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 10 Jul 2010 09:49 On 7/10/2010 5:13 AM, Larry G wrote: > 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. As I said every item on my list has the potential to maim, as well. And some of them do thousands of times a year. You mention quality of life, but completely neglect that aspect. Proving you only see things from one perspective. You completely ignore anybody else's perspective. Again.
From: Rich Piehl on 10 Jul 2010 09:59 On 7/10/2010 5:32 AM, Larry G wrote: > 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. Again, Larry you are labeling my perspective with out even making the attempt to understand it. As you always do. Show me where I said I was a skeptic of other pollutants. Larry, don't pretend to lecture me about superfund sites. I watched the town of Times Beach go bye-bye because of dioxin. I've seen first hand a private property owner have to remove an asphalt parking lot, remove 5 feet of top soil, have it cleaned and replaced all at his own expense because of dioxin. No it is you believes that somehow we can eliminate every potential danger from every potential chemical in the modern world. That somehow regulation, fees and/or taxation will eliminate those dangers. Mule muffins. Are there dangers - certainly. Do we completely disregard those dangers - absolutely not. But there are other considerations that have to weighed. Cost/benefit analysis. Risk assessment. And that's where you fall flat on your face.
From: Larry G on 10 Jul 2010 10:49 On Jul 10, 9:49 am, Rich Piehl <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > On 7/10/2010 5:13 AM, Larry G wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > As I said every item on my list has the potential to maim, as well. > And some of them do thousands of times a year. You mention quality of > life, but completely neglect that aspect. Proving you only see things > from one perspective. You completely ignore anybody else's perspective.. > Again. well I see things from the facts that are found on Wiki and the EPA site and other sites ... instead of relying on right-wing blogs unlike some.. I do believe what the EPA has to say about a lot of this especially if other credible organizations agree... and I prefer not to believe the right-wing conspiracy idiots.
From: Rich Piehl on 10 Jul 2010 22:22 On 7/10/2010 9:49 AM, Larry G wrote: > On Jul 10, 9:49 am, Rich Piehl > <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: >> On 7/10/2010 5:13 AM, Larry G wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> 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. >> >> As I said every item on my list has the potential to maim, as well. >> And some of them do thousands of times a year. You mention quality of >> life, but completely neglect that aspect. Proving you only see things >> from one perspective. You completely ignore anybody else's perspective. >> Again. > > well I see things from the facts that are found on Wiki and the EPA > site and other sites ... instead of relying on right-wing blogs > > unlike some.. I do believe what the EPA has to say about a lot of this > especially if other credible organizations agree... and I prefer not > to believe the right-wing conspiracy idiots. I wasn't aware that automobile fatality and injury statistics are from right wing blogs. Nor was I aware that deaths and injuries in home fires, or from household chemicals. Boy, I'm sure glad you aren't a left wing loon, or you might see right wing conspiracies where there are none. BUZZZZZ!!! Larry loses again. On several counts.
From: Larry G on 11 Jul 2010 05:32
On Jul 10, 10:22 pm, Rich Piehl <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > On 7/10/2010 9:49 AM, Larry G wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 9:49 am, Rich Piehl > > <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: > >> On 7/10/2010 5:13 AM, Larry G wrote: > > >>> 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. > > >> As I said every item on my list has the potential to maim, as well. > >> And some of them do thousands of times a year. You mention quality of > >> life, but completely neglect that aspect. Proving you only see things > >> from one perspective. You completely ignore anybody else's perspective. > >> Again. > > > well I see things from the facts that are found on Wiki and the EPA > > site and other sites ... instead of relying on right-wing blogs > > > unlike some.. I do believe what the EPA has to say about a lot of this > > especially if other credible organizations agree... and I prefer not > > to believe the right-wing conspiracy idiots. > > I wasn't aware that automobile fatality and injury statistics are from > right wing blogs. Nor was I aware that deaths and injuries in home > fires, or from household chemicals. > > Boy, I'm sure glad you aren't a left wing loon, or you might see right > wing conspiracies where there are none. > > BUZZZZZ!!! Larry loses again. On several counts. there's a pretty significant difference between design and safety of voluntarily-bought consumer products that can and are withdrawn from the market, redesigned, etc, and pollution in the environment that cannot be "undone" and is not voluntary and will continue harm forever... If you do screw up the climate - there may well be no going back. but the right wing idiots don't seem to get that part... and instead equate it to automobile defects..and "accidents". what you chose to believe or not - won't change the realities nor the consequences if we can't go back. The chances that we'd have an oil spill of the magnitude that we now have - even if infinitesimally small was very real as was the consequences and the damage cannot be easily undone and may remain for decades. and that is as bad as it is ...just a small part of the Earth's total environment. Equate this to GW which may also have an infestesimally small chance (in some folks eyes) of being "real" but if it is - it could be a climate version of the oil spill and planet-wide in terms of damage that cannot be undone. this is the difference between confusing auto statistics and the environment. Apparently in the right wing world - if GW turns out to be "real" after all.. then it's just an unfortunate "accident" that we guessed wrong on - and oh well.. we're not perfect. The oil spill is an example of that kind of thinking. ...the oil spill is just an unfortunate accident that could not have been foreseen..or predicted even though the left-wing loon scientists did warn about the potentials if it did happen.. no matter ...we threw the dice ... and now that we lost - it was...an "accident". the difference with accidents of this type - is that they cannot be undone - unlike fixing "defects" in Autos or the inevitability of a certain percentage of people dying from real accidents - the Gulf is... not one or two people - it is everyone and the damage is massive and long lasting. The right wing folks are apparently willing to take the same approach we did with deep water drilling and it's consequences - with the climate. |