4 ms·

I think their point was that the ticking time bomb is only caused by regulations, which they can no longer comply with. The situation would be better for them i

I think their point was that the ticking time bomb is only caused by regulations, which they can no longer comply with. The situation would be better for them if they could just get the oil recycled from their typical tank, but they need approval for that, so they are falling back to using drums in the parking lot. I doubt any of us trust companies to do the right thing most of the time, but I think we all agree some regulations are dumb, and a loss for everyone except the people whose jobs depend on them. For clarity, I have no idea if the tank inspection is a dumb regulation. And I realize without the regulations, they'd probably be dumping the oil behind the shop somewhere which we obviously don't want.

ryandrake 8y ago
Exactly. OP physically can get their oil recycled. The only reason they are not doing it is because the law requires an inspector to come and inspect and tick a checkbox. Without that requirement, there would be no ticking time-bomb. They could just recycle the oil, buy new supplies, and life could go on. Same for the TSA. If the TSA disappeared overnight, we’d just get on airplanes and fly to our destinations like we did before they came around. We have long lines not because there are fewer agents, but because the law says an agent must process you and there are few agents.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  If the regulations were abolished, some companies would just dump the harmful waste products. Negative externalities are a real thing. Obviously, regulations can cause problems or have significant issues, so we should continually modify them as necessary, to the best of our ability. This includes removing them if they aren't beneficial, or creating new ones.
- brewdad 8y ago
  The reason that person needs to come tick that checkbox is because less ethical businesses have shown time and again that they will dump the oil wherever is cheapest/easiest if there is no oversight. Same with TSA. While they aren't perfect, we don't have bimonthly hijackings like we did 40-50 years ago.
  - freedomben 8y ago
    You realize TSA didn't even exist until George W. Bush in 2001. It's also not unheard of for TSA to screw up[1]. I'd also be very interested in where your data of "bimonthly hijackings" comes from. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/atlanta-tsa-officers-fired-after-passenger-took-gun-onboard-flight-to-tokyo-1425774659803 https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/atlanta-tsa-offic...
    - slg 8y ago
      The US had a huge number of hijackings in the late 60s through early 70s [1]. There has not been a single hijacking or terrorism related death on a commercial airliner in the US since the TSA was created. The TSA doesn't deserve all the credit there as other post-9/11 security changes were implemented at the same time, but you can't just hand wave away their role in that unprecedented streak of safety. [1] - https://www.wired.com/2013/06/love-and-terror-in-the-golden-age-of-hijacking/ https://www.wired.com/2013/06/love-and-terror-in-the-golden-...
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > The US had a huge number of hijackings in the late 60s through early 70s [1]. And very few after that (two in the 1980s, with a couple attempts in the 1989s and 1990s) because of the first round of airport security rules adopted immediately in the wake of those and the tightening permanently applied during the 1990 Gulf Crisis. > The TSA doesn't deserve all the credit there as other post-9/11 security changes were implemented at the same time, but you can't just hand wave away their role in that unprecedented streak of safety. It's not significantly different that the period before 9/11, so it's not clear they the TSA and other post-9/11 actions deserve any credit, and calling it an unprecedented streak of safety is hyperbolic.
        slg 8y ago
        You are correct that the TSA didn't invent airport security screenings, but they took them over, improved, and standardized them. They certainly aren't perfect but they have yet to have the type of catastrophic failures that occasionally happened before the TSA existed. >It's not significantly different that the period before 9/11, so it's not clear they the TSA and other post-9/11 actions deserve any credit, and calling it an unprecedented streak of safety is hyperbolic. First off, you can't just pretend like 9/11 doesn't count in pre-TSA security stats. Four planes were hijacked within an hour of each other on 9/11 and zero have been hijacked in the last 17+ years? Those rates seem significantly different to me. Also can you find any stretch of US history in which commercial airliners have flown close to as many miles as they have over the last 17+ years in which there wasn't a hijacking? Unprecedented seems like a perfectly fine word to describe that streak.
- gambiting 8y ago
  Except that without this inspection they could also pour the oil into the nearest river and no one would know. The inspection is there for a reason - to see that it is properly stored and recycled, at every stage of its life.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  The TSA is whatever, but do you honestly believe that if oil regulations weren't in place, you wouldn't see companies just dumping oil wherever they could? Like they've done in the past? Hence why the regulations exist?
  - ams6110 8y ago
    States and localities can regulate dumping in their jurisdictions. No need to have the Federal government involved.
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      They could regulate dumping in their jurisdiction, but I think this is one scenario where it is a good idea for the government to step in and prevent people from dumping hazardous chemicals into vulnerable areas. Unless you'd like to see what Flint Michigan but Worse might look like on a more national scale.

ryandrake 8y ago

Exactly. OP physically can get their oil recycled. The only reason they are not doing it is because the law requires an inspector to come and inspect and tick a checkbox. Without that requirement, there would be no ticking time-bomb. They could just recycle the oil, buy new supplies, and life could go on. Same for the TSA. If the TSA disappeared overnight, we’d just get on airplanes and fly to our destinations like we did before they came around. We have long lines not because there are fewer agents, but because the law says an agent must process you and there are few agents.

dwaltrip 8y ago
If the regulations were abolished, some companies would just dump the harmful waste products. Negative externalities are a real thing. Obviously, regulations can cause problems or have significant issues, so we should continually modify them as necessary, to the best of our ability. This includes removing them if they aren't beneficial, or creating new ones.
brewdad 8y ago
The reason that person needs to come tick that checkbox is because less ethical businesses have shown time and again that they will dump the oil wherever is cheapest/easiest if there is no oversight. Same with TSA. While they aren't perfect, we don't have bimonthly hijackings like we did 40-50 years ago.
- freedomben 8y ago
  You realize TSA didn't even exist until George W. Bush in 2001. It's also not unheard of for TSA to screw up[1]. I'd also be very interested in where your data of "bimonthly hijackings" comes from. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/atlanta-tsa-officers-fired-after-passenger-took-gun-onboard-flight-to-tokyo-1425774659803 https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/atlanta-tsa-offic...
  - slg 8y ago
    The US had a huge number of hijackings in the late 60s through early 70s [1]. There has not been a single hijacking or terrorism related death on a commercial airliner in the US since the TSA was created. The TSA doesn't deserve all the credit there as other post-9/11 security changes were implemented at the same time, but you can't just hand wave away their role in that unprecedented streak of safety. [1] - https://www.wired.com/2013/06/love-and-terror-in-the-golden-age-of-hijacking/ https://www.wired.com/2013/06/love-and-terror-in-the-golden-...
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > The US had a huge number of hijackings in the late 60s through early 70s [1]. And very few after that (two in the 1980s, with a couple attempts in the 1989s and 1990s) because of the first round of airport security rules adopted immediately in the wake of those and the tightening permanently applied during the 1990 Gulf Crisis. > The TSA doesn't deserve all the credit there as other post-9/11 security changes were implemented at the same time, but you can't just hand wave away their role in that unprecedented streak of safety. It's not significantly different that the period before 9/11, so it's not clear they the TSA and other post-9/11 actions deserve any credit, and calling it an unprecedented streak of safety is hyperbolic.
      - slg 8y ago
        You are correct that the TSA didn't invent airport security screenings, but they took them over, improved, and standardized them. They certainly aren't perfect but they have yet to have the type of catastrophic failures that occasionally happened before the TSA existed. >It's not significantly different that the period before 9/11, so it's not clear they the TSA and other post-9/11 actions deserve any credit, and calling it an unprecedented streak of safety is hyperbolic. First off, you can't just pretend like 9/11 doesn't count in pre-TSA security stats. Four planes were hijacked within an hour of each other on 9/11 and zero have been hijacked in the last 17+ years? Those rates seem significantly different to me. Also can you find any stretch of US history in which commercial airliners have flown close to as many miles as they have over the last 17+ years in which there wasn't a hijacking? Unprecedented seems like a perfectly fine word to describe that streak.
gambiting 8y ago
Except that without this inspection they could also pour the oil into the nearest river and no one would know. The inspection is there for a reason - to see that it is properly stored and recycled, at every stage of its life.
fzeroracer 8y ago
The TSA is whatever, but do you honestly believe that if oil regulations weren't in place, you wouldn't see companies just dumping oil wherever they could? Like they've done in the past? Hence why the regulations exist?
- ams6110 8y ago
  States and localities can regulate dumping in their jurisdictions. No need to have the Federal government involved.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    They could regulate dumping in their jurisdiction, but I think this is one scenario where it is a good idea for the government to step in and prevent people from dumping hazardous chemicals into vulnerable areas. Unless you'd like to see what Flint Michigan but Worse might look like on a more national scale.