←back to thread

386 points z991 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
drjolly ◴[] No.44361936[source]
I think this is pretty consistent with the old school 1950s views of the current administration. Companies can prioritize profits over people again. Yeah, dump in the rivers, dump in the woods, just drive around in circles dumping in an empty lot. You don’t need masks- give everyone cancer and blow some shit up, maybe get some acid burns. Super-fund sites? When was the last one we had anyway- we need more of ‘em- lots more! Let’s let the kids eat the lead paint and complain of the smells wafting into their cars from the chemical, paper, etc. plants on road trips, just like the olden days!
replies(8): >>44361996 #>>44362018 #>>44362062 #>>44362130 #>>44364765 #>>44365724 #>>44369115 #>>44402602 #
nerdsniper ◴[] No.44362062[source]
I wrote elsewhere:

> Please note that the CSB is not an enforcement agency - they don’t assign fault or levee fines or bring any charges or write any regulation.

replies(3): >>44362099 #>>44362122 #>>44362147 #
1. smadge ◴[] No.44362099[source]
What knowledge are you trying to impart with this fact?

Do CSB recommendations inform policy? Do CSB recommendations get implemented? Do CSB recommendations when implemented increase safety?

replies(1): >>44362163 #
2. nerdsniper ◴[] No.44362163[source]
I think if the goal is to “de-regulate”, there are other agencies that could be shut down instead. CSB provides all companies with the know-how to choose to prevent giant disasters. Shutting down this agency may be motivated by a desire to reduce regulation but it’s really counterproductive.

Someone who is against regulation might still support the work of CSB because it assists the operations of any de-regulated industries.