Thanks Barack 3 West Virginia Coal Plants to Close

[Big Fitz]

I looked at the USA Today article and found two interesting things. First, It's in an environmental advocacy section, and second, the two sources are the radical EPA study trying to justify the lowering of standards, as well as the ALA who has a long history of wanting pure air even at impossible costs.

The EPA has given $20 million to the ALA, so they are hardly a disinterested source. They've been turned into a propaganda arm of the EPA.

That's how science has been corrupted in this country.

THAT is the type of collusion that causes me to not trust sources. The EPA has lots to gain from these new regulations. They gain budget priorities to expand which means millions of dollars and increase their power and control over society. They are populated currently by many radical environmentalists not concerned with balanced growth, but restriction of growth based on Malthusian luddite fantasies that the world must be depopulated to save it from us. If they're donating money to special interes groups, those groups of course will be compromised to find things that their benefactor wants. It's the same way with those who take coal industry money.

Again, I say my issue is not that there is pollutants, but that any solution is an IMPROVEMENT WORTH THE COST. Is the reduction of mercury vapors by a few thousand tons spread across the entire continent really going to generate even a minor benefit? Can we even quantify it? Is nature's production going to overwhelm the improvement with releases that we can do nothing about? See? These questions aren't being answered, and the solutions from the left are ALWAYS less freedom, worse economies and more government tyranny.

That is the core of the issue from me. Cost benefit and freedom to prosper.

 

[Big Fitz]

The effluvium from middle American's older coal fired plants had polluted most of the East Coasts nature bodies of water.

Mercury is the problem.

Emissions from American coal plants account for 44 tons of mercury / year. Emissions from natural sources such as volcanoes and undersea vents total about 10,000 tons /year.

Your claim is pure horseshit.

If you contention that antropogenic mercury wasn't happening was true, if mercury pollution was merely the problem of worldwide vocanic activity, the EAST coast of the USA, wouldn't have pollution levels higher than the rest of the nation.

Note the higher incidence of mercury pollution in the east coast?

That mostly from Mid western COAL-FIRED PLANTS, lad.

The jet stream naturally takes the pollution east where it settles onto the east coast.

Enjoy the fishing here in Maine but don't eat the fish!

So the west coast has that many fewer coal plants? Is Florida covered in coal fired plants?

Seems to me a lot of the pollution have little to do with the placement of plants and more the geology of the areas. It seems to, in most cases follow heavy geologic deposits of certain types of resources. The UP, MN Arrowhead and Northern WI are loaded with metal. The Mississippi delta is getting runoff from the Ohio and Missouri. What about the Eastern plains and Piedmont?

This map is not conclusive proof that coal plants are problems or you'd see pollution footprints far clearer. And don't forget, nature produces far more mercury pollution than man's activity.

 

[newpolitics]

Emissions from American coal plants account for 44 tons of mercury / year. Emissions from natural sources such as volcanoes and undersea vents total about 10,000 tons /year.

Your claim is pure horseshit.

If you contention that antropogenic mercury wasn't happening was true, if mercury pollution was merely the problem of worldwide vocanic activity, the EAST coast of the USA, wouldn't have pollution levels higher than the rest of the nation.

Note the higher incidence of mercury pollution in the east coast?

That mostly from Mid western COAL-FIRED PLANTS, lad.

The jet stream naturally takes the pollution east where it settles onto the east coast.

Enjoy the fishing here in Maine but don't eat the fish!

So the west coast has that many fewer coal plants? Is Florida covered in coal fired plants?

Seems to me a lot of the pollution have little to do with the placement of plants and more the geology of the areas. It seems to, in most cases follow heavy geologic deposits of certain types of resources. The UP, MN Arrowhead and Northern WI are loaded with metal. The Mississippi delta is getting runoff from the Ohio and Missouri. What about the Eastern plains and Piedmont?

This map is not conclusive proof that coal plants are problems or you'd see pollution footprints far clearer. And don't forget, nature produces far more mercury pollution than man's activity.

This is the same kind of response people working near known carcinogenic sources get from their insurance companies when they are diagnosed with cancer and need treatment: "nothing is conclusive." this is always what lawyers always say about environmental causes for disease. it is "NEVER" industries fault...

wake up and smell the coffee. comparing man-made output of certain carcinogens to natural, earth-made outputs such as under-sea volcanic vents, aren't even in the same ballpark, litearally. We don't live near any active volcanoes spewing mercury, or deep-water oceanic vents, as far as I know, because they exist five miles under the fucking ocean. We do, however, live among many coal-fired power plants. Hence, you're figures are largely misleading, as usual, from a republican who tries to deny anthropogenic affects to global catastrophe.

 

[bripat9643]

This is the same kind of response people working near known carcinogenic sources get from their insurance companies when they are diagnosed with cancer and need treatment: "nothing is conclusive." this is always what lawyers always say about environmental causes for disease. it is "NEVER" industries fault...

wake up and smell the coffee. comparing man-made output of certain carcinogens to natural, earth-made outputs such as under-sea volcanic vents, aren't even in the same ballpark, litearally. We don't live near any active volcanoes spewing mercury, or deep-water oceanic vents, as far as I know, because they exist five miles under the fucking ocean. We do, however, live among many coal-fired power plants. Hence, you're figures are largely misleading, as usual, from a republican who tries to deny anthropogenic affects to global catastrophe.

There are no proven cases of illnes or birth defects due to Mercury in the entire United States. The EPA's claims are based entirely on extrapolating from a case of massive Mercury ingestion in Iraq. Their methology is less than credible. The fact that massive doses of some substance causes illness doesn't mean that any sized dose of it will cause illness. In almost all cases there is a threshold below which no ill effects are observed.

 

[newpolitics]

This is the same kind of response people working near known carcinogenic sources get from their insurance companies when they are diagnosed with cancer and need treatment: "nothing is conclusive." this is always what lawyers always say about environmental causes for disease. it is "NEVER" industries fault...

wake up and smell the coffee. comparing man-made output of certain carcinogens to natural, earth-made outputs such as under-sea volcanic vents, aren't even in the same ballpark, litearally. We don't live near any active volcanoes spewing mercury, or deep-water oceanic vents, as far as I know, because they exist five miles under the fucking ocean. We do, however, live among many coal-fired power plants. Hence, you're figures are largely misleading, as usual, from a republican who tries to deny anthropogenic affects to global catastrophe.

There are no proven cases of illnes or birth defects due to Mercury in the entire United States. The EPA's claims are based entirely on extrapolating from a case of massive Mercury ingestion in Iraq. Their methology is less than credible. The fact that massive doses of some substance causes illness doesn't mean that any sized dose of it will cause illness. In almost all cases there is a threshold below which no ill effects are observed.

Again, you sound like an insurance claims investigator. You defy common sense and argue for industry over actual people. It is quite atrocious. The fact is, mercury is harmful, very harmful to humans in even the smallest doses, therefore any output emitted by human coal power operations is going to have an effect. Any look at the evidence will prove this, with higher cancer rates among those living near or around coal power plant operations.

 

[bripat9643]

Again, you sound like an insurance claims investigator. You defy common sense and argue for industry over actual people. It is quite atrocious. The fact is, mercury is harmful, very harmful to humans in even the smallest doses, therefore any output emitted by human coal power operations is going to have an effect. Any look at the evidence will prove this, with higher cancer rates among those living near or around coal power plant operations.

Sorry, knucklehead, but that simply isn't a fact. There isn't a shred of evidence that Mercury in small doses is harmful. Furthermore, if it was, then the EPA should be demanding a ban on the consumption of fish, because you get far more Mercury from that source then you'll ever get from a coal fired power plant.

Coal fired power plants in the USA emit 44 tons of Mercury a year. Cremation of dead bodies in the USA emits about 22 tons of Mercury a year. Forest fires are responsible for another 45 tons per year. Power plants in China emit over 400 tons of Mercury per year. I haven't noticed the EPA on a jihad to eliminate cremation of human remains. If they truly were concerned about Mercury in the atmosphere, they would make better use of their resources to pressure China to cut its emmissions, not ours.

The EPA doesn't claim that breathing this Mercury causes illness or birth defects. That's because almost all of it washes out of the atmosphere within days. The claim is that it washes into the oceans and concentrates in fish which are then consumed. The problem here is that volcanoes and undersea vents emit 10,000 tons of Mercury every year. Eliminating the contribution from US coal fired power plants wouldn't make a detectible difference in the amount of Mercury Americans consume.

If there were evidence of illnes from Mercury near coal fired power plants, the EPA would certainly have published it, but they haven't. You can search the internet for months and never find such evidence because there isn't any. The EPA's case is based entirely on exptrapolating from 2 cases of massive overdoses of Mercury: one in Japan, and the other in Iraq.

Also, not even the EPA claims that Mercury causes cancer. Birth defects and mental problems are atributed to Mercury poisoning, not cancer.

BTW, You sound just like Aolph Hitler who was a big environmentalist. I guess you must be a Nazi, eh?

 

[bripat9643]

This is the same kind of response people working near known carcinogenic sources get from their insurance companies when they are diagnosed with cancer and need treatment: "nothing is conclusive." this is always what lawyers always say about environmental causes for disease. it is "NEVER" industries fault... .

That's probably because thousans of nutburgers with sleazy lawyers sue insurance companies every year based on bogus science. Insurance companies base their defense on what has been proven, not what some shyster lawyer believes. They have to have their ducks in a row, otherwise they will go bankrupt.

wake up and smell the coffee. comparing man-made output of certain carcinogens to natural, earth-made outputs such as under-sea volcanic vents, aren't even in the same ballpark, litearally. We don't live near any active volcanoes spewing mercury, or deep-water oceanic vents, as far as I know, because they exist five miles under the fucking ocean. We do, however, live among many coal-fired power plants. Hence, you're figures are largely misleading, as usual, from a republican who tries to deny anthropogenic affects to global catastrophe.

The EPA isn't claiming that atmospheric Mercury is making anyone ill. It has never published any data showing that the incidence of health problems is greater in the vicinity of coal fired power plants. The EPA claims that Mercury from power plants eventually washes into the ocean and gets concentrate in fish which are then eaten, so the Mercury from natural sources such as undersea vents is highly relevant to their case.

 

[boilermaker55]

Thanks Barack… 3 West Virginia Coal Plants to Close | The Gateway Pundit

Three West Virginia coal plants just announced they will close this year. Metro News reported: Ohio based FirstEnergy Corporation announces it will close three coal fired power plants in West Virginia by this fall. The closings come directly from the impact of new federal EPA regulations. The plants to close are Albright Power Station, Willow Island Power Station, and the Rivesville Power Station. The company says 105 employees will be directly impacted. The three plants produce 660 megawatts and about 3-percent of FirstEnergy’s total generation. In recent years, the plants served as “peaking facilities” and generated power during times of...

Maybe you never have lived near or around an industry!

MANN ~vs~ Ford An Epic Battle of the Ramapough Mountain Indians | NDN News - Daily Headlines in Indian Country

 

[IndependntLogic]

I looked at the USA Today article and found two interesting things. First, It's in an environmental advocacy section, and second, the two sources are the radical EPA study trying to justify the lowering of standards, as well as the ALA who has a long history of wanting pure air even at impossible costs.

The EPA has given $20 million to the ALA, so they are hardly a disinterested source. They've been turned into a propaganda arm of the EPA.

That's how science has been corrupted in this country.

THAT is the type of collusion that causes me to not trust sources. The EPA has lots to gain from these new regulations. They gain budget priorities to expand which means millions of dollars and increase their power and control over society. They are populated currently by many radical environmentalists not concerned with balanced growth, but restriction of growth based on Malthusian luddite fantasies that the world must be depopulated to save it from us. If they're donating money to special interes groups, those groups of course will be compromised to find things that their benefactor wants. It's the same way with those who take coal industry money.

Again, I say my issue is not that there is pollutants, but that any solution is an IMPROVEMENT WORTH THE COST. Is the reduction of mercury vapors by a few thousand tons spread across the entire continent really going to generate even a minor benefit? Can we even quantify it? Is nature's production going to overwhelm the improvement with releases that we can do nothing about? See? These questions aren't being answered, and the solutions from the left are ALWAYS less freedom, worse economies and more government tyranny.

That is the core of the issue from me. Cost benefit and freedom to prosper.

Look buddy, you know I like your posts and I have actually learned from them (although still waiting for your input on "clean coal") but we diverge here.
I find you claim about the EPA being so corrupt and such specious at best. I'm sure there are such cases but whatever. Seems to me the EPA has not grown whenever new regs were passed and I'm certain they're not hiring now, as a result of the regs.
I think if you just stand near a danm campfire every day, you're in more danger than someone who doesn't. So burning coal? I'm not a scientists and don't pretend but that just seems like common sense.
Like I said, I remember the Big 3 (along with help from the GOP) claiming the Ford River Rouge and other plants didn't produce any chemicals that didn't occur naturally in nature anyway. The EPA show what was happening to both the air and the water around Detroit - not that everyone didn't know - but a LOT of people fought this regulation just because they were Republican.
And to me, the cost benefit of one single child getting cancer or emphysema or whatever is really, really frikkin' high.

So again: Got Clean Coal? WTF is it? Good Bad? Liberal Myth?

 

[Big Fitz]

The EPA has given $20 million to the ALA, so they are hardly a disinterested source. They've been turned into a propaganda arm of the EPA.

That's how science has been corrupted in this country.

THAT is the type of collusion that causes me to not trust sources. The EPA has lots to gain from these new regulations. They gain budget priorities to expand which means millions of dollars and increase their power and control over society. They are populated currently by many radical environmentalists not concerned with balanced growth, but restriction of growth based on Malthusian luddite fantasies that the world must be depopulated to save it from us. If they're donating money to special interes groups, those groups of course will be compromised to find things that their benefactor wants. It's the same way with those who take coal industry money.

Again, I say my issue is not that there is pollutants, but that any solution is an IMPROVEMENT WORTH THE COST. Is the reduction of mercury vapors by a few thousand tons spread across the entire continent really going to generate even a minor benefit? Can we even quantify it? Is nature's production going to overwhelm the improvement with releases that we can do nothing about? See? These questions aren't being answered, and the solutions from the left are ALWAYS less freedom, worse economies and more government tyranny.

That is the core of the issue from me. Cost benefit and freedom to prosper.

Look buddy, you know I like your posts and I have actually learned from them (although still waiting for your input on "clean coal") but we diverge here.
I find you claim about the EPA being so corrupt and such specious at best. I'm sure there are such cases but whatever. Seems to me the EPA has not grown whenever new regs were passed and I'm certain they're not hiring now, as a result of the regs.
I think if you just stand near a danm campfire every day, you're in more danger than someone who doesn't. So burning coal? I'm not a scientists and don't pretend but that just seems like common sense.
Like I said, I remember the Big 3 (along with help from the GOP) claiming the Ford River Rouge and other plants didn't produce any chemicals that didn't occur naturally in nature anyway. The EPA show what was happening to both the air and the water around Detroit - not that everyone didn't know - but a LOT of people fought this regulation just because they were Republican.
And to me, the cost benefit of one single child getting cancer or emphysema or whatever is really, really frikkin' high.

So again: Got Clean Coal? WTF is it? Good Bad? Liberal Myth?

Oh I'm all for clean coal. Coal even with technology to clean emissions is still a better bet that wind or solar when it comes to profitability and stability. It may seem like a contradiction, but it's not. It's all about dealing with proven threats combined with reasonable responses that doesn't bankrupt an industry, impoverish the public and destroy jobs for the sake of jumping at shadows.

We have a lot of laws on the books that do a lot of good in many ways, but they have a price as well as a benefit. It is what makes us less competitive in many heavy industries because we protect our living environment to maintain a quality of life that most of Asia doesn't seem to care to have or understand. That's the crux of the problem. Protect 'too much' you make life and business difficult and expensive here, so jobs move elsewhere. If you're going to sacrifice economic power for the sake of public health, make damn sure you're getting a good deal out of it. We compete in a global marketplace, and what good is a pristine environment if we're too impoverished to enjoy or protect it?

I live in an area long abused by the paper industry where they dumped tons of PCBs into the river that has had to be cleaned up and they tried their "Who Me?" routine with no success either. They rightfully got billed for the cost of the cleanup. That's reasonable government use and power. Then again, it was a case of direct harm and source easily proven.

That's what I've been getting at this entire conversation. The EPA has a bias. It needs to be acknowledged. People who do studies and accept money from groups will be influenced by them, so the ALA, first off have an agenda to end lung disease. Good goal, right? But that also means they get a bit extreme in how to deal with ending lung disease. Kinda like dealing with MADD. They go a little Carrie Nation on you.

So when you talk about environmental protection, make sure it's a good deal for us as a society as well.

 

[IndependntLogic]

THAT is the type of collusion that causes me to not trust sources. The EPA has lots to gain from these new regulations. They gain budget priorities to expand which means millions of dollars and increase their power and control over society. They are populated currently by many radical environmentalists not concerned with balanced growth, but restriction of growth based on Malthusian luddite fantasies that the world must be depopulated to save it from us. If they're donating money to special interes groups, those groups of course will be compromised to find things that their benefactor wants. It's the same way with those who take coal industry money.

Again, I say my issue is not that there is pollutants, but that any solution is an IMPROVEMENT WORTH THE COST. Is the reduction of mercury vapors by a few thousand tons spread across the entire continent really going to generate even a minor benefit? Can we even quantify it? Is nature's production going to overwhelm the improvement with releases that we can do nothing about? See? These questions aren't being answered, and the solutions from the left are ALWAYS less freedom, worse economies and more government tyranny.

That is the core of the issue from me. Cost benefit and freedom to prosper.

Look buddy, you know I like your posts and I have actually learned from them (although still waiting for your input on "clean coal") but we diverge here.
I find you claim about the EPA being so corrupt and such specious at best. I'm sure there are such cases but whatever. Seems to me the EPA has not grown whenever new regs were passed and I'm certain they're not hiring now, as a result of the regs.
I think if you just stand near a danm campfire every day, you're in more danger than someone who doesn't. So burning coal? I'm not a scientists and don't pretend but that just seems like common sense.
Like I said, I remember the Big 3 (along with help from the GOP) claiming the Ford River Rouge and other plants didn't produce any chemicals that didn't occur naturally in nature anyway. The EPA show what was happening to both the air and the water around Detroit - not that everyone didn't know - but a LOT of people fought this regulation just because they were Republican.
And to me, the cost benefit of one single child getting cancer or emphysema or whatever is really, really frikkin' high.

So again: Got Clean Coal? WTF is it? Good Bad? Liberal Myth?

Oh I'm all for clean coal. Coal even with technology to clean emissions is still a better bet that wind or solar when it comes to profitability and stability. It may seem like a contradiction, but it's not. It's all about dealing with proven threats combined with reasonable responses that doesn't bankrupt an industry, impoverish the public and destroy jobs for the sake of jumping at shadows.

We have a lot of laws on the books that do a lot of good in many ways, but they have a price as well as a benefit. It is what makes us less competitive in many heavy industries because we protect our living environment to maintain a quality of life that most of Asia doesn't seem to care to have or understand. That's the crux of the problem. Protect 'too much' you make life and business difficult and expensive here, so jobs move elsewhere. If you're going to sacrifice economic power for the sake of public health, make damn sure you're getting a good deal out of it. We compete in a global marketplace, and what good is a pristine environment if we're too impoverished to enjoy or protect it?

I live in an area long abused by the paper industry where they dumped tons of PCBs into the river that has had to be cleaned up and they tried their "Who Me?" routine with no success either. They rightfully got billed for the cost of the cleanup. That's reasonable government use and power. Then again, it was a case of direct harm and source easily proven.

That's what I've been getting at this entire conversation. The EPA has a bias. It needs to be acknowledged. People who do studies and accept money from groups will be influenced by them, so the ALA, first off have an agenda to end lung disease. Good goal, right? But that also means they get a bit extreme in how to deal with ending lung disease. Kinda like dealing with MADD. They go a little Carrie Nation on you.

So when you talk about environmental protection, make sure it's a good deal for us as a society as well.

I have clients in Beijing and Shanghai. The LAST thing I would ever want, is for us to alter our standards toward theirs, in order to become more competitive. Remember the Olympic Athletes having to wear masks, just to walk around Beijing? No thanks.

It amazes me that whackjobs like Michelle Bachman use China as an example of ANYTHING, especially capitalism working. Shows how ignorant Americans can be.

 

[Big Fitz]

Look buddy, you know I like your posts and I have actually learned from them (although still waiting for your input on "clean coal") but we diverge here.
I find you claim about the EPA being so corrupt and such specious at best. I'm sure there are such cases but whatever. Seems to me the EPA has not grown whenever new regs were passed and I'm certain they're not hiring now, as a result of the regs.
I think if you just stand near a danm campfire every day, you're in more danger than someone who doesn't. So burning coal? I'm not a scientists and don't pretend but that just seems like common sense.
Like I said, I remember the Big 3 (along with help from the GOP) claiming the Ford River Rouge and other plants didn't produce any chemicals that didn't occur naturally in nature anyway. The EPA show what was happening to both the air and the water around Detroit - not that everyone didn't know - but a LOT of people fought this regulation just because they were Republican.
And to me, the cost benefit of one single child getting cancer or emphysema or whatever is really, really frikkin' high.

So again: Got Clean Coal? WTF is it? Good Bad? Liberal Myth?

Oh I'm all for clean coal. Coal even with technology to clean emissions is still a better bet that wind or solar when it comes to profitability and stability. It may seem like a contradiction, but it's not. It's all about dealing with proven threats combined with reasonable responses that doesn't bankrupt an industry, impoverish the public and destroy jobs for the sake of jumping at shadows.

We have a lot of laws on the books that do a lot of good in many ways, but they have a price as well as a benefit. It is what makes us less competitive in many heavy industries because we protect our living environment to maintain a quality of life that most of Asia doesn't seem to care to have or understand. That's the crux of the problem. Protect 'too much' you make life and business difficult and expensive here, so jobs move elsewhere. If you're going to sacrifice economic power for the sake of public health, make damn sure you're getting a good deal out of it. We compete in a global marketplace, and what good is a pristine environment if we're too impoverished to enjoy or protect it?

I live in an area long abused by the paper industry where they dumped tons of PCBs into the river that has had to be cleaned up and they tried their "Who Me?" routine with no success either. They rightfully got billed for the cost of the cleanup. That's reasonable government use and power. Then again, it was a case of direct harm and source easily proven.

That's what I've been getting at this entire conversation. The EPA has a bias. It needs to be acknowledged. People who do studies and accept money from groups will be influenced by them, so the ALA, first off have an agenda to end lung disease. Good goal, right? But that also means they get a bit extreme in how to deal with ending lung disease. Kinda like dealing with MADD. They go a little Carrie Nation on you.

So when you talk about environmental protection, make sure it's a good deal for us as a society as well.

I have clients in Beijing and Shanghai. The LAST thing I would ever want, is for us to alter our standards toward theirs, in order to become more competitive. Remember the Olympic Athletes having to wear masks, just to walk around Beijing? No thanks.

It amazes me that whackjobs like Michelle Bachman use China as an example of ANYTHING, especially capitalism working. Shows how ignorant Americans can be.

That is one of a few areas where I disagree with Michele Bachamann whom I generally support and agree with. I'm not saying go back to where China is. In many ways, China is us before the Clean Water/Clean Air acts were implemented, and their mining safety is almost the equivalent of the early 1900's. I wouldn't advocate going that far back. China is starting to discover they can't continue doing that stuff for too much longer or regardless of the population, the sickness issues will become omnipresent and oppressive.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Oh I'm all for clean coal. Coal even with technology to clean emissions is still a better bet that wind or solar when it comes to profitability and stability. It may seem like a contradiction, but it's not. It's all about dealing with proven threats combined with reasonable responses that doesn't bankrupt an industry, impoverish the public and destroy jobs for the sake of jumping at shadows.

We have a lot of laws on the books that do a lot of good in many ways, but they have a price as well as a benefit. It is what makes us less competitive in many heavy industries because we protect our living environment to maintain a quality of life that most of Asia doesn't seem to care to have or understand. That's the crux of the problem. Protect 'too much' you make life and business difficult and expensive here, so jobs move elsewhere. If you're going to sacrifice economic power for the sake of public health, make damn sure you're getting a good deal out of it. We compete in a global marketplace, and what good is a pristine environment if we're too impoverished to enjoy or protect it?

I live in an area long abused by the paper industry where they dumped tons of PCBs into the river that has had to be cleaned up and they tried their "Who Me?" routine with no success either. They rightfully got billed for the cost of the cleanup. That's reasonable government use and power. Then again, it was a case of direct harm and source easily proven.

That's what I've been getting at this entire conversation. The EPA has a bias. It needs to be acknowledged. People who do studies and accept money from groups will be influenced by them, so the ALA, first off have an agenda to end lung disease. Good goal, right? But that also means they get a bit extreme in how to deal with ending lung disease. Kinda like dealing with MADD. They go a little Carrie Nation on you.

So when you talk about environmental protection, make sure it's a good deal for us as a society as well.

I have clients in Beijing and Shanghai. The LAST thing I would ever want, is for us to alter our standards toward theirs, in order to become more competitive. Remember the Olympic Athletes having to wear masks, just to walk around Beijing? No thanks.

It amazes me that whackjobs like Michelle Bachman use China as an example of ANYTHING, especially capitalism working. Shows how ignorant Americans can be.

That is one of a few areas where I disagree with Michele Bachamann whom I generally support and agree with. I'm not saying go back to where China is. In many ways, China is us before the Clean Water/Clean Air acts were implemented, and their mining safety is almost the equivalent of the early 1900's. I wouldn't advocate going that far back. China is starting to discover they can't continue doing that stuff for too much longer or regardless of the population, the sickness issues will become omnipresent and oppressive.

Unlike your compatriots like BriPat et.al. you have a rather amazing ability to go against both ideology and party lines. Boof.

 

[The T]

Oh I'm all for clean coal. Coal even with technology to clean emissions is still a better bet that wind or solar when it comes to profitability and stability. It may seem like a contradiction, but it's not. It's all about dealing with proven threats combined with reasonable responses that doesn't bankrupt an industry, impoverish the public and destroy jobs for the sake of jumping at shadows.

We have a lot of laws on the books that do a lot of good in many ways, but they have a price as well as a benefit. It is what makes us less competitive in many heavy industries because we protect our living environment to maintain a quality of life that most of Asia doesn't seem to care to have or understand. That's the crux of the problem. Protect 'too much' you make life and business difficult and expensive here, so jobs move elsewhere. If you're going to sacrifice economic power for the sake of public health, make damn sure you're getting a good deal out of it. We compete in a global marketplace, and what good is a pristine environment if we're too impoverished to enjoy or protect it?

I live in an area long abused by the paper industry where they dumped tons of PCBs into the river that has had to be cleaned up and they tried their "Who Me?" routine with no success either. They rightfully got billed for the cost of the cleanup. That's reasonable government use and power. Then again, it was a case of direct harm and source easily proven.

That's what I've been getting at this entire conversation. The EPA has a bias. It needs to be acknowledged. People who do studies and accept money from groups will be influenced by them, so the ALA, first off have an agenda to end lung disease. Good goal, right? But that also means they get a bit extreme in how to deal with ending lung disease. Kinda like dealing with MADD. They go a little Carrie Nation on you.

So when you talk about environmental protection, make sure it's a good deal for us as a society as well.

I have clients in Beijing and Shanghai. The LAST thing I would ever want, is for us to alter our standards toward theirs, in order to become more competitive. Remember the Olympic Athletes having to wear masks, just to walk around Beijing? No thanks.

It amazes me that whackjobs like Michelle Bachman use China as an example of ANYTHING, especially capitalism working. Shows how ignorant Americans can be.

That is one of a few areas where I disagree with Michele Bachamann whom I generally support and agree with. I'm not saying go back to where China is. In many ways, China is us before the Clean Water/Clean Air acts were implemented, and their mining safety is almost the equivalent of the early 1900's. I wouldn't advocate going that far back. China is starting to discover they can't continue doing that stuff for too much longer or regardless of the population, the sickness issues will become omnipresent and oppressive.

And the people will eventually revolt...

 

[Big Fitz]

I have clients in Beijing and Shanghai. The LAST thing I would ever want, is for us to alter our standards toward theirs, in order to become more competitive. Remember the Olympic Athletes having to wear masks, just to walk around Beijing? No thanks.

It amazes me that whackjobs like Michelle Bachman use China as an example of ANYTHING, especially capitalism working. Shows how ignorant Americans can be.

That is one of a few areas where I disagree with Michele Bachamann whom I generally support and agree with. I'm not saying go back to where China is. In many ways, China is us before the Clean Water/Clean Air acts were implemented, and their mining safety is almost the equivalent of the early 1900's. I wouldn't advocate going that far back. China is starting to discover they can't continue doing that stuff for too much longer or regardless of the population, the sickness issues will become omnipresent and oppressive.

And the people will eventually revolt...

yeah... I can't say I don't hope for that, but at the same time... I don't hope for that. May power fall from the communist's hands without the bloodshed that probably will occur.

 

[Big Fitz]

I have clients in Beijing and Shanghai. The LAST thing I would ever want, is for us to alter our standards toward theirs, in order to become more competitive. Remember the Olympic Athletes having to wear masks, just to walk around Beijing? No thanks.

It amazes me that whackjobs like Michelle Bachman use China as an example of ANYTHING, especially capitalism working. Shows how ignorant Americans can be.

That is one of a few areas where I disagree with Michele Bachamann whom I generally support and agree with. I'm not saying go back to where China is. In many ways, China is us before the Clean Water/Clean Air acts were implemented, and their mining safety is almost the equivalent of the early 1900's. I wouldn't advocate going that far back. China is starting to discover they can't continue doing that stuff for too much longer or regardless of the population, the sickness issues will become omnipresent and oppressive.

Unlike your compatriots like BriPat et.al. you have a rather amazing ability to go against both ideology and party lines. Boof.

now now... don't be too harsh on them. I can be a party hack just like anyone else.... if I had a party to hack for. I hack for ideology.

 

[The T]

That is one of a few areas where I disagree with Michele Bachamann whom I generally support and agree with. I'm not saying go back to where China is. In many ways, China is us before the Clean Water/Clean Air acts were implemented, and their mining safety is almost the equivalent of the early 1900's. I wouldn't advocate going that far back. China is starting to discover they can't continue doing that stuff for too much longer or regardless of the population, the sickness issues will become omnipresent and oppressive.

And the people will eventually revolt...

yeah... I can't say I don't hope for that, but at the same time... I don't hope for that. May power fall from the communist's hands without the bloodshed that probably will occur.

It would be better it happened as it did when the Soviet State fell...

 

[newpolitics]

This is the same kind of response people working near known carcinogenic sources get from their insurance companies when they are diagnosed with cancer and need treatment: "nothing is conclusive." this is always what lawyers always say about environmental causes for disease. it is "NEVER" industries fault... .

That's probably because thousans of nutburgers with sleazy lawyers sue insurance companies every year based on bogus science. Insurance companies base their defense on what has been proven, not what some shyster lawyer believes. They have to have their ducks in a row, otherwise they will go bankrupt.

wake up and smell the coffee. comparing man-made output of certain carcinogens to natural, earth-made outputs such as under-sea volcanic vents, aren't even in the same ballpark, litearally. We don't live near any active volcanoes spewing mercury, or deep-water oceanic vents, as far as I know, because they exist five miles under the fucking ocean. We do, however, live among many coal-fired power plants. Hence, you're figures are largely misleading, as usual, from a republican who tries to deny anthropogenic affects to global catastrophe.

The EPA isn't claiming that atmospheric Mercury is making anyone ill. It has never published any data showing that the incidence of health problems is greater in the vicinity of coal fired power plants. The EPA claims that Mercury from power plants eventually washes into the ocean and gets concentrate in fish which are then eaten, so the Mercury from natural sources such as undersea vents is highly relevant to their case.

You are assuming that underwater volcanic vents emit mercury that actually have a route or way to get from the bottom of the ocean floor, in the middle of each ocean, to somewhere near the surface and closer to the shores of continents. This is a stretch, and am willing to bet that chemical process prevent the mercury from migrating upwards and outwards and affecting our marine food supply. I'm a vegan and consider the over-fishing of our seas a joke as it is, since we are depleting our own food supply, and have resorted to fish farming which is just as cruel as factory farms, and by the way, fish do feel pain.

 

[bripat9643]

You are assuming that underwater volcanic vents emit mercury that actually have a route or way to get from the bottom of the ocean floor, in the middle of each ocean, to somewhere near the surface and closer to the shores of continents. This is a stretch, and am willing to bet that chemical process prevent the mercury from migrating upwards and outwards and affecting our marine food supply. I'm a vegan and consider the over-fishing of our seas a joke as it is, since we are depleting our own food supply, and have resorted to fish farming which is just as cruel as factory farms, and by the way, fish do feel pain.

Puhleeze. The Mercury is dissolved in water that is something like 500 degrees F. Warm water rises. It's inconceivable that the water from thermal vents would not "migrate upwards." What "chemical processes" could possibly prevent it?

Face it: You've been pawned.

 

[Listening]

Again, you sound like an insurance claims investigator. You defy common sense and argue for industry over actual people. It is quite atrocious. The fact is, mercury is harmful, very harmful to humans in even the smallest doses, therefore any output emitted by human coal power operations is going to have an effect. Any look at the evidence will prove this, with higher cancer rates among those living near or around coal power plant operations.

And you sound like Rachael Maddow. There is no common sense...there are facts and there is an understanding of what those facts mean.

You are the one who is bent on getting rid of all coal fired power plants. And if you are so concerned about pollutants, why are you not going after reformate in gasoline ?

Please provide the evidence of which you speak from a credible source.