Why the EPA and environmental laws are needed

[oragator1]

A dolphin died today, it swam up a canal by accident and couldn't get itself out. In itself that isn't a big deal. But this is what it faced:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/25/article-2268462-172A29BA000005DC-34_638x459.jpg

That is sewage and pollution, in an American waterway - they didn't go in to help the dolphin in large part because it wasn't safe for humans. This happened in Brooklyn, in the Gowanus canal. They have tried for years to clean it up with little success, so finally it was added to the superfund list a couple of years ago, but cleanup will not start in earnest for another couple of years and cost upwards of $400 million dollars, for this one small canal. It is an overflow for 12 sewage facilities, has toxic chemicals from previous incarnations along it, and inhales pollution because of a bridge it sits under.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268462/Injured-dolphin-dies-New-York-canal-rescuers-refused-help-water-polluted-in.html

[rpmGator]

Closer to home, there is red tide on the gulf coast from Longboat Key to Lee County to the South. Right now. Fish kill on Longboat on the 16th of this month from that tide which can cause harm to humans five miles inland.

Not long ago a phosphate holding pond broke and killed damn near everything in the Alafia River. Same problem with the Manatee River also. An industry that had its waste, ruin jobs for other industry.

People who can't understand the ecomomic loss of jobs in the fishing and tourism industry, want to allow more pollution. It just doesn't work that way as all lose when our water systems are damaged.

As a state, we can only grow as large as our fresh water supply will let us. Any water that is wasted, will only hurt that growth.

Talked to my towns water manager a few weeks back. We are already at our limit in how much we can take from the aquifer and this state is almost to the point we will have to clean sewage water and turn salt water to fresh, just to grow.

Water at that point will be very expensive.

[GatorFanCF]

I find it hard to believe there are people who "want to allow more pollution." There may be a few but to characterize folks who have problems with the EPA has such is erroneous and just muddles any substantive communication.

We have laws from outside ourselves because we cannot police ourselves internally.
It isn't "sewage facilities" it is the PEOPLE who designed built, maintain and run the facilities that are allowing the pollution. "Previous incarnations"? = PEOPLE who owned and operated organizations who dumped crap into the water. How does water "inhale" pollution from a bridge? Okay, if the bridge is old and not maintained I can understand rust, etc. dropping into the river; but, I would infer the majority of the crap is from PEOPLE tossing stuff off the bridge.

And, yes, Florida - when it comes specifically to water - has a huge responsibility to keep it clean. Sadly, I see the EPA as akin to the SEC, bank regulators and the like in this way: they pick on the small guy - some farmer who 200 acres trying to provide a living - but let the "big fish" go - the "too big too fail" manufacturer who gets a fine and "promises" to clean things up. If I'm working at a place and we are pouring crap out into the environment I question it...and if necessary report it. Tough? Sure, it is - but it again boils down to individual people doing the right thing - not waiting for an agency to figure it out 5 years later.

[northgagator]

I find it hard to believe there are people who "want to allow more pollution." There may be a few but to characterize folks who have problems with the EPA has such is erroneous and just muddles any substantive communication.
People who are tied into land/re estate development are the ones who keep pushing the limits of the natural resources. They push by requesting zoning changes, spreading money around among the power brokers, and talk up how development will increase the tax revenues. In other words they find ways how yo make encroachments into are natural infrastructure (air, water, wild life habitat appealing to almost everyone.

We have laws from outside ourselves because we cannot police ourselves internally.
It isn't "sewage facilities" it is the PEOPLE who designed built, maintain and run the facilities that are allowing the pollution. "Previous incarnations"? = PEOPLE who owned and operated organizations who dumped crap into the water. How does water "inhale" pollution from a bridge? Okay, if the bridge is old and not maintained I can understand rust, etc. dropping into the river; but, I would infer the majority of the crap is from PEOPLE tossing stuff off the bridge. In most case bridges and roads do not direct pollute our water ways and watersheds. They act like funnels by pouring spilt chemical, trash, and biological into the water.

And, yes, Florida - when it comes specifically to water - has a huge responsibility to keep it clean. Sadly, I see the EPA as akin to the SEC, bank regulators and the like in this way: they pick on the small guy - some farmer who 200 acres trying to provide a living - but let the "big fish" go - the "too big too fail" manufacturer who gets a fine and "promises" to clean things up. If I'm working at a place and we are pouring crap out into the environment I question it...and if necessary report it. Tough? Sure, it is - but it again boils down to individual people doing the right thing - not waiting for an agency to figure it out 5 years later.

I am not a fan of the EPA, but without them who are you going to call?

As for the small guy getting picked on you are correct. However the big guys take there hits too. The only advantage that they have over the small guys is that at times hey can buy off the gov't

[northgagator]

People who can't understand the ecomomic loss of jobs in the fishing and tourism industry, want to allow more pollution. It just doesn't work that way as all lose when our water systems are damaged.. Very true words. We all have to have clean/safe water

[QUOTE="rpmGator"As a state, we can only grow as large as our fresh water supply will let us. Any water that is wasted, will only hurt that growth.

Talked to my towns water manager a few weeks back. We are already at our limit in how much we can take from the aquifer and this state is almost to the point we will have to clean sewage water and turn salt water to fresh, just to grow.
Water at that point will be very expensive.[/QUOTE]

You can only pile so many people into a small area. Sooner or later something has to give.
You are correct above the price of water getting higher.
That by itself is not a bad thing
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Someday someone is going to build a better mousetrap (water purifying and desaltation process) That provides clean wAter at an affordable price. Who knows, maybe that process may use wind and solar technology.

[gatorev12]

I'm no fan of the EPA, but their existence is needed for situations like this. I'm far from a bleeding heart animal rights activist, but no animal should suffer and die because of gross human negligence in wrecking the environment.

[Spurffelbow833]

If we had waited until everybody was good and ready to voluntarily quit using DDT, the bald eagle would be extinct.

[northgagator]

If we had waited until everybody was good and ready to voluntarily quit using DDT, the bald eagle would be extinct.

And we as a species would not be far behind.
They actually used to spray people down with that stuff. https://www.google.com/search?q=spraying+people+with+ddt&hl=en&client=safari&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=la4EUdyYOo_c8ATNxID4Cw&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=320&bih=416

[ChartsandGrafs]

If we had waited until everybody was good and ready to voluntarily quit using DDT, the bald eagle would be extinct.

I don't know. I recall seeing some science that contradicts the DDT/bald eagle scaremongering of that time. I suspect there might have been another agenda.

[gregthegator]

I don't know. I recall seeing some science that contradicts the DDT/bald eagle scaremongering of that time. I suspect there might have been another agenda.

Obviously you've NEVER been involved w/chemicals...or seen what they do...

[ChartsandGrafs]

Obviously you've NEVER been involved w/chemicals...or seen what they do...

Ouch. That was a good fallacy.

Usually I have to shotgun a quart of Ben & Jerry's to make my brain hurt that bad.

[northgagator]

Ouch. That was a good fallacy.

Usually I have to shotgun a quart of Ben & Jerry's to make my brain hurt that bad.

Charts there is no conspiracy with DDT

In 2002 the Centers for Disease Control reported that "Overall, in spite of some positive associations for some cancers within certain subgroups of people, there is no clear evidence that exposure to DDT/DDE causes cancer in humans."[1] The NTP classifies it as "reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen," the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies it as a "possible" human carcinogen, and the EPA classifies DDT, DDE, and DDD as class B2 "probable" carcinogens. These evaluations are based mainly on the results of animal studies.[1][28]

More recent evidence from epidemiological studies (i.e. studies in human populations) indicates that DDT causes cancers of the liver,[28][40]pancreas[28][40] and breast.[40] There is mixed evidence that it contributes to leukemia,[40]lymphoma[40][80] and testicular cancer.[28][40][81] Other epidemiological studies suggest that DDT/DDE does not cause multiple myeloma,[28] or cancers of the prostate,[28]endometrium,[28][40]rectum,[28][40]lung,[40]bladder,[40] or stomach.[40]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

If read the entire link you will see that there are strong connections with DDT and various human illnesses. We are better off keep this stuff out of the environment.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Charts there is no conspiracy with DDT.

Conspiracy? Who said anything about a conspiracy? I simply suggested that there might have been a different agenda involved with the banning of DDT.

There are a lot of chemicals that are highly carcinogenic to human beings that haven't been banned like DDT was.

Worth watching and considering:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHwqandRTSQ

[108]

We are the one species that come equipped with choice, and yet we have failed our earth so miserably

We really deserve whatever we get

$$$ > Environment

Profit motive usually overrides the individuals conscious

[northgagator]

Conspiracy? Who said anything about a conspiracy? I simply suggested that there might have been a different agenda involved with the banning of DDT.


Charts, I offer my apology to you.

When I see a sentences like this I suspect there might have been another agenda. used here in Too Hot I automatically assume that it is a suggestion of a conspiracy. What I should of posted was a question to you if you were suggesting that. My bad.

[Spurffelbow833]

We are the one species that come equipped with choice, and yet we have failed our earth so miserably

We really deserve whatever we get

True, but the creatures we share this world with don't deserve to suffer because our reach exceeds our grasp.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Charts, I offer my apology to you.

No big deal, man.

[chemgator]

There's no question that we need an EPA. But more importantly, we need a competent EPA led by competent people. People with chemistry and chemical engineering degrees. Not people who think that salt "disappears" when you add it to water. With incompetent leadership, the EPA devolves into checking paperwork and missing the boat when it comes to problems. A large chemical company I used to work for ran into a violation with the EPA over the detail of changing a raw material for one of their 1300 products from 1.8% to 2.1%. Not a huge change, but it did increase the chemical to over 2.0%, and they were supposed to report it to the EPA. There is a mandatory fine
of over a million dollars a day for this lack of paperwork, and this went on for several years before the company discovered it and self-reported it. EPA charged them several hundred million dollars in fines (which the company contested in court and got reduced).

Meanwhile, the company had been storing ethylene in a massive underground storage system. One year, they discovered they lost a billion (with a "b") pounds of ethylene from this system. They also stored RCRA-hazardous chemicals in this system for a quarter century. Their previous experience with putting chemicals into the ground in the 1960's led to the local water supply in a nearby town being classified as RCRA-hazardous (and it still is). These are the things that should be getting the EPA's attention, not trivial details on paperwork.

To drive the point home, you might wonder what decides how much of various chemicals a chemical company can emit during a year's time. The answer: it depends. If it is a new process, they let the chemical company tell them. The company fills out water and air permits, and the EPA signs off on them. If another company makes the same product, they may or may not decide to insist on "best available technology" to get the new chemical company to match or exceed the performance of the existing company. There are always exemptions for startup and shutdown conditions, and other upsets--the company just has to ask for them.

As far as enforcement goes, much is dependent on the companies to self-report. Bigger companies do this willingly, because the risk of losing a multi-billion dollar lawsuit is too great. Smaller companies may or may not be as willing to self-report violations (and they might not have enough environmental engineers or training to know when they've had a violation). Some medium-sized companies ignore the EPA (and OSHA) and fight the fines in court, recognizing that it is cheaper to do so (until the lawsuit hits).

[Spurffelbow833]

I watched the video. There was one passing mention of birds, so I'm assuming there is no attempt by Stossel or his guest to refute the science that demonstrated DDT's weakening effect on the egg shells of apex predator birds. It could be that the ridiculous overkill with which the stuff was used was the real problem, and that a complete banning was an overreaction. But if there was an agenda, what was it? Allowing people to die?

[ChartsandGrafs]

But if there was an agenda, what was it? Allowing people to die?

Yes, or more accurately, to help generate a little drag on the Third World's population boom at the time.

Alexander King of David Rockefeller's Club of Rome think tank said in 1990:

"My own doubts came when DDT was introduced for civilian use. In Guyana, within two years it had almost eliminated malaria, but at the same time the birth rate had doubled. So my chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it has greatly added to the population problem."

The banning of DDT in the United States in 1971 created the necessary political/diplomatic impetus to get DDT use banned and restricted in other parts of the world. But the real target was the Third World, and the agenda was most likely population control, not birds.

Eugenics and efforts to limit population growth, especially in certain global regions, has been an important objective of the internationalists and ruling elites for over a hundred years.

Edit:

I just realized that the above quote from Alexander King might not mean a whole lot to you without context. It would help you to do a little research on the Club of Rome and some of the materials they've published since the early 70s. You should start with the book they put out in 1992 (or so) called The First Global Revolution, in which they basically admitted to the necessity of environmental scaremongering to galvanize public support for global governance and unelected international bureaucracy. Why is global governance and unelected international bureaucracy important to these people? Because global population control efforts are incredibly difficult without them.

The money, influence, and corporate power behind the Club of Rome and its members makes it more than possible that they had a hand in taking part in getting DDT banned.

[gatorman_07732]

ora, I posted this is the pub because it was new here. This has nothing to do with pollution why this dolphin died.

[oragator1]

ora, I posted this is the pub because it was new here. This has nothing to do with pollution why this dolphin died.

The article I linked probably was a bit over the top...but as I said, dolphins go up rivers a estuaries all the time and either get out or don't, so a dolphin dying from this sort of thing is far from unheard of. And they will do a necropsy on the animal apparently to see if they can determine whether there was a underlying cause - as background about 5 years ago a whale swam up the same channel and died, it was so covered in filth his name became "Slushy", but his necropsy was inconclusive as they couldn't find an underlying cause other than it being young. But even if the autopsy says that he died of trauma, or malnutrition or some other cause, not being able to go in the water was a factor in the decision to not attempt an intervention. This quote below is from the man who had to make that decision, and yes there were certainly other factors in their decision as I quote. Was the "water" also a factor in how quickly he succumbed? We might not ever know, but what we do know for sure is that the canal in question is literally a toxic cesspool.

On the risk to the dolphin of injury during capture: The capture process is very stressful to the animal, Mr. DiGiovanni said, and even seriously injured marine mammals will naturally try to escape. In the confines of the narrow canal, he said, “everything that it was going to hit was going to be concrete, and it’s not favorable.” He added, “In many cases where there is a compromised animal and we intervene, they die as soon as we get them on the stretcher.”

On the dangers to the rescuers: Not only is the canal indisputably toxic, Mr. DiGiovanni said, but it was not clear to his staff members exactly what kind of dangers they would face in its waters.

“Is the water dangerous to get on your skin? If someone falls in the water and accidentally swallows some, are they in danger? If we were going to intervene and jump in, we would want to make sure that we had the protective equipment to deal with that scenario — all that takes time as well, which puts us back to our original plan.”

On the possibility of herding the dolphin out to the relatively clean water of New York Harbor: He said that even that minimal intervention would require drawing up a plan and getting clearance from the National Marine Fisheries Service, which again takes time. All too often, Mr. DiGiovanni said, sick animals brought out to sea simply beach somewhere else the next day.

The bottom line was that “the tide-cycle plan doesn’t do harm to the animal or to the people inadvertently at all,” Mr. DiGiovanni said. “That gives us the largest chance of success.”

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/the-hard-decision-not-to-rescue-an-ailing-dolphin/

[G8trGr8t]

Many of the older muni's have mixed use sewers where stormwater and rainwater mix together. Entire cities need to be replumbed but people do not want to pay the bill for that. They don't mind paying $150 a month for a couple of smart phones with data plans and another $80 - $100 for premium cable service but ask them to pay $150 for clean running water and sewer service and they come unglued. California has vast areas that go unfarmed every year while they collect crop insurance and food prices go up so that the happy libs in San Fran can get clean cheap water from the mountains rather than have to pay for RO. This shouldn't be a job for the feds, it should be the local water/sewer customers who pay for these clean-ups and EPA taking over and relinquishing them from that responsibility is a bad move

Comments re: land developers spreading cash around to be able to pollute are bs based on my experience. I have been in the business doing permitting and development for 20 plus years in SW Florida and in the USVI and I can tell you that it has never been easy and I have never seen or heard about people able to buy zoning or permits in SW Florida. It may happen in some places but if you have to deal with state or feds, good luck with that. Try getting a permit from Army Corps of Engineers or NMFS or DEP and then come back and tell me how easy it is to sprinkle some cash around and get what you want. I know property owners who bought limerock rich ground decades ago that have land use approval for mining can't get zoning for mining now that some NIMBY's bought close to the area. County is losing cases in court but it takes years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and studies (and lot of wasted tax $$ fighting it) to get the zoning approved.

EPA nutrient loading requirements make development of a small parcel practically impossible while farmers and ranchers continue to pollute unabated. If you want to find the real source of most of the pollution in Florida, look at big ag and big cattle. They get passes while developers are raked over the coals by the state and the feds. Same for water use permits. I have seen so many pumps running flooding empty fields just so the farmer can keep their water allotment while there are watering restrictions for homeowners across the region. No nitrogen fertilizers allowed on yards from May to October while big sugar is backpumping tons of nitrogen laden stormwater runoff into Lake Okechobee against court rulings and yet gubmnt looks the other way. Cattle ranching and big ag are the real threat to water pollution in Florida. That and people unwilling to pay the proper/fair price to protect the resource.

[tegator80]

There's no question that we need an EPA. But more importantly, we need a competent EPA led by competent people. People with chemistry and chemical engineering degrees. Not people who think that salt "disappears" when you add it to water. With incompetent leadership, the EPA devolves into checking paperwork and missing the boat when it comes to problems...

The problem is that humans are humans and we don't keep up with what we are supposed to be responsible for. I would argue (not to hijack the thread) that the problems associated with the housing bubble and Enron was a result of ineffective regulation/enforcement. We see what we are supposed to do to keep things from getting out of hand yet we find a way to screw it up. If we don't understand that we can't just wave our hand and the system is regulated then we have this whiplash system of laissez-faire to oppressive and ineffective regulation.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The problem is that humans are humans and we don't keep up with what we are supposed to be responsible for. I would argue (not to hijack the thread) that the problems associated with the housing bubble and Enron was a result of ineffective regulation/enforcement. We see what we are supposed to do to keep things from getting out of hand yet we find a way to screw it up. If we don't understand that we can't just wave our hand and the system is regulated then we have this whiplash system of laissez-faire to oppressive and ineffective regulation.

I disagree. It's not necessarily a problem of "ineffective" regulation that "screws it up", it's regulatory capture that's the problem. Any regulatory agency you create to solve a problem can just as easily be captured by those you are targeting for regulation. It doesn't matter if it's the SEC, EPA, or any other government regulator. They are all subject to being captured, and once they are, the problem you were trying to solve before you had regulations will be that much worse.

It's a huge mistake to think regulators are just bumbling, incompetent morons, when in reality, the truth is they are working for the bad guys.

[tegator80]

I disagree. It's not necessarily a problem of "ineffective" regulation that "screws it up", it's regulatory capture that's the problem. Any regulatory agency you create to solve a problem can just as easily be captured by those you are targeting for regulation. It doesn't matter if it's the SEC, EPA, or any other government regulator. They are all subject to being captured, and once they are, the problem you were trying to solve before you had regulations will be that much worse.

It's a huge mistake to think regulators are just bumbling, incompetent morons, when in reality, the truth is they are working for the bad guys.

I am not ready to go as far as your take. I will say that once you set up a system and don't administer it properly then you allow "friends" to be placed at the top of the food chain to make sure that the people at the tactical levels don't have the resources to do their jobs. But that is part of the assertion that I am making. If it is indeed important then there should be people who are making sure that the foxes aren't put in charge of the hen house. But over time it seems that we allow our priorities to slip.

I always point to Fort Knox as a good example. While it may be mostly symbolic, if you believe that a significant chunk of our financial stability is based on security of our gold reserves then you have to have a system in place that CAN NOT be compromised. There can be NO alternative to make it more business friendly. So I say that as long as we think that regulation is easy and don't give it proper respect then we seem to let our guards down and things get out of hand. JMHO

[oragator1]

ora, I posted this is the pub because it was new here. This has nothing to do with pollution why this dolphin died.

In the end you are correct, the necropsy is back and he/she was definitely one sick dolphin.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2269916/Dolphin-whos-death-Gowanus-Canal-broke-hearts-nationwide-survived-autopsy-reveals.html

Doesn't change much from my original post though.

[g8orbill]

environmental wackos and their faked info

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/28/un-climate-report-models-overestimated-global-warming/

from the article:

“Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.

“Their predictions have largely failed, four times in a row... what that means is that it's time for them to re-evaluate,” Spencer said.