5 ms·

This is satire, right?

by jimmaswell 5y ago

CurrentB 5y ago
Do you not believe they don't turn off their engine, or think they should be entitled to keep it running?
- jimmaswell 5y ago
  They should be entitled to keep it running. It's completely blown out of proportion.
  - sonicggg 5y ago
    Why would they be above the law? Are they considered an emergency vehicle?
  - Gigachad 5y ago
    It's not blown out of proportion. Diesel and just all combustion in general is shaping up to be the next asbestos/lead. It's extremely clear how dangerous these fumes are but we have been desensitized in to accepting it.
    - jimmaswell 5y ago
      Source on diesel being equally dangerous as chronic lead or asbestos exposure?
      - foxes 5y ago
        Cars are definitely poisoning our cities. There is a plethora of evidence. Here's a few top hits. [0] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323426#causes https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323426#causes [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4390771/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4390771/ [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/car-fumes-air-pollution-ban-motorists https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/car-fu...
      - jahewson 5y ago
        No shortage of sources. https://phys.org/news/2019-02-pollution-deaths-linked-diesel.html https://phys.org/news/2019-02-pollution-deaths-linked-diesel... https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CATF_Pub_Diesel_Health_America.pdf https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CATF_Pub_Dies... https://www.hazards.org/chemicals/fuming.htm https://www.hazards.org/chemicals/fuming.htm That last article itself cites 15 sources. The data shows significantly more deaths from diesel than asbestos and roughly or par with lead. Remember that those exposures last a lifetime, so the data lags significantly.
        giantg2 5y ago
        "That last article itself cites 15 sources. The data shows significantly more deaths from diesel than asbestos and roughly or par with lead. Remember that those exposures last a lifetime, so the data lags significantly." Not saying it's not bad, but this equivocation is just not accurate in my view. More deaths sure - because more people were exposed. Can you honestly tell me you would rather be exposed to asbestos or lead (no ppe)? Also, emissions controls have increased as has air quality since the 80s. I doubt this idea that the data still has lag left in it. We would expect to see the most impact at the higher exposure levels.
        Spivak 5y ago
        You’re missing the individual vs societal view. Obviously you personally would rather not be exposed to asbestos or lead but at the societal level 1000 people that are really really dead and 1000 people who are just normally dead aren’t that different. And honestly it’s worse for diesel having wide exposure because there are in between states between totally fine and dead and those affect more people.
        necovek 5y ago
        But that wasn't the grandparent thread question where someone asked for sources on exhaust gasses being as dangerous as asbestos/lead? We all know that car accidents are one of the top killers in the world, yet we don't ban cars outright. But that's because absolute numbers are big simply because billions of people drive cars: on a per-trip basis, they are actually not that bad.
      - noahtallen 5y ago
        Flipping it slightly, what intuition leads to anyone thinking that fumes from burning _anything_ is safe to breath in large quantities? We know that standing in a room filled with fumes from burning one thing — be it gasoline or wood — kills quickly. So why wouldn’t it make sense for a million cars running every day to also have a negative health impact? There are plenty of events in history where stale air in a city along with significant pollution killed tens of thousands of people over a short period, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London. But taking it to a philosophical level, what framework gives one the right to pollute? In my view, the opposite is true. Clearly, if a factory dumps toxic waste on your property, they are violating your property rights. I don’t believe anyone should have the right to pollute, based on the simple fact that any polluter violates another’s property. Our society of course isn’t quite there, but I believe we are sacrificing a rights by allowing pollution (even from ourselves), rather than the other way around (polluters having a right to pollute.)
        necovek 5y ago
        What a strange way to pose a question. So, we know that there are risks with electromagnetic waves in X-rays, so we try to limit our exposure to them. But do you, for instance, run a Wifi access point at home? Do you use a cell phone? And you surely know how radios work: electromagnetic waves. To use your phrasing, "what intuition leads to anyone thinking that electromagnetic radiation is safe in large quantities?" While we know something of electromagnetic radiation effects on health, we know almost nothing regarding long term effects of the type that have become our daily environment, because this level of exposure (wifi APs, cell phones) is a very recent phenomenon. But, we could find out in the long run that they have a non-negligible effect on a part of the population that it may end up being classified as "pollution" in the future too. The point is that people disagree on what are "large quantities" with exhaust gasses (even different governments do, which is why there are different standards), or where do we draw the line. Going with the extreme example can actually be counterproductive because it can easily be proven irrelevant. The other problem with air pollution from cars is that it's conflated with global warming today (not saying it's not an issue, just that everyone wants to solve both problems at once). One can easily solve for one problem without solving for another (eg. allow only use of clean vehicles during peak hours as a pretty light restriction, to banning non-clean vehicles only in dense urban areas as a pretty strong one).
  - ip26 5y ago
    Aren't my kids entitled to breathe air instead of diesel?
    - jimmaswell 5y ago
      They'll live from the tiny amount of diesel. The ice cream is worth it.
      - antisthenes 5y ago
        You don't need to run an 8 liter V8 diesel to keep a small fridge with icecream cold. It can run off of a battery bank or the built in accumulator. Well insulated fridges are pretty efficient
        paulmd 5y ago
        As a kid, our scout troop had a fundraising deal with the local Schwan's distributor, they would bring in a delivery truck full of ice-cream and we'd sell it at a local festival, and then pay wholesale for what we'd used. Anyway basically there was no power at the festivals, it was usually just a parking lot at a local highschool, so they'd plug it in overnight. Not sure whether they had batteries/etc, but they were perfectly fine being out in a hot parking lot for 16 hours, no problem. And we were constantly in and out of the trucks selling ice cream which is not what a delivery truck was designed for.
  - thatfrenchguy 5y ago
    Nope, nothing is worth having less clean air
ardit33 5y ago
No it is not. They are major pollutors, as mostly are older trucks run by local semi-mafioso organizations (I am not kidding. There even have been turf wars over it).
- semanticist 5y ago
  It sounds absurd, but it's true, here's the Wikipedia on the Glasgow Ice Cream Wars of the 1980s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Ice_Cream_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Ice_Cream_Wars These days it's the local taxi companies they have their teeth into, so I'm told.
  - ashwagary 5y ago
    Absurd indeed, I wouldnt believe this without the link. I would love to see a Scorsese movie about it.
mardifoufs 5y ago
This is exactly my reaction to this whole comment section too honestly. "Reporting your neighbors and being a professional snitch is good" is the type of take you only see in HN. Yes, laws need to be enforced but it does not mean we need to all turn into paid petty neighborhood cops/informants . Not only because it makes you miserable but also because there's always a risk when you start calling law enforcement on people.
- Teever 5y ago
  - ghostpepper 5y ago
    It's one thing to call the cops when another party has aggrieved you or violated your rights in some (even minor) way. It's entirely another for the government to create financial incentives for people to report their fellow citizens for petty crimes that the payee would otherwise not care about / be impacted by. Even this particular bylaw is clearly contentious in the comments here. Surely you can think of at least one law that you disagree with - imagine if there was a payout for reporting on it, and how that scenario could play out.
    - noahtallen 5y ago
      I outlined this above, but I think there is a very clear argument that pollution is a violation of your property rights. Would you be happy if someone ran 200 Diesel engines upwind of you, making the air around your home on your property unbreathable? I believe that should philosophically indicate that your rights are being violated when someone is polluting.
      - ghostpepper 5y ago
        I'm not against the law. If someone is polluting your air then you have a right to call the police and report it - but you should be doing that because you care about the air, and not because you're getting a cut of the ticket.

This is satire, right?

CurrentB 5y ago

Do you not believe they don't turn off their engine, or think they should be entitled to keep it running?

jimmaswell 5y ago
They should be entitled to keep it running. It's completely blown out of proportion.
- sonicggg 5y ago
  Why would they be above the law? Are they considered an emergency vehicle?
- Gigachad 5y ago
  It's not blown out of proportion. Diesel and just all combustion in general is shaping up to be the next asbestos/lead. It's extremely clear how dangerous these fumes are but we have been desensitized in to accepting it.
  - jimmaswell 5y ago
    Source on diesel being equally dangerous as chronic lead or asbestos exposure?
    - foxes 5y ago
      Cars are definitely poisoning our cities. There is a plethora of evidence. Here's a few top hits. [0] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323426#causes https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323426#causes [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4390771/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4390771/ [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/car-fumes-air-pollution-ban-motorists https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/car-fu...
    - jahewson 5y ago
      No shortage of sources. https://phys.org/news/2019-02-pollution-deaths-linked-diesel.html https://phys.org/news/2019-02-pollution-deaths-linked-diesel... https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CATF_Pub_Diesel_Health_America.pdf https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CATF_Pub_Dies... https://www.hazards.org/chemicals/fuming.htm https://www.hazards.org/chemicals/fuming.htm That last article itself cites 15 sources. The data shows significantly more deaths from diesel than asbestos and roughly or par with lead. Remember that those exposures last a lifetime, so the data lags significantly.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        "That last article itself cites 15 sources. The data shows significantly more deaths from diesel than asbestos and roughly or par with lead. Remember that those exposures last a lifetime, so the data lags significantly." Not saying it's not bad, but this equivocation is just not accurate in my view. More deaths sure - because more people were exposed. Can you honestly tell me you would rather be exposed to asbestos or lead (no ppe)? Also, emissions controls have increased as has air quality since the 80s. I doubt this idea that the data still has lag left in it. We would expect to see the most impact at the higher exposure levels.
        Spivak 5y ago
        You’re missing the individual vs societal view. Obviously you personally would rather not be exposed to asbestos or lead but at the societal level 1000 people that are really really dead and 1000 people who are just normally dead aren’t that different. And honestly it’s worse for diesel having wide exposure because there are in between states between totally fine and dead and those affect more people.
        necovek 5y ago
        But that wasn't the grandparent thread question where someone asked for sources on exhaust gasses being as dangerous as asbestos/lead? We all know that car accidents are one of the top killers in the world, yet we don't ban cars outright. But that's because absolute numbers are big simply because billions of people drive cars: on a per-trip basis, they are actually not that bad.
    - noahtallen 5y ago
      Flipping it slightly, what intuition leads to anyone thinking that fumes from burning _anything_ is safe to breath in large quantities? We know that standing in a room filled with fumes from burning one thing — be it gasoline or wood — kills quickly. So why wouldn’t it make sense for a million cars running every day to also have a negative health impact? There are plenty of events in history where stale air in a city along with significant pollution killed tens of thousands of people over a short period, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London. But taking it to a philosophical level, what framework gives one the right to pollute? In my view, the opposite is true. Clearly, if a factory dumps toxic waste on your property, they are violating your property rights. I don’t believe anyone should have the right to pollute, based on the simple fact that any polluter violates another’s property. Our society of course isn’t quite there, but I believe we are sacrificing a rights by allowing pollution (even from ourselves), rather than the other way around (polluters having a right to pollute.)
      - necovek 5y ago
        What a strange way to pose a question. So, we know that there are risks with electromagnetic waves in X-rays, so we try to limit our exposure to them. But do you, for instance, run a Wifi access point at home? Do you use a cell phone? And you surely know how radios work: electromagnetic waves. To use your phrasing, "what intuition leads to anyone thinking that electromagnetic radiation is safe in large quantities?" While we know something of electromagnetic radiation effects on health, we know almost nothing regarding long term effects of the type that have become our daily environment, because this level of exposure (wifi APs, cell phones) is a very recent phenomenon. But, we could find out in the long run that they have a non-negligible effect on a part of the population that it may end up being classified as "pollution" in the future too. The point is that people disagree on what are "large quantities" with exhaust gasses (even different governments do, which is why there are different standards), or where do we draw the line. Going with the extreme example can actually be counterproductive because it can easily be proven irrelevant. The other problem with air pollution from cars is that it's conflated with global warming today (not saying it's not an issue, just that everyone wants to solve both problems at once). One can easily solve for one problem without solving for another (eg. allow only use of clean vehicles during peak hours as a pretty light restriction, to banning non-clean vehicles only in dense urban areas as a pretty strong one).
- ip26 5y ago
  Aren't my kids entitled to breathe air instead of diesel?
  - jimmaswell 5y ago
    They'll live from the tiny amount of diesel. The ice cream is worth it.
    - antisthenes 5y ago
      You don't need to run an 8 liter V8 diesel to keep a small fridge with icecream cold. It can run off of a battery bank or the built in accumulator. Well insulated fridges are pretty efficient
      - paulmd 5y ago
        As a kid, our scout troop had a fundraising deal with the local Schwan's distributor, they would bring in a delivery truck full of ice-cream and we'd sell it at a local festival, and then pay wholesale for what we'd used. Anyway basically there was no power at the festivals, it was usually just a parking lot at a local highschool, so they'd plug it in overnight. Not sure whether they had batteries/etc, but they were perfectly fine being out in a hot parking lot for 16 hours, no problem. And we were constantly in and out of the trucks selling ice cream which is not what a delivery truck was designed for.
- thatfrenchguy 5y ago
  Nope, nothing is worth having less clean air

ardit33 5y ago

No it is not. They are major pollutors, as mostly are older trucks run by local semi-mafioso organizations (I am not kidding. There even have been turf wars over it).

semanticist 5y ago
It sounds absurd, but it's true, here's the Wikipedia on the Glasgow Ice Cream Wars of the 1980s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Ice_Cream_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Ice_Cream_Wars These days it's the local taxi companies they have their teeth into, so I'm told.
- ashwagary 5y ago
  Absurd indeed, I wouldnt believe this without the link. I would love to see a Scorsese movie about it.

mardifoufs 5y ago

This is exactly my reaction to this whole comment section too honestly. "Reporting your neighbors and being a professional snitch is good" is the type of take you only see in HN. Yes, laws need to be enforced but it does not mean we need to all turn into paid petty neighborhood cops/informants . Not only because it makes you miserable but also because there's always a risk when you start calling law enforcement on people.

Teever 5y ago
- ghostpepper 5y ago
  It's one thing to call the cops when another party has aggrieved you or violated your rights in some (even minor) way. It's entirely another for the government to create financial incentives for people to report their fellow citizens for petty crimes that the payee would otherwise not care about / be impacted by. Even this particular bylaw is clearly contentious in the comments here. Surely you can think of at least one law that you disagree with - imagine if there was a payout for reporting on it, and how that scenario could play out.
  - noahtallen 5y ago
    I outlined this above, but I think there is a very clear argument that pollution is a violation of your property rights. Would you be happy if someone ran 200 Diesel engines upwind of you, making the air around your home on your property unbreathable? I believe that should philosophically indicate that your rights are being violated when someone is polluting.
    - ghostpepper 5y ago
      I'm not against the law. If someone is polluting your air then you have a right to call the police and report it - but you should be doing that because you care about the air, and not because you're getting a cut of the ticket.