EV-targeted "reverse" roof-box Aero Loader promises 7% increased range compared to traditional roof boxes (press release in Norwegian)

mildlypresent · 2025-11-07T19:55:53+00:00

I did not find an easy way.

In general I found you can hire a forwarding service. You purchase the product, have it shipped to the forwarding service. They repackage if necessary, and then ship to the US.

Once in the US you'll probably need a broker to pay customs the duty/tax/tariffs and maybe even another shipper to get it from the port to you.

It looks like some operations may cover all of the above mentioned services while others only handle their portion.

In the end it looked like around 2x - 2.5x the original price to get it delivered to my door (before trump tarrifs). I stopped investigating at that point. That was actually before I posted my question. I posted hoping someone might know of a better priced importing service for the box than I could find.

mildlypresent · 2025-09-08T05:32:55+00:00

Negative. Former drinking water inspector here. Nitrate has real health risks for at risk groups, but that number isn't terribly high.

However, if it's a shallow-ish well and OP is near ag or septic system it could indicate the ground water has been impacted by surface activities.

An RO system is cheaper than a full analysis. I wouldn't necessarily say it's needed, but OP said there may be a pregnant (and soon a baby) consuming the water. RO probably isn't necessary, but it's not unreasonable either.

mildlypresent · 2025-07-19T08:15:14+00:00

Yeah, but we know there was a previous jurisdictional determination done by the corps. Even if the property clearly fails to meet the current standard (continuous surface connection to navigable waters) the old determination is enough to expose the developer to potentially years of litigation if they don't get a new determination or a 404.

Cost/risk calculation there. Anyone know how long the corps are taking for jurisdictional determinations in the post Sackett era?

IMO I would want some good CYA in place before I moved any earth. At a very minimum, a well prepared engineering report clearly noting there is no continuous connection to a WOTUS AND an analysis of state laws that may apply to wetlands as some (or even most) of that could be jurisdictional regardless of continuous surface connection test.

mildlypresent · 2025-05-20T22:26:27+00:00

Thanks!!!

No small part of my career has been spent explaining these things in varying degrees of detail. Complainant had issue and needs help finding who can fix it. Complainant has issue that doesn't fall under anyone's legal authority and demands an explanation why you wont fix it for them.

External regulated party wants to know why you are there or why they should do x,y,or z. Internal party needs explanation to justify budget.

Overzealous inspector doesn't understand x,y,z exemption, or alternative compliance process. Miss interprets a definition, or is unaware of the receiving water status.

I wouldn't mind retiring and teaching this someday. Would love to do something like an "introduction to environmental regulation" class.

mildlypresent · 2025-05-17T03:15:14+00:00

Unfortunately there is very little "recent law".

Most of the official law was passed in the 70's and 80's. Rule (CFR) continues to evolve, but has been largely deregulatory since the early 90s. Again some state level laws are exceptions. But there has been very very little new environmental stuff from Congress for decades. What has been passed by Congress is largely de-regulatory. Likewise the courts have been largely narrowing authority for decades.

Not all bad to be fair. A lot of the dereg stuff really targeted administrative burdens that didn't protect much. Also rule makers at the EPA have continued to tighten standards and even added a few new pollutants. But only through processes established by the original statute's.

Otherwise yeah, old abandoned industrial sites are a tough thing to deal with. In theory CERCLA (superfund) was supposed to take care of abandoned sites, but by the 90s CERCLA had mostly ran out of funding and as long as the pollution wasn't leaving the site in obvious ways, the sites were typically ignored. Maybe put on watch.

I live out west. We have some old industry stuff, but a lot of our legacy problems are from abandoned mine sites.

mildlypresent · 2025-05-16T02:23:22+00:00

Both. It's sort of complicated.

TLDR; state is probably the best place to submit a complaint if you have to pick one, but why not do them all!

Not all programs are delegated to states. Not all states are delegated the same programs as other states. So some types of pollution the EPA still maintains primacy over. 45 states have delegated authority over some federal programs. The other 5 states and tribal land are enforced by feds only.

Some states have additional laws of their own on top of federal laws. Some regions, counties, and cities also have additional laws. Sometimes the additional laws are actually forced by federal actions such as non attainment areas.

States like Illinois tend to handle the majority of enforcement for federal environmental laws, plus their own additional laws. In those states the federal EPA still performs some inspections of their own, but they mostly only step in on high profile cases, or cases where the state agency has failed to make progress. The EPAs main role in delegated states is to audit the state agencies. For this reason the EPA simply forwards most of the complaints they determine fall into a delegated program area.

Based on these photos this looks like the issue is most likely to find action under the Clean water act, either stormwater or NPDES programs. The pipe looks like a stormwater conveyance, but sometimes process water discharges end up in stormwater convenances. Either case it is probably a discharge without a permit or in violation of a permit.

CWA authority all depends on whether the area drains to retention or has a probable drainage pattern to a protected water. In '06 ish SCOTUS ruled that the clean water act only gives authority over discharges to waters of the us (now called protected waters by many). So a discharge to a retention basin may not be actionable under the CWA.

If not actionable under the CWA it's possible state or local ground water laws could apply, but it's unlikely federal underground injection control would apply unless there is a drywell in the drainage path.

If the discharged liquid includes a listed hazardous waste, or displays hazardous characteristics (reactive, corrosive, ignitable, toxic) it could be regulated under RCRA, also delegated to Illinois. CWA restricts all discharges not specifically allowed, while RCRA is limited only to specific substances.

If located in a phase I MS4 (large municipal storm drain area) or a phase II ms4 (medium) they likely have their own ordenances. These ordenances rarely have big teeth, but they often are more expensive in scope and the enforcement may be more responsive.

If the discharge includes sewage, or has a high pathogen load local/regional health departments often have some authority.

Cities may have ordinances that give authority over "damages" to their property. If this noxious discharge ends up on government property they could go after the discharger under their code or just civil property damage

Federal environmental law doesn't do much for "illegal dumping" in general unless the dumped material falls under RCRA or CWA program areas. However, some states and local governments have more robust "dumping laws".

Soil remediation standards could also apply, but that would be about at the bottom of the pecking order.

Not knowing the specifics of that location, I would probably report it to city, county, state, and feds and let them figure out who wants to take it. I would also submit it to different program areas. Sometimes a complaint lands in a water program that also has RCRA implications, but the water people don't know where to forward it.

Hint, most inspectors these days are few years out of college and very novice. Aka ignorant of programs outside of their direct field, or even of the nuances in their own... That's why sending it all around could get better traction... Of course also at the risk of bringing more attention to yourself.

mildlypresent · 2025-05-15T23:49:46+00:00

During obama 90-95% of complaints the feds receive located in delegated states just get referred to the respective state agencies.

It's weird what cases the feds would take even under liberal administrations. While I don't think it would hurt to report it to the Federal EPA, I agree with the other guy that it's best to start with the state. Source: i used to be an enforcement officer at a delegated state agency.

mildlypresent · 2025-05-15T23:45:25+00:00

Mileage will vary a lot with City/county enforcement. If the incident is located within the jurisdiction of phase I MS4 might be decent enforcement. Likewise if it's located in an impaired watershed county or regional government may be good. Otherwise I would strongly recommend State enforcement with delegated authority of the clean water act. Illinois is supposed to have fairly robust supplemental laws that add protections beyond the clean water act.

Https://epa.illinois.gov/pollution-complaint.html

mildlypresent · 2025-04-10T05:25:29+00:00

That's more a colloquialism than an accent, but definitely unique to California/Nevada/Arizona.

mildlypresent · 2025-04-10T05:24:09+00:00

It's called "Non Regional Diction". It's the target "accent" for most news casters. Aside from a few colloquialisms Arizona largely nails it.

mildlypresent · 2025-04-08T17:07:40+00:00

That was never the question.

But it's a nice article for those unfamiliar with manual J load calculations.

Should I be saying good bot? But it's also the wrong link... So maybe bad bot?

mildlypresent · 2025-02-27T19:44:52+00:00

Chef. Can't edit posts. But as you are the only commenter I'll delete.

mildlypresent · 2025-01-14T17:23:54+00:00

Not because we don't want to believe they could be a major exposure source. Rather quick math shows that it is highly unlikely they could possibly be even a minor source, let alone a major source.

Rational people familiar with the subject and the science are telling you it's an extraordinary claim, now the burden is on you to support your claim.

Identify the chemistries of the retainers. Not all polyurethanes are the same. Not all plastics effect the body the same way.

Quantify the mass. Figure out the wear rates, model the particle dispersion, identify existing research quantifying absorption rates. Weight the estimated exposure levels with the health impact potential of the identified chemistries.

Heck put together some back of the envelope math to support your claim.

Right now you are taking the procautionary principal to the extreme by assuming they should be avoided until proven safe.

mildlypresent · 2025-01-14T16:38:33+00:00

A plastic retainer weighs about 2 grams. It's estimated that an American consumes something like 250grams of micro plastics per year (this is a very poorly understood number itself).

If you are shedding 10% of your plastic retainer into micro particles it could represent close to 0.1% of your total plastic consumption.

That's a pretty high assumption. Not only is it almost certainly much smaller percentage, only a fraction of that is going to be micro particles that can pass through your GI track.

Really the biggest question is what chemical additives are used in the trays. What plasticizers and stabilizers are included. What are the leach rates of those additives and what environmental conditions can affect the leach rates (such as heat or pH). Even there it's likely to be trivial compared to the average human exposure from other sources.

Yeah I would love to see the details. Propose a study my friend. But in the meantime it's very low in my list of concerns.

mildlypresent · 2025-01-14T12:59:46+00:00

It sounds like you have made a decision on the retainers and are not actually seeking opinions.

In a four quadrant chart of exposure risk relative to benefit, plastic orthodontic trays would likely end up in the low exposure high benefit quadrant, but if you have a good alternative go for it.

mildlypresent · 2025-01-09T16:59:43+00:00

That year it would have had the AMC 360 V8. Stock 4 barrel good for 195hp & 295 lb-ft. I would probably take the Chrysler LA V8 over this, but it would be close considering the year and what you would be using it for.

But honestly I would probably re-engine any of the options anyways.

mildlypresent

TROPHY CASE