6 ms·

Leading the world in protecting Americans by following the lead of more than 50 countries. That’s my EPA. Good job!

fastball 3y ago
Not sure what purpose the snark serves – the way you phrased your comment seems to imply someone involved claimed they are "leading the world", but that isn't the case.
- hexo 3y ago
  Not sure what or who your comment serves, at all.
  - fastball 3y ago
    Trying to nudge the conversation into a more productive direction than misleading snark. First rule[1] of the HN comment guidelines. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - hexo 3y ago
      This helps nothing and you started whining about it.
    - Freedom2 3y ago
      Yet regardless of your nudging, the conversation moved into a productive and importantly curious discussion, which is one of the most important things when it comes to HN comment sections.
      - fastball 3y ago
        How do you know it is regardless of my nudging?
- spiderfarmer 3y ago
  He’s making fun of the fact that a majority of the US population assumes the US is leading in, quite simply, any area.
  - akira2501 3y ago
    Is he making fun of the actual fact or just the majority of the US population? If it's the latter, wouldn't it be more worthwhile to make fun of whatever institutions cause them to believe this simple flattery?
    - avery17 3y ago
      Chuckle and move on. :)
      - akira2501 3y ago
        Doesn't really fit in with the "hacker" vibe, though, does it?
  - deepsun 3y ago
    I don't think that majority assumes that. Quite contrary, majority believes US falls back behind on almost everything (as it should be statistically).
    - bruce511 3y ago
      You're right, if you include people living outside the US. To those outside its easy to see the flaws. But I belive the original snark, and explanation, wete referring to the majority of people living inside the US. From that perspective there's an implicit understanding that the US leads the way (in every field) and their approach to society is best (in all contexts.) This is of course evidenced by the number of people who desire to live there, and hence the immigration issues. (Immigration issues being a uniquely US phenomenon.)
      - 3y ago
emeril 3y ago
yeah, we vote in people, regularly, whose mission it is to dismantle the EPA/FDA/CDC/etc. in the name of "progress"
- lokar 3y ago
  The basic premise of political conservatism is not progress, it is literally to “conserve” the current status or restore the recent past.
  - voisin 3y ago
    Isn’t the basic premise of political conservatism is to minimize public intrusion in private lives? Conserving the primacy of the individual rather than the collective?
    - lokar 3y ago
      With any global term/movement there will be variations, but it generally started with support for maintaining monarchy and aristocracy.
      - roenxi 3y ago
        2 points to make on that: 1) "Conservatism" these days would arguably be a US phenomenon as leading democracy in the Anglophone world. They certainly didn't get started supporting a monarchy. 2) And it is really interesting to note that, while I think monarchies are stupid, it was a remarkably good strategy. As far as I know (my history might be about to betray me) the UK didn't have an equivalent of the Terror after the French revolution or the period where the French killed off people like Lavoisier. To say nothing of the debacles in places like Russia (Communists) or Germany (Nazis) when they moved away from monarchism. The UK probably should get rid of the King; but in hindsight a slow transition is arguably the cleverer path. It is a complex topic; the aristocrats in Europe are systematically underwhelming.
        gattilorenz 3y ago
mandevil 3y ago
In July 1989 the EPA issued the Asbestos Ban and Phase-Out Rule, which would have been a total ban on asbestos. The incredibly conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1991 that ban was invalid in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. Environmental Protection Agency, because the EPA failed to show that it was the "least burdensome alternative" in regulating asbestos. The George HW Bush administration chose not to appeal the ruling. Over the past three decades the EPA believes it has finally done the work to show that this ban is the "least burdensome alternative," but there is no guarantee that the courts will agree this time either. The politicization of the judiciary is not new, certainly, but seems to have gotten worse over the past three decades.
- rodgerd 3y ago
  > 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Ah yes. Well-known for its general view that the United States is a diktat-by-judge, and that mere laws are irrelevant.
  - EasyMark 3y ago
    The 5th circuit has become a joke over the past decade or so. I'm sure all the other circuits refer to it as a way on how not to conduct themselves.
- Thorrez 3y ago
  According to the article, this ban is "thanks to amendments that Congress made in 2016 to fix the Toxic Substances Control Act". Wouldn't a change in law override the judges? (Unless the judges based their ruling on the constitution, which doesn't sound like the case here.)
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    In this case, likely yes
  - happytiger 3y ago
    To be clear, hell yea it would.
refurb 3y ago
The US is actually the leader here, but typical of the discourse on HN, people love to promote their own ideas above facts. This ban eliminates immediately all use in the US, including chlorine plants. The 2005 EU “ban” on asbestos has an exception for chlorine plants. This will eventually be phased out in 1 July 2025. Jeeze EU, get with the times! Why does the US have to demonstrate the right path before you take it? /s https://chemycal.com/news/e6b71d43-1892-454c-80a9-740207f556b9/New_EU_regulation_amendment_outlaws_all_asbestos_products https://chemycal.com/news/e6b71d43-1892-454c-80a9-740207f556...
- Skgqie1 3y ago
  Asbestos has been completely banned in Australia since 2003.
  - stevejb 3y ago
    Australia also probably has some of the worst deployments of asbestos in the developed world. Drive around even nice neighborhoods in Sydney and you’ll see plenty of cracking and breaking “fibro”, a cement asbestos sheet. Canberra is full of asbestos. They had to completely remove an asbestos mining town (Wittenoom) from the map because it was so contaminated. There is a ton of asbestos currently in Australian households. Plenty of aussies drink water collected in tanks off of asbestos cement roofs.
    - Skgqie1 3y ago
      Yes - unfortunately we have a lot of leftover usages of asbestos. Historically, it was used a lot. My father even remembers playing around in the bush as a kid, and using asbestos for chalk a bunch of time to mark stuff on trees. My friends dad also remembers coming home covered in asbestos after work a bunch of times too. I'm not sure I agree with your assessment about seeing asbestos in nice neighbourhoods. It depends how you define nice. Asbestos was banned in 2003,but hasn't been used in housing since the 80s, so it's only going to be in older developments that you'll really encounter it. Your wording regarding "plenty of Aussies" is also unclear to me. The numbers as a percentage are going to be very low, but it undoubtedly is a thing.

Not sure what purpose the snark serves – the way you phrased your comment seems to imply someone involved claimed they are "leading the world", but that isn't the case.

hexo 3y ago
Not sure what or who your comment serves, at all.
- fastball 3y ago
  Trying to nudge the conversation into a more productive direction than misleading snark. First rule[1] of the HN comment guidelines. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - hexo 3y ago
    This helps nothing and you started whining about it.
  - Freedom2 3y ago
    Yet regardless of your nudging, the conversation moved into a productive and importantly curious discussion, which is one of the most important things when it comes to HN comment sections.
    - fastball 3y ago
      How do you know it is regardless of my nudging?
spiderfarmer 3y ago
He’s making fun of the fact that a majority of the US population assumes the US is leading in, quite simply, any area.
- akira2501 3y ago
  Is he making fun of the actual fact or just the majority of the US population? If it's the latter, wouldn't it be more worthwhile to make fun of whatever institutions cause them to believe this simple flattery?
  - avery17 3y ago
    Chuckle and move on. :)
    - akira2501 3y ago
      Doesn't really fit in with the "hacker" vibe, though, does it?
- deepsun 3y ago
  I don't think that majority assumes that. Quite contrary, majority believes US falls back behind on almost everything (as it should be statistically).
  - bruce511 3y ago
    You're right, if you include people living outside the US. To those outside its easy to see the flaws. But I belive the original snark, and explanation, wete referring to the majority of people living inside the US. From that perspective there's an implicit understanding that the US leads the way (in every field) and their approach to society is best (in all contexts.) This is of course evidenced by the number of people who desire to live there, and hence the immigration issues. (Immigration issues being a uniquely US phenomenon.)
    - 3y ago

emeril 3y ago

yeah, we vote in people, regularly, whose mission it is to dismantle the EPA/FDA/CDC/etc. in the name of "progress"

lokar 3y ago
The basic premise of political conservatism is not progress, it is literally to “conserve” the current status or restore the recent past.
- voisin 3y ago
  Isn’t the basic premise of political conservatism is to minimize public intrusion in private lives? Conserving the primacy of the individual rather than the collective?
  - lokar 3y ago
    With any global term/movement there will be variations, but it generally started with support for maintaining monarchy and aristocracy.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      2 points to make on that: 1) "Conservatism" these days would arguably be a US phenomenon as leading democracy in the Anglophone world. They certainly didn't get started supporting a monarchy. 2) And it is really interesting to note that, while I think monarchies are stupid, it was a remarkably good strategy. As far as I know (my history might be about to betray me) the UK didn't have an equivalent of the Terror after the French revolution or the period where the French killed off people like Lavoisier. To say nothing of the debacles in places like Russia (Communists) or Germany (Nazis) when they moved away from monarchism. The UK probably should get rid of the King; but in hindsight a slow transition is arguably the cleverer path. It is a complex topic; the aristocrats in Europe are systematically underwhelming.
      - gattilorenz 3y ago

mandevil 3y ago

In July 1989 the EPA issued the Asbestos Ban and Phase-Out Rule, which would have been a total ban on asbestos. The incredibly conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1991 that ban was invalid in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. Environmental Protection Agency, because the EPA failed to show that it was the "least burdensome alternative" in regulating asbestos. The George HW Bush administration chose not to appeal the ruling. Over the past three decades the EPA believes it has finally done the work to show that this ban is the "least burdensome alternative," but there is no guarantee that the courts will agree this time either. The politicization of the judiciary is not new, certainly, but seems to have gotten worse over the past three decades.

rodgerd 3y ago
> 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Ah yes. Well-known for its general view that the United States is a diktat-by-judge, and that mere laws are irrelevant.
- EasyMark 3y ago
  The 5th circuit has become a joke over the past decade or so. I'm sure all the other circuits refer to it as a way on how not to conduct themselves.
Thorrez 3y ago
According to the article, this ban is "thanks to amendments that Congress made in 2016 to fix the Toxic Substances Control Act". Wouldn't a change in law override the judges? (Unless the judges based their ruling on the constitution, which doesn't sound like the case here.)
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  In this case, likely yes
- happytiger 3y ago
  To be clear, hell yea it would.

refurb 3y ago

The US is actually the leader here, but typical of the discourse on HN, people love to promote their own ideas above facts. This ban eliminates immediately all use in the US, including chlorine plants. The 2005 EU “ban” on asbestos has an exception for chlorine plants. This will eventually be phased out in 1 July 2025. Jeeze EU, get with the times! Why does the US have to demonstrate the right path before you take it? /s https://chemycal.com/news/e6b71d43-1892-454c-80a9-740207f556b9/New_EU_regulation_amendment_outlaws_all_asbestos_products https://chemycal.com/news/e6b71d43-1892-454c-80a9-740207f556...

Skgqie1 3y ago
Asbestos has been completely banned in Australia since 2003.
- stevejb 3y ago
  Australia also probably has some of the worst deployments of asbestos in the developed world. Drive around even nice neighborhoods in Sydney and you’ll see plenty of cracking and breaking “fibro”, a cement asbestos sheet. Canberra is full of asbestos. They had to completely remove an asbestos mining town (Wittenoom) from the map because it was so contaminated. There is a ton of asbestos currently in Australian households. Plenty of aussies drink water collected in tanks off of asbestos cement roofs.
  - Skgqie1 3y ago
    Yes - unfortunately we have a lot of leftover usages of asbestos. Historically, it was used a lot. My father even remembers playing around in the bush as a kid, and using asbestos for chalk a bunch of time to mark stuff on trees. My friends dad also remembers coming home covered in asbestos after work a bunch of times too. I'm not sure I agree with your assessment about seeing asbestos in nice neighbourhoods. It depends how you define nice. Asbestos was banned in 2003,but hasn't been used in housing since the 80s, so it's only going to be in older developments that you'll really encounter it. Your wording regarding "plenty of Aussies" is also unclear to me. The numbers as a percentage are going to be very low, but it undoubtedly is a thing.