Trump's EPA lowers pollution standards, allowing for more mercury, benzene and nitrogen oxides to be released. (Corporate Profit, legal)
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.
It is all about greed. Greed trumps life. An extra dollar of salary for a CEO is worth a person living next door to that CEO's plant getting cancer. If the plant is in a red state they both vote the same person. I suppose that in itself could be a definition of insanity.
It's going to get worse. I had my own doubts about a possible transition to a Indian environmental policy, but I and loosing those doubts now...
Would be nice to get numbers instead of wild headlines.
Most of what we get is theoretical projections. theoretical death projections are always included as if someone's autopsy actually listed mercury as cause of death.
We know mercury is naturally occurring, most exposure is from broken light bulbs. Wood and coal burning release mercury. We all have a level of mercury. Every state no matter how pristine, issues fish consumption advisories. Was the last decrease in allowable ppms of mercury significant or theoretical?
What were the last few allowable ppm of mercury, which form, over the last 20 years?
Was the last published allowable ppm significant or as is typically the case, so miniscule and costly that it is insignificant. why not publish a history of allowable ppms, instead of tossing out theoretical numbers.
Mercury is without question a deadly element and back in the 60s Japan suffered its effects, minimata disease.
when it comes to politics and science all we get is high level theoretical info to avoid providing a genuine perspective that might weaken one political argument or another.
So when we hear Trump may roll back the allowable ppms for mercury we have no clue as to its significance. The EPA has been known for decreasing exposure to elements which make no scientific significant difference and the cost of which is out of proportion with projected safety. Arsenic is one example where the allowable ppms are lower than what is produced from geological conditions in some states.
"Melting Arctic Permafrost Could Release Millions of Gallons of Mercury Pollution
The tundra of Eurasia and North America contains twice as much mercury as the rest of the world combined."
outside the USA........."Located in over 55 countries, small scale gold buying and refining facilities (commonly referred to as “Gold Shops”) are an important part of this production process, and are a major cause of air pollution from mercury". Which means if the US had minimal mercury emissions we would still be overwhelmed by global mercury emissions.
"About 20% of the world's gold is produced by the artisanal and small-scale gold mining sector. This sector is also responsible for the largest releases of mercury to the environment of any sector globally. A major source of air pollution from mercury, artisanal and small-scale gold mining releases approximately 400 metric tons of airborne elemental mercury each year."
Would be nice to get numbers instead of wild headlines.
Most of what we get is theoretical projections. theoretical death projections are always included as if someone's autopsy actually listed mercury as cause of death.
We know mercury is naturally occurring, most exposure is from broken light bulbs. Wood and coal burning release mercury. We all have a level of mercury. Every state no matter how pristine, issues fish consumption advisories. Was the last decrease in allowable ppms of mercury significant or theoretical?
What were the last few allowable ppm of mercury, which form, over the last 20 years?
Was the last published allowable ppm significant or as is typically the case, so miniscule and costly that it is insignificant. why not publish a history of allowable ppms, instead of tossing out theoretical numbers.
Mercury is without question a deadly element and back in the 60s Japan suffered its effects, minimata disease.
when it comes to politics and science all we get is high level theoretical info to avoid providing a genuine perspective that might weaken one political argument or another.
So when we hear Trump may roll back the allowable ppms for mercury we have no clue as to its significance. The EPA has been known for decreasing exposure to elements which make no scientific significant difference and the cost of which is out of proportion with projected safety. Arsenic is one example where the allowable ppms are lower than what is produced from geological conditions in some states.
"Melting Arctic Permafrost Could Release Millions of Gallons of Mercury Pollution
The tundra of Eurasia and North America contains twice as much mercury as the rest of the world combined."
outside the USA........."Located in over 55 countries, small scale gold buying and refining facilities (commonly referred to as “Gold Shops”) are an important part of this production process, and are a major cause of air pollution from mercury". Which means if the US had minimal mercury emissions we would still be overwhelmed by global mercury emissions.
"About 20% of the world's gold is produced by the artisanal and small-scale gold mining sector. This sector is also responsible for the largest releases of mercury to the environment of any sector globally. A major source of air pollution from mercury, artisanal and small-scale gold mining releases approximately 400 metric tons of airborne elemental mercury each year."
Come, come now Sir! Truth and common sense have no place in this debate!
Too bad this administration puts corporate GREED above the citizens health. The government wants to take your health care away and now they want to make us all sick. This President has some major problems and is blaming everyone but himself. Trump is his own worst enemy.
Would be nice to get numbers instead of wild headlines.
Most of what we get is theoretical projections. theoretical death projections are always included as if someone's autopsy actually listed mercury as cause of death.
We know mercury is naturally occurring, most exposure is from broken light bulbs. Wood and coal burning release mercury. We all have a level of mercury. Every state no matter how pristine, issues fish consumption advisories. Was the last decrease in allowable ppms of mercury significant or theoretical?
What were the last few allowable ppm of mercury, which form, over the last 20 years?
Was the last published allowable ppm significant or as is typically the case, so miniscule and costly that it is insignificant. why not publish a history of allowable ppms, instead of tossing out theoretical numbers.
Mercury is without question a deadly element and back in the 60s Japan suffered its effects, minimata disease.
when it comes to politics and science all we get is high level theoretical info to avoid providing a genuine perspective that might weaken one political argument or another.
So when we hear Trump may roll back the allowable ppms for mercury we have no clue as to its significance. The EPA has been known for decreasing exposure to elements which make no scientific significant difference and the cost of which is out of proportion with projected safety. Arsenic is one example where the allowable ppms are lower than what is produced from geological conditions in some states.
"Melting Arctic Permafrost Could Release Millions of Gallons of Mercury Pollution
The tundra of Eurasia and North America contains twice as much mercury as the rest of the world combined."
outside the USA........."Located in over 55 countries, small scale gold buying and refining facilities (commonly referred to as “Gold Shops”) are an important part of this production process, and are a major cause of air pollution from mercury". Which means if the US had minimal mercury emissions we would still be overwhelmed by global mercury emissions.
"About 20% of the world's gold is produced by the artisanal and small-scale gold mining sector. This sector is also responsible for the largest releases of mercury to the environment of any sector globally. A major source of air pollution from mercury, artisanal and small-scale gold mining releases approximately 400 metric tons of airborne elemental mercury each year."
So should we use 3rd world countries like Peru where they dump mercury into the ground to extract gold or should we lead. You can always find a country with poor regulations to use as an excuse. Any changes the EPA proposes should be based on science, what is the science behind the current roll back.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,348 posts, read 54,477,544 times
Reputation: 40781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
Would be nice to get numbers instead of wild headlines.
Most of what we get is theoretical projections. theoretical death projections are always included as if someone's autopsy actually listed mercury as cause of death.
We know mercury is naturally occurring, most exposure is from broken light bulbs. Wood and coal burning release mercury. We all have a level of mercury. Every state no matter how pristine, issues fish consumption advisories. Was the last decrease in allowable ppms of mercury significant or theoretical?
What were the last few allowable ppm of mercury, which form, over the last 20 years?
Was the last published allowable ppm significant or as is typically the case, so miniscule and costly that it is insignificant. why not publish a history of allowable ppms, instead of tossing out theoretical numbers.
Mercury is without question a deadly element and back in the 60s Japan suffered its effects, minimata disease.
when it comes to politics and science all we get is high level theoretical info to avoid providing a genuine perspective that might weaken one political argument or another.
So when we hear Trump may roll back the allowable ppms for mercury we have no clue as to its significance. The EPA has been known for decreasing exposure to elements which make no scientific significant difference and the cost of which is out of proportion with projected safety. Arsenic is one example where the allowable ppms are lower than what is produced from geological conditions in some states.
"Melting Arctic Permafrost Could Release Millions of Gallons of Mercury Pollution
The tundra of Eurasia and North America contains twice as much mercury as the rest of the world combined."
outside the USA........."Located in over 55 countries, small scale gold buying and refining facilities (commonly referred to as “Gold Shops”) are an important part of this production process, and are a major cause of air pollution from mercury". Which means if the US had minimal mercury emissions we would still be overwhelmed by global mercury emissions.
"About 20% of the world's gold is produced by the artisanal and small-scale gold mining sector. This sector is also responsible for the largest releases of mercury to the environment of any sector globally. A major source of air pollution from mercury, artisanal and small-scale gold mining releases approximately 400 metric tons of airborne elemental mercury each year."
Tell ya what, make sure your kids get maximum allowable exposure to mercury and benzene everyday of their lives. Let us know how that works out.
Sheesh. Not only can Trump not get through a single day without slandering his betters, he cannot create anything original... Because fixing something that isn't broken isn't constructive.
If no one is allowed to speak about environmental issues using Scientific measure, the only reason to "fix" the EPA is to avoid the $$ restrictions s placed upon those in America that cause the environment the greatest harm for mankind. Considering there are no financial restrictions on Pruiit as he rapes our environmental purse for his personal comfort..I d say any steps Trump takes to "roll back" EPA standards is purely money into pocket motivated.
I'm far from an expert in this area (like most other posters here) but it seems to me that most of the regulations that are being rolled back have only been in place for a short period of time. So, does anyone actually know how many lives have been saved/impacted from the time the regulations were implemented until now? If so, please provide your source for review. As an engineer I've had to deal with the EPA and a few other government organizations. I can tell you they do not walk on water and not all of their "science" is sound.
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.
