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.
This study shows that in a rural population children of families using wood or coal for heating and cooking had a significant lower prevalence of hay fever, atopy, and bronchial hyperresponsiveness than children living in homes with other heating systems.
Factors directly related to home wood or coal combustion may explain these findings.
Alternatively, using coal and wood burning stoves indoors may be related to a more traditional life style with unknown protective factors that have been lost in families using other sources of energy such as gas, oil, or a central heating system.
Quote:
And what nasty stuff it is! I was in an Army training school that used coal-fired cooking stoves. We all had to take turns "riding the range", which required us to crawl inside the huge ovens and scrub them out by hand. It took a week of showering to feel clean again and our fatigue uniforms were ruined and had to be tossed out.
They must of been using soft coal, the only reason you would clean an oven using anthracite is to neutralize the acids to prevent corrosion for storage.
This study shows that in a rural population children of families using wood or coal for heating and cooking had a significant lower prevalence of hay fever, atopy, and bronchial hyperresponsiveness than children living in homes with other heating systems.
Factors directly related to home wood or coal combustion may explain these findings.
Alternatively, using coal and wood burning stoves indoors may be related to a more traditional life style with unknown protective factors that have been lost in families using other sources of energy such as gas, oil, or a central heating system.
They must of been using soft coal, the only reason you would clean an oven using anthracite is to neutralize the acids to prevent corrosion for storage.
So now they are going to try to sell that coal promotes health? So glad I live in the west.
So now they are going to try to sell that coal promotes health? So glad I live in the west.
When someone makes a statement that is inaccurate about the industry I'm involved in I'll correct it.
Funny you would mention the West, there was recent post on my forum where someone in California that has a boat was seeking anthracite for cook stove they have. The closest dealer was Oregon.
We were able to get him set up with the stipulation he take a picture of the bag on the boat in front of the Golden Gate.
That's not the way it works. The EPA won the right to regulate CO2 under the 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act from a SCOTUS ruling in 2007. That's existing law that was never intended to regulate CO2.
The SCOTUS ruling and these regulations would instantly be rendered moot with new legislation stripping the EPA of this power.
The Clean Power Act passed rulemaking in 2015, that is what Pruitt is attempting to roll back.
The EPA has the power to regulate all Greenhouse gases from the court decision in 2009. The lawsuit filed by Pruitt and several states was relative to exceeding the authority in terms of efficiencies, they are not contesting that the EPA has the authority.
There is no legislation stripping the EPA of it's power to regulate greenhouse gases, god help us if congress was to become the regulatory body for any of these agencies
Quote:
The Democrats energy bill in 2009 that passed the House did that and there is legislation from Republicans that has been on the back burner for more than decade that would also do that.
Because they can does not mean they have to and those regulations need to take into account things like cost/benefits, that is where the lawsuits come in. Again this authority is from existing law, the law can be changed.
The 2009 bill did not pass through congress and I don't see any bill like that going anywhere.
The EPA and every other agency provide the basis for their changes, the energy bill is a separate issue. The Dept of Enegry is also proposing subsidies for coal allong with the repeal. They need to come up with regulations based on their porjections, they are not doing away with the Clean Power plan, just want to scale it back.
There is no legislation stripping the EPA of it's power to regulate greenhouse gases, god help us if congress was to become the regulatory body for any of these agencies
You have a very big misunderstanding of how our government works. The EPA's authority to enact regulations comes from legislation passed by Congress. Any regulations they pass must fall within the scope of the law. If Congress passes alaw that says the EPA cannot regulate greenhouse gases that's the end of the discussion and these court cases and challenges become irrelevant.
Quote:
The 2009 bill did not pass through congress and I don't see any bill like that going anywhere.
The Democrats bill didn't even go up for a vote in the Senate. The point is that the EPA's power is dictated by the laws passed by Congress.
You have a very big misunderstanding of how our government works. The EPA's authority to enact regulations comes from legislation passed by Congress. Any regulations they pass must fall within the scope of the law. If Congress passes alaw that says the EPA cannot regulate greenhouse gases that's the end of the discussion and these court cases and challenges become irrelevant.
The Democrats bill didn't even go up for a vote in the Senate. The point is that the EPA's power is dictated by the laws passed by Congress.
I believe you are confusing the legislation in 2009 with The Clean Power Plan in 2015, The Clean Powerful Plan was not legislation. Yes the EPA was within the powers granted by congress as are other agencies. Read the OPs link or mine.
There is no recommendation to remove the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, that is not indicated anywhere in the article, if that were even true they would have no need for rule making.
I believe you are confusing the legislation in 2009 with The Clean Power Plan in 2015,
I'm not confused at all but you seem to be confused about where the EPA gets it's regulatory power from. The linchpin of the Clean Power plan is CO2 caps, if the EPA was to lose this regulatory authority through new legislation it's a dead issue.
Quote:
There is no recommendation to remove the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, that is not indicated anywhere in the article,
I didn't say it was i the article, what I am telling you is the Republicans have had a bill on the back burner since the 2007 ruling by SCOTUS. This of course would have had snowball's chance in hell when Obama was in the White House.
It's been in the courts since it first got announced.
The problem is that the changes did not go through Congress.
The EPA changed the rules of the Clean Air Act themselves citing "ambiguity" and that they could change the rules themselves without needing Congress.
Yet another instance of the Obama administration bypassing Congress to create their own laws.
Not that I'm against changing the laws to reflect current issues, but changes to the laws created by Congress need to be done by Congress.
All those changes done by Obama outside of Congress are now being undone by Trump outside of Congress.
Why does Congress get a pay check?
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.
