3 ms·
(See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33713513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33713513 ) > Seriously, factories have been working for centuries and n
by maxbond 4y ago
(See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33713513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33713513 )
> Seriously, factories have been working for centuries and nothing has gone wrong, so why should we regulate where they can pour their waste or make them pay for environmental nonsense like carbon capture?
Pardon? Factories have caused all sorts of problems with discharge, intentional or unintentional. Here's some from the top of my head:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster (mismanagement at a pesticide factory causes an explosion, poisoning many people and permanently contaminating the surrounding landscape).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease (a factory discharged mercury into the sea for years, where it interacted with anaerobic bacteria in the sediment to become incredibly deadly organic mercury and poisoned an entire town)
Keep in mind, these are from the top of my head and I am a nonexpert; we have environmental regulations because people have been hurt or killed by pollution numerous times.
Here's a quote that I hope will emphasize just how powerful pollution can be on an industrial scale:
> Pollution was so heavy at the mouth of the wastewater canal, a figure of 2 kg of mercury per ton of sediment was measured: a level that would be economically viable to mine. Indeed, Chisso did later set up a subsidiary to reclaim and sell the mercury recovered from the sludge.
They literally dumped enough mercury into the river to turn it into a mercury mine. If that doesn't convince you that factories haven't simply been operating with "nothing going wrong", then I don't know what to say.
- hombre_fatal 4y agoPresumably, in that "Seriously, ..." quote, rather than asking an earnest question, the HNer was roleplaying their idea of the general population that's resistant to "reduce pollution" messaging.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- maxbond 4y agoMaybe. I've reread the comment and it can be read either way. Worst case scenario is that my comment remains correct but tone deaf, so I'm not going to retract it, but am open to a correction if GGP chooses to offer one.
- fragmede 4y agoFactories have done unmeasurable damage to our ecosystem, that is unequivocable. But we had to rename it climate change because people couldn't get over the phrase global warming whenever it was cold so I don't see "Reduce Pollution!" as a winning slogan. People who care, care about the underlying concept no matter what it's called. People who don't care don't believe it's a problem in the first place and won't do anything to reduce pollution.
- jodrellblank 4y agoit's not long since it was normal for rivers to set on fire: https://history.com/news/epa-earth-day-cleveland-cuyahoga-river-fire-clean-water-act https://history.com/news/epa-earth-day-cleveland-cuyahoga-ri...