Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hef19898 2603 days ago
It was the same in the heavily industrialized parts of Germany till the 80s or so. There was a documentary covering the history of these sites. And the oral history part of it was just shocking. Like certain departments being known as the "blood pissers" because basically everyone working there for too long got bladder cancer. Or the fact that it was normal that people just vanished during their shift because they fell into melted iron and nobody realized until shift end.

But what even shocked me more than these stories was how people thought about them. Somewhere between pride and it-is-just-like-that. From all levels, workers, managers, chemists with PhDs, their families...

2 comments

> It was the same in the heavily industrialized parts of Germany till the 80s or so

Like you very well pointed out, most of that industry and the associated pollution has moved further East. As a citizen of such an Eastern European country I was unpleasantly surprised to feel the air suddenly tasting "chemical" as I was driving on a highway in Transylvania, near a town called Sebes.

Sure enough, I then soon found an article of the local residents complaining about a chemical company polluting the air they breath (in here [1], article in Romanian, unfortunately). The culprit is an Austrian (not German, but closed enough) company called Kronospan, and on its wiki page [2] one can see that its latest investment was made in Belarus, presumably only a dictatorship still allows this sort of thing to go unchecked. The same wiki page also details some pollution-related incidents for which the company was responsible in Wales in the early 2000s, that is in another relatively poor area like the Southern US states mentioned in the article.

[1] https://casajurnalistului.ro/kronospanik/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronospan

Industries moving as local populations wise up to the health problems they cause has been going on for a long time. The book Toms River[0] briefly covers the history of the synthetic dye industry from its inception in Germany, moving to Cincinnati, OH, and subsequently to Toms River, NJ (then a sleepy backwater location).

The book is highly worth a read, and I was thinking about some of the outcomes in the book when I read the article and comments on Scientists Rise Up Against Statistical Significance[1] here.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toms_River_(book) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19445827

And these companies usually refuse any responsibility for the aftermath. Kind of worked back when they still produced basically at home, but even the they knew the risks. But after they moved because of all the dirty shit that's just cynicism. They literally look for poor regions and people to pollute. Which sucks...
>But what even shocked me more than these stories was how people thought about them. Somewhere between pride and it-is-just-like-that. From all levels, workers, managers, chemists with PhDs, their families...

Other cultures have different priorities. I can't quite put my finger on it but there's something I really don't like about how your comment just takes for granted that their prioritization is wrong. Of course Germany has changed since the 80s but your comment may as well apply to the Ukraine or India.

Well, basically trading in your health, knowingly, and risking death in exchange for a salary in private industry is kind of weird to say the least. And to be somehow proud to voluntarily become a corporate drone in the process even more so.

One interviewee even went so far to attack environmental activists because one of the more polluting production was shot down. Same guy didn't have any issue with letting his kids play in the polluted waste dust and sand. I assumed that in that case you would be grateful as the improvement directly impacted your own lively hood.

But I get how you can be sucked into that, kind of. Especially if you are otherwise poverty struck. From the management and the chemists I found that attitude very cynical.

Reminded of Burke in Aliens and the question which creature is worth, but at least the Xenomorphs did get themselves killed for a percentage.

>Well, basically trading in your health, knowingly, and risking death in exchange for a salary in private industry is kind of weird to say the least.

If you're a not in a wealthy nation that's not necessarily a bad deal.

I find this comment to be highly cynical.

Not only you are proposing someone to trade off their health for some money but also you get to trade off your children's health.

Poverty sucks, but is it a really an ethical choice to give to anyone, it's almost a biblical choice you're giving in this case -- sacrifice your first born.

Is this what people in power, want to be? Give devil's bargain to anyone who has only bad option to save a few percent on environmental scrubbers; or continue a business that is at very core environmentally unsustainable.

Pretty much seems so, doesn't it?
Especially if the alternative is to starve to death.
True in these edge cases. Not sure how that applies to Germany in the 80s, so.
> your comment just takes for granted that their prioritization is wrong

Firstly i doubt it's a prioritisation choice of which they have agency over. I find it more likely that they were powerless to change it, but i have no evidence of that so i accept it could still be their choice.

Secondly, this prioritisation - whether by these people or whether, as i suspect, by others and forced upon those people - IS wrong Unless it is explicitly negotiated in the offer of employment. Which, we know it was not.

I.e. in the case of a public venture then you are joining a military function - i do not think civilian police should expect to give their life. In the case of employment with a private venture then there's a dedicated line item on the paycheck "danger money" and the worker is suitably educated of its meaning before they are allowed to accept the offer of employment.

This is not hard. Enterprise can be accomplished, profit can be made, and human capital can be fairly compensated. Greed does not need to prevail in all business decisions.