw 9y ago
  This is the same as measuring developer productivity by counting lines of code: perfectly objective, but worse than useless.
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    Millions of tonnes of any waste released into the environment, no matter how "harmless", are too much. Humanity needs to tackle its waste problem, and that soon, or we are going to drown our kids in trash. Or, given that nitrates (which aren't that toxic per se) are the 3rd position in weight are perfect food for algae, we're drowning them in algae and without fish. Not to mention that much of the stuff that gets released in huge quantities can actually be used as a natural resource. Instead of capturing and using it we're throwing all the stuff away. Therefore, any way of looking at the environmental issues is good - anything that can be tackled should be tackled.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      This is a terrible idea. People have repeatedly shown they are willing to give up very little to address environmental problems. That makes it even more important that when we use limited social capital to address a problem, it's the most important problem that can be addressed.
crx087 9y ago
If someone could make a version of this report that weighted toxicants for TD50 per km², it would be interesting to see the data plotted against epidemiology rates in the same areas.
lend000 9y ago
"Fatal units" might be more useful.

ucaetano 9y ago

Sad that this report is using the word "toxins", synthetic toxicants are not included in the definition of toxin.

giardini 9y ago

This is misleading. Huge amounts of nitrates are injected into the Midwest's soil, so much so that children cannot drink the groundwater and must be given bottled water. Yet the chart shows Nebraska and Kansas as having low levels of toxins released into the environment. Many other toxins must have been omitted from this study.

spodek 9y ago

They show the supply side. I'd like to see the demand side. How much toxic waste does each person's behavior promote being used? How much is embodied in each product?

JonasJSchreiber 9y ago

They listed cities by square mile, why don't they do the same for states. It's a glaring omission. When we hear that Alaska has released the most toxins of any state and Rhode Island has released the least, it's reasonable to conclude that's because of the area of the two states.

scotty79 9y ago

> Three of the top 5 cities -- Humboldt, Lander, and Eureka -- are in Nevada. All are known to contain multiple, active gold mines that collectively release hundreds of millions of pounds of toxins. Here's interesting tidbit for arguing with people who say bitcoin is killing the planet.

cpr 9y ago

So piling up lead/zinc ore leftovers outside the mine in Alaska is clearly polluting? Would need more data.

mikerg87 9y ago

The National Emissions Inventory is a more complete picture of our nations emsissions. The TRI is only conceded with permitted industrial sources. The NEI includes estimates from other source types including : - On-Road mobile sources (cars / trucks ) - Non-Road mobile sources such as trains and plains and construction equipment - Non-Point emissions such as land-fills, agriculture burning and unpermitted sources such as dry cleaners https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2014-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2014-national-...