←back to thread

U.S. Chemical Safety Board could be eliminated

(www.ishn.com)
386 points z991 | 5 comments | 23 Jun 25 23:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
drjolly ◴[24 Jun 25 01:15 UTC] 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 ◴[24 Jun 25 01:37 UTC] 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 #
rectang ◴[24 Jun 25 01:47 UTC] No.44362122[source]▶
CSB investigations still represent an objective source of truth which competes with the PR that companies put out absolving themselves of blame in the event of any mishap. Removing the CSB frees up companies to "self-regulate" and blast out bogus framings.
replies(2): >>44362209 #>>44368906 #
monkeyelite ◴[24 Jun 25 02:02 UTC] No.44362209[source]▶
> an objective source of truth

An alternative source with different incentives and culture, not an objective one.

replies(3): >>44362249 #>>44362351 #>>44362413 #
kurikuri ◴[24 Jun 25 02:25 UTC] No.44362351[source]▶
Nuance is not always a good thing. This type of nuance doesn’t forward the discussion in any way and, in this case, muddies the waters and leads to some odd implications. Sure, we can say there is no objective source of truth and chastise the author for using that word, but the term objective in this case has meaning that the author is trying to articulate… most likely that there is some overtly unbiased information source, in opposition to the information sourced from the company which has obvious incentives.

Additionally, by stating that the CSB provides an ‘alternative source’ of truth, as a correction to an originally described objective one, you are (possibly inadvertently) claiming that the company is also providing a different source of truth, rhetorically raising the value of the information the company provides while lowering the value of the CSB information.

Don’t be the person who adds nuance for the sake of nuance.

replies(2): >>44362362 #>>44363048 #
monkeyelite ◴[24 Jun 25 02:29 UTC] No.44362362[source]▶
> there is some overtly unbiased information source, in opposition to the information sourced from the company which has obvious incentives.

Yes I don’t believe in unbiased sources. I believe in multiple perspectives revealing aspects of the truth.

> you are (possibly inadvertently) claiming that the company is also providing a different source of truth

Correct. And I don’t buy the dichotomy you are framing of biased companies vs unbiased government.

> Don’t be the person who adds nuance for the sake of nuance.

The term “objective truth” was just thrown around. Might as well just say it’s an “absolutely good”. The level of discourse in these threads is science = good, agency with science in name = science. Cuts against agency = bad.

What are the costs and benefits to this organization? It appears some sub threads have identified a possible overlap with other agency’s responsibility. It would be interesting to know the extent that is true.

replies(5): >>44362451 #>>44362461 #>>44362522 #>>44362834 #>>44364959 #
ordu ◴[24 Jun 25 02:48 UTC] No.44362451[source]▶
> Yes I don’t believe in unbiased sources. I believe in multiple perspectives revealing aspects of the truth.

It is just metaphysics. I like it also, but it is impractical. I find it useful to train my mind to see things from different angles, but it is useless to talk about concrete things.

Can you find examples of a biased reports on CSB's youtube channel? If not, it is a good example of uselessness of metaphysics. If you are declaring all their reports biased, while being unable to show the bias, it is just empty words.

replies(1): >>44363001 #
1. monkeyelite ◴[24 Jun 25 05:09 UTC] No.44363001{3}[source]▶
> It is just metaphysics

I would call it having a baseline understanding of organizations and media.

> Can you find examples of a biased reports on CSB's youtube channel?

Yes? Can you not?

The top video in this thread, “safety pays off“ highlights their successes and does not discuss their failures or costs. So yes that video was designed to make their organization appear in the best light possible.

replies(2): >>44364865 #>>44366225 #
2. garte ◴[24 Jun 25 11:10 UTC] No.44364865[source]▶
So you would subtract their failures from their successes and make some sort of calculation about its usefulness from that?

The world doesn't work like that. Objectively, it doesn't.

replies(1): >>44374064 #
3. ordu ◴[24 Jun 25 13:47 UTC] No.44366225[source]▶
> The top video in this thread, “safety pays off“ highlights their successes and does not discuss their failures or costs. So yes that video was designed to make their organization appear in the best light possible.

Oh, yes, you are right, it is a bias. But this bias tells us nothing about objectivity of CSB investigations and recommendations. It tells us nothing about the objectivity you had objected to.

replies(1): >>44374070 #
4. monkeyelite ◴[25 Jun 25 06:05 UTC] No.44374064[source]▶
No. If I heard a proposal to remove them I would want to hear the reasons why or why not rather than assuming that they are an absolute good for society.
5. monkeyelite ◴[25 Jun 25 06:06 UTC] No.44374070[source]▶
Is your position that they create unbiased reports? Just straight up truth making machine?