|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Draft of Air Rule is Said to Exempt Many Old Plants
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 08-25-2003 09:28 PM
quote:
I see the children brought to my wife's pediatric office
struggling to breathe in asthmatic attacks in ever-increasing
numbers. To do nothing because diseases come and go is a denial
not only of the hippocratic oath but of any measure of humanity,
it seems to me.
Since there are ever increasing numbers of people, it stands to reason there are ever increasing numbers of ill people, of all times of illnesses and afflictions. As to the humanity part, I can certainly understand your concerns but I also feel that, as a whole we are better off, health and otherwise with industry pushing on the environment. I maintin that you would see far more health issues (as have been in the past) without the beneficial affects of industry and power production.
quote:
And I see the gas-guzzling, inefficient, polluting trucks rapidly replacing cars because they provide more profit for the makers and sellers.
I can only infer that you speak of the SUVs...personally I don't like them but the auto manufacturers make them, not to force their way on things...in fact they would gleefully produce aluminum-death-boxes if people would pay for them. Don't they still have to deal with CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) that kinda forces them to produce more efficient cars or pay stiff penalties if the entire auto production is too high (all vehicles produced, combined).
The SUV is nothing more than the family station wagon grown up. The facts are, aside from turn over (driver controlled) they are safer vehicles...depending on how you want to write the statistics, SUV saves lives. If you choose to purchase a little defenseless car, it isn't the SUV owner's fault...the better solution is to avoid the accident in the first place though. Again, I'm not an SUV fan...I don't own one (I bought a Subaru Wagon instead...made in Indiana)...then again, I own a Corvette and a 1965 Dodge and my wife is a Saturn lover. The Corvette actually does about as good as any of them on gas...about 24MPG on average...the Dodge...between 12 and 27 (very moody...highway or city guess which is which ![[Wink]](wink.gif) )
Remember back in the '70s when Chrysler missed the boat (as well as the other two US car makers...but especially Chrysler)...when they continued to produce the big boats and everyone wanted the cute little fuel efficient cars from Japan? Well Honda and the rest are also making SUVs...even the luxuray cars are in on the act. Manufacturers only make what people want...at the moment, it is the SUV....I'd bet about 1% actully do the off roading stuff...I got my AWD for the SNOW...pure and simple (and boy did it come in handy last winter!)
quote:
Lead contamination and its harmful effects on children's growth, brains and nervous systems declined sharply when government responded by outlawing lead-based paints and lead gasoline additives.
There is certainly some truth there...lead consumption is certainly a brain killer. It may be hard to believe but early food containers were made of lead...sailers used it and some never came back! However...there is also no denying that lead-based paints are far superior either. I wouldn't have outlawed them so much as restricted their use. Lead-based paints don't, just sitting there, hurt anyone but in a home situation...younguns will put ANYTHING in their mouths...especially nice and sweet tasting lead. However, in an industrial situation or for a particular purpose, I would have allowed it...it would also depend on the ability or lack there of for kids to come in contact with it...including from flaking.
As to cars...anyone remember lead in gas? It went away due to the catastrophic converter and the catalyst inside (platinum, I believe, at first)...it wasn't for reduction of lead in the air...one would be hard pressed to show any significant harm from that that they CO didn't do first. However, efficientcy of the automobile went down as result and consumption went up. It is amazing how one gets accustomed to the smell of a post catalytic converter car...when they first came out...the rotten-egg smell was very distinctive and quite offensive...it still is but more accepted...if you have an older "classic" car the "gassy" smell can be quite strong if you aren't used to it!
quote:
We don't have "plenty of Forests"--there are only two in New York State. And I don't know that forests "come and go"--those destroyed by our mismanagement and greed are gone, period. Any view of the historical maps reveals a constant and accellerated shrinkage of forested land in the U.S.
This is not "nature's way" but man-made disaster.
It is called development, it isn't bad and not a disaster. Leave an area alone and watch the growth come back...sure it takes time but nothing about nature stays the same...prior to human intervention...forests used to burn down and not be stopped (no one to do it, nor the technology). Who is to say what the right amount of forests are? I see absolutely nothing wrong with using the planet in such a manner. Again if you want to see forests...take a tour of the USA...they are out there.
quote:
Should we not take action to clean up our wastes?
Sure but all factors must be considered. The cost, the real harm, long-term affects, the short-term affects...are we better off? In an ideal world there would be no polution and all the needs of everyone would be satisfied...that simply doesn't exisit...once anyone uses part of the world, they, in effect, deny others that use...some things are more perceivable than others.
quote:
The states that joined in class action lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers for deceptive advertising of a toxic product did so because the burden on the taxpayers of hospital care for emphysema victims threatened to bankrupt the states.
If you actually believe that you are more gullible than a child. That was a simple suit about money. Getting money out of Tobacco to make up for shortfalls in the various state economies not to mention the Tobacco's ability to pay off the states to keep the suits down....it had nothing to due with anyone's health...that was merely the smoke screen that was used. What percentage of the settlements were used for tobacco related care or information? I don't believe any state can claim more than 20%! The rest went straight into the general funds of the states for roads and other such stuff.
As for deceptive advertising...please...you are putting a flaming stick in your mouth, drawing in smoke and then breathing it out...it turns anything around it yellow and permiates everything. If you or anyone didn't know it was bad for you then tough, be responsible for your actions and don't burden anyone else with them. Amazingly enough, no one in my family smokes (zero for 6) and it was everywhere in society with all the alluring ads and promises of coolness. I have yet to find anyone that smoked that actually thought there would be zero negative side effects from it. Sure some enjoy it and some I know still do enjoy it...the only reason to smoke, in my opinion. I don't feel it is governments or society's responsibility for the care of an individual that chose to smoke. It isn't big-tobacco's fault either, it is a legal substance heavily regulated and taxed...their product is not defective there is no blaim for them. The latest in liberal stupidity is the obsene tax now levied on tobacco in many states in the name of funding the school systems better...what is the message there? Smoke up, help our schools! Or, lets say you are successful in running smokers into poverty and they are forced to give up their stupid habit? Where did the money for the schools go? Either way you have a big problem. Think about making it illegal? Check out prohibition...it never has worked in this country and it never will...you will put tobacco in with the other drugs that are killing many innocent bystanders everyday.
quote:
I don't see how the adjective "left-wing" applies, though the use of factual data to effect change may rightly be termed "propaganda," properly used.
I don't find the data factual and not representative for my area...and the whole "global warming" crap is squarely in the Left-Wing "the sky is falling" camp.
quote:
That's irrelevant - he was speaking of the correlation of increased respiratory illness to air pollution, which is correlated & positive. You can't just switch to another statistic which seems related.
It is relavent...there are many reasons as to why, if it is indeed factual and not merely a personal observation. There is an increasing population that would all but demand an increase in illness, all kinds, there are also people coming in now for problems that wouldn't or couldn't (financially) in the past...those are but a couple of examples. The facts are, we are not killing ourselves off with out use of the planet...we are having employment issues and a continously fluctuating economy that has been supported by stilts without a solid manufacturing base.
quote:
I can't believe this is the usually cast-iron Steve Guttage thought process. He said that there is deforestation as a result of acid rain, the fact that there are still forests is not a contradiction.
Still cast-iron...I have no problem with using the planet and don't see the issue by reduction of forest land at this time.
quote:
So there is no morality?
And there is no liability?
Morality is in the eye of the beholder...hence you and I are disagreeing on this and neither feels they are wrong.
As to species and our (human) affect on them...there is nothing we do that won't affect them...as to simply killing them...well you may be a vegitarian (if you are) but most are not and as such we are eating another species...some comfort themselves with the "well they are raised for slaughter" but it really is the same thing...same goes for fish and fishing...would you want a hook going through your mouth?
Want to eat veggie...great but we can't develop farm land without displacing something else.
But the realities of feeding and providing for our race does and will have an impact on the rest...I don't find that immoral
You will probably want to keep your power...we have coal, and nuclear as the primary sources...each having their environmental issues. If the land so allows, you can use water but you will again affect fish. Solar, just doesn't have the energy to give with present technology though it might be a good suppliment...however they do all use some form of battery that is an inefficient storage unit (power in versus out) and they all tend to be in the "heavy metal" department so even clean power has problems. Wind? Can' depend on it but again a potential source of supplimental power with the electrical storage issue.
So we are back to ... we, the US need energy, both chemical and electrical. Anything we do will have a negative impact on the enviroment from either pollution and/or the mere consumption of the resource. 100% efficient engines (in the thermodynamic sense) do not exist.
So what to do with the pollution (in its many forms)? You can't elliminate it without closing up shop and closing down the country. You can certainly try to minimize it and minimize it's long-term and short-term impacts. However, if you errect a law that puts hurdles in front of US businesses, then you damn sure better put up hurdles for all other countries (financial, if they don't protect the environment as well as we do) so there is no economic reason to move industry out of the country due to EPA conformity. Of course, this is my philosophy for all international business relations...if we have hurdles (taxes, regulations, minimum wages...whatever) then the same must be required from our international sources. A company should not be penalized for being in the US as they are now...and glory be...jobs are leaving the country...even jobs in the service sector.
Hey, saving the environment and the whales and everything else sounds all warm and fuzzy but to not acknowledge the negative social impact on the economy, nation's strength, citizen morale. I accept some about of pollution as the result of a good economy, I've seen no viable pollution free solutions. The EPA as with most government agencies, suck money from the economy (as a result of their actions), that has to come from somwhere.
Cheap fuel is a stimulus to an economy, expensive fuel drains an economy. (to bring this back to the subject line)...
There everyone now knows that I'm a conservative-liberal (never moderate)...I'm at polar extremes. You may not agree with what I have to say or think but I guess that is another one of the great things about the USA (historically, at least) free-thinking, regardless of what others may feel.
Steve
PS...like with some other heated threads...I've kinda said my thing on this one...unless something new is brought up, I problably won't post on it anymore.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-26-2003 02:51 AM
quote:
What are the primary manufacturing industries in Houston? Mostly refineries and petrochemical? What type of power plants?
John, I don't know much more about Houston than just flying in & out & driving around some. All I know is it's brown, foul & stinky. It's gotten much worse. Air is a fluid, Houston's air is thick & brown, Houston is filled with a nasty, thick brown fluid. These people are living in their own waste.
I'm still just flabbergasted by Steve Guttag, who is usually analytical of system designs & outcomes, just saying that increased pollution is just the result of development. It's just "development", like it's fate. I couldn't be more astounded if he walked into a booth for a shift & threw a penny on the floor.
Things can be done in different ways, & outcomes aren't neccessarily nasty. If you've ever spoken to a manager about a picture that's shaky, scratched, & mono & heard the answer "that's how movie projectors do", you know the frustration. Public health issues are not just individual quality of life issues, they are economic performance issues.
Cities are more productive, & there has been more industrial & economic progress since the 19th century, but cities are NOT more polluted than the nasty factory towns of the 19th century. It's causal, & although individual owners have wanted to get special exemption, cities are strict about maintaining standards of identified public health points. Productivity & economic standards depend on maintencance of them.
Identification of the health problems put an end to the pumping of sewage & waste into the street over the objections of those who found it cheaper to do so or thought there was just nothing wrong with it. Visible airborne emissions have been HUGELY curtailed because it was easy to identify forensically in lung tissues.
There is NO difference between the public health effects of visible pollutants & unseen ones.
I am baffled as to how intelligent people, who know that there are chemical agents & systemic processes that they cannot see but who know of their effects through studies, just give up & take their hands off the wheel saying it's best to trust to fate.
Steve seized on morality as subjective, I'm even more cynical & I say it's inessential. But Steve doesn't say why he doesn't recognize liability - Monsanto had to cough up MILLIONS in Alabama for causing cancer in individuals, but that won't fix the economic damage of making people who lived in the area too ill to work thus making the area a place which no other large employer will be attracted to because of a damaged worker population. That's not "progress", that's damage, & Monsanto was liable.
There's an almost sociopathic viewpoint of some folks' organization of "the individual" to "society" in the inability to percieve "society" as all the other individuals. You hear this a lot on talk radio, the label is used by individuals with damaging designs to depersonalize the individuals who will be affected. One individual or group (business, church, or gang) does not have any right to do whatever they want if it's an assault on another individual. That's not just some moral viewpoint, or basis of social organization & law, it's the basis of public health.
I'm typing this in the hometown of William Gorgas. You cannot imagine how much people kicked & screamed when they were told they had to get rid of their rainwater cisterns, saying local government had no right to interfere with what they did on their own property.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerard S. Cohen
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 975
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: Sep 2001
|
posted 08-26-2003 05:18 PM
Hi Bill Enos,
I believe the blue haze you see among the Shenandoahs, which I have witnessed along the Blue Ridge Drive and while camping in the Old Smokies, is water vapor that accumulates in picturesque fashion when the temperature drops to the dew point. That's what makes the grass wet overnight, and produces frost on it when
cold weather arrives. I have noted it also while bicycling through the Lakes District of England. It's not caused by the Loch Ness Monster, nor fish blowing bubbles, nor cows belching.
It's merely a cloud on land, which moistens the foliage and promotes growth. Perfectly harmless--unless made toxic by man-made pollutants.
As explained by others, all green vegetation "eats" carbon dioxide, which under the influence of chlorophyl permits cell life to grow, making cellulose, of which wood is composed, to the everlasting benefit of mankind through its lumber and paper industries. In return they exhale oxygen, necessary for the existance of all plant and animal life. An ongoing project in New York City is measuring the volume and weight of the CO2 ingested and O2 exhaled by EACH tree in the city, [the trees have all been mapped] and affixing a $ and cents value to each per annum. This, plus the value of the cooling shade measured in degrees and BTUs, should provide data for city planners and legislators.
The decomposition of forest materials through the rotting of leaves and branches, and burning through forest fires produces CO2 which feeds growth in a natural cycle of growth , decay, and growth.
The one harmful aspect of vegetation growth on humans may be the production of pollen which irritates those with allergies.
The worst reaction is to ragweed, which is not natural to forests, since it does not flourish in deep shade of the forest floor, but thrives where the forests have been cleared, and in all untended city lots. Researches cutting cores from the layers of muck in NYC waterways study the imbedded pollen, and produce data on when the forests were cleared, from the arrival of the Dutch settlers with Henry Hudson in 1607, through the expansion of the city with the arrival of English government in 1654. [Microscopic pollen study is rapidly advancing; much study has been done on the Shroud of Turin to attempt to know its
geographical history; pollen grains have been found in the linen from Biblical lands and Spain.]
Hydrocarbons are produced when fossil fuels (petroleum, coal and peat) are burned inefficiently (incompletely) producing compounds of sulphur and chlorine, which when mixed with the moisture in the air create sulphuric and hydrochloric acid--the so called "acid rain", which is destructive to life in sufficient
quantities. Although SOME plants thrive better in SLIGHTLY acid soil (azaleas, dogwood, ferns, holly, magnolias rhododendrum, etc.) that slight acidity is naturally produced by decomposition on the forest floor, or by gardeners using products like Miracid
in weak dilutions. Otherwise, acid rain kills forests, which cannot regrow unless the pollution is decreased.
How can operators of power plants and factories reduce emissions of pollutants such as soot, hydrocarbons and heavy metals from their smokestacks? Many are already using cleaner-burning grades of fuels, scrubbers (water sprays), filters and electrolytic filtration, and catalytic processes. Though expensive to retrofit, these methods, by reclaiming valuable heavy metals, can often recoup their costs over time. And the use of wind power, solar cells, hydroelectric and atomic power,
provide alternatives to the burning of fossil fuels.
But if Congress votes to relax the standards and timetable of the Clean Air Act...
Gerard
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul G. Thompson
The Weenie Man
Posts: 4718
From: Mount Vernon WA USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 08-28-2003 02:56 AM
Stephan, I am not sure what to think. Maybe expensive fuel is commonplace in many countries, but I wonder how those prices would kill us in the USA since this country is driven by oil. Please remember I am not addressing the cost of fuel, but the availability of it.
I can't help but think that when I was returning from North Dakota in June, I had problems finding a gasoline station open to refuel in Eastern Montana. There are many states where you cannot find a gasoline station in remote areas, sometimes as far as 272 miles apart at night like I have experienced from time to time in several states. In heavily populated areas, finding a gasoline station is no problem whatsoever either in the daytime or the night time. At that time, I was not concerned. I thought I would stop in Glendive, Montana. However, when I got there, the gas stations were closed. OOPS!
I remember 30 years ago that if I didn't get gasoline in Bismarck, North Dakota while headed west, I would run out of gasoline before I would reach the next city that had a gasoline station open at night. The city was then Miles City, Montana. That was almost a 272.26 mile stretch.
Today, getting gasoline in North Dakota at night is no real major problem while traveling on I-94. But you still have to be aware of the distance. If for some reason you "misjudge" your fuel consumption, it will still be a very hairy situation.
Running out of gasoline at 0300 in the morning in the middle of nowhere is not a very pleasent experience. Been there.
What I am getting at is this: Remote areas! There are plenty of towns that don't have a gasoline station and that necessitates driving up to 20 miles or more to get gasoline. You certainly are not going to drive 20 miles if your car gets 15 miles per gallon - and all you have in your gas tank is one gallon of gas.
That damned "Breadbox" of mine only gets 14, and my F-250 gets 11. I had a fuel pump failure in my Chevrolet "Breadbox" due to fuel pump overheating because I drove that thing too many miles with low fuel on board. As the mechanic explained to me, the fuel pumps depend on cooling from the gasoline surrounding it in the tank. The mechanic said I should NEVER allow the the tank to become less than 1/4 full.
It costed me almost 400 bucks to have a new pump installed on that trip to North Dakota. I am not blasting GM on this. It can happen in a Ford or Chrysler just as easy.
What I am saying is we have a "distance" problem in some western states that you may not have in your country. That just kills those who drive cross-country...especially at night. We really have to judge our fuel consumption over the distance we have to travel..or the driver will be on the "short end of the stick."
Where the price factor comes in - we have to cover more miles to do the same as what you do. The price we have to pay could (in the long run) be equivilant to what you might be paying to do the same. And, of course, more EPA regulations will only increase that cost.
The technology of eliminating the use of fossel fuel is in place. But it is not being aggressively pursued like it should be. The result is more pollution.
Maybe the air rule relaxation is just a ploy because someone doesn't want the non-fossel fuel technology to develope any further that what it already has.
Just a wild paranoid thought.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic