4 ms·

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

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.
      - Spooky23 3y ago
        There’s a shit-ton of loopholes in this space because the legislation creating the EPA doesn’t require oversight for chemicals in use before 1976. Many of these byproducts are awful, but not subject to regulatory analysis. It’s similar to hoe people say that if we discovered acetaminophen in 2023, it would never be FDA approved! One branch of my family grew up near the Mobil Refinery on the Newtown Creek in Queens, NYC. 12/12 have had cancers from that place, as do many others.

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.
    - Spooky23 3y ago
      There’s a shit-ton of loopholes in this space because the legislation creating the EPA doesn’t require oversight for chemicals in use before 1976. Many of these byproducts are awful, but not subject to regulatory analysis. It’s similar to hoe people say that if we discovered acetaminophen in 2023, it would never be FDA approved! One branch of my family grew up near the Mobil Refinery on the Newtown Creek in Queens, NYC. 12/12 have had cancers from that place, as do many others.