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.
Before the EPA I think the band DEEP PURPLE wrote a song called "SMOKE ON THE WATER". The song was about the Ohio river catching on fire from being so polluted. Correct me if i am wrong. What will be the outcome if they get rid of the EPA? The EPA does need to be reined in i think but getting rid of it would be stupid. Jut look at how polLuted these cities are today. What will they look like in a few years without the EPA?
Fresno may be known as the "Raisin Capital," but the city is also regularly near the bottom of any list on air pollution. The city's congestion, traffic and industry all contribute to air pollution, as do the geographical constraints it shares with the rest of the southern California smog belt. Over 75,000 of Fresno's 900,000 people suffer from asthma, and another 25,000 suffer from chronic bronchitis.
But pollution is still a major problem — an estimated 47,000 children in the greater Pittsburgh area suffer from asthma. Meanwhile most Americans probably think of San Diego as a southern California paradise. But heavy traffic congestion on its highways — as well as localized pollution from the city's busy port — can turn the air brown, especially during rush hour. San Diego averages nearly 30 days of unhealthy ozone levels each year — though like Pittsburgh, the air has improved in recent years
I am totally against getting rid of the EPA which makes it a problem for me. I am a huge proenvironmentalist and the GOP or the Tea Party doesn't seems to recognize that we have to protect our environment or we will become a dead planet. But, I am definitely not in lockstep with the Democrats. I heard Herman Cain say he would get rid of the EPA, I thought. I know we need to do away with the Dept of Energy and possibly the Dept of Education. For me, it poses a real problem.......
Oh no, if we ban the EPA the kids might be tempted to drink the anti-freeze in the garage!
The EPA is useless. What was their solution to the Fukushima plant blowing up? Instead of taking measures to reduce contamination, all the EPA did was wave a magic wand and revised upwards the safe limit for radiation exposure. Really? Like raising the limit is gonna make it less toxic!
Before the EPA I think the band DEEP PURPLE wrote a song called "SMOKE ON THE WATER". The song was about the Ohio river catching on fire from being so polluted. Correct me if i am wrong. What will be the outcome if they get rid of the EPA? The EPA does need to be reined in i think but getting rid of it would be stupid. Jut look at how polLuted these cities are today. What will they look like in a few years without the EPA?
Fresno may be known as the "Raisin Capital," but the city is also regularly near the bottom of any list on air pollution. The city's congestion, traffic and industry all contribute to air pollution, as do the geographical constraints it shares with the rest of the southern California smog belt. Over 75,000 of Fresno's 900,000 people suffer from asthma, and another 25,000 suffer from chronic bronchitis.
But pollution is still a major problem — an estimated 47,000 children in the greater Pittsburgh area suffer from asthma. Meanwhile most Americans probably think of San Diego as a southern California paradise. But heavy traffic congestion on its highways — as well as localized pollution from the city's busy port — can turn the air brown, especially during rush hour. San Diego averages nearly 30 days of unhealthy ozone levels each year — though like Pittsburgh, the air has improved in recent years
The song Smoke On The Water was about a The Casino in Montreaux, Switzerland burning down because of some overzealous Frank Zappa and the Mothers fans aka "some stupid with a flare gun burned the place to the ground".
"The lyrics actually tell the story of the recording of Machine Head . Deep Purple were originally all set to record the album at the Casino in Montreux, Switzerland. They were just awaiting a Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention concert to be held before the recording could begin. But the Casino burnt down during the concert, after some stupid had fired a flare gun into the Casino's ceiling. (Purple were in the audience. The actual Zappa concert has turned up on one of the Beat the Boots (http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/%7Esplat/swisscheese.html - broken link) discs, I think.)
They ended up at the Grand Hotel, closed for the winter season, where the recording eventually commenced during December 1971. They recorded the album with the Rolling Stones Mobile Studio, also mentioned in the lyrics."
I am totally against getting rid of the EPA which makes it a problem for me. I am a huge proenvironmentalist and the GOP or the Tea Party doesn't seems to recognize that we have to protect our environment or we will become a dead planet. But, I am definitely not in lockstep with the Democrats. I heard Herman Cain say he would get rid of the EPA, I thought. I know we need to do away with the Dept of Energy and possibly the Dept of Education. For me, it poses a real problem.......
I'm always afraid to say aloud "get rid of something" because once
that is done e.g. Dept. of Education when Reagan said
get rid of it -the agency just got bigger, as was the same with Bush Jr... and so on....
Whether your against getting rid of the EPA or not - I think we can
all agree - it needs to be "toned down a bit" and I'm not just talking
about a friendly tone with farmers
The EPA is just another Federal agency that has
overstepped it's bounds: financially, regulation wise with NO accountability.
Maybe if I say it needs expanding, Congress will make it disappear
Oh no, if we ban the EPA the kids might be tempted to drink the anti-freeze in the garage!
The EPA is useless. What was their solution to the Fukushima plant blowing up? Instead of taking measures to reduce contamination, all the EPA did was wave a magic wand and revised upwards the safe limit for radiation exposure. Really? Like raising the limit is gonna make it less toxic!
Its not that children will be tempted to drink anti-freeze, its that companies would be tempted to dump tannery waste in the rivers that supply childern with water, and why shouldn't they be if it is cheaper and we eliminate the one thing that comes vaguely close to attempting to enforce environmental laws.
Oh no, if we ban the EPA the kids might be tempted to drink the anti-freeze in the garage!
The EPA is useless. What was their solution to the Fukushima plant blowing up? Instead of taking measures to reduce contamination, all the EPA did was wave a magic wand and revised upwards the safe limit for radiation exposure. Really? Like raising the limit is gonna make it less toxic!
So you say, UNTIL some company descides your property is a good place to dump their toxic waste, heck they don't even have to use your property just something nearby. You would be singing another toon at that point.
I am totally against getting rid of the EPA which makes it a problem for me. I am a huge proenvironmentalist and the GOP or the Tea Party doesn't seems to recognize that we have to protect our environment or we will become a dead planet. But, I am definitely not in lockstep with the Democrats. I heard Herman Cain say he would get rid of the EPA, I thought. I know we need to do away with the Dept of Energy and possibly the Dept of Education. For me, it poses a real problem.......
You don't need all these Federal departments when you have the states taking care of it. It is just a big fat waste and duplication of effort.
Bachman would need to get rid of a lot more than just the EPA before I'd consider voting for her, How about the Federal Reserve Bank? How about The Patriot Act? How about the FDA? How about the IRS? How about most of the other federal departments of government like Homeland Security and the TSA?
Its not that children will be tempted to drink anti-freeze, its that companies would be tempted to dump tannery waste in the rivers that supply childern with water, and why shouldn't they be if it is cheaper and we eliminate the one thing that comes vaguely close to attempting to enforce environmental laws.
And it happens anyway.
The deal is, that is what courts are for. Litigate the harm and damages.
So you say, UNTIL some company descides your property is a good place to dump their toxic waste, heck they don't even have to use your property just something nearby. You would be singing another toon at that point.
Because the people you elect cannot enforce property laws you want big government to do it? You have a much better chance at going after the locals than someone in Washington.
Government wont enforce laws, so the answer is more laws and more government?
Government "This time we really mean it".
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.
