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.
The thesis of this thread is that all regulations are bad and if a regulation adds a single penny to the product cost it's a bad regulation, regardless of the benefit of that regulation. What I read into this scare tactic, is that unless we get rid of all these regulations, we're going to freeze in the dark -- which leads us into the hypocrisy of conservative thought that says it believes that the free market can overcome obstacles and innovate around them. But it's really clear that if they really, really have faith in the market system, these regulations should be no obstacle for the innovations of industry.
More likely, this just another electoral scare tactic.
The GOP would do well to remember the warning of Maine Republican Margaret Chase Smith, who worried in 1950 that her party was trying to achieve victory on "the Four Horsemen of Calumny -- Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.
The thesis of this thread is that all regulations are bad and if a regulation adds a single penny to the product cost it's a bad regulation, regardless of the benefit of that regulation.
Well according to the EPA the new mercury rules will raise IQ an average of 2/1000 of a point, what do you think the error percentage is on that number? Another study based on EPA numbers suggests mercury deposition in the US will drop 1% to 10%
Well according to the EPA the new mercury rules will raise IQ an average of 2/1000 of a point, what do you think the error percentage is on that number? Another study based on EPA numbers suggests mercury deposition in the US will drop 1% to 10%
Yay team!
And we know that those are the only metrics we should use to evaluate the benefits of less mercury in our bodies and in our environment.
GREAT, the coal industry needs to die off, clean coal is a lie. With the price of Nat gas there is little need for coal.
And what exactly do you suppose will happen to the price of natural gas when demand skyrockets?
Economically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Has it occurred to you or the President and Ms. Jackson that the natural gas boom is because of fracking?.
Oooops.
Touche!
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
If you really like corporatism, then go ahead believe their propaganda. You'll get what you deserve.
Well, let's see, who to believe, the EPA, Jarillo, or the Royal Academy?
You see, natural gas escapes into the atmosphere during any number of phases of its life-cycle as a fuel for electric power plants.
The EPA says 1%, Jarillo 2% and the Royal Academy (London) puts it at 2%-4%.
Note that as a Greenhouse Gas, natural gas is 24x more powerful and destructive than CO2.
So while it appears that overall, natural gas puts less CO2 in the atmosphere than coal, it puts more methane than coal ever could, and methane is more damaging, so I would question the wisdom of such a stupid decision.
Corporately...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
Maybe you are still sleeping through Fukashima's fall-out?
What fallout? A can of coffee is more dangerous than Funkymama fallout.
Quote:
The U.S. has 71,862 tons of the waste, according to state-by-state numbers obtained by The Associated Press.
Well, that is a problem for fission reactors. That's what rockets are for. Put the waste on rockets and send it into space toward some distant star. That'll be the end of that.
I guess it's a good thing that the Environmentally-challenged Dynamic Duo of Clinton-Gore cancelled all government spending on research for Integral Fast Reactors.
There is no waste with fusion reactors. What little waste product that is created is actually fuel for other fusion reactors, so you can obtain tremendous cost-savings by not having to create the fuel, since the reactor does that for you.
The IFRs also had technology that would prevent nuclear weapons proliferation.
And then China, India and Iran are also working on thorium reactors and the US is...what? still fumbling around with stupid stuff.
I agree. "London Fog" is so romantic! *cough cough hack cough*
The reason for the dense smog in London and other European cities is because of local natural variables and they were using a low grade soft coal to heat homes and buildings, the carbon content might be 50% to 80%. This burns with a yellow flame and the volatiles which is the content other that carbon is not consumed producing a sooty black smoke.
In the US, primarily the Northeast and cities along the east coast anthracite which is the highest grade of coal was the primary fuel especially for heating purposes. Anthracite is not that common and only found a few places in the world, Northeastern Pennsylvania is one of them You didn't have millions of people in these cities using soft coal for heat. Soft coal was relegated to uses in industry. It's still used for heat today with nearly all of anthracite production being used for home heating. It's quite suitable even for a close urban environment.
Anthracite is nearly pure carbon and burns with a nice blue flame which is an indication of complete combustion, there is no sooty black smoke produced by anthracite hence the reason you won't find images of eastern US cities like NYC, Philly, etc during the same time period cloaked in a black smog from coal.
Well according to the EPA the new mercury rules will raise IQ an average of 2/1000 of a point, what do you think the error percentage is on that number? Another study based on EPA numbers suggests mercury deposition in the US will drop 1% to 10%
That's a far different story than the OP posted in post #1:
Quote:
The report, titled, Economy Derailed: State-by-State Impacts of the EPA Regulatory Train Wreck, found that jobs are the target of many of the EPA’s regulations.
The target is not to "kill jobs." The target is to reduce toxic chemicals from the environment for the protection of people.
What you are arguing is the amount the EPA scientists want to drop mercury is excessive. So, you basically disagree with the amount not that the EPA shouldn't regulate.
Not being a scientist in this field, I have no idea what the safe and appropriate mercury contamination level should be -- and I suspect the same is true for you.
My take is that even if the rule is excessive, which I haven't conceded, I'd rather error on the side of safety, instead of reading 15 years from now how local children have the IQ of a banana because of mistakes that we made today.
That's a far different story than the OP posted in post #1:
The target is not to "kill jobs." The target is to reduce toxic chemicals from the environment for the protection of people.
That's a matter of interpretation but I would concede that no one is going to specifically target jobs, those losses will be the unintended consequences with those pushing this legislation knowing full well that is going to happen..
Quote:
What you are arguing is the amount the EPA scientists want to drop mercury is excessive. So, you basically disagree with the amount not that the EPA shouldn't regulate.
No what I'm arguing is the regualtions that will only effect mercury emissions within this country will have a negligible impact on deposition within the US and outside of it, those arguments are based on EPA documentation and others. You could eliminate all mercury emissions from man made sources within the US and still be in nearly the same boat you were before. This is global issue, emissions are not confined locally. As long as you have China spewing out huge quantities anything you do here has little impact. As I've argued before because of the increased cost in electricity you could in fact drive them up as more manufacturing jobs go overseas.
Quote:
Not being a scientist in this field, I have no idea what the safe and appropriate mercury contamination level should be -- and I suspect the same is true for you.
I'm not a scientist but I've read a lot on the topic and it's not hard for me to understand complex issues. I'm not trying to brag but on the Iowa tests I scored in the 98 percentile for reading comprehension.
Last edited by thecoalman; 04-27-2012 at 07:07 AM..
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.
