THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Rich Piehl on 9 Jul 2010 16:39 On 7/9/2010 1:49 PM, Larry G wrote: > On Jul 9, 2:20 pm, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> > wrote: >> On 7/9/2010 11:43 AM, Larry G wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 9, 12:34 pm, Rich Piehl >>> <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: >>>> On 7/9/2010 6:55 AM, Larry G wrote: >> >>>>> On Jul 9, 12:31 am, Rally2xs<rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Jul 8, 6:36 pm, Larry G<gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> it is SOME of them's agenda... though... and it will add money to the >>>>>>> cost. >> >>>>>> Everything an envirowacko dreams up adds to the cost.... >> >>>>> not putting pollution into the environment costs money - but so does >>>>> putting pollution into the environment. >> >>>>> Want to have dioxin in all of our rivers or lead back in gasoline? >> >>>>>>>> Not sure about the expense of removing mercury from coal, if it is >>>>>>>> indeed possible. But I'd be expecting that 80 cents per kilowatt hour >>>>>>>> electric if they tried it. >> >>>>>>> not sure either.. will check... but more like a penny or two >> >>>>>> Probably more like bankrupting the coal plant, whiich would get >>>>>> replaced with something REALLY expensive. >> >>>>> according to one quick check from the EPA: " Cost estimates fall in a >>>>> wide range. It is projected that the Hg removal capabilities projected >>>>> in Table 3 would add no more than about 3 mills/kWh to the annualized >>>>> cost of power production." >> >>>>> http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf >> >>>>> the most important thing is that the folks who are opposed don't care >>>>> anyhow, right? >> >>>>>>>> Just don't eat so much fish. >> >>>>>>> it's in other things too guy... anything that eats off the ground may >>>>>>> be accumulating it in their tissues. >> >>>>>> Still, I eat this food. >> >>>>> it's kids guy.... how much is it worth to have a kid with lower IQs? >> >>>> How many children die automobile accidents each year, or have permanent >>>> injuries as a result of them. By your logic cars should be banned. >>>> Same with children riding bicycles. Children are injured by house >>>> household cleaners and other chemicals. Better ban those. Children >>>> drown in bathtubs and swimming pools. Better ban those. Children get >>>> asphyxiated in houses with furnaces that leak carbon monoxide. Better >>>> ban furnaces. For that matter kids die and are injured in house fires. >>>> Better ban houses and fire. >> >>>> It's kids Larry. How much is it worth to save the life of a child, or >>>> prevent them from being injured? >> >>>> Your argument makes just as much sense as mine. >> >>> Hey Rich - you may have noticed just how much stuff that injures kids >>> has been banned.... already.. eh? >> >>> It's not only kids - with Mercury. It bio-accumulates and spreads and >>> becomes more concentrated in the environment... affecting pregnant >>> women and most of the critters in the river as well as pasture animals >>> that we use for food - It's gets into feed also that is fed to >>> poultry.... >> >>> It's not like a chronic pollution like too much nutrients in the river >>> or even acid rain. It's like a pesticide that does not degrade.... >>> most of which that have been used on crops and lawns , etc have been >>> either banned or very severely restricted. >> >>> If something hurts KIDS guy.. it means it hurts all humans but we see >>> it first in the kids... you need to get more environmental >>> "smarts"... >> >>> It's one thing to be opposed - for cause - another to not know the >>> issue... >> >> What difference does it whether it is instantaneous or cumulative? Dead >> is dead. Maimed is maimed. Everything on my list hurts and kills >> humans, adults and children, alike too. >> >> You need to be more intellectually honest. > > cumulative means it accumulates to higher and higher levels.. the > longer it goes on the more damage that occurs... > > you need to become literate in the subject matter if you don't > understand the difference between bio-persistent and not. > > that's more than intellectually honest.. it means you have some > intellect to be honest with. I know what cumulative means. Do they still continue to accumulate after a person is dead? Do you know what DEAD means? What is the culmination of that cumulative effect? Death. Death is death, whether it was a slow cumulative death or an instantaneous one. So how does the cumulative death merit more legislation and more control that a an instantaneous one? Even during the accumulation process the person is still alive, which is better than when they are dead, isn't it? Yet you believe that the potential for the cumulative effect which may never even reach death deserves more controls than the potential for the finality of death. Completely inconsistent, Larry. As always, Larry, you believe only your perspective deserves merit, and anyone else who differs immediately deserves to be talked down to.
From: Clark F Morris on 9 Jul 2010 22:01 On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:39:30 -0500, Rich Piehl <rpiehl5REMOVETHISFOR(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: >On 7/9/2010 1:49 PM, Larry G wrote: >> On Jul 9, 2:20 pm, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> >> wrote: >>> On 7/9/2010 11:43 AM, Larry G wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jul 9, 12:34 pm, Rich Piehl >>>> <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: >>>>> On 7/9/2010 6:55 AM, Larry G wrote: >>> >>>>>> On Jul 9, 12:31 am, Rally2xs<rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Jul 8, 6:36 pm, Larry G<gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> it is SOME of them's agenda... though... and it will add money to the >>>>>>>> cost. >>> >>>>>>> Everything an envirowacko dreams up adds to the cost.... >>> >>>>>> not putting pollution into the environment costs money - but so does >>>>>> putting pollution into the environment. >>> >>>>>> Want to have dioxin in all of our rivers or lead back in gasoline? >>> >>>>>>>>> Not sure about the expense of removing mercury from coal, if it is >>>>>>>>> indeed possible. But I'd be expecting that 80 cents per kilowatt hour >>>>>>>>> electric if they tried it. >>> >>>>>>>> not sure either.. will check... but more like a penny or two >>> >>>>>>> Probably more like bankrupting the coal plant, whiich would get >>>>>>> replaced with something REALLY expensive. >>> >>>>>> according to one quick check from the EPA: " Cost estimates fall in a >>>>>> wide range. It is projected that the Hg removal capabilities projected >>>>>> in Table 3 would add no more than about 3 mills/kWh to the annualized >>>>>> cost of power production." >>> >>>>>> http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf >>> >>>>>> the most important thing is that the folks who are opposed don't care >>>>>> anyhow, right? >>> >>>>>>>>> Just don't eat so much fish. >>> >>>>>>>> it's in other things too guy... anything that eats off the ground may >>>>>>>> be accumulating it in their tissues. >>> >>>>>>> Still, I eat this food. >>> >>>>>> it's kids guy.... how much is it worth to have a kid with lower IQs? >>> >>>>> How many children die automobile accidents each year, or have permanent >>>>> injuries as a result of them. By your logic cars should be banned. >>>>> Same with children riding bicycles. Children are injured by house >>>>> household cleaners and other chemicals. Better ban those. Children >>>>> drown in bathtubs and swimming pools. Better ban those. Children get >>>>> asphyxiated in houses with furnaces that leak carbon monoxide. Better >>>>> ban furnaces. For that matter kids die and are injured in house fires. >>>>> Better ban houses and fire. >>> >>>>> It's kids Larry. How much is it worth to save the life of a child, or >>>>> prevent them from being injured? >>> >>>>> Your argument makes just as much sense as mine. >>> >>>> Hey Rich - you may have noticed just how much stuff that injures kids >>>> has been banned.... already.. eh? >>> >>>> It's not only kids - with Mercury. It bio-accumulates and spreads and >>>> becomes more concentrated in the environment... affecting pregnant >>>> women and most of the critters in the river as well as pasture animals >>>> that we use for food - It's gets into feed also that is fed to >>>> poultry.... >>> >>>> It's not like a chronic pollution like too much nutrients in the river >>>> or even acid rain. It's like a pesticide that does not degrade.... >>>> most of which that have been used on crops and lawns , etc have been >>>> either banned or very severely restricted. >>> >>>> If something hurts KIDS guy.. it means it hurts all humans but we see >>>> it first in the kids... you need to get more environmental >>>> "smarts"... >>> >>>> It's one thing to be opposed - for cause - another to not know the >>>> issue... >>> >>> What difference does it whether it is instantaneous or cumulative? Dead >>> is dead. Maimed is maimed. Everything on my list hurts and kills >>> humans, adults and children, alike too. >>> >>> You need to be more intellectually honest. >> >> cumulative means it accumulates to higher and higher levels.. the >> longer it goes on the more damage that occurs... >> >> you need to become literate in the subject matter if you don't >> understand the difference between bio-persistent and not. >> >> that's more than intellectually honest.. it means you have some >> intellect to be honest with. > >I know what cumulative means. Do they still continue to accumulate >after a person is dead? Do you know what DEAD means? > >What is the culmination of that cumulative effect? Death. Death is >death, whether it was a slow cumulative death or an instantaneous one. >So how does the cumulative death merit more legislation and more control >that a an instantaneous one? Even during the accumulation process the >person is still alive, which is better than when they are dead, isn't >it? Yet you believe that the potential for the cumulative effect which >may never even reach death deserves more controls than the potential for >the finality of death. Completely inconsistent, Larry. > >As always, Larry, you believe only your perspective deserves merit, and >anyone else who differs immediately deserves to be talked down to. > > Heavy metal poisoning is a well known phenomenon. Mercury is a heavy metal. Quebec is still promoting asbestos as not being dangerous so denial is not unique to this issue. The US is lagging behind Europe on regulating mercury emissions. The concern about mercury in food fish is long standing as is attributed to various forms of pollution. Clark Morris
From: Rich Piehl on 9 Jul 2010 22:35 On 7/9/2010 9:01 PM, Clark F Morris wrote: > On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:39:30 -0500, Rich Piehl > <rpiehl5REMOVETHISFOR(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > >> On 7/9/2010 1:49 PM, Larry G wrote: >>> On Jul 9, 2:20 pm, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> >>> wrote: >>>> On 7/9/2010 11:43 AM, Larry G wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jul 9, 12:34 pm, Rich Piehl >>>>> <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/9/2010 6:55 AM, Larry G wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 9, 12:31 am, Rally2xs<rally...(a)att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 6:36 pm, Larry G<gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> it is SOME of them's agenda... though... and it will add money to the >>>>>>>>> cost. >>>> >>>>>>>> Everything an envirowacko dreams up adds to the cost.... >>>> >>>>>>> not putting pollution into the environment costs money - but so does >>>>>>> putting pollution into the environment. >>>> >>>>>>> Want to have dioxin in all of our rivers or lead back in gasoline? >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not sure about the expense of removing mercury from coal, if it is >>>>>>>>>> indeed possible. But I'd be expecting that 80 cents per kilowatt hour >>>>>>>>>> electric if they tried it. >>>> >>>>>>>>> not sure either.. will check... but more like a penny or two >>>> >>>>>>>> Probably more like bankrupting the coal plant, whiich would get >>>>>>>> replaced with something REALLY expensive. >>>> >>>>>>> according to one quick check from the EPA: " Cost estimates fall in a >>>>>>> wide range. It is projected that the Hg removal capabilities projected >>>>>>> in Table 3 would add no more than about 3 mills/kWh to the annualized >>>>>>> cost of power production." >>>> >>>>>>> http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf >>>> >>>>>>> the most important thing is that the folks who are opposed don't care >>>>>>> anyhow, right? >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Just don't eat so much fish. >>>> >>>>>>>>> it's in other things too guy... anything that eats off the ground may >>>>>>>>> be accumulating it in their tissues. >>>> >>>>>>>> Still, I eat this food. >>>> >>>>>>> it's kids guy.... how much is it worth to have a kid with lower IQs? >>>> >>>>>> How many children die automobile accidents each year, or have permanent >>>>>> injuries as a result of them. By your logic cars should be banned. >>>>>> Same with children riding bicycles. Children are injured by house >>>>>> household cleaners and other chemicals. Better ban those. Children >>>>>> drown in bathtubs and swimming pools. Better ban those. Children get >>>>>> asphyxiated in houses with furnaces that leak carbon monoxide. Better >>>>>> ban furnaces. For that matter kids die and are injured in house fires. >>>>>> Better ban houses and fire. >>>> >>>>>> It's kids Larry. How much is it worth to save the life of a child, or >>>>>> prevent them from being injured? >>>> >>>>>> Your argument makes just as much sense as mine. >>>> >>>>> Hey Rich - you may have noticed just how much stuff that injures kids >>>>> has been banned.... already.. eh? >>>> >>>>> It's not only kids - with Mercury. It bio-accumulates and spreads and >>>>> becomes more concentrated in the environment... affecting pregnant >>>>> women and most of the critters in the river as well as pasture animals >>>>> that we use for food - It's gets into feed also that is fed to >>>>> poultry.... >>>> >>>>> It's not like a chronic pollution like too much nutrients in the river >>>>> or even acid rain. It's like a pesticide that does not degrade.... >>>>> most of which that have been used on crops and lawns , etc have been >>>>> either banned or very severely restricted. >>>> >>>>> If something hurts KIDS guy.. it means it hurts all humans but we see >>>>> it first in the kids... you need to get more environmental >>>>> "smarts"... >>>> >>>>> It's one thing to be opposed - for cause - another to not know the >>>>> issue... >>>> >>>> What difference does it whether it is instantaneous or cumulative? Dead >>>> is dead. Maimed is maimed. Everything on my list hurts and kills >>>> humans, adults and children, alike too. >>>> >>>> You need to be more intellectually honest. >>> >>> cumulative means it accumulates to higher and higher levels.. the >>> longer it goes on the more damage that occurs... >>> >>> you need to become literate in the subject matter if you don't >>> understand the difference between bio-persistent and not. >>> >>> that's more than intellectually honest.. it means you have some >>> intellect to be honest with. >> >> I know what cumulative means. Do they still continue to accumulate >> after a person is dead? Do you know what DEAD means? >> >> What is the culmination of that cumulative effect? Death. Death is >> death, whether it was a slow cumulative death or an instantaneous one. >> So how does the cumulative death merit more legislation and more control >> that a an instantaneous one? Even during the accumulation process the >> person is still alive, which is better than when they are dead, isn't >> it? Yet you believe that the potential for the cumulative effect which >> may never even reach death deserves more controls than the potential for >> the finality of death. Completely inconsistent, Larry. >> >> As always, Larry, you believe only your perspective deserves merit, and >> anyone else who differs immediately deserves to be talked down to. >> >> > Heavy metal poisoning is a well known phenomenon. Mercury is a heavy > metal. Quebec is still promoting asbestos as not being dangerous so > denial is not unique to this issue. The US is lagging behind Europe > on regulating mercury emissions. The concern about mercury in food > fish is long standing as is attributed to various forms of pollution. > > Clark Morris I'm well aware of that. And I'm also aware that there are are a lot of things that are perceived as a threat that people like Larry freak out and demand action on only to determine the results of the action are worst than the original problem. Remember when MBTE was added to gasoline in 1999? Remember during the late 70's when we were experiencing extreme cold and scientists were all set to dump a bunch of coal dust and ash in the atmosphere and on Greenland? That would have been a nice environmental mess. And there's one group of scientists who believe the chlorofluorocarbons that being used now to reduce damage to the ozone hole are actually contributing to global warming. Larry needs to learn that his knee jerk reactions to situation and screaming and insulting anyone who disagrees with him just makes him look like his argument is weak, and his fixes may do more harm than good.
From: Larry G on 10 Jul 2010 06:13 On Jul 9, 4:39 pm, Rich Piehl <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > On 7/9/2010 1:49 PM, Larry G wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2:20 pm, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> > > wrote: > >> On 7/9/2010 11:43 AM, Larry G wrote: > > >>> On Jul 9, 12:34 pm, Rich Piehl > >>> <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > >>>> On 7/9/2010 6:55 AM, Larry G wrote: > > >>>>> On Jul 9, 12:31 am, Rally2xs<rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > >>>>>> On Jul 8, 6:36 pm, Larry G<gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>> it is SOME of them's agenda... though... and it will add money to the > >>>>>>> cost. > > >>>>>> Everything an envirowacko dreams up adds to the cost.... > > >>>>> not putting pollution into the environment costs money - but so does > >>>>> putting pollution into the environment. > > >>>>> Want to have dioxin in all of our rivers or lead back in gasoline? > > >>>>>>>> Not sure about the expense of removing mercury from coal, if it is > >>>>>>>> indeed possible. But I'd be expecting that 80 cents per kilowatt hour > >>>>>>>> electric if they tried it. > > >>>>>>> not sure either.. will check... but more like a penny or two > > >>>>>> Probably more like bankrupting the coal plant, whiich would get > >>>>>> replaced with something REALLY expensive. > > >>>>> according to one quick check from the EPA: " Cost estimates fall in a > >>>>> wide range. It is projected that the Hg removal capabilities projected > >>>>> in Table 3 would add no more than about 3 mills/kWh to the annualized > >>>>> cost of power production." > > >>>>>http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf > > >>>>> the most important thing is that the folks who are opposed don't care > >>>>> anyhow, right? > > >>>>>>>> Just don't eat so much fish. > > >>>>>>> it's in other things too guy... anything that eats off the ground may > >>>>>>> be accumulating it in their tissues. > > >>>>>> Still, I eat this food. > > >>>>> it's kids guy.... how much is it worth to have a kid with lower IQs? > > >>>> How many children die automobile accidents each year, or have permanent > >>>> injuries as a result of them. By your logic cars should be banned.. > >>>> Same with children riding bicycles. Children are injured by house > >>>> household cleaners and other chemicals. Better ban those. Children > >>>> drown in bathtubs and swimming pools. Better ban those. Children get > >>>> asphyxiated in houses with furnaces that leak carbon monoxide. Better > >>>> ban furnaces. For that matter kids die and are injured in house fires. > >>>> Better ban houses and fire. > > >>>> It's kids Larry. How much is it worth to save the life of a child, or > >>>> prevent them from being injured? > > >>>> Your argument makes just as much sense as mine. > > >>> Hey Rich - you may have noticed just how much stuff that injures kids > >>> has been banned.... already.. eh? > > >>> It's not only kids - with Mercury. It bio-accumulates and spreads and > >>> becomes more concentrated in the environment... affecting pregnant > >>> women and most of the critters in the river as well as pasture animals > >>> that we use for food - It's gets into feed also that is fed to > >>> poultry.... > > >>> It's not like a chronic pollution like too much nutrients in the river > >>> or even acid rain. It's like a pesticide that does not degrade.... > >>> most of which that have been used on crops and lawns , etc have been > >>> either banned or very severely restricted. > > >>> If something hurts KIDS guy.. it means it hurts all humans but we see > >>> it first in the kids... you need to get more environmental > >>> "smarts"... > > >>> It's one thing to be opposed - for cause - another to not know the > >>> issue... > > >> What difference does it whether it is instantaneous or cumulative? Dead > >> is dead. Maimed is maimed. Everything on my list hurts and kills > >> humans, adults and children, alike too. > > >> You need to be more intellectually honest. > > > cumulative means it accumulates to higher and higher levels.. the > > longer it goes on the more damage that occurs... > > > you need to become literate in the subject matter if you don't > > understand the difference between bio-persistent and not. > > > that's more than intellectually honest.. it means you have some > > intellect to be honest with. > > I know what cumulative means. Do they still continue to accumulate > after a person is dead? Do you know what DEAD means? > > What is the culmination of that cumulative effect? Death. Death is > death, whether it was a slow cumulative death or an instantaneous one. > So how does the cumulative death merit more legislation and more control > that a an instantaneous one? Even during the accumulation process the > person is still alive, which is better than when they are dead, isn't > it? Yet you believe that the potential for the cumulative effect which > may never even reach death deserves more controls than the potential for > the finality of death. Completely inconsistent, Larry. > > As always, Larry, you believe only your perspective deserves merit, and > anyone else who differs immediately deserves to be talked down to. it's not just death guy. It's living but living a degraded life.. a lower IQ (from mercury) or forever needing medical assistance from damage from dirty air...or having to move because of it... and it has to do with EQUITY - why are you allowed to do something that causes harm to others as opposed to the practice being outlawed and/or regulated to protect others. your thinking that it is only about death.. demonstrates that you've not thought much about the real issues.
From: Larry G on 10 Jul 2010 06:32
On Jul 9, 10:35 pm, Rich Piehl <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > On 7/9/2010 9:01 PM, Clark F Morris wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:39:30 -0500, Rich Piehl > > <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > > >> On 7/9/2010 1:49 PM, Larry G wrote: > >>> On Jul 9, 2:20 pm, Rich Piehl<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 7/9/2010 11:43 AM, Larry G wrote: > > >>>>> On Jul 9, 12:34 pm, Rich Piehl > >>>>> <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/9/2010 6:55 AM, Larry G wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Jul 9, 12:31 am, Rally2xs<rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 6:36 pm, Larry G<gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> it is SOME of them's agenda... though... and it will add money to the > >>>>>>>>> cost. > > >>>>>>>> Everything an envirowacko dreams up adds to the cost.... > > >>>>>>> not putting pollution into the environment costs money - but so does > >>>>>>> putting pollution into the environment. > > >>>>>>> Want to have dioxin in all of our rivers or lead back in gasoline? > > >>>>>>>>>> Not sure about the expense of removing mercury from coal, if it is > >>>>>>>>>> indeed possible. But I'd be expecting that 80 cents per kilowatt hour > >>>>>>>>>> electric if they tried it. > > >>>>>>>>> not sure either.. will check... but more like a penny or two > > >>>>>>>> Probably more like bankrupting the coal plant, whiich would get > >>>>>>>> replaced with something REALLY expensive. > > >>>>>>> according to one quick check from the EPA: " Cost estimates fall in a > >>>>>>> wide range. It is projected that the Hg removal capabilities projected > >>>>>>> in Table 3 would add no more than about 3 mills/kWh to the annualized > >>>>>>> cost of power production." > > >>>>>>>http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf > > >>>>>>> the most important thing is that the folks who are opposed don't care > >>>>>>> anyhow, right? > > >>>>>>>>>> Just don't eat so much fish. > > >>>>>>>>> it's in other things too guy... anything that eats off the ground may > >>>>>>>>> be accumulating it in their tissues. > > >>>>>>>> Still, I eat this food. > > >>>>>>> it's kids guy.... how much is it worth to have a kid with lower IQs? > > >>>>>> How many children die automobile accidents each year, or have permanent > >>>>>> injuries as a result of them. By your logic cars should be banned. > >>>>>> Same with children riding bicycles. Children are injured by house > >>>>>> household cleaners and other chemicals. Better ban those. Children > >>>>>> drown in bathtubs and swimming pools. Better ban those. Children get > >>>>>> asphyxiated in houses with furnaces that leak carbon monoxide. Better > >>>>>> ban furnaces. For that matter kids die and are injured in house fires. > >>>>>> Better ban houses and fire. > > >>>>>> It's kids Larry. How much is it worth to save the life of a child, or > >>>>>> prevent them from being injured? > > >>>>>> Your argument makes just as much sense as mine. > > >>>>> Hey Rich - you may have noticed just how much stuff that injures kids > >>>>> has been banned.... already.. eh? > > >>>>> It's not only kids - with Mercury. It bio-accumulates and spreads and > >>>>> becomes more concentrated in the environment... affecting pregnant > >>>>> women and most of the critters in the river as well as pasture animals > >>>>> that we use for food - It's gets into feed also that is fed to > >>>>> poultry.... > > >>>>> It's not like a chronic pollution like too much nutrients in the river > >>>>> or even acid rain. It's like a pesticide that does not degrade.... > >>>>> most of which that have been used on crops and lawns , etc have been > >>>>> either banned or very severely restricted. > > >>>>> If something hurts KIDS guy.. it means it hurts all humans but we see > >>>>> it first in the kids... you need to get more environmental > >>>>> "smarts"... > > >>>>> It's one thing to be opposed - for cause - another to not know the > >>>>> issue... > > >>>> What difference does it whether it is instantaneous or cumulative? Dead > >>>> is dead. Maimed is maimed. Everything on my list hurts and kills > >>>> humans, adults and children, alike too. > > >>>> You need to be more intellectually honest. > > >>> cumulative means it accumulates to higher and higher levels.. the > >>> longer it goes on the more damage that occurs... > > >>> you need to become literate in the subject matter if you don't > >>> understand the difference between bio-persistent and not. > > >>> that's more than intellectually honest.. it means you have some > >>> intellect to be honest with. > > >> I know what cumulative means. Do they still continue to accumulate > >> after a person is dead? Do you know what DEAD means? > > >> What is the culmination of that cumulative effect? Death. Death is > >> death, whether it was a slow cumulative death or an instantaneous one. > >> So how does the cumulative death merit more legislation and more control > >> that a an instantaneous one? Even during the accumulation process the > >> person is still alive, which is better than when they are dead, isn't > >> it? Yet you believe that the potential for the cumulative effect which > >> may never even reach death deserves more controls than the potential for > >> the finality of death. Completely inconsistent, Larry. > > >> As always, Larry, you believe only your perspective deserves merit, and > >> anyone else who differs immediately deserves to be talked down to. > > > Heavy metal poisoning is a well known phenomenon. Mercury is a heavy > > metal. Quebec is still promoting asbestos as not being dangerous so > > denial is not unique to this issue. The US is lagging behind Europe > > on regulating mercury emissions. The concern about mercury in food > > fish is long standing as is attributed to various forms of pollution. > > > Clark Morris > > I'm well aware of that. And I'm also aware that there are are a lot of > things that are perceived as a threat that people like Larry freak out > and demand action on only to determine the results of the action are > worst than the original problem. > > Remember when MBTE was added to gasoline in 1999? > > Remember during the late 70's when we were experiencing extreme cold and > scientists were all set to dump a bunch of coal dust and ash in the > atmosphere and on Greenland? That would have been a nice environmental > mess. > > And there's one group of scientists who believe the chlorofluorocarbons > that being used now to reduce damage to the ozone hole are actually > contributing to global warming. > > Larry needs to learn that his knee jerk reactions to situation and > screaming and insulting anyone who disagrees with him just makes him > look like his argument is weak, and his fixes may do more harm than good. there is no "freaking out" at all. It is to recognize the simple realities as Clark has pointed out - and understanding them enough to know that we need to reduce the harm to those who are being harmed by it - even if you think it does not affect you. our pattern, our history on pollution is that we virtually every time woefully underestimate the harm.. and then have to backtrack .. and then realize that there are no easy solutions to superfund sites other than to fence them off, MTBE and other chemicals in aquifers - the solution is to not use that water anymore, and mercury in the environment - bio-persistent ... like other Organophosphates which work essentially like nerve-gases on living critters - including us. But I'm not surprised that those who are GW skeptics are also skeptics of other pollutions and their impacts either. To acknowledge that humans do have the capability to screw up the environment ..would have to include the possibility of climate change - and apparently that concept is so horrible that the skeptics won't consider it as possible. |