275

An EPA document shows that a new Chevron fuel ingredient has a lifetime cancer risk more than 1 million times higher than what the agency usually finds acceptable — even greater than another Chevron fuel’s sky-high risk disclosed earlier this year.

all 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 90 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's too bad local news agencies are owned almost exclusively by corporate giants who support the oil industry, otherwise the public might find out that catching a whiff of Chevron gas will almost always result in cancer.

Fuck Chevron. And fuck conservatives for making this world a goddamned nightmare. How long should we just stand here and allow these motherfuckers to continue killing us?

[-] Declared0978@lemmy.world 57 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] kbity@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago

At this point they've literally just developed a carcinogenic spray that happens to be a hydrocarbon. What the fuck. This cannot be allowed to reach the market.

[-] formergijoe@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago
[-] ComfortablyGlum@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

Is there any actual point to the chemical that chevron wants to add to the fuel mixture, or is it just filler to make the fuel cheaper to produce, thus making more money for chevron?

Having a purpose wouldn't make this ok, but not having a purpose other than filler would make this even more sleazy!

[-] raltoid@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's fuel made from waste plastic.

So once the process is more refined it would be great, but it's clearly not ready.

[-] tallwookie@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago

made from discarded plastic? that's a good use for plastic, but it seems like recycling with extra steps.

[-] stopthatgirl7@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago

A good use for plastics?

has a lifetime cancer risk more than 1 million times higher than what the agency usually finds acceptable

Yeah, I dunno if I’d call that a good use.

[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Well if we spray it on the top level staff at the EPA it could bring some benefit.

[-] tallwookie@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

better than dumping the plastic in the ocean I suppose.

[-] spacedancer@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

If I’m reading the article correctly, the ingredient is supposed to be used for boat fuel, so even the ocean isn’t safe.

[-] tallwookie@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

wouldnt the exhaust go into the air though? I suppose some of those exhaust particles would precipitate into the water - so maybe the algae would get cancer? can single celled organisms even get cancer?

not sure what the issue is - if you spend your life out in the sun, you're going to get skin cancer. not sure who's going to get exposed to ship exhaust over their entire life. is the risk of actual cancer really that great?

this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
275 points (99.3% liked)

News

23311 readers
3660 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS