U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-11-2012, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Mountain Home, ID
1,955 posts, read 2,895,952 times
Reputation: 2403

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Shut your computer off and stop contributing to polluting of the air and poisoning peoples food.

Seriously, how old are you?
I live in an area that gets its power from hydroelectric dams. So I don't have to worry about causing mercury pollution. The mercury in my area comes drifting across the state borders.

How old are you? Ten?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-11-2012, 12:44 PM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
27,609 posts, read 15,237,535 times
Reputation: 21030
Quote:
Originally Posted by LIS123 View Post
Every single person who voted for Obama deserves to be unemployed for the rest of their life b/c they voted to destroy the Economy. It's a shame that most Obama supporters that have jobs won't lose them, but all Obama supporters who lose their jobs deserve it and should never be offered employment again. Those who voted for Obama (knowingly or not) voted for economic ruin and deserve to suffer the consequences just like those in California who voted in a (D) supermajority and keep reelecting left-wing (D) by ever-growing margins.
So . . let me see if I understand your position: EVER SINGLE PERSON WHO BELIEVES DIFFERENTLY FROM ME AND DID NOT VOTE FOR MY CANDIDATE DESERVES TO LOSE THEIR JOB AND/OR DIE.

Typical RW extremist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2012, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Mountain Home, ID
1,955 posts, read 2,895,952 times
Reputation: 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
We need practical and sane environmental regulations and reductions of 1% to 10% that will raise IQ's 2/1000 of one point is nether practical or sane. You need to accept that if you want to live in modern society with all the conveniences a modern society offers there is going to be environmental issues. If you don't want to accept that we can always go live in a cave....

I'm going to add one last point here. Mercury is a global issue and these regulations will increase the cost of doing business here driving in more business overseas to China. You could in fact see more mercury in the environment.
Where did you get the 1 to 10% number, anyway? According to the EPA, mercury emissions from power plants would go down 90%

Cleaner Power Plants | Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for Power Plants | US EPA

And here are some other statistics from the agency, courtesy of Time:

Quote:
The public health benefits are impressive: the agency said the rules will prevent some 11,000 premature deaths a year and 130,000 childhood asthma symptoms. The costs may sound high—the EPA estimates the price of complying with the regulations will run to $11 billion a year—but the rules should reduce health costs by preventing asthma, hospital visits and premature deaths at a much higher return, as Eileen Claussen of the NGO C2ES said:

These investments will pay important dividends by reducing health costs by $37-90 billion in 2016 alone.
The EPA Unveils New Rules to Cut Mercury Pollution from Coal Power Plants | TIME.com

Coal fired power plants are the largest source of mercury pollution. The other sources (municipal combustion and medical waste incinerators) have already been subject to regulation, and their pollution levels decreased by 95%.

Newer power plants already meet the regulations. The industry has just been dragging their feet upgrading the older, dirtier plants that spew the most pollution because apparently money is more important than peoples' health.

Why am I not surprised that the Republican stance is apparently "We're pro-life, but we think it's OK for babies to be exposed to mercury in the womb because it would cost our donors too much money to reduce emissions."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2012, 01:47 PM
 
4,176 posts, read 5,325,720 times
Reputation: 1843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1 View Post
So . . let me see if I understand your position: EVER SINGLE PERSON WHO BELIEVES DIFFERENTLY FROM ME AND DID NOT VOTE FOR MY CANDIDATE DESERVES TO LOSE THEIR JOB AND/OR DIE.

Typical RW extremist.
It's not b/c Obama supporters opposed Romney that they deserve to be unemployed for the rest of their lives. It's b/c they voted for a radical left-wing Communist (Democracy comes out on top on Nov. 6 » cpusa) who is destroying the economy.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who supported Obama in 2012 voted for perpetual unemployment. The sad part is, that most of them won't be unemployed the rest of their lives. For the Obama supporters who do lose their jobs... joke's on you! You wanted it, you got it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2012, 03:05 PM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
27,609 posts, read 15,237,535 times
Reputation: 21030
Quote:
Originally Posted by LIS123 View Post
It's not b/c Obama supporters opposed Romney that they deserve to be unemployed for the rest of their lives. It's b/c they voted for a radical left-wing Communist (Democracy comes out on top on Nov. 6 » cpusa) who is destroying the economy.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who supported Obama in 2012 voted for perpetual unemployment. The sad part is, that most of them won't be unemployed the rest of their lives. For the Obama supporters who do lose their jobs... joke's on you! You wanted it, you got it!
Again with the waterworks and sky is falling typical right-wing extremist. Here is what I hear:

YOU DIDN'T VOTE FOR MY CANDIDATE! MY CANDIDATE DIDN'T WIN! THEREFORE THE WORLD IS ENDING AND THE SKY IS FALLING AND I HOPE YOU ALL DIE AND GO TO HELL.

Yep. That about sums it up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2012, 03:50 PM
 
37,072 posts, read 38,566,879 times
Reputation: 14846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesster View Post
I live in an area that gets its power from hydroelectric dams. So I don't have to worry about causing mercury pollution. The mercury in my area comes drifting across the state borders.

How old are you? Ten?
You need to do some research on mercury instead of making assumptions. Most of the mercury you are consuming is going to be from other countries, primarily China. This is not a localized issue.

Quote:
Fact Sheet - Final Rule | Clean Air Mercury Rule | US EPA


Mercury Emissions: A Global Problem
  • Mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants comes from mercury in coal, which is released when the coal is burned. While coal-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated mercury emissions in the United States, they contribute very little to the global mercury pool. Recent estimates of annual total global mercury emissions from all sources -- both natural and human-generated -- range from roughly 4,400 to 7,500 tons per year. Human-caused U.S. mercury emissions are estimated to account for roughly 3 percent of the global total, and U.S. coal-fired power plants are estimated to account for only about 1 percent.
  • EPA has conducted extensive analyses on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants and subsequent regional patterns of deposition to U.S. waters. Those analyses conclude that regional transport of mercury emission from coal-fired power plants in the U.S. is responsible for very little of the mercury in U.S. waters. That small contribution will be significantly reduced after EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule and Clean Air Mercury Rule are implemented.
    • U.S. coal-fired power plants emit mercury in three different forms: oxidized mercury (likely to deposit within the U.S.); elemental mercury, which travels hundreds and thousands of miles before depositing to land and water; and mercury that is in particulate form.
    • Because mercury can be transported thousands of miles in the atmosphere, and because many types of fish are caught and sold globally, effective exposure reduction will require reductions in global emissions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2012, 03:55 PM
 
Location: On the border of off the grid
3,180 posts, read 2,593,256 times
Reputation: 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by msamhunter View Post
I'll admit, i like clean energy. I love seeing the windmills producing energy and would put my own up if i had the 10k to do it. Ive talked to people with them and they love it. Literally no electeic bill from the ones i have personally talked to. With so much open land, we could put many windmill farms up. Indiana has 2 that i know of.
Why do you hate bald eagles, our national bird? Eagle hater!

Wind Power And Bald Eagles Tangle Again | Earthtechling
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2012, 03:57 PM
 
Location: On the border of off the grid
3,180 posts, read 2,593,256 times
Reputation: 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1 View Post
Again with the waterworks and sky is falling typical right-wing extremist. Here is what I hear:

YOU DIDN'T VOTE FOR MY CANDIDATE! MY CANDIDATE DIDN'T WIN! THEREFORE THE WORLD IS ENDING AND THE SKY IS FALLING AND I HOPE YOU ALL DIE AND GO TO HELL.

Yep. That about sums it up.
Well, you may not be going to hell, I'm thinking purgatory might be more appropriate, but expect to get fleas when you lie down with dogs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2012, 04:03 PM
 
37,072 posts, read 38,566,879 times
Reputation: 14846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesster View Post
Where did you get the 1 to 10% number, anyway? According to the EPA, mercury emissions from power plants would go down 90%
Deposition rates and emission rates are two completely different things because again this is a global issue, most of the emissions from US plants are not deposited inside the US. They enter the global cycle. You could eliminate all mercury emissions from coal fired power plants here in the US and since it's only 1% of the global pool it will have a negligible effect:

Quote:

Economic Valuation of Human Health Benefits of Controlling Mercury Emissions from U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plants

Changes in mercury deposition rates associated with reductions in power plant
mercury emissions are based on regional deposition modeling results from the EPA's
analysis of the Clear Skies Initiative. In its analysis, the EPA simulated current mercury
deposition rates and the changes in these rates that would result if power plants
reduced their mercury emissions from the current rate of 49 tons per year to either 26 or
15 tons per year. We used these predictions to estimate changes in deposition rates for
the freshwater regions, the Atlantic Coastal Region, and the Gulf of Mexico. Estimated
decreases range from approximately 1% to 10%.
The change in deposition rates to the
All Other Waters region is assumed to be proportional to the change in total global
emissions that would result from U.S. power plant emissions reductions, which is less
than 1%.
Note that study is from a pro environmental organization. And while we're on the topic here's the link for EPA estimates on the IQ.

Quote:

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards


The average effect on individual avoided IQ loss in 2016 is 0.00209 IQ points, with total nationwide benefits estimated between $0.5 and $6.1 million.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2012, 04:20 PM
 
37,072 posts, read 38,566,879 times
Reputation: 14846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesster View Post

And here are some other statistics from the agency, courtesy of Time:
Did you miss my post on how those statistics are drawn up? When they say


Quote:
the agency said the rules will prevent some 11,000 premature deaths a year and 130,000 childhood asthma symptoms
This is an assumption based on model that even they admit questionable. Every particle of pollution is considered equally as dangerous. I've explained it above how they arrive at these numbers:

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
You ever wonder how they arrive at those numbers? They use what is called linear dose assessment that assumes every particle of pollution is equally as dangerous. For example they did a study on ladder falls, suppose the results of this study show if 20 people fall off a 20 foot ladder 10 of them die.

From there they extrapolate and for every 400 feet a population is too fall 10 are going to die. If forty people fall off a ladder 10 feet high 10 still die. If 400 people fall off a ladder 1 foot high 10 still die. If millions fall off a crack in the sidewalk 10 still die.
On the topic specifically about asthma consider the following. We've reduced the six most common air pollutants 63% since the 80's yet asthma cases have risen in that same time?



If you want my personal opinion it's caused by three things; much more energy efficient houses that trap indoor air pollution, the use of ducted heating instead of the traditional hydronic and these are both compounded by kids spending so much time indoors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top