4 ms·

What people don't take into account is that human effort is both limited and fungible. Even if we restrict ourselves to only activities that improve health and/

What people don't take into account is that human effort is both limited and fungible. Even if we restrict ourselves to only activities that improve health and/or environment, any effort spent on this could have been spent on something else. Is this the BEST way to spend that effort? I don't know, maybe it is. But would it be better spent on recycling, solar power, species protection, cancer research, etc? I hope someone is trying to do some level of analysis of this so that we don't spend a lot of effort on a tiny problem when there might be larger problems we could be going after.

ElevenLathe 4y ago
This implies a command economy, which we definitely don't have. Certainly people are doing these analyses within firms and agencies. Nobody is doing it on a society-wide basis except maybe in China.
- Nifty3929 4y ago
  Someone is deciding that it's a good idea to pass legislation that would require airlines to remediate this. It would be nice if those people consider how much effort will be required to do so, and whether that is a good trade-off or not compared to the [presumed] health benefits. It would require airlines to indirectly pull labor from the production of things like housing, shoes, tweets, solar panels, etc. Every hour spent improving the safety of the air in planes could be spent doing other things. I'm not sure if you would call this a command economy or not, but the force of law is a pretty strong command.
  - ElevenLathe 4y ago
    Ah well the answer is definitely no. Nobody in government or even the airline industry is considering 4th or 5th order effects like this, and likely never will (again, unless we decide to have a planned economy).
  - Supermancho 4y ago
    I still remember the "vapor recovery" mechanisms implemented decades ago, in California, that now compete against newer car's internal recovery systems. These regulations often outlive their usefulness. Howabout recognizing there is inherent risk in flying, and adding the pollution as a broadcast/informed risk seems like an eco-friendly way to reduce air travel (and the pollution from that travel).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
howenterprisey 4y ago
This is at least the second time you've posted the same thing... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35170026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35170026
- Supermancho 4y ago
  I think it's a solid sentiment that can be applied to many practices that, are going to be and have been, regulated.
- Nifty3929 4y ago
  It's exactly the second time - so far. There are so, so many great things we can do. Removing or mitigating toxic chemicals from airplane air is on that list for sure. But I think it's responsible to consider things not in isolation, but with the understanding that doing any one of those awesome things come at the expense of many other things. I don't often see folks trying to quantify the level of goodness that comes from an activity or the level of effort involved in attaining it. Simply recognizing this as a trade off would be a healthy step.
mattgreenrocks 4y ago
Pretty gross take, given this section of the article: > Scientists have long warned of potential dangers from breathing heated jet engine oil, which contains tricresyl phosphate, or TCP, a highly toxic chemical that can damage the nervous system. TCP can have immediate effects such as headaches and dizziness, as well as longer-term effects such as tremors and memory problems, experts say. Some pilots and flight attendants have experienced serious health problems, including brain damage, after fume events, The Times found. > I hope someone is trying to do some level of analysis of this so that we don't spend a lot of effort on a tiny problem when there might be larger problems we could be going after. Long term health effects are a big problem. It's just not as sexy of a problem as the ones you mentioned. Perhaps this is more a comment on needing more people working towards the great mythical idea of capital-P Progress?

ElevenLathe 4y ago

This implies a command economy, which we definitely don't have. Certainly people are doing these analyses within firms and agencies. Nobody is doing it on a society-wide basis except maybe in China.

Nifty3929 4y ago
Someone is deciding that it's a good idea to pass legislation that would require airlines to remediate this. It would be nice if those people consider how much effort will be required to do so, and whether that is a good trade-off or not compared to the [presumed] health benefits. It would require airlines to indirectly pull labor from the production of things like housing, shoes, tweets, solar panels, etc. Every hour spent improving the safety of the air in planes could be spent doing other things. I'm not sure if you would call this a command economy or not, but the force of law is a pretty strong command.
- ElevenLathe 4y ago
  Ah well the answer is definitely no. Nobody in government or even the airline industry is considering 4th or 5th order effects like this, and likely never will (again, unless we decide to have a planned economy).
- Supermancho 4y ago
  I still remember the "vapor recovery" mechanisms implemented decades ago, in California, that now compete against newer car's internal recovery systems. These regulations often outlive their usefulness. Howabout recognizing there is inherent risk in flying, and adding the pollution as a broadcast/informed risk seems like an eco-friendly way to reduce air travel (and the pollution from that travel).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

howenterprisey 4y ago

This is at least the second time you've posted the same thing... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35170026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35170026

Supermancho 4y ago
I think it's a solid sentiment that can be applied to many practices that, are going to be and have been, regulated.
Nifty3929 4y ago
It's exactly the second time - so far. There are so, so many great things we can do. Removing or mitigating toxic chemicals from airplane air is on that list for sure. But I think it's responsible to consider things not in isolation, but with the understanding that doing any one of those awesome things come at the expense of many other things. I don't often see folks trying to quantify the level of goodness that comes from an activity or the level of effort involved in attaining it. Simply recognizing this as a trade off would be a healthy step.

mattgreenrocks 4y ago

Pretty gross take, given this section of the article: > Scientists have long warned of potential dangers from breathing heated jet engine oil, which contains tricresyl phosphate, or TCP, a highly toxic chemical that can damage the nervous system. TCP can have immediate effects such as headaches and dizziness, as well as longer-term effects such as tremors and memory problems, experts say. Some pilots and flight attendants have experienced serious health problems, including brain damage, after fume events, The Times found. > I hope someone is trying to do some level of analysis of this so that we don't spend a lot of effort on a tiny problem when there might be larger problems we could be going after. Long term health effects are a big problem. It's just not as sexy of a problem as the ones you mentioned. Perhaps this is more a comment on needing more people working towards the great mythical idea of capital-P Progress?