EPA Muzzling Scientists on Climate Change

#77
#77
n_huffhines said:
I'm concerned about this story, but to claim regulations don't hurt the economy is just pure nonsense.

There are small and large costs to compliance. Of course it hurts the economy. Every dollar spent on compliance is one fewer dollar spent on wealth creating endeavors.

To flip your argument on itself, can you prove that the EPA makes our environment better in meaningful ways? The trends did not change with the inception of the EPA. The air and water was getting cleaner and there was no noticeable change in the rate of improvement.
Click to expand...

Yep. If you curtail manufacturing by regulation (and greed/sound predatory business policy) in countries who have reasonably clean emissions and move it to the most polluting countries on the earth, the earth is not going to be better for it. Add in an ever increasing global population and there's the makings of a real problem.
 
#78
#78
hog88 said:
Who the **** said to get rid of state agencies? The reason we don't need federal agencies is because every state has one and we have courts to decide in disputes between them.
Click to expand...

Huh. You need to go get your money back from law school.

Kentucky doesn't have to regulate its pollution, nor stop it. I was letting you off the hook but now you want to get back on. Okay, please answer the question as asked before... this is really simple I don't know what you are waiting for.

"we have courts to decide in disputes between them"

You have no idea what you are talking about, now you are throwing around generalized terms like you know something when clearly you don't.

Please show me a case where one State has forced another State to regulate anything. Patiently waiting...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#79
#79
LSU-SIU said:
The obvious. Nuclear accidents which can consume many square miles of land, endanger people and presently there is no solution for the waste. Its irresponsible at this stage, maybe one day it could be use but right now.
Click to expand...

I spent several days at Three Mile Island - on site in the plant - immediately after the accident and then several more trips over the next few months. We brought in instrumentation and further evaluated signals from process instrumentation in the plant to analyze the status and determine how to proceed - I worked for Babcock and Wilcox, the reactor manufacturer. During that time (with fuel melt in the reactor) my total exposure was essentially negligible - less than a few trips to other plants.

You cannot judge nuclear power and it's potential for damage based solely on plants previously compromised by non man made events and incompetence like Fukushima and Chernobyl. Could things have been mitigated at Fukushima? Certainly, but GE and boiling water reactor adherents don't believe they need to play by the same rules as PWR plants - employing previous lessons learned; could siting requirements have been better considering Japan and earthquake vulnerabilities - probably, but generally business decisions override technical decisions at some point.
 
#80
#80
AM64 said:
I spent several days at Three Mile Island - on site in the plant - immediately after the accident and then several more trips over the next few months. We brought in instrumentation and further evaluated signals from process instrumentation in the plant to analyze the status and determine how to proceed - I worked for Babcock and Wilcox, the reactor manufacturer. During that time (with fuel melt in the reactor) my total exposure was essentially negligible - less than a few trips to other plants.

You cannot judge nuclear power and it's potential for damage based solely on plants previously compromised by non man made events and incompetence like Fukushima and Chernobyl. Could things have been mitigated at Fukushima? Certainly, but GE and boiling water reactor adherents don't believe they need to play by the same rules as PWR plants - employing previous lessons learned; could siting requirements have been better considering Japan and earthquake vulnerabilities - probably, but generally business decisions override technical decisions at some point.
Click to expand...

What can go wrong, probably will at some point. Everything we do in life has risks, but putting that kind of risks out there is beyond insane to me, at least in this point in time.

Its not safe, that word doesn't exist really - the end result is accidents are going to happen. Fukushima is not going to be the last, I have a nuke plant real close to me - I actually use to live 3 miles from it as a bird flies. Give me a coal plant any day of the week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#81
#81
LSU-SIU said:
Huh. You need to go get your money back from law school.

Kentucky doesn't have to regulate its pollution, nor stop it. I was letting you off the hook but now you want to get back on. Okay, please answer the question as asked before... this is really simple I don't know what you are waiting for.

"we have courts to decide in disputes between them"

You have no idea what you are talking about, now you are throwing around generalized terms like you know something when clearly you don't.

Please show me a case where one State has forced another State to regulate anything. Patiently waiting...
Click to expand...

Not exactly what you asked for but a quick google search found some examples close enough.

2nd Circuit Allows Public Nuisance Suit Against Greenhouse Gas Emitters | Real Estate, Land Use & Environmental Law Blog
 
#82
#82
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Problem now is government steps in and limits the liability of the corporation. See BP oil spill.
Click to expand...

Further problem: treating corporate responsibility as a shared responsibility and penalizing the corporation by negligible fines. Start going after (with real meaningful jail time) CEOs who claim their millions are deserved because they alone can make a difference, and you will see some corporate responsibility. Unfortunately that will probably just mean moving operations to China or other banana republic.

A Volkswagon CEO who says "You will at the risk of your job or bonuses" will likely have a different attitude if he faces the consequences for how the impossible is accomplished.
 
#83
#83
hog88 said:
Not exactly what you asked for but a quick google search found some examples close enough.

2nd Circuit Allows Public Nuisance Suit Against Greenhouse Gas Emitters | Real Estate, Land Use & Environmental Law Blog
Click to expand...

Yes, the Supreme Court took it up, and the plaintiffs where unable to sue.

American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut - Wikipedia

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–0 decision, held that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under federal common law, primarily because the Clean Air Act (CAA) delegates the management of carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Brought to court in July 2004 in the Southern District of New York, this was the first global warming case based on a public nuisance claim.
Click to expand...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-174.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#87
#87
LSU-SIU said:
They could go after Corporation X, but Corporation X can be worth nothing - just as I mentioned.
Click to expand...

If they are worth nothing no agency or court can get money out of them or force them to do anything.
 
#88
#88
hog88 said:
If they are worth nothing no agency or court can get money out of them or force them to do anything.
Click to expand...

Well, if you were truly what you say you are - you would know insurance, and other requirements are part of regulation and licensing. Absent regulation and or licensing and there would be no reason to risk assets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#89
#89
LSU-SIU said:
Well, if you were truly what you say you are - you would know insurance, and other requirements are part of regulation and licensing. Absent regulation and or licensing and there would be no reason to risk assets.
Click to expand...

ok darling. My mistake.
 
#90
#90
hog88 said:
I make my living dealing with this so.
Click to expand...

Don't you realize in the new world that makes you a bad guy? If you've been handling problems rather than inventing them from thin air, then obviously you are one of the people who have covered up all the problems. And since you aren't a screeching environment/ecological nut, then you obviously can have no idea what you are doing to the environment. These people have complete control over deciding whether three warm years is a trend or just weather; or whether more hurricanes is related to El Nino, La Nina, funky polar vortices, or an end of the world doom kinda thing.
 
#91
#91
hog88 said:
ok darling. My mistake.
Click to expand...

Well, the only reason why I got into this - is when I hear people say get rid of agencies, usually there is a reason why that agency exists. I actually agree with your overall goal, meaning less government. The problem in this equation is corporations and especially large ones that can damage people beyond belief, if left to do their magic.

Eliminate corporations - I would think you could get rid of 90% of the regulations out there. imo
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#92
#92
LSU-SIU said:
What can go wrong, probably will at some point. Everything we do in life has risks, but putting that kind of risks out there is beyond insane to me, at least in this point in time.

Its not safe, that word doesn't exist really - the end result is accidents are going to happen. Fukushima is not going to be the last, I have a nuke plant real close to me - I actually use to live 3 miles from it as a bird flies. Give me a coal plant any day of the week.
Click to expand...

Your coal plant emits more radiation than a nuke plant. Sounds like you enjoy uninformed decisions.
 
#93
#93
AM64 said:
Don't you realize in the new world that makes you a bad guy? If you've been handling problems rather than inventing them from thin air, then obviously you are one of the people who have covered up all the problems. And since you aren't a screeching environment/ecological nut, then you obviously can have no idea what you are doing to the environment. These people have complete control over deciding whether three warm years is a trend or just weather; or whether more hurricanes is related to El Nino, La Nina, funky polar vortices, or an end of the world doom kinda thing.
Click to expand...

I may have or have not done some of that.
 
#94
#94
Weezy said:
Your coal plant emits more radiation than a nuke plant. Sounds like you enjoy uninformed decisions.
Click to expand...

I don't think I am going to glow in the dark if something happens at the coal plant. Its the unexpected emissions I think I am concern with - context please.
 
#96
#96
LSU-SIU said:
I don't think I am going to glow in the dark if something happens at the coal plant. Its the unexpected emissions I think I am concern with - context please.
Click to expand...

Yeah...No. Unless you live near Chernobyl no nuclear plant has contributed more dose to the public than they already receive in a year. Meanwhile Kingston, a coal plant, polluted the hell out of the Tennessee River.
 
#98
#98
n_huffhines said:
Your position is fear-based and emotional.
Click to expand...

No, its call common sense based on facts, history and reality, of course, fear of the possibility is always there. Lets just put it this way - when these things go... it a decision for potentially millions of people. My personal view is its kind of insane, its fine because it hasn't happened in your own backyard. Your tune would change completely, if it did.

From my POV its very dangerous and I would be shutting them down, I admit probably not going to happen and it would take time to implement. But its a political question, that is my view at this time. Chernobyl is not a cleanup, its a tomb. Fukushima is going to be much worse over time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#99
#99
Weezy said:
Yeah...No. Unless you live near Chernobyl no nuclear plant has contributed more dose to the public than they already receive in a year. Meanwhile Kingston, a coal plant, polluted the hell out of the Tennessee River.
Click to expand...

Well, pollution and regulation of large power plants I think is fine as well - I don't think I see myself having to bug out of town forever if the coal plant even implodes. Coal ash has been a problem in N.C. as well, yet nobody has to flee, although there could be limited amount of water contamination, see articles.
The Latest News On The Coal Ash Spill in Eden, NC | WUNC

I have never claimed there is some type of magically solution. I actually take large scale pollution very seriously - there is no magic solution though.

To me the risk of nuclear at this time is not worth the reward, just my opinion, and its fine to disagree. To a certain degree, I feel the decision is not for others to make in a general sense.

Dying robots and failing hope: Fukushima clean-up falters six years after tsunami | World news | The Guardian

This is the end result with very little as far as workable solutions. Yes, its safe until its not safe.

“But we’re not thinking of another approach at this moment.”
Click to expand...

Yes, I am sure you aren't - there isn't one.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#100
#100
Newsflash...right next to spent fuel, it's radioactive. Use robots cautiously.

The people should have never been evacuated. That order was based on fear driven propgoanda, and it resulted in people dying. Not from the radiation, but because when you force society to close down, like patients on critical life support, people die. If they all would have stayed, there would be no measurable health impact.

I'd live in Fukushima right now if it wasn't for the Tsunami that killed 15k people and destroyed everything...the real tragedy that somehow got lost by a media looking to scare people to make a buck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top