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.

  • Machindo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Dude it is absolutely an EPA report, the chemicals are all named with their IDs, and ProPublica got experts in the field to corroborate the data.

    What more do you want?

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The original post is not an EPA report. The original post is a ProPublica article. The ProPublica article is not written to inform, but to inflame.

      To form a meaningful opinion, we also need the utilitarian value of this mystery chemical, and we need to know how its risks compare to those of similar products.

      Again. ALL of the carcinogenic claims made in the ProPublica article about the mystery chemical(s) are equally true of “gasoline”. They refer to the chemical as “boat fuel”; all the boats I have been on have burned either gasoline or diesel. Is this mystery chemical “gasoline”? Something with the same utilitarian value and risks as gasoline? ProPublica tells us the risks of this mystery product, but doesn’t give us the context of other products.

      I understand ProPublica wants me to be pissed off. What I don’t understand is why ProPublica is pissed off. Are they supporting an environmentalist agenda? Are they supporting one of Chevron’s competitors producing a similar product? Are they a right-wing group trying to shut down a government agency for incompetence? Are they a left-wing group fighting against regulatory capture? Are they just trolling us for the lulz? Until I understand why they want me to be pissed off, my pitchfork is staying in the barn, and my jimmies will remain unrustled.