EPA Approved a Chevron Fuel Ingredient That Has a Lifetime Cancer Risk 121
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ProPublica: The Environmental Protection Agency approved a component of boat fuel made from discarded plastic that the agency's own risk formula determined was so hazardous, everyone exposed to the substance continually over a lifetime would be expected to develop cancer. Current and former EPA scientists said that threat level is unheard of. It is a million times higher than what the agency usually considers acceptable for new chemicals and six times worse than the risk of lung cancer from a lifetime of smoking. Federal law requires the EPA to conduct safety reviews before allowing new chemical products onto the market. If the agency finds that a substance causes unreasonable risk to health or the environment, the EPA is not allowed to approve it without first finding ways to reduce that risk. But the agency did not do that in this case. Instead, the EPA decided its scientists were overstating the risks and gave Chevron the go-ahead to make the new boat fuel ingredient at its refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi. Though the substance can poison air and contaminate water, EPA officials mandated no remedies other than requiring workers to wear gloves, records show.
ProPublica and the Guardian in February reported on the risks of other new plastic-based Chevron fuels that were also approved under an EPA program that the agency had touted as a "climate-friendly" way to boost alternatives to petroleum-based fuels. That story was based on an EPA consent order, a legally binding document the agency issues to address risks to health or the environment. In the Chevron consent order, the highest noted risk came from a jet fuel that was expected to create air pollution so toxic that 1 out of 4 people exposed to it over a lifetime could get cancer. In February, ProPublica and the Guardian asked the EPA for its scientists' risk assessment, which underpinned the consent order. The agency declined to provide it, so ProPublica requested it under the Freedom of Information Act. The 203-page risk assessment revealed that, for the boat fuel ingredient, there was a far higher risk that was not in the consent order. EPA scientists included figures that made it possible for ProPublica to calculate the lifetime cancer risk from breathing air pollution that comes from a boat engine burning the fuel. That calculation, which was confirmed by the EPA, came out to 1.3 in 1, meaning every person exposed to it over the course of a full lifetime would be expected to get cancer.
Another serious cancer risk associated with the boat fuel ingredient that was documented in the risk assessment was also missing from the consent order. For every 100 people who ate fish raised in water contaminated with that same product over a lifetime, seven would be expected to develop cancer -- a risk that's 70,000 times what the agency usually considers acceptable. When asked why it didn't include those sky-high risks in the consent order, the EPA acknowledged having made a mistake. This information "was inadvertently not included in the consent order," an agency spokesperson said in an email. [...] The risk assessment makes it clear that cancer is not the only problem. Some of the new fuels pose additional risks to infants, the document said, but the EPA didn't quantify the effects or do anything to limit those harms, and the agency wouldn't answer questions about them. Some of these newly approved toxic chemicals are expected to persist in nature and accumulate in living things, the risk assessment said. That combination is supposed to trigger additional restrictions under EPA policy, including prohibitions on releasing the chemicals into water. Yet the agency lists the risk from eating fish contaminated with several of the compounds, suggesting they are expected to get into water. When asked about this, an EPA spokesperson wrote that the agency's testing protocols for persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity are "unsuitable for complex mixtures" and contended that these substances are similar to existing petroleum-based fuels. The EPA did address the concerns in June when it proposed a rule that "would require companies to contact the agency before making any of 18 fuels and related compounds listed in the Chevron consent order," notes ProPublica. "The EPA would then have the option of requiring tests to ensure that the oil used to create the new fuels doesn't contain unsafe contaminants often found in plastic, including certain flame retardants, heavy metals, dioxins and PFAS. If approved, the rule will require Chevron to undergo such a review before producing the fuels, according to the EPA."
ProPublica and the Guardian in February reported on the risks of other new plastic-based Chevron fuels that were also approved under an EPA program that the agency had touted as a "climate-friendly" way to boost alternatives to petroleum-based fuels. That story was based on an EPA consent order, a legally binding document the agency issues to address risks to health or the environment. In the Chevron consent order, the highest noted risk came from a jet fuel that was expected to create air pollution so toxic that 1 out of 4 people exposed to it over a lifetime could get cancer. In February, ProPublica and the Guardian asked the EPA for its scientists' risk assessment, which underpinned the consent order. The agency declined to provide it, so ProPublica requested it under the Freedom of Information Act. The 203-page risk assessment revealed that, for the boat fuel ingredient, there was a far higher risk that was not in the consent order. EPA scientists included figures that made it possible for ProPublica to calculate the lifetime cancer risk from breathing air pollution that comes from a boat engine burning the fuel. That calculation, which was confirmed by the EPA, came out to 1.3 in 1, meaning every person exposed to it over the course of a full lifetime would be expected to get cancer.
Another serious cancer risk associated with the boat fuel ingredient that was documented in the risk assessment was also missing from the consent order. For every 100 people who ate fish raised in water contaminated with that same product over a lifetime, seven would be expected to develop cancer -- a risk that's 70,000 times what the agency usually considers acceptable. When asked why it didn't include those sky-high risks in the consent order, the EPA acknowledged having made a mistake. This information "was inadvertently not included in the consent order," an agency spokesperson said in an email. [...] The risk assessment makes it clear that cancer is not the only problem. Some of the new fuels pose additional risks to infants, the document said, but the EPA didn't quantify the effects or do anything to limit those harms, and the agency wouldn't answer questions about them. Some of these newly approved toxic chemicals are expected to persist in nature and accumulate in living things, the risk assessment said. That combination is supposed to trigger additional restrictions under EPA policy, including prohibitions on releasing the chemicals into water. Yet the agency lists the risk from eating fish contaminated with several of the compounds, suggesting they are expected to get into water. When asked about this, an EPA spokesperson wrote that the agency's testing protocols for persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity are "unsuitable for complex mixtures" and contended that these substances are similar to existing petroleum-based fuels. The EPA did address the concerns in June when it proposed a rule that "would require companies to contact the agency before making any of 18 fuels and related compounds listed in the Chevron consent order," notes ProPublica. "The EPA would then have the option of requiring tests to ensure that the oil used to create the new fuels doesn't contain unsafe contaminants often found in plastic, including certain flame retardants, heavy metals, dioxins and PFAS. If approved, the rule will require Chevron to undergo such a review before producing the fuels, according to the EPA."
Silly headline (Score:5, Interesting)
Many fuel ingredients have a lifetime cancer risk. The story here is that it is an insanely large one, based on their modelling.
The stupid part here is the justification from the EPA for what they did. They effectively are saying the risk looks high only on paper because they did their job wrong and modelled it completely incorrectly. I don't think "We're not nefarious, just completely incompetent" is a good justification.
Re: (Score:2)
Having Mike Wirth run Chevron is a lifetime cancer risk. Here is his page: https://www.chevron.com/about/... [chevron.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Money, it's a gas. Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
Re: Silly headline (Score:2)
Only if Chevron executives are eating these compounds daily and feeding them to their children, should they be allowed to attempt human studies.
What sort of boat? (Score:4, Insightful)
What sort of boat is this a fuel for?
There are many kinds of boats, and the largest are powered by very dangerous, cancer causing fuel (for example the Ohio class)
Re: What sort of boat? (Score:3)
Yes, but the Ohio doesn't dump it's burned fuel into the air and ocean.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, but the Ohio doesn't dump it's burned fuel into the air and ocean.
Precisely.
Yet the typical environmentally obsessed person would prefer just burning stuff. Crazy ...
Re: (Score:2)
And your definition and basis for determining what's "typical" is?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Barring any spilling accidents, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
The production of the fuel leads to contamination of water in multiple ways. Operating emissions are not the whole story.
Re: (Score:2)
What sort of boat is this a fuel for?
There are many kinds of boats, and the largest are powered by very dangerous, cancer causing fuel (for example the Ohio class)
FTA:
Each of the two cancer-causing products is expected to be used at 100 sites, the EPA confirmed. ProPublica asked for the exact locations where the public might encounter them, but Chevron declined to say. The EPA said it didn’t know the locations and didn’t even know whether the marine fuel would be used for a Navy vessel, a cruise ship or a motorboat.
Personally the whole thing sounds pretty bad, but it also sounds technical enough that reports could be misleading and everything will turn ou
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering what kind of boat fuel this is too. The article doesn't say, and given Propublica really wants to to return to the glory days of Stalinism I'm not inclined to take it too seriously.
And speaking of boat fuel, are there fewer fancy boats headed out of Haulover Inlet these days? As in the ones with three or four 200 HP outboards on the back?
"When enviro obsessions collide!" (Score:1)
Sounds like a cheesy midnight movie, lol.
"But, it's made of recycled plastic ... but, it's also highly toxic ... but ... " {head explodes like a 1960s sci-fi robot caught in a contradiction}
Re: "When enviro obsessions collide!" (Score:2)
Does it come with a free tote bag? (For the nausea.)
Re: (Score:2)
Happy Fun Fuel!
It's made of recycled plastic... but it's also highly toxic!
If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, seek shelter and cover head.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Fuel.
Accept no substitutes!
YOU can still eat YOUR red herring! (Score:2)
Or shove it up your ass, depending on which ever orifice you do your feeding through these days.
The rest of us might just have to give up eating fish altogether.
For every 100 people who ate fish raised in water contaminated with that same product over a lifetime, seven would be expected to develop cancer - a risk that's 70,000 times what the agency usually considers acceptable.
When asked why it didn't include those sky-high risks in the consent order, the EPA acknowledged having made a mistake.
Well... (Score:2)
Gotta Keep That Medical Industry Busy (Score:2, Informative)
Sounds like a perfect capitalist plan to me.
Re:Gotta Keep That Medical Industry Busy (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't know why they modded you down. That's exactly how capitalism works in the USA.
Rich men's money is more important than your life & health. And our "we the people" government is inclined to prefer the well-being of the rich.
Re:Gotta Keep That Medical Industry Busy (Score:4, Insightful)
Not many folks left that want to know the truth. They prefer to be lied to and made to feel everything is OK.
Re: Gotta Keep That Medical Industry Busy (Score:5, Insightful)
That's exactly what the people in the US want, right? Less government, more freedom? This is what such mindset leads to in practice. So why complain?
Also, Chevron does invest in greenwashing. Oh wait, that's also just so they can go on exercising their freedom. In their case, to sicken the rest of us. Hoorray for less government imposed restrictions!! /s
https://www.clientearth.org/pr... [clientearth.org]
Re: Gotta Keep That Medical Industry Busy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does Chevron really engage in greenwashing that convinces clueless toolbags like DNS-and-BIND? We Agree, People do [slu.edu].
Fascinating (Score:2, Insightful)
But this is another example of the concept of "Climate Friendly!" being so important that some folks are willing to halfway destroy the earth to protect it. Think of things like sulfur aerosol injection and acid rain and oceanic acidification destroying most all shellfish life or trying to turn the oceans into a version of themselves from aeons ago by ironing them, creati
Re:Fascinating (Score:5, Insightful)
are willing to halfway destroy the earth to protect it
We're talking about Chevron. Everything they do, every single thing, is to make money. If they're trying to appear climate friendly, that is also to make money.
This scheme seems pretty great from their perspective. They gain an excuse to continue making plastic (Look! We can reuse it. It's not so bad...), they get to sell the same oil twice, first as plastic and then as fuel, and the only cost is some mystery poison. Plus they can pretend they're being environmentally responsible, even though this causes no less warming than just burning the oil from the start.
I don't think that the EPA has classified anything, it's probably a trade secret or a pre-patent invention. Regulatory bodies have to be sensitive about that kind of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
This is nothing new. We've been recycling used engine oil for decades. All of that used oil that you turn in at your local gas station for free is turned into marine fuel and sold to shipping companies (or the Navy) to power their ships.
Like diesel cars in europe (Score:2, Informative)
"But this is another example of the concept of "Climate Friendly!" being so important that some folks are willing to halfway destroy the earth to protect it"
The EU went bigtime on diesel passenger cars in the 2000s as they produce less CO2 than petrol cars all other things being equal. In doing so they completely ignored the known facts about the dangers of particulates and NOx in built up areas from these vehicles but that didn't stop them. Roll forward 20 years and suddenly it was panic stations as partic
Re:Like diesel cars in europe (Score:4, Informative)
It probably didn't help that the main manufacturer of diesel cars was producing vehicles with NOx emissions that were out-of-spec by a factor of 40 during that period.
Re:Like diesel cars in europe (Score:4, Informative)
The extra weight on EVs can be handled. I think you underestimate the number of used batteries "power packs" could use up for things like grid energy storage to help even out renewable electricity generation.
Also, the stream of EV batteries is somewhat under expectations - they're lasting longer than the pessimistic estimations in most cases, so they aren't entering the waste stream as fast as expected. Some googling says that the batteries are mostly being recycled.
Anyway, less see what happens in the 2040s when the current gen of EVs are in the scrapyard and a mountain of Li batteries are sitting in the corner.
Well, sort of exactly - EVs are too new to be heading to the scrapyards in large quantities, though from my research there won't be a mountain of LiIon batteries, because those at least are worth it to ship to existing recycling facilities.
Re:Like diesel cars in europe (Score:5, Insightful)
The extra weight on EVs can be handled. I think you underestimate the number of used batteries "power packs" could use up for things like grid energy storage to help even out renewable electricity generation.
Also, the stream of EV batteries is somewhat under expectations - they're lasting longer than the pessimistic estimations in most cases, so they aren't entering the waste stream as fast as expected. Some googling says that the batteries are mostly being recycled.
Anyway, less see what happens in the 2040s when the current gen of EVs are in the scrapyard and a mountain of Li batteries are sitting in the corner.
Well, sort of exactly - EVs are too new to be heading to the scrapyards in large quantities, though from my research there won't be a mountain of LiIon batteries, because those at least are worth it to ship to existing recycling facilities.
I recall the alarm over the Prius when it came out. The hand wringing of how the cars were going to be turned into trash as the unreasonably expensive power packs all died in unison because Lithium batteries do that you know.
Except they didn't. There are some pretty old Prius' on the road with their original battery packs, rolling along.
It turns out that when properly managed, those lithium batteries have a pretty good life span, and the Prius made their life pretty easy.
Maybe the abuse handed out by ignorant cell phone owners makes them think that Li batteries all die quickly.
as well, I suspect that we're going to be seeing Sodium ion batteries in the not too distant future.
Side note - As well - apparently some people are outraged by the energy it takes to produce an EV. This is somehow completely unacceptable, as that makes things so much worse than building a Proper internal combustion vehicle. I had no idea that there was no energy expenditure at all when producing a internal combustion vehicle, and no energy used at all in the refining storage and transport of the fuel the IC vehicles use. The perfect system, these IC powered vehicles! , no energy used at all! 8^/
Re: (Score:2)
Prius had NiMH batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
Prius had NiMH batteries.
Early ones are NIMH, now they are Lithium. Everything else I wrote is applicable to either type.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with everything except "ignorant cell phone users" - blame the manufacturers instead. They're the ones setting up default charging to top phones off to such a peak that it wears the batteries quicker, that put such small batteries in that any loss is felt, while also making it hard to replace batteries and almost impossible to put bigger ones in. I remember when it was standard for me to put an aftermarket battery with 2-3 times the capacity because I was out in the boonies so my phone used more p
Re: (Score:2)
Charging the battery to full is a MUCH smaller problem than discharging it to flat, as deep discharges are MUCH more harmful to the battery than full charges.
Another problem is the push towards fast charging in more devices instead of wireless charging in all of them. More wireless charging means devices will get charged more often, and moreover, more slowly. Discharging faster than charging helps prevent lithium islanding.
If you want to be mad at manufacturers, the thing to be mad about is their skimping o
Still all about manufacturers... (Score:2)
Again, this is a manufacturer thing, not a customer thing. It'd help if more manufacturers made wireless charging possible, perhaps via exposable battery contacts on the body of the phone so that a wireless charging system could be installed in a case, without having to mess with extending the USB plug or something, adding ~1/4 to 1/2 inch to the length of the phone.
Exposed battery points would also allow cases with integrated batteries to be put on phones to extend capacity.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that the energy used to create EVs is significantly more than an ICE vehicle, right? I believe an EV has to drive an average of 10k miles for 10 years to even reach manufacturing parity with ICE vehicles for energy consumption.
It's only then that they start being "green" vehicles: when they're 10 years old, and ready for their next battery pack.
Or were you just making a fallacious argument?
Re: (Score:2)
About 25% of the lifetime energy consumption of an ICEV is in production. For an EV it's about 33%. The difference is not very big compared to the total energy consumption. The idea that it takes a decade to reach break even is nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
About 25% of the lifetime energy consumption of an ICEV is in production. For an EV it's about 33%. The difference is not very big compared to the total energy consumption. The idea that it takes a decade to reach break even is nonsense.
It's pretty complicated as well - I wonder if the total energy costs include the replacement parts.
It's very interesting - I'd love to see the breakdown as well. It takes a lot of energy to smelt cast and machine things like Engine blocks and heads.
So much of the anti-EV narrative has a distinct aroma of bullshit around it.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that the energy used to create EVs is significantly more than an ICE vehicle, right? I believe an EV has to drive an average of 10k miles for 10 years to even reach manufacturing parity with ICE vehicles for energy consumption.
It's only then that they start being "green" vehicles: when they're 10 years old, and ready for their next battery pack.
Or were you just making a fallacious argument?
I'm certain that you can provide the research citations that definitively show all that.
Re: (Score:2)
And Reuters has never been known to use biased information... considering only emissions is one way to do that, and basing your numbers on unrealistically 'clean' energy sources when the majority of energy is produced by coal is another.
Eg. this article puts it at the 47k miles number, and others have recently put it around 80-100k. That's going to depend a lot on things like the climate of where you're charging, as well. Eg. a full (80%) charge during winter is going to be a lot, lot more than it is in mil
Re:Like diesel cars in europe (Score:4, Informative)
The EU went bigtime on diesel passenger cars in the 2000s as they produce less CO2 than petrol cars all other things being equal. In doing so they completely ignored the known facts about the dangers of particulates and NOx in built up areas from these vehicles but that didn't stop them.
False. Or rather fake news. The EU went bigtime on diesel passenger cars *long* before 2000s and it had nothing to do with CO2. Back when we were pouring lead (Tetraethyllead technically) into gasoline diesel *was* the less dangerous fuel. The dangers of NOx emissions only came to light around the 2000s (that part you're correct about) and was as a result of manufacturers pushing fuel efficiency.
But by that time every common person was already driving a diesel in the EU. They didn't ignore anything, they just didn't have a time machine to realise the policy would push in the wrong direction.
Fuels and cars have changed very significantly over the decades.
Anyway, less see what happens in the 2040s when the current gen of EVs are in the scrapyard and a mountain of Li batteries are sitting in the corner.
Recycling programs for lithium batteries are already underway.
Never mind the huge energy the batteries require to manufacture and the extra half a ton of weight these cars drag around compared to an ICE vehicle plus the current lack of recyling for used batteries
The energy required to make them is a small fraction of the energy (emissions) saved over the lifecycle of the car. This has been debunked so to death that right now I'm going to flat out ask: How much is Chevron paying you?
Re: Like diesel cars in europe (Score:2)
If I was working for an oil company arsehole I'd be pushing diesel as it has better margins than petrol.
And no, the EU didnt encourage diesel because of leaded fuel. No idea what planet you were on when you dreamt that up.
Re: (Score:2)
If I was working for an oil company arsehole I'd be pushing diesel as it has better margins than petrol.
It does not. Oil companies don't push any specific product because they have to product all products. And if you were going to build a hydrocracker the product you'd want to push is kerosene. At the end you're still left over with a shitton of fuel components that can't go into diesel and need to product petrol anyway.
If you were working for an oil company arsehole you'd want to push a relatively equal mix of diesel and petrol consumption, since *that* would get you the most money. If the demand and supply
Re: (Score:2)
How much is Chevron paying you?
I could ask you the same question. There is only a small fraction of the Li needed to make the cars you are talking about. There are no Li recycling companies in existence. And there are real reasons to think there never will be. And the truth about renewables is that they greenwash natural gas. My friend, you are being used as a tool of the fossil fuel extractors whether you know that or not. We will always be running transport on fuels, not batteries. Not because I say so, not because engineering s
You are a lying moron. (Score:3)
There is only a small fraction of the Li needed to make the cars you are talking about
https://www.popularmechanics.c... [popularmechanics.com]
Nature reports that your average car likely takes up about 8 kilograms of lithium (another number that'll likely decrease over time).
After some number crunching, courtesy of Ritchie, you get 2.8 billion EVs from that 22 million tonnes of lithium.
With 1.4 billion cars on the road now, that might seem like a tight margin, but one likely improved with growing innovations in mining and battery technology- not to mention this is only Earth's reserves of lithium.
When extrapolated out to 88 million tonnes, that adds up to around 11 billion EVs.
You are an ignorant moron and a liar.
There are no Li recycling companies in existence.
https://www.blackridgeresearch... [blackridgeresearch.com]
Global Top 10 Lithium-ion Battery Recycling Companies [2023]
American Battery Technology Company - Reno, Nevada, United States
American Manganese Inc. (RecycLiCo Battery Materials Inc.) - Surrey, British Columbia, Canada
Ecobat - Dallas, Texas, United States
Ganfeng Lithium Group Co., Ltd. - Xinyu, Jiangxi Province, China
LG Energy Solution Ltd. - Seoul, South Korea
Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. - Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lithion Recycling Inc. (Lithion Technologies) - Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Redwood Materials, Inc. - Carson City, Nevada, United States
Retriev Technologies, Inc. (Cirba Solutions) - Ohio, United States
Umicore N.V. - Brussels, Belgium
https://www.marketsandmarkets.... [marketsandmarkets.com]
American Battery Technology Company (US), ACCUREC Recycling GmbH (Germany), Cirba Solutions (US), Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited (China), Ecobat (US), Fortum (Finland), GEM Co., Ltd. (China), Glencore (Switzerland), Li-Cycle Corp. (Canada), Neometals Ltd. (Australia), Redwood Materials Inc. (US), RecycLiCo Battery Materials Inc. (Canada), Stena Recycling (Sweden), TES (Singapore), The International Metals Reclamation Company (US), and Umicore (Belgium), and others are among the major players leading the market through their innovative offerings, enhanced recycling capacities, and efficient distribution channels.
You are an ignorant moron and a liar.
We will always be running transport on fuels, not batteries.
You are a fucking ignorant idiot. [wikipedia.org]
If you want to stop AGW, stop extracting fossil fuels. You don't do that by substituting mining for pumping and you especially don't do that when what you are mining contains such a tiny amount of energy.
Nuclear mining is still mining. Then comes is refining. And nuclear waste disposal. And security. And the fact that no sane person will let Africa have nuclear reactors tossed around the continent. [fpri.org]
You simply can't build nuclear on fragile ground. [wikipedia.org]
And that's where most energy ON THE PLANET will be n [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
>the extra half a ton of weight these cars drag around compared to an ICE vehicle
While you are right in practice, it is angering. There is no good reason not to have a four passenger vehicle with slightly better stability and crash protection than a golf cart be legal on US roads. Top speed 55mph, stays off freeways. Reduce the battery needs, reduce the amount of crash protection, reduce motor weight.
It's why e-bikes are so popular: They're an easy hack around the bullshit registration requirements of mo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Like diesel cars in europe (Score:2)
I think you misunderstood me. When I said there's no reason to have a car that big, I wasn't complaining at consumers. I was complaining at regulators and manufacturers. I'm saying that for practical purposes, if regulations allowed, more people in urban areas should have golf cart size vehicles instead of 6,000 lb volts.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Curb weight 1,721 kg (3,794 lb)
And modern four door sedans do not weigh less than a ton.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no good reason not to have a four passenger vehicle with slightly better stability and crash protection than a golf cart be legal on US roads. Top speed 55mph, stays off freeways.
This sentence has a lot more to unpack than you think it does. It is fractally incorrect. When we start to decode what it's saying, we find that the statements are not reasonable to any group.
"No good reason" means you can't think of one, not that there isn't one. ... golf cart" Golf carts have zero crash protection.
"Four passenger vehicle"s can't even accommodate families with three children, of which is no shortage.
"crash protection
"Top speed 55mph" We actually have a class of vehicle like you're talking
Re: Like diesel cars in europe (Score:2)
Haha, that's funny you thought I was suggesting a ban on "normal" cars.
NEVs are what I was envisioning. I'll look into them. Ideally they're new under $10-15k and readily available for purchase.
Re: Like diesel cars in europe (Score:2)
>"Stays off freeways" You literally cannot get from town to town in the rural US without using at least highways, some of which have a 65 mph speed limit, which would have to be reduced to 35 mph in order to somewhat safely implement your plan.
Highways and farm to market roads can accommodate slower vehicles, and bicycles, and do so regularly.
Re: (Score:2)
I presume whoever modded me troll hasn't actually been here to see literal tractors driving literally on the 101, literally the closest thing we have to a freeway here. And there's (again, literally) no other road around. There's no frontage road, it just doesn't exist.
Re: Like diesel cars in europe (Score:2)
but thankfully due to the advent of EVs virtually every industry, even mining, is now acting to cleanup its act and help make our air cleaner
Re: (Score:2)
The only people that say EVs are the solution to all the problems are luddites and dirty air lovers. As you don't have any real arguments against cleaner air, false slurs are all you have left. EVs are the clean solution for dirty transport.
but thankfully due to the advent of EVs virtually every industry, even mining, is now acting to cleanup its act and help make our air cleaner
Try walking your own talk. (Score:2)
But this is another example of the concept of "Climate Friendly!" being so important that some folks are willing to halfway destroy the earth to protect it
So with zero evidence your first conclusion on reading this is that people trying to stop global warming dont care if they give people cancer?
How about we step back, take a deep breath (just not from around Pascagoula's refinery) and let calmer minds prevail.
How about you do this?
Re: (Score:2)
But this is another example of the concept of "Climate Friendly!" being so important that some folks are willing to halfway destroy the earth to protect it
So with zero evidence your first conclusion on reading this is that people trying to stop global warming dont care if they give people cancer?
Zero evidence? Read on for my total lack of evidence. There is a hella lot of zero evidence.
Regardless, claiming "Climate Friendly" or "green" will get a lot of people's ears to perk right up, and say "I want that!"
Trigger words, and many well intended but ignorant people will latch right onto it. It gives rise to greenwashing.
And there is hella lot of historical evidence that many people and groups don't care about what happens to other people. You can look that up.
Let's chat about the greenwashing
Re: (Score:2)
No idea why that got posted as AC but the prior response was indeed me.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing you've listed is actively being tried in any significant manner so this doesnt support your claims at all.
I realize that it's great grand fun to drop to AC status - but sorry skam240 - you claimed I had zero evidence, I replied that there is evidence that these plans will just create new problems, gave citations for both, and like the science denier you have shown you are, you utterly dismiss them.
Anyhow, they have been propsed, a lot of people here say they are great ideas, I merely disabuse them, and you after claiming I had zero evidence, I give you the evidence, and you just reject it, like a chiild putt
Re: (Score:2)
I realize that it's great grand fun to drop to AC status - but sorry skam240
Amazing deduction! You deduced all on your own that it was me! Never mind that I literally told you as such in a second reply to your post I made moments after making the one you're replying to.
I replied that there is evidence that these plans will just create new problems, gave citations for both...
Okay, the conversation just got super amusing as I don't think you understand what citations are. Please cut and paste from your prior post exactly where you make any citations. I'm genuinely curious as to what you'll show me.
I replied that there is evidence that these plans will just create new problems, gave citations for both, and like the science denier you have shown you are, you utterly dismiss them.
Anyhow, they have been propsed, a lot of people here say they are great ideas, I merely disabuse them, and you after claiming I had zero evidence, I give you the evidence, and you just reject it, like a chiild putting their fingers in their ears and going "neener neener neener, I can't hear youuu!"
And it gets even more amusing as you're literally doing what you're suggesting I'm doing. Y
What ingredient (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
How can anyone be expected to evaluate the real risk without that information?
That's not your job, it's theirs, and it requires a lot more information than the name of the chemical. Most people even chemists are woefully in-equipped to evaluate the risk even if the specific chemical details are known.
Re: (Score:2)
- a chemist
Re: What ingredient (Score:2)
Haha. Well said ...
The earlier statement sound suspiciously like "You can't handle the tooth"
Re: (Score:3)
It's actually a complex mixture of hydrocarbons, made from refining waste plastic. Details in that 203-page document linked in the article.
Re: (Score:2)
Which raises the question on how the heck it can be causing that much cancer compared to stuff like bunker oil, diesel, gasoline, and kerosene(jet fuel).
Our bodies are generally evolved to handle hydrocarbons without much problem. It's generally things like the NOx emissions - which is a pollutant caused by burning the stuff. This is because the heat levels generated causes some O2 to bind temporarily with N2, NOx is unstable and can be "burned" by catalytic converters and such.
Anyways, cancer risks are o
Re: (Score:2)
While simple saturated hydrocarbons are relatively benign, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are nasty carcinogens and mutagens.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't. But those things were all made prior to the current EPA regulations and therefore aren't subject to them. Basically if we'd subject the already-in-use petroleum products to the rules new chemicals are subject to, we'd all be freezing in the dark by now.
Re: (Score:3)
No where in any of this does it seem to say what the ingredient in question is. How can anyone be expected to evaluate the real risk without that information?
Exactly!
What chemicals are they talking about? Is this stuff so bad we don't dare speak its name? I have to wonder if they don't mention it because the chemicals in question are fairly mundane. For all we know this is benzene they are talking about, that's a known cancer causing agent. Benzene is also naturally occurring, being produced in forest fires as an example. I have to wonder if they don't name the chemicals so that there's no means to create a defense. If the chemical is something like benzen
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The ingredient is Cancerium Inflammatide. In retrospect, it may have not been the best choice.
This makes me wonder (Score:2)
How many employees of the EPA - especially the higher-ups - originally came from the industries they're nominally policing? And/or how many are secretly on industry payrolls? I get the whole "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" thing, but in this case I'm finding it hard to accept that degree of stupidity among that many people.
I just had a quick look at some of the background info of EPA scientists at https://www.epa.gov/sciencemat... [epa.gov] . So far even the ones who spent
Re: (Score:1)
originally came from the industries they're nominally policing?
This isn't the bad part of the revolving door. Coming from the applicable industry means that they have experience and know the practices of the companies that they regulate. It's when they return to industry that a negative incentive is created.
Right (Score:2)
"...approved under an EPA program that the agency had touted as a "climate-friendly" way to boost alternatives to petroleum-based fuel..."
Well, if you flat out kill humans, it is a genuine step to actually solving the purported 'climate change' issue.
I'm just surprised that they are growing so clear about the agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And then there is this: (look under "Toxicity"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You may also have missed that "pure poison" is not a measure of toxicity. It just means that there is no safe minimal dose, expressed in an informal way.
The person without a clue here is really you and it is pretty clear the person with the personality defect is you as well.
were all going to die of cancer (Score:2)
the ceo responsible (Score:2)
The guy responsible is Mike Wirth, CEO and Chairman of Chevron. https://www.chevron.com/about/... [chevron.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The guy responsible is Mike Wirth
No the guy responsible is Michael S. Regan, head of the EPA. The CEO you list is only running the company that made a dangerous chemical, not the one who approved it for use. Dangerous chemicals are dime a dozen and this one here is minor compared to many of the chemicals used in the oil and gas, and chemicals sectors. Companies can make and use what they want. The CEO is only responsible for exposure of his employees and the community surrounding his refineries. The EPA is responsible for the safety of th
Yup, follow the money (Score:2)
And put up a billboard on the highways to this plant - workers might want to demand protective gear and FULLY FUNDED LIFETIME MEDICAL COVERAGE.
Then they can decide if the jobs are worth it. Look, people are quitting because they have to, *gasp*, go INTO the office. Ha. Snowflakes. May they melt.
Re: (Score:2)
People are quitting because they don't want to do <stupid, wasteful, self-destructive, and ultimately unnecessary thing>, what idiots!
Re: Yup, follow the money (Score:2)
Indeed they seem to tolerate all that much better when they are able to stay at home. Hey, I recognize it, I did it. I hear them. They did it 'before', but it's all changed, hasn't it?
P Y O I L (Score:3)
This sounds like Chevron wants to dump plastics Pyrolysis Oil into bunker. Maybe as a vicosity cutterstock more likely just to get rid of the difficult-to-reprocess PyOil.
Beyond the shrill tone, there might be a real concern: it is hard to keep chlorinated plastics out of a plastic waste stream. PVC for one. These will produce all sorts of chlorinated aromatics by pyrolysis. None of them healthy and some incredibly nasty (estrogen-mimetics like 2,3,7,8 TCDD).
So how much was Chevro's bride to the EPA? (Score:2)
in-san-ity (Score:2)
Haha. All fuel contains for example benzene, the reason they are proposing to ban gas stoves! Also contains naphtha. Probably every hydrocarbon is a carcinogen over lifetime constant exposure.
these substances are similar to existing petroleum (Score:3)
It's surprising how many people don't seem to realize just how toxic the stuff is. If it weren't absolutely essential to our modern economy today, it would never be handled by untrained people, or burned and emitted into the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Fossile fuels are generally highly toxic and represent massive cancer risks. Any replacement substance cannot be much better or it does not work.
If applied for today, regular gasoline would never get approval for general use, the stuff is basically pure poison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are making stuff up again.
Nope. But you are being clueless again. Something you clearly excel at.
EPA and FDA owned by corporate america (Score:3)
Kind of like how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are effectively arms of the biggest banks. Once you have lobbyists at a certain tier, actions by executive branch agencies and GSE's 79.9% owned by the Treasury are very much for sale.
Bribes (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder how much they paid for that
Boycott Chevron (Score:2)
Unless they uncover the redactions in that document, admit what the chemical is, it's chemical structure (or structures; it may be a witch's brew of dioxins generated by plastic reprocessing) and their harm calculations, the only sensible thing to do is boycott all Chevron products.
They are all tainted by association.
And is Biden's administration blind to this?
Re: The EPA is basically gone (Score:2)
That is not a problem for the EPA (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, if they are so gone, why are they promulgating draconian fuel economy standards, and reversing Trump's plant toxic emission's standards back to Obama's? EPA is more powerful and more left than ever.
Re: (Score:2)