Hacker News Reader

Comment by Al-Khwarizmi | Hacker News Reader

"Looking back, it seems insane. Bluntly put, we took a known poison and – for three quarters of a century – used it in machines that puffed it out in breathable form. Then we drove them millions of miles a day, all over the world, regularly dosing billions of people with the toxin."

We are still doing just that, even though we are using milder poisons now.

View on HN

Well given that asbestos were known to be cancerous almost a century before we ban it, I'd say it's just the way we usually do things: use what's convenient until the cost is too high.

Want to feel a bit concerned? Carbon fiber particulate (such as what you get from sawing or sanding it) is as bad as asbestos. We love carbon fiber these days. Most of the time it is sequestered safely away in resin, but it's absurdly simple to free it.

Can you point to a study backing up this claim?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-nanotube-d...

Second link in a search containing solely "carbon fibre asbestos". It's a fairly well known problem. The problems with carbon fibre (and asbestos, for that matter) is not that it's somehow poisonous, but that the particles are so fine and long and strong that they cause problems with your lungs. They can't be absorbed, they can't be expelled; their structure makes them an irritant that can't be removed by the body's natural processes.

Asbestos is still manufactured and sold in some countries. Crazy I know.

As it's a naturally occuring mineral, you can't avoid it completely. https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/asbestos-found-nevada-...

San Benito Mountain in central California has naturally occurring asbestos levels that are so high that no public access was allowed for years (historically, it was a popular off-roading area). More recently, public access is allowed, but you are only permitted to visit the site 5 times per year (the BLM keeps track).

Well then, if it's a naturally occurring mineral, we might as well just spread it around all over the place!

> As it's a naturally occuring mineral, you can't avoid it completely

Isn't that also true of Lead?

Only until we figure out how to transmute it to gold.

We already know how (bombard it with Calcium-48 in a particle accelerator, or stick it in a nuclear reactor), but it’s not cost effective.

Actually, there is a startup that's about to make it cost-effective through blockchain-based crowdsharing:

Lava is naturally occurring... Yet I do a pretty good job of avoiding it.

Chrysotile "white asbestos" is the only type still legally allowed, because various studies have found it to be far less carcinogenic than the other types --- AFAIK crocidolite ("blue asbestos"), the most carcinogenic, has been banned completely.

https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos#notban...

General Aviation (private planes) are STILL spewing lead into the atmosphere. It's not like they don't have the money to fix it, they just don't care about the externalities.

There is currently a strong effort to move away from leaded fuels, and multiple producers have been selected by the FAA to formulate and sell fuel blends that present the desired octane ratings and are proven safe. The fist certifications of such fuels is expected this year:

https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/where_we_are_now/nextgen_update/...

From the linked article, it's nice to see they moderated to a "fuel formulation change + limited engine modifications" approach.

It seems unwise, chemically speaking, to expect we'll be able to find a drop in replacement that's less toxic (vs creating something that we find out is toxic in another 50 years).

Seems fatalistic to assume that getting rid of TEL will automatically mean it'll be replaced with something equally nasty, or even worse.

I don't think it's out of the question that improvements in refining technology has made it possible and economical enough to create a fuel with a high enough octane rating without resorting to TEL or other metal-organic additives. E.g. the Shell stuff that is being investigated by the FAA PAFI project is rumored to be based on super-alkylate + aromatics.

I should moderate my comment a bit. I'm not expecting the replacement to be equally or more toxic, but I have skepticism that it's going to be non-toxic.

Presumably you're tangential to the chemical-synthesis industry? It seems like there's a disturbingly low bar for "We found a compound that will do a thing! Okay, as long as it isn't food / a drug / incorporates already banned substances... put it into production!" (20 years pass) Substantial toxicity found.

Well, sure it's going to be toxic. Drink enough gasoline and you'll die, whether it's aviation gasoline or not. And aromatics are carcinogenic etc. (then again, aromatics are present in many other fuels such as regular gasoline and kerosine). I think the best one can hope for is that the 100LL replacement won't be significantly nastier than regular car gasoline. But already that would IMHO be a significant step forward compared to the status quo.

And no, I don't work for the chemical industry, or anything related to that really. But yes, I've heard of such cases where the replacement for some banned product turns out to be even worse. I do think one should be very careful about trusting environmental statements by the chemical industry, or any industry for that matter. Just like one shouldn't trust them blindly, I don't think a blanket dismissal of anything new they are doing is warranted either.

It's very hard to change anything in GA. Reliability is a much higher priority in aviation, if the engine in your car dies, you stop, if the engine in your plane dies, you fall out of the sky.

GA planes also generally last a lot longer than cars, you have Cessnas from the 70's still flying with their original engines from the 70's.

> from the 70s

"But they still work!" is not a good excuse to pollute.

I agree, but it's a better reason than most excuses to pollute which tend to boil down to "because I want to". At least airlines are working (slowly) to fix the problem.

No, if the engine in your plane dies you glide.

And if you’re over water, mountains or generally unfriendly land...you probably want to glide longer than you actually can.

Depends on the plane and your definition of gliding.

Which means you better have somewhere you can land in range of 200 kilometers if we are talking about passenger liners.

Don't industries that require high levels of reliability schedule replacement of aging equipment, rather than continued repairs to keep old equipment running?

Not really in aviation. Even commercial airliners are often decades old (and as a passenger, you can't really tell unless you know what to look for). They do reach a point where replacement with newer technology makes economic sense, but they can basically be maintained indefinitely.

That's not entirely accurate. Pressurized aircraft hulls are limited by the total number of pressurization cycles they can be subjected to. Everything else is repaired, overhauled, or replaced, but a total overhaul of an airliner haul is just not economically feasible, so at that point the entire aircraft is basically scrapped.

You still have Cessnas from the 60s in my local club!

If you have money, you’re flying a jet or a turboprop, burning jet fuel (kerosene) which contains no lead.

Only the smallest private planes run on piston engines, whose owners don’t really have money to “fix it”, especially because FAA regulations for certification of new planes and engine designs make everything cost about 10x what it should.

What are the poisons of today that we allow?

I general, from what I've gathered, we have been replacing substances that accumulates in nature with substances that breaks down over time. So for instance, we still do allow ozone but also watch the levels to ensure they aren't too high.

I know there are issues with a lot of medication as it goes out in the sewage and there's still a big question mark on the safety of some modern materials such as nano particles. However, the overall the feeling I get is that the awareness of the dangers with allowing use of poisonous substances is a lot higher today than before. I'm interested in hearing about the exceptions.

Read up on BPA, drinking from plastic bottles and other endocrine disruptors we still allow in our food supply. As a side note, a lot of people think more quantity = more poisonous. This is not always the case as a small amount can mimic a hormone wrecking our hormone levels over time.

BPA and other xenoestrogens scare me the most. Men's sperm counts have gone down 50% in the last 30 years, nobody knows why, but the estrogens in our products/water/air aren't out of the question.

It's scary how little it scares everyone else.

With an ever expanding world population, possibly on the verge of unsustainable, would a plummeting birth rate necessary be a bad thing? Sure it would mean redesigning how we see the world (the retirement and economic models), but we can either tackle it now or when it's forced upon us.

Well if the only effect was a plummeting birth rate, then maybe it wouldn't be bad, but it's also been testosterone levels that have dropped considerably[1], which according to that site "[decreased testosterone] is often associated with diabetes, abdominal obesity, sexual dysfunction, depression and other adverse conditions."

There have also been increases in those who identify as LGBT[2]. Such massive increases in younger generations can't be explained away by cultural changes IMO. I don't think it's a coincidence that at the same time that exposure to hormonal disruptors has increased, changes in gender and drops in testosterone have been found.

[1] https://www.healio.com/endocrinology/hormone-therapy/news/pr...

[2] http://news.gallup.com/poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises...

Though this topic is incredibly sensitive, it needs to be considered. On a somewhat related note, boys who are prenatally exposed DES (a strong estrogen) while pregnant are significantly more likely to be transgender.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol [See Des Sons]

Are you sure it couldn't be explained by cultural changes? Perhaps the numbers were always there, but higher cultural tolerance has simply brought more out of the closet? At the very least I would expect that to be a contributing factor.

I remember reading about how the increase in mental illness could just be that we are better at diagnosing and recognizing them (and lazy doctors who would rather just prescribe something for your "depression").

No I'm not sure, nor is anyone. But having 1.4% of boomers and 7.3% of millennials identifying as LGBT is a _massive_ difference. Homosexuality is something that by all indications causes incredible mental anguish by suppressing, and from what we understand doesn't really change over a lifetime. Wouldn't we see a massively large number of older people coming out of the closet? Would it really be surprising if endocrine disruptors could have such a massive impact?

I'm not married to either reason, but I'm just feeling very skeptical about your assumption.

A) I don't think we would see a massive number of older people coming out of the closet, because this culture change is generational. Most of your peers aren't going to change their minds just because a younger generation is more tolerant. It's the same reason my 100 year old (really!) grandmother may still use the occasional racial slur. I definitely think there's more peer friction for an older LBGT individual than a younger one.

B) I don't think these numbers are actually out of line with the impact of cultural change.

C) Base on your linked datas, religion may also be a factor. Given that religion is on the decline in the US, especially among millennials, I wouldn't rule that out as a factor either.

It's probably a combination of factors as usual, and maybe endocrine disruptors is one of them.

My understanding is that medically speaking, increasing your testosterone levels is something you can do fairly easy, compared, say, to dealing with the cognitive impairment caused by heavy metal poisoning.

>Men's sperm counts have gone down 50% in the last 30 years, nobody knows why, but the estrogens in our products/water/air aren't out of the question.

I... guess I don't really see this as nearly as scary as "impaired mental development in children" or "increased cancer rates for everyone" - I mean, sure, if you can't have children after medical intervention, that's a problem; but I'm not sure that requiring medical intervention to have a child is in and of itself a particularly bad thing. it's not something you want to do by accident, and raising a child is incredibly expensive; adding a bit to the up-front cost seems a lot less scary than adding to the costs down the line (I mean, through the development problems caused by lead.)

Also we vastly increased our intake of things like high-fructose corn syrup and sitting on our asses all day leading to "metabolic syndrome", which might play a role.

https://newrepublic.com/article/86339/toxins-plastic-shampoo... is interesting.

Thanks for sharing, this should be required reading.

You're kind to say that, but I literally just meant it was interesting. I don't know how reliable it is. I search for things debunking the endocrine disruptor claim and found it, and it didn't ring any credibility alarm bells.

long-chain perfluorinated chemicals (C8 , involved in the production of teflon) see https://theintercept.com/2015/08/11/dupont-chemistry-decepti...

Nictonoides in general (pesticides) are poisons, which we don't ingest directly but still spew in the environment.

A poison we monitor and accumulates in the environment but don't regulate to the level it deserve given the damage it causes is of course CO2, as well as the other greenhouse gases (SO2, NOx etc... as produced by ships and planes).

It's inaccurate and misleading to call CO2 a poison in the context of climate change. Yes, it's a poison at high concentrations (as is just about everything), but the concentration required to cause climate change is way lower.

In the case of exhaust fumes in particular: Nitrogen oxides.

Though to be fair, the latest EU standards demand diesels have ‘Ad blu’ tanks that add Urea to the catalytic converts, mitigating most NOx emissions. So at least we are doing something about it.

But it’s no good when manufacturers program their cars to inject too little urea, or turn urea injection off on the highway, etc.

Sugar.

Time will tell, but maybe microplastic. WHO just started a review on the topic: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/15/micropla...

Mercury: Dental amalgams (aka silver fillings) Pesticides and herbicides

Probably most common in food industry now: palm oil.

Nanoparticles of soot, magnetite, and other industrial atmospheric pollutants.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/industrial-air-pollu...

We already accept the impact of millions a year dying as a result of industrial pollution, especially from burning coal; we mostly shrug and move on.

VOC’s, microplastic, nanoparticles such as TiO2, a lot of the crap in cosmetics, and probably a lot more.

>We already accept the impact of millions a year dying as a result of industrial pollution...

We accept them because the mainstream narrative does not make a big issue of it. On the other side, we make a big deal when there is a measles death, calling for death of anti-vaxxers, because the mainstream narrative suggests so...

In other words, the public, including the people here. is a bunch of morons who won't jump away from the path of a slow moving road roller, unless the mainstream narrative tells us to do so...

As for who decides the main stream narrative, I would say the ones with the most resources...

Industrialization has many positive aspects. Its byproducts may lead to some deaths, but they also lead to saved or longer lives for many. There is a decent chance that the positives outweigh the negatives.

Measles...it's hard to make a case that the benefits of getting measles outweigh anything.

This is my viewpoint as well, with the additional though that where we can reduce the negative impacts of industrialization, we should. We can definitely do much more to reduce pollution, without giving up the advantages of industry.

At least where i live (which happens to be the same place as the author of the article), a high percentage of houses have lead water pipes so i don't think it seems that crazy that it was added to petrol

Mostly what I'm aware of in the US is lead pipes from the water main in the street to the house. A fair amount of leaded solder in copper pipe joints, but lead pipes in the house is pretty uncommon.

As I would understand it, maintaining a neutral to alkaline pH in addition to the chlorine/chloramine used for disinfection of potable water generally produces a fairly durable passivization layer on lead which prevents significant lead exposure in drinking water. Responsible water utilities deliberately prevent the distribution of acidic water AND do some sort of at-the-tap water testing program as well. Needless to say, in Flint, Michigan, they screwed up at these things.

(Edit, ok, there's a little more to it https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/resources/highs... )

Reply on news.ycombinator.com