GOP Slaps the EPA upside the head

[westwall]

However, I abhor the prostitution of science for political games and the concentration of power in the hands of the government. All things which you and your fellow socialists support.

I hate to break it to you, but multinationals like Cargill and Monsanto are behind almost all of the farm legislation passed. They OWN the government and pay them to pass laws that benefit only them.

Agreed, that's why I don't want the EPA doing the same for those companies competitors.
Any legislation of that sort is going to do nothing but harm the average American citizen, hence they should ALL be denied.

 

[westwall]

Typical Tea Bagging legislation

Passin laws against a nonexistent threat

Typical rightwinger brain dead comment.

 

[rightwinger]

Typical Tea Bagging legislation

Passin laws against a nonexistent threat

Typical rightwinger brain dead comment.

Show where the EPA had planned regulation against "Farm Dust"

 

[westwall]

Typical Tea Bagging legislation

Passin laws against a nonexistent threat

Typical rightwinger brain dead comment.

Show where the EPA had planned regulation against "Farm Dust"

Here you go bucko...



SUMMARY: On or about June 30, 2010, the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS) of EPA is making available for public comment a
draft document: Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards--Second External Review
Draft. This draft document will serve to ``bridge the gap'' between the
scientific information and the judgments required of the Administrator
in determining whether it is appropriate to retain or revise the
standards as part of the review of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM).

DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before August 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0492, by one of the following methods:
Regulations.gov Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail)
to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
0492.
Fax: Fax your comments to 202-566-9744, Attention Docket
ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492.
Mail: Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: EPA
Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0492. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at Regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
Regulations.gov or e-mail. The Regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through Regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
Regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket


FR Doc 2010-16490

 

[The Infidel]

Other "nonsense" includes the report that childhood asthma is still increasing and that the same ole air pollution is to blame. Yep, its time we got rid of all regulations because the profits of the 1% is a helluva lot more important than our children's health.

Ummmm hate to point this out to you 'cause you're so smart and all, but the dust levels that the EPA is looking to impose are only found in clean rooms. There is such a thing as reasonable regulation, and then there is the current loons at the EPA who want to classify CO2 as a pollutant (kind of funny there, remove the CO2 and life vanishes, but you have to actually understand science to realise that) and regulated dust to such an extreme level that we would have to import all of our food from overseas. Oh and even with that their air quality goals could never be met because...well the air blows shit around you know.

Just the crap that blows over from China will negate all the EPA's efforts to stranle dust here.

Yep, that's intelligence for you. Or the lack thereof. But, you're a follower of Ned Lud so why am I not surprised.

LOL!!! You just won't stop, will you? First, you rail against a non-existent regulation and then you level the charge that all CO2 is to be removed! When does hyper-partisanship become out-and-out lies, hmmmmmmmmm?!?!

Point out where Westwall was wrong.

He nailed it!

 

[The Infidel]

yep Obama has not slowed down the offshoring at all.
It is competition with offshore wages that is driving this country down.
Well that and the stupid people in it.

You of all people should not be trying to deflect the fact that this would cost countless jobs due to stricter regs.

 

[Bfgrn]

obama's losing a lot lately

As is the GOP, wasting its time on this nonsense rather than jobs and the economy.

Ummm, that's what this bill will do. Had the EPA been able to regulate this area like they want to, food production costs would have soared. All costs would have soared and thousands would have been put out of work. It seems every time you turn around Obama's team is figuring out ways to impoverish this country.

This is a BOGUS move by the most anti-environment House of Representatives in American history. By LAW, the EPA has to review regulations to examine effectiveness and see if new technologies are available.

 

[Chewsters]

obama's losing a lot lately

As is the GOP, wasting its time on this nonsense rather than jobs and the economy.

what's sad is they HAVE to waste their time on this because we have a stupid, overzealous and ridiculously over-involved bureaucratic agency.

 

[The Infidel]

As is the GOP, wasting its time on this nonsense rather than jobs and the economy.

Ummm, that's what this bill will do. Had the EPA been able to regulate this area like they want to, food production costs would have soared. All costs would have soared and thousands would have been put out of work. It seems every time you turn around Obama's team is figuring out ways to impoverish this country.

This is a BOGUS move by the most anti-environment House of Representatives in American history. By LAW, the EPA has to review regulations to examine effectiveness and see if new technologies are available.

 

[Bfgrn]

Ummm, that's what this bill will do. Had the EPA been able to regulate this area like they want to, food production costs would have soared. All costs would have soared and thousands would have been put out of work. It seems every time you turn around Obama's team is figuring out ways to impoverish this country.

This is a BOGUS move by the most anti-environment House of Representatives in American history. By LAW, the EPA has to review regulations to examine effectiveness and see if new technologies are available.

ISA: Integrated Science Assessments | NCEA | US EPA

The Clean Air Act mandates periodic review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six common air pollutants, also referred to as criteria pollutants.

As mandated by the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must periodically review the scientific bases (or criteria) for the various NAAQS by assessing newly available scientific information on a given criteria air pollutant.

What is an Integrated Science Assessments?

Integrated Science Assessments (ISA) are reports that represent a concise evaluation and synthesis of the most policy-relevant science for reviewing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA has set NAAQS for six principal pollutants, which include: ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. Called criteria pollutants, these are derived from numerous sources and are considered harmful to public health and the environment.

The ISA accurately reflects “the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of identifiable effects on public health which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in ambient air” (42 U.S.C. 7408). Because the ISA communicates critical science judgments relevant to the NAAQS review, it forms the scientific foundation for the review of the NAAQS standards. Key information and judgments formerly contained in previously released assessments, referred to as Air Quality Criteria Documents (AQCD), are incorporated in these new ISA assessments. Additional details of the pertinent scientific literature published since the last review, as well as selected older studies of particular interest, are included in a the supporting appendices of the ISA. Thereby the ISA serves to update and revise the evaluation of the scientific evidence available at the time of the previous review of the NAAQS to the newest studies and information.

Lastly, all ISA documents are vetted through a rigorous peer review process, including review by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Council and public comment periods.

 

[westwall]

As is the GOP, wasting its time on this nonsense rather than jobs and the economy.

Ummm, that's what this bill will do. Had the EPA been able to regulate this area like they want to, food production costs would have soared. All costs would have soared and thousands would have been put out of work. It seems every time you turn around Obama's team is figuring out ways to impoverish this country.

This is a BOGUS move by the most anti-environment House of Representatives in American history. By LAW, the EPA has to review regulations to examine effectiveness and see if new technologies are available.

And their OWN scientists have told them that their proposed regulations will do nothing. Do try and keep up.

 

[Katzndogz]

Ummm, that's what this bill will do. Had the EPA been able to regulate this area like they want to, food production costs would have soared. All costs would have soared and thousands would have been put out of work. It seems every time you turn around Obama's team is figuring out ways to impoverish this country.

This is a BOGUS move by the most anti-environment House of Representatives in American history. By LAW, the EPA has to review regulations to examine effectiveness and see if new technologies are available.

And their OWN scientists have told them that their proposed regulations will do nothing. Do try and keep up.

The proposed regulations would have done a lot. Outrageous fines for farmers and ranchers, seizing of land. Closing down productive land.

It wouldn't have done anything to stop dust. It would have put as big a dent in food production as the environmentalists did in the California central valley when they had the water shut off.

 

[Bfgrn]

Ummm, that's what this bill will do. Had the EPA been able to regulate this area like they want to, food production costs would have soared. All costs would have soared and thousands would have been put out of work. It seems every time you turn around Obama's team is figuring out ways to impoverish this country.

This is a BOGUS move by the most anti-environment House of Representatives in American history. By LAW, the EPA has to review regulations to examine effectiveness and see if new technologies are available.

And their OWN scientists have told them that their proposed regulations will do nothing. Do try and keep up.

There was NO proposed change to the regulation. It was a REVIEW where changes were DISCUSSED. WTF is going on with you fucking right wing extremists? Now you want to stifle any TALK or debate? You sound like fascists.

 

[The Infidel]

This is a BOGUS move by the most anti-environment House of Representatives in American history. By LAW, the EPA has to review regulations to examine effectiveness and see if new technologies are available.

And their OWN scientists have told them that their proposed regulations will do nothing. Do try and keep up.

There was NO proposed change to the regulation. It was a REVIEW where changes were DISCUSSED. WTF is going on with you fucking right wing extremists? Now you want to stifle any TALK or debate? You sound like fascists.

Oh yeah.... sure


Whatever

 

[Bfgrn]

Typical rightwinger brain dead comment.

Show where the EPA had planned regulation against "Farm Dust"

Here you go bucko...



SUMMARY: On or about June 30, 2010, the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS) of EPA is making available for public comment a
draft document: Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards--Second External Review
Draft. This draft document will serve to ``bridge the gap'' between the
scientific information and the judgments required of the Administrator
in determining whether it is appropriate to retain or revise the
standards as part of the review of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM).

DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before August 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0492, by one of the following methods:
Regulations.gov Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail)
to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
0492.
Fax: Fax your comments to 202-566-9744, Attention Docket
ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492.
Mail: Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: EPA
Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0492. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at Regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
Regulations.gov or e-mail. The Regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through Regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
Regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket


FR Doc 2010-16490

Hey bucko...WHERE does it say the EPA plans to CHANGE the existing regulation on Particulate Matter? WHERE are the parameters? This is a required REVIEW, which is required BY LAW. You right wing turds should understand what BY LAW means.

 

[The Infidel]

Hey bucko...WHERE does it say the EPA plans to CHANGE the existing regulation on Particulate Matter? WHERE are the parameters? This is a required REVIEW, which is required BY LAW. You right wing turds should understand what BY LAW means.

The EPA has already proved they cant be trusted... they are answering to nobody but Obama.

Prove me wrong

 

[Bfgrn]

Hey bucko...WHERE does it say the EPA plans to CHANGE the existing regulation on Particulate Matter? WHERE are the parameters? This is a required REVIEW, which is required BY LAW. You right wing turds should understand what BY LAW means.

The EPA has already proved they cant be trusted... they are answering to nobody but Obama.

Prove me wrong

There we go.............Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace

There are no changes to the regulations on Particulate Matter. But we MUST fear-monger. It is the core of conservatism...

Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.

 

[The Infidel]

Hey bucko...WHERE does it say the EPA plans to CHANGE the existing regulation on Particulate Matter? WHERE are the parameters? This is a required REVIEW, which is required BY LAW. You right wing turds should understand what BY LAW means.

The EPA has already proved they cant be trusted... they are answering to nobody but Obama.

Prove me wrong

There we go.............Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace

There are no changes to the regulations on Particulate Matter. But we MUST fear-monger. It is the core of conservatism...

Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.

Still waiting.....


Meh, Im bored.

NM

 

[Bfgrn]

The EPA has already proved they cant be trusted... they are answering to nobody but Obama.

Prove me wrong

There we go.............Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace

There are no changes to the regulations on Particulate Matter. But we MUST fear-monger. It is the core of conservatism...

Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.

Still waiting.....


Meh, Im bored.

NM

No Einstein. The burden is on YOU to prove the EPA can't be trusted. I'm not your nanny.

 

[Stephanie]

Other "nonsense" includes the report that childhood asthma is still increasing and that the same ole air pollution is to blame. Yep, its time we got rid of all regulations because the profits of the 1% is a helluva lot more important than our children's health.

good grief, the world is going to end.
these idiots wanted to regulate DUST for crying out loud.