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.
while i recognize that the EPA has done some good things for this country, i do like drinking clean water and breathing clean air, there is a tipping point where the agency goes from being effective to being draconian. they have reached that tipping point.
I fear they don't realize that. They just see "coal" and all coal is the same...dirty, smelly and air polluting and we need to eradicate its usage.
(I've read plenty of your posts explaining this and it did educate me. Thank you).
Actaully it is from coal power plants and factories. He just made that up.
But I thought the solution to all of our problems was to simply let polluters pollute and there wouldn't ever be a health cost to anyone. That's what Republicans have been claiming for decades now.
Yep, you are so insightful and intelligent. I myslef have been saying that as a Republican for years. It is our credo and we recite it at the beginning of all our meetings.
But I thought the solution to all of our problems was to simply let polluters pollute and there wouldn't ever be a health cost to anyone. That's what Republicans have been claiming for decades now.
And how does US politics related to China ? Stretching aren't you ?
The very same coal Republicans claim we need to use here to be "cost competitive".
Very few people in the US use coal for heat or cooking in a residential setting and those that do use anthracite which produces no soot. When you pile a couple million people into a small area with a large portion of them are using soft coal in residential stoves that have absolutely no pollution control and then pile onto that industries with little to no pollution control the result is what you're going to see in China.
The PM or particulate matter allowed to be emitted into the atmosphere is already regulated by the EPA and has been for years. This cost money and is an acceptable expenditure of funds but there is point of diminishing returns and we are way beyond that already.
Last edited by thecoalman; 02-01-2013 at 05:54 PM..
The recent mercury regulations will decrease mercury deposition rates in the US from 1% to 10% resulting in the average IQ increasing an estimated 2/1000 of one point. That's acceptable?
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%.
The recent mercury regulations will decrease mercury deposition rates in the US from 1% to 10% resulting in the average IQ increasing an estimated 2/1000 of one point. That's acceptable?
Good deal. Let's also add sulfar to that list of why coal is generally bad.
Good deal. Let's also add sulfar to that list of why coal is generally bad.
2/1000 of one point is a good deal?
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.