Hacker News Reader

Comment by cjs_ac | Hacker News Reader

Lead poisoning in Australian mining towns is a surprisingly contentious issue. Town mayors usually try to cover up and deny any evidence of lead poisoning, because without the mines, there is no town.

The broken hill that the town of Broken Hill is named after no longer exists. The mullock heap pictured in the article is all that remains: the entire hill was dug away when the original mine was active. As you can see on OpenStreetMap[0], the slag heap sits right in the middle of the town, with lead-laden dust blowing down into the streets and backyards every time the wind picks up.

The other town mentioned in the article is Mount Isa[1]. Mount Isa has both a mine and a smelter, both located immediately to the west of the town. The prevailing winds are westerlies, so again the toxic dust falls on the town.

[0] https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-31.9653/141.4597

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-20.7339/139.4831

View on HN

Always a pleasure to see we're in a good company. I've had the misfortune of being raised in this place:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/aXkHEfX42aNp2yxV9

Combine a large lead smelting plant with one of the world's largest producers of (unenriched) uranium, and a dozen other metals like copper and zinc. Add zero effective environmental regulation on top, and you get us.

According to government data, lead concentrations in the top soil are measured in hundreds to several thousands of milligrams per kilogram, depending on location. The norm is low dozens, if I am not mistaken.

No blood level studies have been done since the end of the 1980s. Thanks to this link, I at least have a reference point from a relatively transparent and accountable society. All I can say, back when I was in middle to high school, it felt like every other kid was diagnosed with anemia (yours truly included), and skin conditions like atopic dermatitis or recurring abscesses covering half the body were very common.

Personally I have never felt like having a sharp mind, but it's difficult to say how much impact lead may have had on this.

This is how it typically looks on the ground, if you're interested:

https://imgur.com/a/HyT1B5p

Don't know why I'm writing all this, I guess to let it be known that there are far worse places out there than a couple of small Australian towns (with what to me looks like very clean air).

I grew up in this town too in the 90s. It was very common to see everyone outside suddenly start coughing because of sulfur dioxide emissions from the plant.

> I guess to let it be known that there are far worse places out there than a couple of small Australian towns (with what to me looks like very clean air).

It sounds like the situation in your town was very bad. That neither diminishes nor invalidates a bad situation elsewhere. We should all be striving for better, no matter where we start from.

Just looking at that location on the map, it struck me how 'continental' it was, i.e. how inland it was. Turns out it's actually pretty near Eurasia's "Pole of inaccessibility", which is basically on the border between Kazakhstan and China [1].

As an Australian, I find our vast hinterland somewhat intimidating and haven't spent much time there. Like most Australians I live on its coastline. I also feel somewhat intimidated by Eurasia's vast inner continent, but also curious about it too. Would love to visit Kazakhstan sometime, but maybe not your hometown.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_of_inaccessibility#Eurasi...

You weren't kidding, that one mine has polluted a significant percentage of the entire earths surface [1]:

> "The idea that Amundsen and Scott were traveling over snow that clearly was contaminated by lead from smelting and mining in Australia, and that lead pollution at that time was nearly as high as any time ever since, is surprising to say the least."

> The similar timing and magnitude of changes in lead deposition across Antarctica, as well as the characteristic isotopic signature of Broken Hill lead found throughout the continent, suggest that this single emission source in southern Australia was responsible for the introduction of lead pollution into Antarctica at the end of the 19th century and remains a significant source today, the authors report.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20140808070623/http://www.nasa.g...

> Town mayors usually try to cover up and deny any evidence of lead poisoning

After moving to the West from a developing country was surprised to discover that things our politicians do for a big bribe western politicians sometimes do for free.

The money just flows through different channels, but that's a funny observation.

Exactly, corruption is more sophisticated, but it exists and is huge nonetheless. The big difference is that the starting GDP is higher, which allows for a little more to reach normal citizens after corruption is taken into account.

An old friend of mine who was originally from Iran told me something a family member of his said to him, which was basically: "In the west you may not have bribery, but the ability to influence decisions is mostly out of your reach. At least here little people can have some small control over their environment through small bribes." I had never heard bribery pitched that way before, and it's obviously... a garbage... way to run a society. But.

In Roman times, decision making, power, etc was in large part done through systems of explicit patronage. We now -- in public at least -- consider patronage to be a corrupt and awful thing, but then having a powerful patron was a sign of virtue and goodness. Having a wealthy famous patron literally made you a better person, "not-guilty" in various crimes, etc.

I am not convinced that that ethic has ever really gone away. Just maybe more hidden.

> but the ability to influence decisions is mostly out of your reach. At least here little people can have some small control over their environment through small bribes

This is mostly comforting nonsense.

The average American has more say, potential and actual, in their government than the average Iranian. (And the average Iranian more than the Saudis.) What in a bribe economy one pays for with cash in a civil society takes effort. The tragedy in American civics is far too many are too poor, tired and/or uneducated to fully engage.

And one of these states is preferable to the other. My Indian family used to speak similarly. Yet when they have the chance, they vote against corruption. To the degree India has become less corrupt over the last decade, it's been celebrated by them out of both pride and personal interest.

> The average American has more say, potential and actual, in their government than the average Iranian

Sure, if you know the right people or can buy a lobbyist. Otherwise all you can do is complain to a wall. Even lawsuits don't generally have net positive effects on society—nothing changes, we just do the same things at greater expense.

Most of our society is privatized and well out of the reach of democratic output. If you're lucky, the market in question might have some limited competition and you can choose the slightly lesser poison. That's about it.

> if you know the right people or can buy a lobbyist

This is cynical nonsense.

If you can get to a polling station you have more influence than the average Iranian. If you can write a coherent letter to an elected or maintain emotional composure on a call, you have more than anyone in their non-elite class. If you can attend local government meetings, join an advocacy group or travel to canvas or protest you have more power than their minor elites. (If you are in the leadership of those groups, you have more power—in most cases—than donors who give thousands a cycle.)

One of the major elements of the uneducated pillar I cited is Americans who were never taught or shown how to civically engage getting cynical out of a lack of education.

> If you can get to a polling station you have more influence than the average Iranian.

Have you not been watching the news? Iran has proven itself to be at least better at performing like a democracy than most of our allies in the region, excepting maybe Turkey.

Regardless, it's extremely difficult to wield real influence with a vote (or via advocating for any sort of elected official) as most problems are directly avoided during campaigning, and citizens can be safely ignored when reelection isn't under threat. And anyway, most of our society is owned privately and outside the reach of democratic oversight.

Anyway, lip service to democratic processes is not the same thing as actual democratic will. Just because you're performing the aesthetics of what you're taught democracy is doesn't demonstrate any actual influence. For the most part, problems are decided long before they hit the ballot box and you can only really weigh in on certain wedge issues.

> Iran has proven itself to be at least better at performing like a democracy than most of our allies

Sure. That wasn't the question. The comparison was between Iran and America, and whether being able to bribe people gives Iranians more power than Americans. It doesn't.

> it's extremely difficult to wield real influence with a vote (or via advocating for any sort of elected official) as most problems are directly avoided during campaigning

You're focussing on Presidential elections. Of course in a national vote the individual will be diluted. That's the point. Go more local (and earlier, to primaries) and you see massive questions resolved with tens of votes, even in New York.

> problems are decided long before they hit the ballot box and you can only really weigh in on certain wedge issues

Correct. Most of what I described above is before the ballot box. That said, even the multiple-choice power exerted at the ballot box is more power than the average Iranian has. (There is an argument to be made that if someone doesn't believe this, they shouldn't vote.)

> Go more local (and earlier, to primaries) and you see massive questions resolved with tens of votes, even in New York.

You have influence over local issues in dictatorships. Putin does not care or engage in zoning and other minor issues. They are open to influence by both residents and bribery.

> The tragedy in American civics is far too many are too poor, tired and/or uneducated to fully engage.

Engage with whom?

First Past The Post voting ensures I have no viable political party to vote for that would reasonably represent me.

> First Past The Post voting ensures I have no viable political party to vote for that would reasonably represent me

Nobody does. In any system. There is always error in any heterogenous group. That isn't an exoneration of our two-party system. Just pointing out that not having a party that perfectly represents you is inherent to civilisation.

What issue do you care most about? Engage on that. With others who think similarly. That’s what engagement means. And due to the shocking lack of civic engagement, it’s ridiculously powerful. I have personally swung judicial elections in New York City by taking some tenant association heads to dinner. I’ve gotten language into state bills because nobody else called and it wasn’t one of my rep’s core issues. I did this before I made any money to speak of; in some sense, I had the time to engage for lack of money.

> Nobody does. In any system

This is just denial of reality. Proportional representation gives you diverse representation.

In fact you have to address the growing evidence that voter preferences have no effect on American policy and lawmaking, you have to make a positive case that civil engagement is working.

That's because the seat of power in the west is not with governments at all, but with business. The gov't ends up being there to keep them happy and avoid conflicts between them.

They've mostly stripped themselves of the ability to do anything they could be bribed over.

I don't know man. The US government spends in a couple of months what the biggest companies are worth in total.

According to this [0] Uncle Sam is obligated to spend 6.3T this year. That's 500B per month. Compare to the market cap of mammoth companies [1]. ExxonMobil, UnitedHealth, and Mastercard are all in the top 20 US companies and worth around one month of government spending.

How can a whale be beholden to a flea?

[0]: https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/budget_function [1]: https://companiesmarketcap.com/

How much of that is defense? How much is security & policing?

A bulk of that spending is to keep the market going, and to protect business interests.

The government is designed for rich people from its foundation, it's a cozy revolving door for the elites and functions to repress popular movements. Officials identify with business and owners and can pick up do-nothing or interesting jobs after their government services.

US elections are some of the most expensive in the world and politicians rely on donations to win their campaigns. The connections between business and government are a spider web. Business also isn't a set of individual companies, they in fact cooperate on public policy through think tanks such as the chamber of commerce and the business round table.

Furthermore, since business controls the commodities and processes that sustain life, business holds a veto over economic policy with "capital strikes". Government could seize these properties, but our left wing is very weak.

Think about it another way, why do you assume that elected officials have any obligation to the public when there is essentially no recourse except through elections and elections generally require oodles of money to win?

Right. It is worth noting that the total allowable cost of the recent UK election was 54k per seat per party, meaning that a political party could only spend 34M GBP contesting every Parliamentary seat.

It would only take the top three House fundraisers to outstrip this number: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/fundraising-t...

I don't disagree with the idea of limiting funding, but this is a bad comparison. You're talking about a campaign to reach about 50m voters, vs about 300m voters. You should probably at least adjust your UK figure accordingly, to make it reasonable.

The actual cap is 54k per seat, so it can scale. You can bring that number up or down as needed to adjust for the seat representation size in the US, but it is significantly below, say, Hakeem Jeffries raising $17M and Mike Johnson $13M.

The other bit is that the Parliament has more constituencies than the US House despite the House representing more people, so the number of people per House member is quite high. And that's not actually specified in the Constitution but a law that could be changed by Congress at any time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929

> The other bit is that the Parliament has more constituencies than the US House

I was thinking of the total, not the per-seat amount, for this reason.

Because government is not a singular entity, but made up of lots of individual people. And the overall electoral process of using a silver tongue to convince millions of people that you agree with all of them on everything, especially on things they disagree with each other on, and/or that the world will end if the other guy gets elected, ensures you select away from any sort of pesky things like values or ethics.

The wildest thing, to me, is just how cheap it is to buy a politician. Senator Menendez [1] made it a bit too overt and ended up getting convicted so there's no speculation involved there. International/country level corruption of a senior Senator, who was also the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including getting him to directly interfere in criminal cases? Less than a million bucks. I guess it's more of a buyer's market, which is pretty 'funny' in and of itself.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Menendez#Allegations_of_co...

It’s rarely that sinister on the political level in my experience. Having worked a decade in the Danish public sector with access to the higher echelons of decision making I’ve never really witnessed influence or blatant corruption amongst the elected official. Well, there is influence but it’ll typically be along the lines of getting better road access or being allowed to expand in zones that weren’t really meant for it. Not because of personal gain but because jobs are just so valuable to a political administration.

Where things get more complicated is typically with the unelected administration. Basically you can view most political decision making as an administration working out action plans and presenting them to politicians. Which is a good concept, until people stop participating in things like public hearings. Because the officials who work in the administration are professional and politicians in cities are often… well you or me. This means that it’s sort of easy for officials to influence decision making by writing and presenting the different action plans in ways where they know which are more likely to be selected. This is sometimes influenced by corruption, and usually that gets caught eventually around here. It’s much more often that it’s simply influenced by the different silos protecting themselves. Which will lead to bad decision making.

Now, I mentioned things like public hearings earlier and these are actually immensely influential because most politicians are actually very open to hear from the public. The big issue is that most of the people who attend or respond to public hearings are either fanatics or crackpots. When regular people actually participate in their local democracy they can have a huge influence, much more so than both administration and business, but people don’t. I’m not a saint myself, it’s been more than a decade since I even bothered to read the proposals which are sent to me. To make things even worse, fewer and fewer people register as members of political parties which means they give up their influence on selecting candidates and when it’s time to vote, many simply vote on a party, not on a specific candidate. So we’re gradually giving over power to anyone who actually does participate, which is often going to be business.

Because there lying and cheating for bribes are how politicians make money. Here, lying and cheating are how they keep the job that allows them to make money in other dishonest ways.

Seems crazy that you’d build a town so close to the mine (or a smelter so close to a town). It’s not as if Australia is short on space for building things!

Perhaps it should be a condition of operating a lucrative mining site that you build/subsidise worker’s accommodation at a reasonable enough distance to be free from contamination.

As I understand it, much mining is done in Australia through FIFO (fly-in-fly-out) nowadays. It greatly reduces the need for infrastructure, boom-bust towns and issues like these.

"Giant toxic slag heap in the middle of town" is probably pretty common. Was definitely a thing in El Paso, Texas, where I lived in the 1980s.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/flint-east-chicago-there-was-sm...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com