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.
This is the most shocking article I’ve read in a very long time.
Time to write or call the EPA. I have to look up how to do that. - report submitted here, you can submit one here: https://echo.epa.gov/report-environmental-violations
Literally everyone near these fuel emissions will(not can) get cancer, and 7% of people who eat fish living near these fuels get cancer. WHaT?!?
The salient point (emphasis mine):
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
Anyone can use Resist bot to write their representatives for free. You basically write a short letter on mobile (ios app or text “resist” to 50409 and follow the prompts), and it’ll format and send it as a fax.
Might want to add that the relevant data for those chemicals the EPa says they calculated incorrectly were not released, so the only data available by the EPA indicates the insane inevitabilities of cancer that their report states.
That resist bot is super cool. I didn’t know about that, thanks.
Thanks for this. Made a easy one to sign onto. https://resist.bot/petitions/PHITGL
I just emailed my senator
Time to write or call the EPA.
Why would they care? That they just approved this stuff is sufficient proof that the right people got the “right incentive” to wave it through. Why should they anger the people who paid them?
Doing nothing changes nothing, while trying to make a difference could make a difference
Just saying, this is only being manufactured at one refinery right now, yeah? Maybe there would be a good place to protest.
The EPA is an executive agency right? Maybe if we raise enough hell to Biden himself, he can stop this shit.
7 percent of the people who eat fish will get cancer? Fish travel and their nutrients travel. Absolutely fuck this shit.
And chevron’s planning to use these fuels at 100 locations according to Pro-Publica so, yeah it’s a huge problem.
I just found the EPA reporting link online, what do you mean by raising enough hell to Biden himself, is there some sort of contact route to the president? And yeah, the EPA is an executive agency.
Literally everyone near these fuel emissions will(not can) get cancer
It doesn’t say that. It refers to exposure “continually over a lifetime”.
There aren’t all that many substances that won’t cause cancer with continuous exposure over a lifetime. Gasoline certainly will, but so will sawdust or grape juice.
This article reads very much like the “Dihydrogen Monoxide” warnings. Let’s step back for a second and critically evaluate what is being claimed.
The EPA didn’t release a report that people continually exposed to water will definitely get cancer.
These two new fuels using plastic-based refined chemicals have been determined by the EPA to definitely give people cancer over repeated exposure throughout their lives.
These poisonous chemicals determined by the EPA read nothing like jokes for middle school science teachers.
They don’t even name the agent in question, or provide any information on its chemical composition. There is no way to corroborate any of the information given.
Do you even critically think, bro?
Do you mean you didn’t notice the included EPA report or you didn’t read the EPA report they obtained through FOIA?
It’s the one titled “Integrated Risk Assessment for Chevron Waste Plastic Fuels”.
The carcinogenic claims I read in the article would apply to “gasoline” just as much as the unnamed, undefined, “evil villain chemical(s)” described. The article is heavy on FUD, but very light on fact.
It’s an EPA report, specifically about plastic-based fuels that give people cancer, reported by more than one credible news source and corroborated by an EPA veteran.
Giving people cancer does not make a chemical an “evil villain”, but a fuel company known to abuse human rights and destroy the environment with carcinogens developing and the EPA approving fuels that they have determined give people cancer 100% of the time over repeated exposure is something that should be stopped, or if the EPA has made a mistake, made clear and retested.
This article is heavy on data and precedent, your comment is not.
It’s an EPA report, specifically about plastic-based fuels that gives people cancer
It is not an EPA report. It is a sensationalist article on ProPublica. Do not conflate the two.
True, gasoline would not be approved today by the EPA’s own rules as it is a carcinogen. That’s how fucked our environment is.
That doesn’t mean that gasoline is not a dangerous substance, it just means that it has been grandfathered into the regulatory structure because of predates the EPA.
The chemicals subject to these proposed SNURs are as follows:
PMN Numbers (proposed 40 CFR citation): P–21–144 (40 CFR 721.11781), P–21–145 (40 CFR 721.11782), P–21–146 (40 CFR 721.11783), P–21–147 (40 CFR 721.11784), P–21–148 (40 CFR 721.11785), P–21–149 (40 CFR 721.11786), P–21–150 (40 CFR 721.11787), P–21–152 (40 CFR 721.11788), P–21–153 (40 CFR 721.11789), P–21–154 (40 CFR 721.11790), P–21–155 (40 CFR 721.11791), P–21–156 (40 CFR 721.11792), P–21–157 (40 CFR 721.11793), P–21–158 (40 CFR 721.11794), P–21–160 (40 CFR 721.11795), P–21–161 (40 CFR 721.11796), P–21–162 (40 CFR 721.11797), and P–21–163 (40 CFR 721.11798).
Chemical Names: Naphtha, heavy catalytic cracked (generic) (P–21–144), Naphtha, heavy alkylate (generic) (P–21–145), Naphtha, full range alkylate, butane–contg. (generic) (P–21–146), Naphtha, hydrotreated heavy (generic) (P–21–147), Naphtha, light catalytic cracked (generic) (P–21–148), Naphtha, light alkylate (generic) (P–21–149), Naphtha, hydrotreated light (generic) (P–21–150), Clarified oils, catalytic cracked (generic) (P–21–152), Distillates, hydrotreated heavy (generic) (P–21–153), Gas Oils hydrotreated vacuum (generic) (P–21–154), Distillates, light catalytic cracked (generic) (P–21–155), Distillates, clay-treated middle (P–21–156), Distillates, hydrotreated middle (generic) (P–21–157), Distillates, hydrotreated light (generic) (P–21–158), Gases, C4-rich (generic) (P–21–160), Gases, catalytic cracking (generic) (P–21–161), Residues, butane splitter bottoms (generic) (P–21–162), and Tail gas, saturate gas plant mixed stream, C4-rich (generic) (P–21–163).
Per the EPA:
“The proposed Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) would require notification to and review by EPA before these fuels could be made using plastic waste-derived feedstocks that contain impurities like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), heavy metals, dioxins, bisphenols and flame retardants.”
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0245-0001
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0245/document
And here’s the full report: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23886219-integrated-risk-assessment-for-chevron-waste-plastic-fuels
grape juice.
wait what?
Also what about Nestea Zero. Asking for a friend
What’s the point of having an EPA if you have to write them letters to get them to do their job? They’ll just ignore it anyway.
Doing nothing changes nothing, while trying to make a difference could make a difference
Doing nothing? I’m just trying to live my fucking life here.
Live it up, bruv. Nobody’s saying you have to do anything, I’m providing a link to make a report for anybody who wants to.
Yeah we all are… Some will still write the EPA though.
Damn, it’s almost like they’re not an actual environmental protection agency and are yes men in the pockets of the petrochemical corporations!
But that would be ridiculous right guys? Right?
what about pharmaceutics ? “oh no, they couldn’t, it is heavily regulated and it is science, b*tch!”
Tbh it’s more straight up price gouging with pharmaceuticals because if they tried this shit with medicine people would notice immediately due to the intense testing required, and the public is much less tolerant of scandals in medicine whereas most people probably don’t even care about this. So the most common thing is to sell drugs that work as intended, but at hideously inflated prices. Not to say there aren’t companies that will straight up poison you though, god knows it’s happened plenty of times in the not distant past. Remember thalidomide?
What if a certain oligarchs made sure the press would never step out of line?
Not saying that’s what happened during a certain thing that made headlines over the last few years, but it’s sure suspicious that Bill Gates, WEF and other billionaire foundations invest these huge sums into basically the backbone of Western without an agenda.
How about you find some non-bullshit reason to criticize the dude instead of unscientific nonsense? There’s plenty of factual reasons yet nobody actually wants to use logic
What is the logical reason to drop 300 million USD on a wide range of media companies? Philanthropy? Please, tell me, I’m open to logical suggestions. (Not kidding, no sarcasm.)
Yes? He has to make his nonprofit look legitimate so how better than to invest in otherwise unprofitable industries?
Also he could just believe in the idea. It’s not unheard of.
We seem to have different definitions of “logical”. That’s ok.
Scientists: Tetra ethyl lead is the most hazardous chemical additive in human history!
Chevron: Hold my beer.
Lead 2: Electric Boogaloo
*Lead 2: Plastic Boogaloo
Damn, yours is better!
A Google shows that they actually approved something similar back and April and got sued for it, but I haven’t been able to figure out how that lawsuit went/is going.
This seems a preposterously terrible decision…
What was their real reasoning for approving this? They are pure evil if they just ignore their scientists by telling they are “overstating the risk”.
Chevron paid them a lot of money.
Or paid their bosses (congress) a surprisingly small amount of money (bribes (“lobbying”)).
the EPA is executive branch, not legislative
The laws that the EPA has to follow and the people controlling it are who I am referring to. Politicians are taking money to prevent lifelong EPA employees from saving our lives.
this is a law the EPA has made and the people in the EPA and the executive branch control the EPA. there is no else to blame for this
You and I just may have different opinions about how the government works at the senior levels.
Sincerely,
A retired career federal employee.
We pumped you with lead not long ago and
youryou’re mostly fine. Let’s try again with something else but this time we want you dead, capish ?TEL killed around 100 million people worldwide and is still used in the US for small plane aviation.
Also, virtually all land along US highways in an urban areas are highly contaminated in lead.
you’re
This blunder will be fixed in 3 to 5 business days. Thanks for choosing the diabolo96 shitposting system. We at diabolo96 shitpost entreprise greatly appreciate your help.
Improper grammar causes cancer six times worse than the risk of lung cancer from a lifetime of smoking.
I’m glad to see someone from the EPA (English Protection Agency) doing the right thing.
Checks out.
Why don’t they ever name “the chemical”? And then they switch to the 2 chemicals later in the article. All I found was this article trying to Google it although I didn’t go too deep.
This is really oddly written. I almost expected it to end with some kind of gotcha and “the chemical” was water.
The reason they don’t identify these chemicals is, um, …because they don’t really know what they are. They are the reaction products from recycled plastic feedstock, which contain a wide variety of source materials, and so they call them “UVCB substances" meaning “Substances of Unknown or Variable composition, Complex reaction products or Biological materials”. Also called “Natural Complex Substances (NCS) of biological origin.”
In other words, junk from plastic garbage that will be added to boat fuel.
See my post above for the listing of chemicals, although they are generically labeled and not specifically identified has your correct, they don’t know the actual composition of the stuff.
They did cite the original article from the EPA. The chemistry section that has details about the chemical itself reads like an SCP article. Anything of substance in it has been redacted, some entire pages are redacted.
I don’t think the author knows what it is, either.
lmao
Yeah, I tried finding the chemical name in the report only for everything to be redacted! How is that ok??
That’s fucking horseshit, full stop.
Gotta protect that intellectual property
Can we just live? Damn.
deleted by creator
ProPublica still out there, fighting the good fight. Some of the best real journalism around.
Someone is going to see a severe finger wag for this, then it’s “let’s move on to the next issue”.
EPA documentation on the risk assessment is anyone is interested.
They perfectly knew the harmful effects of lead too when they choose to add it anyway to gasoline back then, from the point of view of oil industry it worked once already so surely it must work at least twice right?
deleted by creator
The whole government is a sham, you’re being distracted by looking at a single person who was just being a puppet of his party
Let’s all come together, rent a plane or wtv runs this fuel, and keep it running next to all the executives homes 24/7
Stop If you are seeing an environmental event that may lead to an immediate threat to human health or the environment, call 911, then report it to the National Response Center at: 1-800-424-8802.
who’s going to get exposed to whatever this chemical is for their entire life? presumably someone not born yet, as it hasnt gone into production yet.
what’s the target demographic? why should we care?
Workers at factories? Surrounding towns? Etc…
Edit: Even worse than that it seems piloting a boat regularly and being exposed to the fumes is enough for those stats.
