EPA Approved a Chevron Fuel Ingredient That Has a Lifetime Cancer Risk
science.slashdot.orgHard to know what to think about this when we know that the estimate is too high, but we have no idea _how much_ too high. From the jet fuel mentioned in the article that has the "1 in 4" cancer risk, the EPA had this to say about it's risk model:
The agency assumed, for instance, that every plane at an airport would be idling on a runway burning an entire tank of fuel, that the cancer-causing components would be present in the exhaust and that residents nearby would breathe that exhaust every day over their lifetime.
This seems to support their assertion that the modeled risk is unreasonable. But that unfortunately doesn't tell us what it actually is. Also, I'd love to know: was it EPA scientists making these assumptions in their models? If so, then why? The cynical part of me wants to say that it's to create exactly this scenario: They can dismiss the results as unreasonable, and since that's the only version they ran, they don't have reasonable numbers to give us.
There is absolutely a reason to run a model under such unreasonable assumptions. It gives an upper bound. If you ran that unreasonable model and found that the cancer risk was minimal, then you could say with confidence that under a more reasonable model that doesn't massively overestimate the level of exposure, the risk would not be any higher and would likely be a lot lower. As others have noted though, that's not the result that this model produced, so another more realistic model should have been run.
Having an upper bound is super useful...when paired with more reasonable estimates. But if you are only going to run _one_ set of numbers (which appears to be the case here), it's much _less_ useful than having just the "reasonable" numbers.
The point is that the upper bound model is much, much easier to run, since you don't have to do any complicated modeling of how much of the substance people are actually exposed to, you just assume the worst case. If this model already gives you the right answer, it saves you the considerable work of coming up with a realistic exposure estimate (and then the additional work of explaining this estimate in a way that people believe you, etc.).
So it's not a case of running 1 model vs. running 2 models, it's running 1 dead simple model vs. 1 much more difficult and complicated model. If the simple model is good enough, you just want to run that. In this case it wasn't, though.
That's exactly the problem. There is not another risk assessment.
The actual process followed and the EPA's summary of the decision: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23863526-epa-hq-oppt...
I read the article and missed the ingredient name that is so toxic everyone gets cancer from it. What is the name of the new ingredient that was approved?
Additives labeled P-21-0152 and P-21-0158 are the specific substances with the extreme cancer risk as modeled, I think?
These appear to be complex hydrocarbon byproducts of plastic, so it's extremely difficult to model what they are or their actual behavior. The EPA basically use a combination of analog substances and "stuff they think might be similar" and then add the risks together to make a score.
The EPA analysis is much more useful than any of these articles. I don't think the analysis itself supports the breathless claims in the news article. I do ultimately agree that this feels odd, though: while I don't think any of these materials are actually that likely to cause cancer, it seems a bit strange to be approving fuel additives with this much uncertainty in analysis. But, I don't work in hydrocarbons so maybe this is normal.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23863526-epa-hq-oppt...
>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.
That's not how probabilities work. The average person might be expected to get 1.3 cancers over their lifetime (assuming they don't die early), but that doesn't guarantee that every person exposed to it will get cancer.
>> exposed to it over the course of a full lifetime would be expected to get cancer
> The average person might be expected to get 1.3 cancers
Same same, expect and guaranteed are only loosely the same in English. The weatherman expects rain.
Your quote missed a few crucial words. The claim was that "every person exposed to it over the course of a full lifetime would be expected to get cancer".
Suppose you get a bunch of people to flip 3 coins. You'd expect the average person to get 1.5 heads, but it would be inaccurate to say "every person would be expected to get heads".
Every person can mean considering each individually. The bigger problem is screening every person for a cancer their doctor should expect.
This link is impossible to read on mobile, can't even scroll
Edit, actually it's a full screen ad that's really difficult to get around
Its a Pro Publica story anyway, that link should have been posted.
https://www.propublica.org/article/epa-approved-chevron-fuel...
This is insane. So, if I'm understanding this right, the EPA did an assessment and got some really bad numbers. Then, the EPA decided it wasn't a good assessment and passed it without re-doing the assessment; despite how by law all new chemicals must be evaluated. The chemical isn't named (in the ProPublica article) but it is plastic-derived. Chevron has not yet began manufacturing but currently could at any time.
This is so bad. I didn't wake up expecting to have to be politically active today. The EPA needs to do its job. :(
>This is insane. So, if I'm understanding this right, the EPA did an assessment and got some really bad numbers. Then, the EPA decided it wasn't a good assessment and passed it without re-doing the assessment; despite how by law all new chemicals must be evaluated.
To be fair, the substances in question aren't some entirely new mystery chemical. According to the EPA they're petroleum derived fuels that are similar to existing petroleum derived fuels, and that's why they waved it through.
>EPA determined that the similarities in the PIONA profiles supported the assumption that worker and fenceline community risk from these PMN substances are similar to those of existing petroleum fuels and applied appropriate risk mitigation measures to protect both human health and the environment.
Recommend switching to Firefox on mobile. uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger are available on Firefox Mobile as add-ons.
They said t was a boat fuel. So how do you avoid it? Just don’t eat seafood??
Given how big oceans are, you'll probably be getting more exposure from living in a coastal city and breathing in the fumes that blows ashore.