5 ms·

Sadly just one of the very many negative externalities of car-centric cities that are imposed on people who don't opt-in to the madness.

by nick_ 3y ago

toomuchtodo 3y ago
I think the more pressing concern is the systemic nature of this issue. We’ve eliminated lead and MTBE from auto fuel, and no longer use asbestos, but have replaced them with plastic (leading to micro plastics everywhere, including being found in heart tissue), PFAS, BPA, etc. The EPA approved a plastic waste fuel proposed by Chevron that is highly likely to cause cancer with almost no pushback. Almost 100% of the US population has DuPont C8 (used to make Teflon) in their bloodstream. It’s a call for government regulators who aren’t industry pushovers and conservative evaluation and approval approaches to novel materials. We need a system that won’t enable us to continually find new ways to poison ourselves, but still allows for material innovation. Activists and journalism professionals are key stakeholders in this effort, holding (or at least trying to) government and industry accountable. We continue to need people like Paul who talk about this. Same story, different materials. (walkable communities are of importance and significance as well of course)
- bagacrap 3y ago
  What is an acceptable rate of causing cancer and how do you determine what rate a new material will have? I hope your answer to the first question is not zero because things like PFAS do have benefits that are directly translatable to health outcomes. For example, when used for water proofing clothing, they might prevent hypothermia and save lives in extreme conditions. Plastic water bottles enable the distribution of clean water in areas that don't have (can't afford) good infrastructure. Less glass and more plastic means less broken glass on city streets, which I appreciate as a dog owner who doesn't want his pooch to step on broken shards.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Some cancer (harm, in general) is going to have to be acceptable. Zero risk is rare. I am not a chemical engineering domain expert, so I can’t speak to the acceptable amount of harm caused to progress ratio. Do the math and make it public. With that said, I’d argue we’re too far to one side of the pendulum and need to find the middle close to less overall harm caused. It’s not all doom and gloom. Switching from lead and MTBE to ethanol as an anti knock additive in auto fuel was an objective win. There are more wins like that out there I believe.
  - Spooky23 3y ago
    We have standards for acceptable risk. In the Chevron example, they were just ignored by the EPA. Basically, every Chevron employee working with those products will likely develop cancer as a result. Environmental issues are tough. It’s easy to focus on your dogs’ paw and not even be aware that people are needlessly suffering and dying to protect it.
    - bagacrap 3y ago
      I don't know anything about this Chevron example, but there are two possibilities: A) it's not as clear cut as you say B) it is as clear cut as you say, and I agree with you But if the latter were true, there would probably be a high profile post on HN or elsewhere about it.
      - toomuchtodo 3y ago
        First few links. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=chevron&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... Propublica: https://www.propublica.org/article/epa-approved-chevron-fuel-ingredient-cancer-risk-plastics-biofuel https://www.propublica.org/article/epa-approved-chevron-fuel...
        bagacrap 3y ago
        Right, so, I suspect this didn't get much traction, despite being posted and re-posted many times, because the cancer risk assessment was total bunk: > For exposure assessment, EPA develops conservative exposure scenarios which are designed to provide conservative estimates of exposure; this allows EPA to have high confidence – when it finds no risks of concern – that this is in fact the case. In some instances, due to a lack of information on which to based exposure estimates, the conservative assumptions can lead to an over-estimate of risk. For one of the PMN substances in this integrated risk assessment (a jet fuel), the Agency divided the total projected future annual production volume of the new jet fuel by the total number of locations expected to receive the fuel, and then assumed each location could be an end-use location (e.g., airport) and that all the fuel would be burned there. The scenario that was modeled effectively presumed that every plane at the airport was idling on a runway burning an entire tank’s fuel without ever taking off, that the components of the fuel that contribute to c risk are not fully combusted and are present in the exhaust, and that residents living nearby (in a fenceline community) would continuously breathe the exhaust each day over many years in their lifetime. It's unfortunate we don't have a better risk assessment.
bagacrap 3y ago
I would agree but we're talking about asbestos here. It was primarily used in building insulation. Are you suggesting we should have opted out of housing altogether as the sane people opt out of driving? Because I would have suggested we simply stop using asbestos, whether in houses or cars.
- seoulmetro 3y ago
  He's just getting angry at cars for the sake of it. It's very trendy now to pretend to forget that cars are one of the best tools available to a person alive in the last century. It's purely an emotional display.
  - nick_ 3y ago
    Yikes.
veave 3y ago
You can opt out by moving to the countryside.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  There are many naturally occurring hazards in the countryside, including asbestos.
callalex 3y ago
Bus and train brakes are made of the same stuff.

Sadly just one of the very many negative externalities of car-centric cities that are imposed on people who don't opt-in to the madness.

by nick_ 3y ago

Sadly just one of the very many negative externalities of car-centric cities that are imposed on people who don't opt-in to the madness.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

I think the more pressing concern is the systemic nature of this issue. We’ve eliminated lead and MTBE from auto fuel, and no longer use asbestos, but have replaced them with plastic (leading to micro plastics everywhere, including being found in heart tissue), PFAS, BPA, etc. The EPA approved a plastic waste fuel proposed by Chevron that is highly likely to cause cancer with almost no pushback. Almost 100% of the US population has DuPont C8 (used to make Teflon) in their bloodstream. It’s a call for government regulators who aren’t industry pushovers and conservative evaluation and approval approaches to novel materials. We need a system that won’t enable us to continually find new ways to poison ourselves, but still allows for material innovation. Activists and journalism professionals are key stakeholders in this effort, holding (or at least trying to) government and industry accountable. We continue to need people like Paul who talk about this. Same story, different materials. (walkable communities are of importance and significance as well of course)

bagacrap 3y ago
What is an acceptable rate of causing cancer and how do you determine what rate a new material will have? I hope your answer to the first question is not zero because things like PFAS do have benefits that are directly translatable to health outcomes. For example, when used for water proofing clothing, they might prevent hypothermia and save lives in extreme conditions. Plastic water bottles enable the distribution of clean water in areas that don't have (can't afford) good infrastructure. Less glass and more plastic means less broken glass on city streets, which I appreciate as a dog owner who doesn't want his pooch to step on broken shards.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Some cancer (harm, in general) is going to have to be acceptable. Zero risk is rare. I am not a chemical engineering domain expert, so I can’t speak to the acceptable amount of harm caused to progress ratio. Do the math and make it public. With that said, I’d argue we’re too far to one side of the pendulum and need to find the middle close to less overall harm caused. It’s not all doom and gloom. Switching from lead and MTBE to ethanol as an anti knock additive in auto fuel was an objective win. There are more wins like that out there I believe.
- Spooky23 3y ago
  We have standards for acceptable risk. In the Chevron example, they were just ignored by the EPA. Basically, every Chevron employee working with those products will likely develop cancer as a result. Environmental issues are tough. It’s easy to focus on your dogs’ paw and not even be aware that people are needlessly suffering and dying to protect it.
  - bagacrap 3y ago
    I don't know anything about this Chevron example, but there are two possibilities: A) it's not as clear cut as you say B) it is as clear cut as you say, and I agree with you But if the latter were true, there would probably be a high profile post on HN or elsewhere about it.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      First few links. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=chevron&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... Propublica: https://www.propublica.org/article/epa-approved-chevron-fuel-ingredient-cancer-risk-plastics-biofuel https://www.propublica.org/article/epa-approved-chevron-fuel...
      - bagacrap 3y ago
        Right, so, I suspect this didn't get much traction, despite being posted and re-posted many times, because the cancer risk assessment was total bunk: > For exposure assessment, EPA develops conservative exposure scenarios which are designed to provide conservative estimates of exposure; this allows EPA to have high confidence – when it finds no risks of concern – that this is in fact the case. In some instances, due to a lack of information on which to based exposure estimates, the conservative assumptions can lead to an over-estimate of risk. For one of the PMN substances in this integrated risk assessment (a jet fuel), the Agency divided the total projected future annual production volume of the new jet fuel by the total number of locations expected to receive the fuel, and then assumed each location could be an end-use location (e.g., airport) and that all the fuel would be burned there. The scenario that was modeled effectively presumed that every plane at the airport was idling on a runway burning an entire tank’s fuel without ever taking off, that the components of the fuel that contribute to c risk are not fully combusted and are present in the exhaust, and that residents living nearby (in a fenceline community) would continuously breathe the exhaust each day over many years in their lifetime. It's unfortunate we don't have a better risk assessment.

bagacrap 3y ago

I would agree but we're talking about asbestos here. It was primarily used in building insulation. Are you suggesting we should have opted out of housing altogether as the sane people opt out of driving? Because I would have suggested we simply stop using asbestos, whether in houses or cars.

seoulmetro 3y ago
He's just getting angry at cars for the sake of it. It's very trendy now to pretend to forget that cars are one of the best tools available to a person alive in the last century. It's purely an emotional display.
- nick_ 3y ago
  Yikes.

veave 3y ago

You can opt out by moving to the countryside.

jeffbee 3y ago
There are many naturally occurring hazards in the countryside, including asbestos.

callalex 3y ago

Bus and train brakes are made of the same stuff.