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.
I want the new guy to walk in and demad resignations from every single person working for the EPA with an attached essay on their philosophy of environmental protection and global warming.
if their views are out of line, accept their resignation.
being a believer that we are all dead from CO2 in 50 years means you no longer work for the government.
This is key. There needs to be a major accounting of who exactly is running our Federal Government.
The author of the article complains about the ban of asbestos. He lists the National Labor Relations Board and the TSA as enemies of the private sector. I'd say the author is a bit outside the mainstream. Perhaps he is an ideological radical?
From J. Gordon Edwards, Ph.D. Professor of Biology at San Jose State University.
In his final 113-page decision issued on April 25, 1972, Hearing Examiner Edmund Sweeney wrote: “DDT is not a carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic hazard to man. The uses under regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on fresh water fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife...and...there is a present need for essential uses of DDT.”
This decision, however, was overruled by EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus, who never attended a single day of the seven months of DDT hearings. In his 40-page Final Opinion, handed down on June 2, 1972, he omitted most scientific data, misnamed the major chemicals involved, and proposed that farmers “should use organophosphates, like carbaryl, instead.” (Carbaryl is not an organophosphate). He also recommended substituting parathion, a very deadly chemical, for DDT.5 8 He later wrote that “in such decisions the ultimate judgement remains political” (W. Ruckelshaus, letter to American Farm Bureau President Allan Grant, April 26, 1979).
What cracks me up about this whole argument is nobody mentions the REST of the world when it comes to environmental issues.
We as a nation are spotlessly clean compared to most of the rest of the world we live on. So, even if we stopped all things considered "bad" we'd STILL have to live with the pollution that other places are spewing out, not to mention the planet itself.
Of course maybe not if the enviro-whacko's believe air/water recognize borders and stop at them?
What we need to do is roll back some of the more onerous regulations and then stand pat while doing are best to encourage places like Mexico,China,Japan,Pakistan,India and others to just come up to what we've done so far.
That in and of itself would keep many people busy for years to come...
As for loopy regulations, in CA (or course it's CA ) there's been a long standing regulation on auto repair/machine shops about their parts cleaning tanks. Most have a chain/parts basket to SAFELY lower the parts into the tank (CA regulation, can't use good old hands to place the parts in). If that parts basket raises out of the tank at a rate faster than what's regulated it's a clean air violation as the chain leaving the cleaning fluid could release droplets/vapor if it's raised too quickly.
Shame on the EPA for these specific abuses. Perhaps we need a better system of "checks and balances" in government agencies.
But that's no reason to have an ideological opposition to the EPA and its purpose. We need regulations to protect people from pollution.
Except not a single employee of the EPA, nor the kook-in-charge, Gina McCarthy has been fired. Ever.
There is absolutely no accountability in these Federal agencies. If you can't admit that, there is no reasoning with you.
This agency occupation by political hacks can't be simply tuned-up. It needs a few sticks of dynamite to get the message across.
Stay tuned.
You do realize that the people that own these "big businesses" drink the same water and breath the same air you do, right? Do you really think that they want to harm the environment? We need some common sense and balance in environmental regulations. There are areas where we have gone far enough, and are well past the point of diminishing returns in terms of cost vs benefit. While there are areas where we can improve. The EPA, particularly under Obama, has gone from an organization that protects the environment to one that putatively promotes politics and attacks lifestyles.
They don't necessarily drink the same water and breath the same air. I live in a poor area in S. Texas full of dirty industries. We have a Chinese-owned pipe company and an Austrian-owned hot briquetted iron manufacturer. Those are in addition to the giant refineries owned by the Koch brothers and others like them. The owners of these companies don't live and work here. They're far away from the stinking emissions and if runoff pollutes the water, they won't have to worry about it.
The EPA keeps companies like these in check so they don't **** where the rest of us eat.
We need regulations to protect people from pollution.
We need regulations that are balanced and practical. You can't protect people and the environment from all pollutants without significant other negative impacts, including on their health. Energy is the cornerstone of any modern society, it's use is what separates us from third world countries. The cheaper it is the more prosperous a society is and that includes health benefits.
In his final 113-page decision issued on April 25, 1972, Hearing Examiner Edmund Sweeney wrote: “DDT is not a carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic hazard to man. The uses under regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on fresh water fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife...and...there is a present need for essential uses of DDT.”
This decision, however, was overruled by EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus, who never attended a single day of the seven months of DDT hearings. In his 40-page Final Opinion, handed down on June 2, 1972, he omitted most scientific data, misnamed the major chemicals involved, and proposed that farmers “should use organophosphates, like carbaryl, instead.” (Carbaryl is not an organophosphate). He also recommended substituting parathion, a very deadly chemical, for DDT.5 8 He later wrote that “in such decisions the ultimate judgement remains political” (W. Ruckelshaus, letter to American Farm Bureau President Allan Grant, April 26, 1979).
Well?
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.
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.
