Unusual Volcanic Inactivity: Detected

tardigradetheking:

tardigradetheking:

cogitoergofun:

EPA Approved a Fuel Ingredient Even Though It Could Cause Cancer in Virtually Every Person Exposed Over a Lifetime

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 us

ProPublica

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.

ProPublica and the Guardian in February reported on the risks of other new plastic-based Chevron fuels that were also approved under an EPA program that the agency had touted as a “climate-friendly” way to boost alternatives to petroleum-based fuels. That story was based on an EPA consent order, a legally binding document the agency issues to address risks to health or the environment. In the Chevron consent order, the highest noted risk came from a jet fuel that was expected to create air pollution so toxic that 1 out of 4 people exposed to it over a lifetime could get cancer.

In February, ProPublica and the Guardian asked the EPA for its scientists’ risk assessment, which underpinned the consent order. The agency declined to provide it, so ProPublica requested it under the Freedom of Information Act. The 203-page risk assessment revealed that, for the boat fuel ingredient, there was a far higher risk that was not in the consent order. EPA scientists included figures that made it possible for ProPublica to calculate the lifetime cancer risk from breathing air pollution that comes from a boat engine burning the fuel. That calculation, which was confirmed by the EPA, came out to 1.3 in 1, meaning every person exposed to it over the course of a full lifetime would be expected to get cancer.

Such risks are exceedingly unusual, according to Maria Doa, a scientist who worked at EPA for 30 years and once directed the division that managed the risks posed by chemicals. The EPA division that approves new chemicals usually limits lifetime cancer risk from an air pollutant to 1 additional case of cancer in a million people. That means that if a million people are continuously exposed over a presumed lifetime of 70 years, there would likely be at least one case of cancer on top of those from other risks people already face.

When Doa first saw the 1-in-4 cancer risk for the jet fuel, she thought it must have been a typo. The even higher cancer risk for the boat fuel component left her struggling for words. “I had never seen a 1-in-4 risk before this, let alone a 1.3-in-1,” said Doa. “This is ridiculously high.”

Another serious cancer risk associated with the boat fuel ingredient that was documented in the risk assessment was also missing from the consent order. For every 100 people who ate fish raised in water contaminated with that same product over a lifetime, seven would be expected to develop cancer — a risk that’s 70,000 times what the agency usually considers acceptable.

When asked why it didn’t include those sky-high risks in the consent order, the EPA acknowledged having made a mistake. This information “was inadvertently not included in the consent order,” an agency spokesperson said in an email.

im so fucking tired

EPA approved fuel ingredient with sky-high lifetime cancer risk, document reveals

Chevron component approved even though it could cause cancer in virtually every person exposed over a lifetime

the Guardian

Ok good news there’s already mounting political pressure. We just all have to write our senators and congressmen. If things start to loose momentum we will organize a protest outside of our politicians houses. This is a bridge too far if nothing is done

strangletwink:

animusrox:

theastonishingsuperferret:

That moment that you walk down even the slightest slope and find yourself doing the Vince McMahon Powerwalk.

wolg-fang:

I’m tired of advertising. All of it. I don’t want any ads even for things I like. Even if I would 100% buy it. It’s INSANE that we just accept that people can throw a business flier in our face at any time of day in any setting. Aren’t you mad? Don’t you just want to go apeshit?

huffylemon:

zonaisona:

zonaisona:

zonaisona:

as a kid i had one of those “there’s a monster under my bed” moments except real.

every night i would cry about a ghost or something trying to scare me by knocking on my bedroom windows and walls. like, really loudly, every hour or so, every night. only at night. so my dad was like “heh okay kiddo let’s check it out :) ah see? there’s nothing here :)” and left.

until years later he admitted to me that he did in fact hear the unexplainable knocking when he slept in that room one night, and it kept him awake with fear. and suddenly felt awful for not believing little kid me.

imagine your kid being like “daddy there’s a demon in my closet” and you being like ok son lemme just check that for you :). and you open the door and there’s a demon in the closet

WHAT

gomjabbar:

mattel seeing barbie’s success and going all-in on a “cinematic universe” is such a comical morbius-level misunderstanding of why that movie did well. barbie has a long & contentious place in our culture where it’s oscillated back and forth, from the “ideal” american woman, to a vapid & toxic female beauty standard, back to something newer generations have an ironic reverence for. love or hate it, you have entire swathes of women who embrace the whole “bimbo barbie” aesthetic and view it through the lens of “women can do both” empowerment. the barbie movie was simply made by a competent director who understood the cultural cache and capitalized on it. that’s why it’s doing well.
none of this shit fucking exists for hot wheels or polly pockets. hot wheels has never been part of a conversation around beauty standards & female empowerment. you don’t see male sex workers posting “hot wheels-themed” photoshoots on their onlyfans. there is no greater cultural discussion to be had around any of these movies. mattel’s rival hasbro has made bank on the transformers movies and they’re still in financial dire straits now because all their other non-tformers movie ventures bombed. your hot wheels movie is going to crash like a toy car skipping off its orange track and hitting your friend in the dick. go die in hell.

everythingfox:

He had to triple check

dare-to-dm:

dduane:

assigned-baby-at-birth:

guildenstern:

peatbogbody:

peatbogbody:

im dying over this thread of algorithmically-generated/otherwise low-effort Kindle covers

don’t forget

grossly inappropriate copy of animal farm that is on my nightstand at this very moment

…When you’re getting ready to design a book cover and you’re not sure what you do is going to be good enough.. it’s always reassuring to see something like [all of the above].

This isn’t a book cover, but once at a party I got sucked into a drunken literary conversation with someone regarding A Farewell to Arms.  And it quickly became apparent that they had never read the book, because they thought it was about a soldier who lost his arms.  This revelation had me laughing til I couldn’t breathe.

(I have also never read A Farewell to Arms, and at the time was initially under the impression that we were talking about Catch 22.  But I remain like 80% confident that the title is not referring to someone literally losing their arm.  I still smile every time I think about it)

zegalba:

Sandcastles by Calvin Seibert

cabybapa:

austimpowerz:

cabybapa:

austimpowerz:

i need to go explore underground tunnels i need to find the nearest drain system i need to go to an abandoned mine and go as deep as possible i need to scurry beneath the dirt

can i have this post actually?

sure

thanks