<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>mschuster91</author><text>&amp;gt; Pounds weight is a terrible way to measure toxins.&lt;p&gt;But it is one thing: undeniably objective. The alternative would include a &amp;quot;rating&amp;quot; system which the industry can use to say &amp;quot;yeah we emit x hundred tons per year of chemical y but it is next to harmless, better go after company z and their waste&amp;quot;... leading to inevitable chains of lawsuits dragged over years.&lt;p&gt;For what its worth for many industrial processes there exist technical means of greatly reducing emissions (e.g. for smoke stacks: gas washers, desulfurization technologies, fine-dust retainers), but as long as environmental costs don&amp;#x27;t get billed to companies or required by the state, companies have no incentive to reduce emissions, as every dollar spent is a dollar less profit.&lt;p&gt;Maybe it&amp;#x27;s time to introduce legislations that allow the government to hold the &lt;i&gt;shareholders&lt;/i&gt; accountable e.g. for Superfund sites, that would at least provide a decent incentive for companies to clean up or to provide enough cash to compensate for environmental damages after closure - right now companies can simply close&amp;#x2F;be liquidated and the taxpayers have to foot the cleanup bill.</text><parent_chain><item><author>mrob</author><text>Pounds weight is a terrible way to measure toxins. This report is basically meaningless, because it lumps together toxins with vastly different risks. Eg. sodium carbonate is included, which is just common washing soda. I wouldn&amp;#x27;t eat it but the risk is easily manageable. Compare with, eg. dimethylmercury, which is scary even at parts per billion concentration. An actually useful measurement would take into account both potency and persistence of toxins.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The United States of Toxins</title><url>https://priceonomics.com/the-united-states-of-toxins/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Amezarak</author><text>I didn&amp;#x27;t see sodium carbonate in the list, but you probably do eat it - it&amp;#x27;s a food additive.&lt;p&gt;Copper and manganese are on the list, and are absolutely necessary to live! If you completely cut them out, you would die.</text><parent_chain><item><author>mrob</author><text>Pounds weight is a terrible way to measure toxins. This report is basically meaningless, because it lumps together toxins with vastly different risks. Eg. sodium carbonate is included, which is just common washing soda. I wouldn&amp;#x27;t eat it but the risk is easily manageable. Compare with, eg. dimethylmercury, which is scary even at parts per billion concentration. An actually useful measurement would take into account both potency and persistence of toxins.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The United States of Toxins</title><url>https://priceonomics.com/the-united-states-of-toxins/</url></story>