The TSA is whatever, but do you honestly believe that if oil regulations weren't in place, you wouldn't see companies just dumping oil wherever they could? Like they've done in the past? Hence why the regulations exist?

States and localities can regulate dumping in their jurisdictions. No need to have the Federal government involved.

They could regulate dumping in their jurisdiction, but I think this is one scenario where it is a good idea for the government to step in and prevent people from dumping hazardous chemicals into vulnerable areas.

Unless you'd like to see what Flint Michigan but Worse might look like on a more national scale.

If the regulations were abolished, some companies would just dump the harmful waste products. Negative externalities are a real thing.

Obviously, regulations can cause problems or have significant issues, so we should continually modify them as necessary, to the best of our ability. This includes removing them if they aren't beneficial, or creating new ones.

The reason that person needs to come tick that checkbox is because less ethical businesses have shown time and again that they will dump the oil wherever is cheapest/easiest if there is no oversight.

Same with TSA. While they aren't perfect, we don't have bimonthly hijackings like we did 40-50 years ago.

You realize TSA didn't even exist until George W. Bush in 2001. It's also not unheard of for TSA to screw up[1]. I'd also be very interested in where your data of "bimonthly hijackings" comes from.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/atlanta-tsa-offic...

The US had a huge number of hijackings in the late 60s through early 70s [1]. There has not been a single hijacking or terrorism related death on a commercial airliner in the US since the TSA was created. The TSA doesn't deserve all the credit there as other post-9/11 security changes were implemented at the same time, but you can't just hand wave away their role in that unprecedented streak of safety.

[1] - https://www.wired.com/2013/06/love-and-terror-in-the-golden-...

> The US had a huge number of hijackings in the late 60s through early 70s [1].

And very few after that (two in the 1980s, with a couple attempts in the 1989s and 1990s) because of the first round of airport security rules adopted immediately in the wake of those and the tightening permanently applied during the 1990 Gulf Crisis.

> The TSA doesn't deserve all the credit there as other post-9/11 security changes were implemented at the same time, but you can't just hand wave away their role in that unprecedented streak of safety.

It's not significantly different that the period before 9/11, so it's not clear they the TSA and other post-9/11 actions deserve any credit, and calling it an unprecedented streak of safety is hyperbolic.

You are correct that the TSA didn't invent airport security screenings, but they took them over, improved, and standardized them. They certainly aren't perfect but they have yet to have the type of catastrophic failures that occasionally happened before the TSA existed.

>It's not significantly different that the period before 9/11, so it's not clear they the TSA and other post-9/11 actions deserve any credit, and calling it an unprecedented streak of safety is hyperbolic.

First off, you can't just pretend like 9/11 doesn't count in pre-TSA security stats. Four planes were hijacked within an hour of each other on 9/11 and zero have been hijacked in the last 17+ years? Those rates seem significantly different to me. Also can you find any stretch of US history in which commercial airliners have flown close to as many miles as they have over the last 17+ years in which there wasn't a hijacking? Unprecedented seems like a perfectly fine word to describe that streak.

> First off, you can't just pretend like 9/11 doesn't count in pre-TSA security stats. Four planes were hijacked within an hour of each other on 9/11 and zero have been hijacked in the last 17+ years?

Prior to 9/11, there were 14 years with no US hijackings (failed attempts are a different story) and 27 with no deaths on a commercial aircraft due to a hijacking. 17 years with neither hijackings nor hijacking related deaths is not a clear improvement that calls for credit anywhere. Since the 1980s, hijacking events have been so rare that it would take many decades under a give policy regime before and after a policy change before you couls have even remote statistical confidence that my quiet period

Really, since at least the 1980s, hijacking is so rare that it would take an extraordinarily long time to have even remote confidence that there was an increase in safety, much less of assigning a specific cause to it.

And, on assigning cause, if there was a reduction in hijackings post-9/11, well, there's a pretty good reason to think that al-Qaeda and the passengers of Flight 93 jointly might be responsible without any government policy as an intermediate cause.

Hijacking became something passengers would no longer be likely to accept as a “cooperate and noone gets hurt” event, which rendered it pointless as almost anyone has ever used it (even as al-Qaeda used it on 9/11, which while it doesn't factually fit that model clearly required for effect that people believed that it did.)

>There has not been a single hijacking or terrorism related death on a commercial airliner in the US since the TSA was created.

I have an anti-tiger rock to sell you.

We didn't have bimonthly jackings without the TSA in 1990s either.

Is there any evidence that the TSA has ever prevented a hijacking?

Except that without this inspection they could also pour the oil into the nearest river and no one would know. The inspection is there for a reason - to see that it is properly stored and recycled, at every stage of its life.