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.
Because I'm not a paranoid anti-government wacko nor a rabidly partisan truth-hater.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gretsky99
Atleast people will freeze to death with clean lungs!
Not even the most vapid right-wing rags are claiming that people will "freeze to death". But heck, thanks for demonstrating what I speculated earlier...
Quote:
But don't expect right-wingers to actually care about people's lives and health more than money
There is apparently no depths some will go to to oppose a compromise that benefits people they hate more than they believe it benefits themselves and their descendants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed
Why do they want us to be so much like China with a trashed, polluted environment?
I doubt they're thinking it through that far. The right-wing approach to these issues is to insulate themselves from truth that despoils their desire to act on their preference for callous disregard for others and the promise of their own self-gratification.
"These new standards will avert up to 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks and 130,000 asthma attacks every year."
One of the wealthier neighborhoods in New York City is the Upper East Side of Manhattan, which is very congested area loaded with trucks and buses. A jam packed highway (FDR drive) is located on its eastern boundary.
This is the land of the 90-year old and 100-year old still-healthy ladies who lived in the neighborhood most of their lives. This included the decades when apartment buildings burned their garbage, cars used leaded gasoline and belched out blue smoke (one car from 1970 polluted as much as 20 cars pollute today), and pollution from nearby New Jersey gasoline refineries blew over from the west. Smog alerts in the 1960's and 1970's were not unusual.
Given that these women lived in environmental circumstances that were far worse than 99% of American live in today, you would think given the propaganda spewed out by the EPA that they would have dropped dead long ago, instead of being able to take long walks in Central Park, wouldn't you?
No your just a down to earth typical fanatical government can do all!
A ridiculously lame retort, given that, as I pointed out in the messages earlier in the thread, which you either failed to read or are not permitting yourself to acknowledge, the standards could have been a lot more stringent. This is a compromise between the patently self-centered perspective that you favor and that patently society-centered perspective that the extreme environmentalists favor. Your failure to acknowledge that the standards could have been much more stringent just helps underscore the fringe nature of your perspective on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubygreta
... you would think ...
Elevating your biased presumption over actual scientific research indicates a lack of "thinking" and instead indicates a lot more "emoting" than anything else, in your comments. It also is evidence that you didn't care to read what you were replying to, given how much of it was related to economic status, the Upper East Side being historically one of the most affluent neighborhoods in New York. Even in your corrupted efforts to spew vapid defenses for the indefensible perspective you prefer, you missed the mark.
"These new standards will avert up to 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks and 130,000 asthma attacks every year."
One of the wealthier neighborhoods in New York City is the Upper East Side of Manhattan, which is very congested area loaded with trucks and buses. A jam packed highway (FDR drive) is located on its eastern boundary.
This is the land of the 90-year old and 100-year old still-healthy ladies who lived in the neighborhood most of their lives. This included the decades when apartment buildings burned their garbage, cars used leaded gasoline and belched out blue smoke (one car from 1970 polluted as much as 20 cars pollute today), and pollution from nearby New Jersey gasoline refineries blew over from the west. Smog alerts in the 1960's and 1970's were not unusual.
Given that these women lived in environmental circumstances that were far worse than 99% of American live in today, you would think given the propaganda spewed out by the EPA that they would have dropped dead long ago, instead of being able to take long walks in Central Park, wouldn't you?
During the same period from 1970 till today I am sure New York City has experienced about 10,000 deaths from asthma. Many of the deaths are children. Now people want to gut the EPA and take a step back to the good old days because it didnt really hurt anyone...see all those 90 year olds they survived.
But don't expect right-wingers to actually care about people's lives and health more than money.....
I'm going to cover this one by one. First and foremost the health benefits of cheap energy produced from fossil fuels far outweigh the health risks. The cleanest air in the world becomes irrelevant if you freeze to death or are overcome by heat as one example. Life expectancies have increased as out use of fossil has increased.
Quote:
These new standards will avert up to 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks and
No one has killed by coal plant on their death certificate. The way these statistics are compiled is every particle of pollution is considered equally as dangerous regardless of exposure level. Every death in the US has a very small percentage attributed to this pollution which are then aggregated to give you "4,700 heart attacks".
The methodology used would be like doing a study by throwing 20 people off a 20 foot cliff and ten die. For every 400 feet a population is to fall 10 will die. 40 people go off a 10 foot cliff ten die, 400 people go off 1 foot cliff ten die and when millions go off a crack in the sidewalk ten die.
Quote:
130,000 asthma attacks every year.
There has been a 67% reduction in the 6 most common air pollutants since the 80's, in that same time span we have seen an increase in asthma cases. If you want to point the finger at anything what I would suggest is pointing it at indoor air pollution. Because of new building techniques and improved materials houses do not breathe like they used too. You also have switch from the traditional hydronic heating systems to ducted systems that can harbor ans easily move this ir pollution around home. Last but not least people spend a great deal more time inside there home.
Quote:
The value of the air quality improvements for people's health alone totals $37 billion to $90 billion each year. That means that for every dollar spent to reduce this pollution, Americans get $3-9 in health benefits.
Most of the dollars in these estimates are not based on the reduction of mercury that his rule is named for but the co-benefits of reduced PM which according to the EPA themselves are suspect because of the methodology used(see above).
As far as mercury deposition rates and benefits which again this rule is named after estimates are deposition rates will go down 1 to percent resulting in the average IQ increasing 2/1000 of one point:
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%.
A ridiculously lame retort, given that, as I pointed out in the messages earlier in the thread, which you either failed to read or are not permitting yourself to acknowledge, the standards could have been a lot more stringent. This is a compromise between the patently self-centered perspective that you favor and that patently society-centered perspective that the extreme environmentalists favor. Your failure to acknowledge that the standards could have been much more stringent just helps underscore the fringe nature of your perspective on this.
Elevating your biased presumption over actual scientific research indicates a lack of "thinking" and instead indicates a lot more "emoting" than anything else, in your comments. It also is evidence that you didn't care to read what you were replying to, given how much of it was related to economic status, the Upper East Side being historically one of the most affluent neighborhoods in New York. Even in your corrupted efforts to spew vapid defenses for the indefensible perspective you prefer, you missed the mark.
Big words genius...However due to your wonderful leftwing suffocating governmental regulations the American economy is now at standstill--basically Dead. And thats a Fact!
Why do they want us to be so much like China with a trashed, polluted environment?
Environmental regulations need to be practical and sane, reducing mercury deposition rates by 1% to 10% with the benefit of raising the average IQ 2/1000 of one point is neither practical or sane.
Mercury is global issue, it's not localized. US coal plants only account for 1% of the global pool. These regulations could actually drive up emissions worldwide and deposition rates here in the US if enough manufacturing goes overseas becsue of increased energy costs.
Status:
"Apparently the worst poster on CD"
(set 28 days ago)
27,647 posts, read 16,133,597 times
Reputation: 19068
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubygreta
The extreme whacko Left .... Hydro is great, but cannot be expanded to any extent.
Unless you attatch a turbine to your sock when they're pissin down your boot and tellin you its raining
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.
If you dish it out you better be able to take it
