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:
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.
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.
__________________
"In a moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing."
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorFanCF
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorFanCF
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
__________________
"Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true and it will sound like it’s from Neptune." Noam Chomsky
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." Frederic Bastiat
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
Quote:
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]
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.
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
Quote:
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.
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).
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?
__________________ To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under Heaven.
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.
Why the EPA and environmental laws are needed
To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under Heaven.
Linear Mode
