Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Underwood4EverHoC OP t1_j9oopk1 wrote

Reply to comment by thisisausername190 in This ‘climate-friendly’ fuel comes with an astronomical cancer risk | Pollution by Underwood4EverHoC

Plastics => fuel sounds very legit and safe as hell.

Thought an EPA official who obviously never smelled melting plastic or completed high school.

83

thisisausername190 t1_j9op6f7 wrote

Yeah, it’s pretty clear none of this makes any sense to anyone with common sense and a bit of knowledge on the subject. From the article:

> ProPublica and the Guardian asked Maria Doa, a scientist who worked at the EPA for 30 years, to review the document laying out the risk. Doa, who once ran the division that managed the risks posed by chemicals, was so alarmed by the cancer threat that she initially assumed it was a typographical error. “EPA should not allow these risks in Pascagoula or anywhere,” said Doa, who now is the senior director of chemical policy at Environmental Defense Fund. [emphasis mine]

82

Portalrules123 t1_j9rv3am wrote

The status quo is now actually being chosen over reality. It cannot be sustained, so lies and gaslighting are being used to make us think it can.

3

techleopard t1_j9ot18t wrote

I'm thinking more along the lines of "Thought an EPA official who just received a nice anonymous thank you gift and a promise of future employment."

32

Hydrochloric_Comment t1_j9ow54n wrote

Melting is not remotely the same as catalytic pyrolysis, lmao. But unfortunately, while plastic pyrolysis is theoretically a really great way to eliminate plastic waste, it’s not particularly helpful for emissions. Both in that the pyrolysis itself isn’t green, and that the emissions from using the fuel are typically not better than diesel.

16

Legitimate-Tea5561 t1_j9p4s54 wrote

Or how advanced nuclear waste technology is 'safe' because using the word advanced makes the waste seems acceptable.

−17