an object of this size would leave a crater just over 1,600 feet wide and almost 340 feet deep, hitting with the force of 172 Megatons of TNT and vaporizing 146 people.
Both highly specific and incredibly imprecise
13 Likes
Sounds personal.
6 Likes
7 Likes
… so how do I find out if I’m on the list 
7 Likes
You’ll be notified by a phone call between 8am and 5pm if you have been selected for vaporization.
9 Likes
So if there were 150 people in the impact zone, three of them would survive? Maybe a bit singed around the edges, but not vaporized? The bodies of the 147 others acting as a shield?
2 Likes
What is that in metric?
8 Likes
1.46 hectopeople
11 Likes
A little over one gross.
9 Likes
Approx. 584 Standard Corgis.
7 Likes
More than that, the report is actually addressing the AMOC, not the Gulf Steam (which is a part of the overall AMOC) as such, which is more of a wind-driven flow, vs the AMOC, driven by density differences.
The 2025 date was the earliest possible date by which this could occur. The median date was (IIRC) 2070. The point of the article was to explicitly state that the “it is not a concern until after 2100” line is wrong. All in all, yes, I’m going to say it, it’s complicated.
8 Likes
WTAF–
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 on to 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. …
The whole article is worth reading if only for the utterly surreal AF content. The reporter writing this was (I imagine) laugh-crying over word choices.
1 Like
I’ve worked in places where benzene is treated the same way. Benzene is no joke.
6 Likes
OMFG, that is horrible!! Question, is this more evidence of regulatory capture like the Aduhelm fiasco, or straight up bribery/corruption? Because “normal functioning of the EPA” is not an option to explain this certain, and not at all potential, disaster!
8 Likes
the component was never named even once in that entire article. “component in boat fuel”? like what? the two-stroke oil that mixes with petrol in certain outboards? a fuel injector cleaner like Techron (a Chevron product)? there was some mention that the Chevron plant in Mississippi had not begun producing this mystery compound (apparently some use of plastics(?)), but that it may be being manufactured elsewhere?
is this supposedly deadly substance something i am already using?!?
WTF, ProPublica? give us a name so we can check our fuel oil mix for the compound!
did i miss it? am i stupid? what am i missing, besides this vital information?
10 Likes
The EPA is being sued over the approval. Presumably, Propublica and Guardian didn’t name the chemicals because they are unnamed. According to the Gizmodo article, they are referred to in the EPA documents as substances P-21-0158 and P-21-0150
9 Likes
thank you. that Guardian reprint of ProPublica really didn’t tell me much. but then again, i may be too thick to comprehend.
10 Likes
NP - I felt the same as you. I haven’t read the Gizmodo article in depth yet yet, but it looked good enough to share
4 Likes
… the 130% chance of getting cancer is also not one of the usual ways to express high risk
6 Likes
Looks like Chevron is referring to it as Pyrolysis oil. Which seems like either a word game or outright lie. Cursory internet searches show Pyrolysis oil is produced by applying the Pyrolysis process to biomass not plastic. The process, which involves high heat breaking down compounds, can be used on plastic. But using that name makes it sound a lot more environmentally friendly than it is. Most people don’t understand the problems with real biofuels. Muh less this plastic based oil Chevron is gaslighting about in the FAQ ProPublica links.
8 Likes
