rushmc 23 #1 January 4, 2012 QuoteEPA Cross-State Emissions Rule Delayed by Court in Victory for Producers Finally some good news http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-30/epa-cross-state-emissions-rule-delayed-by-court-in-victory-for-producers.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnay 0 #2 January 4, 2012 Yeah, god forbid we might have cleaner air. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #3 January 4, 2012 QuoteYeah, god forbid we might have cleaner air. Damn straight Nothing is better than my children and grandchildren dieing from open ozzing sores and black lungs"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #4 January 4, 2012 http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/epa_s-clean-air-act-final.pdf QuoteClean Air Act Page 1 of 16 EPA’s Clean Air Act: Pretending air pollution is worse that it is"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #5 January 4, 2012 Page 8 is of special interest to me"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #6 January 4, 2012 Rush, are there any clean air laws that you think are good? I'm asking because there has been an impact on air quality from EPA (and EPA-type) legislation. Pollution counts where I live used to be a lot higher than they are now. I understand that harnessing industry needlessly is dumb, too, but should we wait until there is a serious problem to fix it, or should we take what we hope are the best preventive measures? Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #7 January 4, 2012 QuoteRush, are there any clean air laws that you think are good? I'm asking because there has been an impact on air quality from EPA (and EPA-type) legislation. Pollution counts where I live used to be a lot higher than they are now. I understand that harnessing industry needlessly is dumb, too, but should we wait until there is a serious problem to fix it, or should we take what we hope are the best preventive measures? Wendy P. what is there to fix? That is the issue Read the attachment I posted It explains it very well"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #8 January 4, 2012 I wasn't necessarily referring to this particular piece of legislation; you're generally reliably against most of what the EPA proposes, and that's what I guess I was addressing. However, I'm not sure how the article explains away the need for this legislation. It seems to be speeding up a process that's supposed to take place by 2015 (but which I'm sure will be delayed again and again in the courts). I'm not sure how to balance the estimated of deaths averted against the jobs lost. It seems that 13,000 is just about the same as 500 jobs per utility, for 26 utilities. BUT: I'll bet that not all utilities are the same size. And, I'll bet that some of those people would have died anyway. So my question still stands. should we wait until there is a serious problem to try to fix it, or should we take what we hope are the best preventive measures? And to answer your question about what is there to fix, well, if coal-fired utilities put out the percentages listed of the pollutants listed, it sounds like it might be a good idea to try to address those pollutants via the coal-fired utilities. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #9 January 4, 2012 QuoteI wasn't necessarily referring to this particular piece of legislation; you're generally reliably against most of what the EPA proposes, and that's what I guess I was addressing. However, I'm not sure how the article explains away the need for this legislation. It seems to be speeding up a process that's supposed to take place by 2015 (but which I'm sure will be delayed again and again in the courts). I'm not sure how to balance the estimated of deaths averted against the jobs lost. It seems that 13,000 is just about the same as 500 jobs per utility, for 26 utilities. BUT: I'll bet that not all utilities are the same size. And, I'll bet that some of those people would have died anyway. So my question still stands. should we wait until there is a serious problem to try to fix it, or should we take what we hope are the best preventive measures? Wendy P. Just in case????? Come on! And my question stands Wendy! To fix what? I am for common sense but this is a where does it stop scenario. How much is enough? It is ok to destroy jobs for a just in case? My opinion is this. The rules are agenda based Science has little to do with it If it does why hide the data and research? As for the deaths please go to page 8 and start there I am still waiting for the death cert that says “killed by power plant pollution” Oh, and BTW, did you see the latest study that says the majority of childhood asthma is Form Tylenol? 1900 kids studied and air quality had little to do with it Interesting?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShcShc11 0 #10 January 4, 2012 Quote My opinion is this. The rules are agenda based Science has little to do with it If it does why hide the data and research? And that's where people keep getting wrong. The numbers are there yet the crazies just ignore it and say "they don't exist". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #11 January 4, 2012 Quote Quote My opinion is this. The rules are agenda based Science has little to do with it If it does why hide the data and research? And that's where people keep getting wrong. The numbers are there yet the crazies just ignore it and say "they don't exist". If they were valid there would be no argurment Hence the situtatio we are in"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #12 January 4, 2012 >It is ok to destroy jobs for a just in case? Yes. It is OK to destroy jobs if it saves lives. >I am still waiting for the death cert that says “killed by power plant pollution” HSPH study, 2000: 159 people a year killed by two coal power plants in Massachusetts Abt associates study, 2004: ~20,000 people a year killed by particulate pollution from coal power plants National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine study, 2007 - ~20,000 people a year killed by particulate emissions in the US World Health Organization study, 2007 - 161 deaths for every terawatt-hour of coal power produced Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #13 January 4, 2012 Quote>It is ok to destroy jobs for a just in case? Yes. It is OK to destroy jobs if it saves lives.which it will not >I am still waiting for the death cert that says “killed by power plant pollution” HSPH study, 2000: 159 people a year killed by two coal power plants in Massachusettswhat killed them? Abt associates study, 2004: ~20,000 people a year killed by particulate pollution from coal power plantsIn what country, not our for sure National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine study, 2007 - ~20,000 people a year killed by particulate emissions in the US World Health Organization study, 2007 - 161 deaths for every terawatt-hour of coal power producedYep, same bs referenced in the link I provided"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #14 January 4, 2012 >>HSPH study, 2000: 159 people a year killed by two coal power plants in >>Massachusetts >what killed them? Heart attacks, emphysema, COPD and lung cancer. >Yep, same bs referenced in the link I provided So - the Harvard School of Public Health, a private research company, the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health organization are all bullshit? And the source you trust for your science information is . . . a FOX News commentator? Interesting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #15 January 4, 2012 Quote>>HSPH study, 2000: 159 people a year killed by two coal power plants in >>Massachusetts >what killed them? Heart attacks, emphysema, COPD and lung cancer.people die of these every day. Show the proof of the link? Never mind, I know there is only speculation >Yep, same bs referenced in the link I provided So - the Harvard School of Public Health, a private research company, the National Academy of Sciences and the World Health organization are all bullshit? And the source you trust for your science information is . . . a FOX News commentator? Interesting. Did you read the link? And they are no more credible in this type of study than anyone else Just cause they say it does not make it true At least to anyone who thinks for themselves"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #16 January 4, 2012 >people die of these every day. Yes. And 20,000 of them each year are due to particulate pollution. >And they are no more credible in this type of study than anyone else So again - you think a FOX News commentator (one who thinks Mad Cow health risks are a government conspiracy) is just as credible as the Harvard School of Public Health, the World Health Organization and the National Academy of Sciences when it comes to public health issues? >At least to anyone who thinks for themselves Yep, it's great to think for yourself. It's also important to be able to learn from others so you don't have to (for example) die of lung cancer to learn of the risks of smoking. And when learning from others it is wise to learn from credible sources. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #17 January 4, 2012 Wendy asked a simple question - do you support any efforts to clean up air pollution? Because she's right - there's a substantial difference (in the positive) between what we had int the 80s and what we have now. It's very measurable in California. Your objections mirror those in that era to the T. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #18 January 4, 2012 Have I ever mentioned how much I love the negative correlation between an environmental science background and opposition to the EPA? It's so cute, I just wanna put it in my pocket. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #19 January 4, 2012 QuoteHave I ever mentioned how much I love the negative correlation between an environmental science background and opposition to the EPA? It's so cute, I just wanna put it in my pocket. Blues, Dave Got something to contribute to the conversation, or was the slam on rush the only thing you had?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #20 January 4, 2012 QuoteWendy asked a simple question - do you support any efforts to clean up air pollution? Because she's right - there's a substantial difference (in the positive) between what we had int the 80s and what we have now. It's very measurable in California. Your objections mirror those in that era to the T. Of course I want polluted air I want my kids and grand kids sick and dieing"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #21 January 4, 2012 >Of course I want polluted air You're in luck, then. This ruling will guarantee more polluted air. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #22 January 4, 2012 Quote>Of course I want polluted air You're in luck, then. This ruling will guarantee more polluted air. All is good then"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #23 January 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteWendy asked a simple question - do you support any efforts to clean up air pollution? Because she's right - there's a substantial difference (in the positive) between what we had int the 80s and what we have now. It's very measurable in California. Your objections mirror those in that era to the T. Of course I want polluted air I want my kids and grand kids sick and dieing your refusal to answer her question is noted. Given that, I'll just take your answer literally and be done with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #24 January 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteWendy asked a simple question - do you support any efforts to clean up air pollution? Because she's right - there's a substantial difference (in the positive) between what we had int the 80s and what we have now. It's very measurable in California. Your objections mirror those in that era to the T. Of course I want polluted air I want my kids and grand kids sick and dieing your refusal to answer her question is noted. Given that, I'll just take your answer literally and be done with it. Note what ever you want There is nothing to answer Read the second attachement then come on back That or frame the question differently You and Wendy insuate that I want dirty air and water Note that I reject that premise"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #25 January 4, 2012 >You and Wendy insuate that I want dirty air and water No need to insinuate anything. You support a ruling that results in dirtier air. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
