
The United States of Toxins - SimpleLogin
https://priceonomics.com/the-united-states-of-toxins/
======
mrob
Pounds weight is a terrible way to measure toxins. This report is basically
meaningless, because it lumps together toxins with vastly different risks. Eg.
sodium carbonate is included, which is just common washing soda. I wouldn't
eat it but the risk is easily manageable. Compare with, eg. dimethylmercury,
which is scary even at parts per billion concentration. An actually useful
measurement would take into account both potency and persistence of toxins.

~~~
mschuster91
> Pounds weight is a terrible way to measure toxins.

But it is one thing: undeniably objective. The alternative would include a
"rating" system which the industry can use to say "yeah we emit x hundred tons
per year of chemical y but it is next to harmless, better go after company z
and their waste"... leading to inevitable chains of lawsuits dragged over
years.

For what its worth for many industrial processes there exist technical means
of greatly reducing emissions (e.g. for smoke stacks: gas washers,
desulfurization technologies, fine-dust retainers), but as long as
environmental costs don't get billed to companies or required by the state,
companies have no incentive to reduce emissions, as every dollar spent is a
dollar less profit.

Maybe it's time to introduce legislations that allow the government to hold
the _shareholders_ accountable e.g. for Superfund sites, that would at least
provide a decent incentive for companies to clean up or to provide enough cash
to compensate for environmental damages after closure - right now companies
can simply close/be liquidated and the taxpayers have to foot the cleanup
bill.

~~~
evanpw
This is the same as measuring developer productivity by counting lines of
code: perfectly objective, but worse than useless.

~~~
mschuster91
Millions of tonnes of _any_ waste released into the environment, no matter how
"harmless", are too much. Humanity needs to tackle its waste problem, and that
soon, or we are going to drown our kids in trash. Or, given that nitrates
(which aren't that toxic per se) are the 3rd position in weight are perfect
food for algae, we're drowning them in algae and without fish.

Not to mention that much of the stuff that gets released in huge quantities
can actually be used as a natural resource. Instead of capturing and using it
we're throwing all the stuff away.

Therefore, any way of looking at the environmental issues is good - anything
that can be tackled should be tackled.

~~~
rayiner
This is a _terrible_ idea. People have repeatedly shown they are willing to
give up very little to address environmental problems. That makes it even more
important that when we use limited social capital to address a problem, it's
the most important problem that can be addressed.

~~~
mschuster91
> when we use limited social capital to address a problem

Let an actual free and fair market solve it. When externalities have to be
included in pricings (be it insurance premiums for superfund cleanup,
earmarked money in trusts for cleanup, or simply preventing emissions in the
first place) instead of having them shouldered by society, the market will by
itself weed out companies doing excessive environmental damage.

~~~
dctoedt
> _Let an actual free and fair market solve it._

Ideally, yes, but that's like saying "we'll just use nuclear fusion to meet
our energy needs."

Or:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assume_a_can_opener](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assume_a_can_opener)

------
giardini
This is misleading. Huge amounts of nitrates are injected into the Midwest's
soil, so much so that children cannot drink the groundwater and must be given
bottled water. Yet the chart shows Nebraska and Kansas as having low levels of
toxins released into the environment.

Many other toxins must have been omitted from this study.

------
ucaetano
Sad that this report is using the word "toxins", synthetic toxicants are not
included in the definition of toxin.

------
mikerg87
The National Emissions Inventory is a more complete picture of our nations
emsissions. The TRI is only conceded with permitted industrial sources. The
NEI includes estimates from other source types including :

\- On-Road mobile sources (cars / trucks ) \- Non-Road mobile sources such as
trains and plains and construction equipment \- Non-Point emissions such as
land-fills, agriculture burning and unpermitted sources such as dry cleaners

[https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-
inventories/2014-national-...](https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-
inventories/2014-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data)

------
spodek
They show the supply side.

I'd like to see the demand side. How much toxic waste does each person's
behavior promote being used? How much is embodied in each product?

------
JonasJSchreiber
They listed cities by square mile, why don't they do the same for states. It's
a glaring omission. When we hear that Alaska has released the most toxins of
any state and Rhode Island has released the least, it's reasonable to conclude
that's because of the area of the two states.

------
scotty79
> Three of the top 5 cities -- Humboldt, Lander, and Eureka -- are in Nevada.
> All are known to contain multiple, active gold mines that collectively
> release hundreds of millions of pounds of toxins.

Here's interesting tidbit for arguing with people who say bitcoin is killing
the planet.

------
cpr
So piling up lead/zinc ore leftovers outside the mine in Alaska is clearly
polluting? Would need more data.

