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.
It is not an EPA report. It is a sensationalist article on ProPublica. Do not conflate the two.
Missed the report and the EPA/Chevron corroboration?
Here’s the report from the article you didn’t read:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23886219-integrated-risk-assessment-for-chevron-waste-plastic-fuels
That is a 203 page report. You didn’t read it. All you know about it are the cherry picked segments that ProPublica is using to get you pissed off. You don’t know why ProPublica is trying to get you to be pissed off any more than I do.
You want me to be pissed off about the EPA report, you need to show me a summary written to inform rather than incite. I don’t respond well to blatant, unrepentant propaganda.
You have been provided with a summary of the EPA report. That’s literally what the article is.
You’re being rationally and clearly informed by a credible news organization about carcinogenic fuels that, according to the EPA, will directly and indirectly certainly cause cancer.
“Gasoline” is a carcinogenic fuel that directly and indirectly certainly causes cancer under the “continuous exposure” circumstances described in the article. Nothing in the article actually distinguishes between “gasoline” and the mystery chemical mentioned. Substitute “gasoline” in for every nebulous reference to plastic fuel or boat fuel, and all of the facts discussed in the article are still true.
Whatever truth there is to the article is overshadowed by the propaganda. The only valid conclusion we can make from the article is that ProPublica wants us to come out with our pitchforks without actually telling us why.
You are incorrect, the EPA report specifically asseses waste plastic-based fuels developed by Chevron. The EPA assesses those plastic-based fuels as definitely cancer-causing.
What are you referring to specifically when you keep saying propaganda as if you were using the word correctly?
If you find the same report for “gasoline”, you will see that it shows substantially identical risks, including the “definitely cancer causing” risks.
What is it about the risks from this unnamed fuel product that actually distinguishes it from the risks of “gasoline”?
The propaganda I am referring to is the article’s insinuation that the risks from this particular chemical are substantially higher than for other chemicals used for similar purposes. The EPA report does not show a higher risk, and the ProPublica article does not provide an apples-to-apples comparison. For all we know, the cancer risk from gasoline could be double or triple that of the unnamed chemical. Neither the article nor the EPA report on the unnamed chemical actually allows us to make a reasonable comparison either way. You could be condemning a fuel that is safer than gasoline.
Obviously, we wouldn’t want to drink this unnamed chemical, or rub it all over our bodies. We wouldn’t want to shower, bathe, or swim in it, but the same is true of gasoline, diesel, jet-A, kerosene, propane, heating oil, bunker fuel, and any number of other fuel products. The article does not explain why we should be outraged over this one particular substance, and not any of the other substances that all carry substantially identical carcinogenic risks.
You are entirely wrong on all counts: 1)gasoline and plastic-derived fuels are different materials and have completely different risks. 2)The EPA report shows a higher risk by a factor of literally 1 million and 3) the article explains that because this new fuel is 1 million times more carcinogenic than the EPA limit, according to the EPA, it should not have been approved.
You’re just straight-up lying.
The article very clearly explains the difference in EPA assessment between gasoline at a normal pump station and this new plastics-derived fuel.
The likelihood of developing cancer from being around gasoline fumes is under the usual EPA maximum ratio of 1 in 1,000,000. The chance of developing cancer by getting around the fumes of this new plastic-derived fuel is 1,000,000 in 1,000,000.
Do you understand the very large difference between the numbers 1 and 1 million?
EPA risk maximum - .0001% chance of developing cancer according to the EPA
This plastics-derived fuel - 100% chance of developing cancer according to the EPA
You don’t have to bathe, drink ot swim in it. The EPA says you’ll get cancer just from being near it.
Oh really? Ctrl-f, “gasoline”, 0 results found. Article doesn’t seem to be making any comparisons to gasoline.
Ctrl-f, “fume”, 0 results found. The likelihood of developing cancer from fumes of any sort - let alone gasoline fumes - is not discussed in the article.
The article does not claim you’ll get cancer just from being near it. From the article:
“Just being near it” has a slightly different meaning than “exposed continually over a lifetime”.
The article does not mention any type or duration of exposure other than continual lifetime. It uses 14 variations to refer to such “lifetime” exposure. It never claims that cancer will be caused by incidental exposure.