←back to thread

U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

(www.ishn.com)
386 points z991 | 3 comments | 23 Jun 25 23:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.619s | source
Show context
pixl97 ◴[24 Jun 25 00:46 UTC] No.44361760[source]▶
Save lives?: X

Increase safety?: X

Make more money?: YES

The USCSB makes life safer for everyone in this country, especially people that work around potentially dangerous chemicals and pressurized equipment.

replies(3): >>44361855 #>>44361918 #>>44362002 #
yongjik ◴[24 Jun 25 01:28 UTC] No.44362002[source]▶
[flagged]
replies(5): >>44362038 #>>44362048 #>>44362119 #>>44362190 #>>44362346 #
rectang ◴[24 Jun 25 01:33 UTC] No.44362038[source]▶
It feels that way, but this legislation is ideologically consistent with reducing regulations which constrain companies and force them to take the externalities of their actions into account.
replies(2): >>44362073 #>>44362278 #
haiku2077 ◴[24 Jun 25 01:39 UTC] No.44362073[source]▶
The CSB is not a regulatory agency. It doesn't enforce anything against companies. It investigates major disasters and publishes recommendations.

It's like the NTSB but for industries that use hazardous chemicals.

replies(2): >>44362097 #>>44362114 #
rectang ◴[24 Jun 25 01:44 UTC] No.44362097[source]▶
I still think it's ideologically consistent with insulating companies from externalities. Without official investigations, companies can assert their own interpretations of events. Boeing did this with the NTSB recently:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/boeing-punished-by-ntsb-fo...

replies(1): >>44362168 #
1. mulmen ◴[24 Jun 25 01:54 UTC] No.44362168[source]▶
Ok but the NTSB's response was to refer to DOJ because NTSB has no teeth.
replies(1): >>44362848 #
2. throwaway173738 ◴[24 Jun 25 04:25 UTC] No.44362848[source]▶
In a hazard investigation you don’t want the investigators to have teeth. It’s not about finding wrongdoing it’s about determining what happened and how to avoid it in the future. If a company takes negligent actions referring to DOJ should be enough.
replies(1): >>44362931 #
3. mulmen ◴[24 Jun 25 04:47 UTC] No.44362931[source]▶
> In a hazard investigation you don’t want the investigators to have teeth.

Did I say I want the NTSB to have teeth?

> Without official investigations, companies can assert their own interpretations of events.

They can do this with investigations too. Just as Boeing did. NTSB can't do anything about it. The "punishment" was a referral to DOJ who can.