4 ms·

The US court system is not a good arbiter of scientific accuracy. I'd trust the EPA a lot more here.

by int0x29 2y ago

gjsman-1000 2y ago
[flagged]
paulnpace 2y ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  That is a minuscule disaster versus the overall impact of those mines and other similar industry activities on the environment. All that contamination used to just get dumped in the water supply. It’s only big because we don’t really consider Cleveland’s burning river or LA’s smog blanket to have been “disasters”. (As the link notes: "The event drew attention to toxic drainage from many similar abandoned mines throughout the country.") > Prior to the spill, the Upper Animas water basin had already become devoid of fish, because of the adverse environmental impacts of regional mines such as Gold King, when contaminants entered the water system. > In the 1990s, sections of the Animas had been nominated by the EPA as a Superfund site for clean-up of pollutants from the Gold King Mine and other mining operations along the river. Lack of community support prevented its listing… Locals had feared that classifying this as a Superfund site would reduce tourism in the area, which was the largest remaining source of income for the region since the closure of the metal mines.
  - paulnpace 2y ago
    Yeah, it was really bad already so good on EPA for making it a lot worse. ("miniscule" is not applicable to this disaster and casual readers may see it as emotion-based hyperbole.)
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      Miniscule is absolutely the correct term for this. An already demolished ecosystem was briefly worse, in trying to clean up the built-up pollution from a closed mine. Compare it against the health damage the coal industry has done to billions of people over centuries and it looks pretty damned small. Trying to ding the EPA for "industry left a giant toxic mess and cleaning it up was tough" is just odd.
      - paulnpace 2y ago
        That is the worst attempt at an argument - just throw everything from all of history to "win" your argument. We are talking about isolated events. You need to do something besides troll HN. It isn't beneficial to anyone.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        Fine, let's talk isolated events. Your supposed "one of the largest" isn't on the list at all at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_disaster. Your link says things like "no evidence to that date of human injury or wildlife die-off", "the remaining contaminants will be diluted to a point where there will be no danger to users", "By August 11, pollutant levels at Durango returned to pre-incident levels", etc. It was a short-lived discharge of polluted waters into an area already devastated by the closed mine operations, the sort of discharge that pre-EPA went straight into the rivers as a matter of course. It's one of many mining and industry-related disasters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_disasters#Mining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_disaster...), appears to be not particularly notable amongst them, and it seems was singled out primarily by you for the "it was an EPA contractor that broke the plug" clickbait aspect.
monero-xmr 2y ago
It’s very simple - when it suits your argument, Trust the Science and go with the government position. When it doesn’t, say they courts and the regulators are captured and crooked.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  The NSA can’t regulate itself - it needs court oversight. Courts are allowed to decide what matters to national security and what doesn’t, despite not being agents. The Police can’t regulate themselves - they need court oversight. Courts are allowed to define what is acceptable policing and what is not, despite not being police. The EPA can regulate itself and understands science. Courts aren’t allowed to weigh in because they aren’t scientists. The EPA is a morally upright actor, all other government agencies aren’t. A perfectly rational position. (I say that with extreme sarcasm - it’s malarkey.)
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    The EPA was already significantly more subject to judicial review than the NSA, even prior to Chevron deference falling. The cops are theoretically subject to it, but in practice... nah, mostly not. They receive at least Chevron-levels of deference for things like "I feared for my life!" or "he was coming right at me!" or "I thought it was a gun!" or "based on my experience and training the suspect was acting suspiciously" sort of expert claims.

The US court system is not a good arbiter of scientific accuracy. I'd trust the EPA a lot more here.

gjsman-1000 2y ago

[flagged]

paulnpace 2y ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz 2y ago
That is a minuscule disaster versus the overall impact of those mines and other similar industry activities on the environment. All that contamination used to just get dumped in the water supply. It’s only big because we don’t really consider Cleveland’s burning river or LA’s smog blanket to have been “disasters”. (As the link notes: "The event drew attention to toxic drainage from many similar abandoned mines throughout the country.") > Prior to the spill, the Upper Animas water basin had already become devoid of fish, because of the adverse environmental impacts of regional mines such as Gold King, when contaminants entered the water system. > In the 1990s, sections of the Animas had been nominated by the EPA as a Superfund site for clean-up of pollutants from the Gold King Mine and other mining operations along the river. Lack of community support prevented its listing… Locals had feared that classifying this as a Superfund site would reduce tourism in the area, which was the largest remaining source of income for the region since the closure of the metal mines.
- paulnpace 2y ago
  Yeah, it was really bad already so good on EPA for making it a lot worse. ("miniscule" is not applicable to this disaster and casual readers may see it as emotion-based hyperbole.)
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Miniscule is absolutely the correct term for this. An already demolished ecosystem was briefly worse, in trying to clean up the built-up pollution from a closed mine. Compare it against the health damage the coal industry has done to billions of people over centuries and it looks pretty damned small. Trying to ding the EPA for "industry left a giant toxic mess and cleaning it up was tough" is just odd.
    - paulnpace 2y ago
      That is the worst attempt at an argument - just throw everything from all of history to "win" your argument. We are talking about isolated events. You need to do something besides troll HN. It isn't beneficial to anyone.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        Fine, let's talk isolated events. Your supposed "one of the largest" isn't on the list at all at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_disaster. Your link says things like "no evidence to that date of human injury or wildlife die-off", "the remaining contaminants will be diluted to a point where there will be no danger to users", "By August 11, pollutant levels at Durango returned to pre-incident levels", etc. It was a short-lived discharge of polluted waters into an area already devastated by the closed mine operations, the sort of discharge that pre-EPA went straight into the rivers as a matter of course. It's one of many mining and industry-related disasters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_disasters#Mining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_disaster...), appears to be not particularly notable amongst them, and it seems was singled out primarily by you for the "it was an EPA contractor that broke the plug" clickbait aspect.

monero-xmr 2y ago

It’s very simple - when it suits your argument, Trust the Science and go with the government position. When it doesn’t, say they courts and the regulators are captured and crooked.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
The NSA can’t regulate itself - it needs court oversight. Courts are allowed to decide what matters to national security and what doesn’t, despite not being agents. The Police can’t regulate themselves - they need court oversight. Courts are allowed to define what is acceptable policing and what is not, despite not being police. The EPA can regulate itself and understands science. Courts aren’t allowed to weigh in because they aren’t scientists. The EPA is a morally upright actor, all other government agencies aren’t. A perfectly rational position. (I say that with extreme sarcasm - it’s malarkey.)
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  The EPA was already significantly more subject to judicial review than the NSA, even prior to Chevron deference falling. The cops are theoretically subject to it, but in practice... nah, mostly not. They receive at least Chevron-levels of deference for things like "I feared for my life!" or "he was coming right at me!" or "I thought it was a gun!" or "based on my experience and training the suspect was acting suspiciously" sort of expert claims.