New cases of lung cancer, birth defects -> How many is "OK" and good for the economy?

Discussion in 'Environment' started by rdean, Oct 28, 2011.

  1. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,086
    Thanks Received:
    6,888
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,931
    The Republican presidential nominees keep going on about EPA regulations hurting business. About all the new Obama regulations. We know that Obama actually has 5% FEWER regulations than Bush did after three years. We also know that the majority of regulations either come from congress or are a result of "court orders".

    Michelle Bachmann want's to get rid of the EPA altogether. Many Republicans share that view. I'm guessing they assume companies will protect the environment the same way BP did the Gulf.

    They say that things won't get "that bad".

    What I'm wondering is how many new cases of birth defects and lung cancer tdo Republicans find "acceptable"? Taking care of these people will create new jobs, we know that. Is that part of their plan?

    5%
    10%
    1,000 new cases?
    100,000?

    How much do they find acceptable? And the people that do have children with birth defects. Should they be "paid"?

    -----------------------------------------------

    Appalachian residents who live near mountaintop removal mine sites face an increased risk of birth defects.

    House Republicans scheduled last week's hearing on the heels of a vote by the full House to pass legislation pushed by Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., to strip EPA of much of its authority to ensure state regulatory agencies properly enforce water pollution standards and permit limits. The bill is part of an effort by the GOP and by coal-state Democrats to block the Obama administration's crackdown on mountaintop removal.

    EPA concerned about MTR link to birth defects* - News - The Charleston Gazette - West Virginia News and Sports -
     
  2. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    That pesky EPA if it were not for the costs associated with keeping America unpolluted the corporations could make more money.
     
  3. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,210
    Thanks Received:
    14,906
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,952
    I thought Obama didn't need Congress?

    Why doesn't he just pass a law outlawing death?

    Dean, you are very mentally disturbed
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    That is a very good question.... But you need to turn it around. In order to reduce cancers and birth defects, what level of unemployment and what level of decay in your living standard are you willing to accept?

    The assumption is that profits are increased or decreased by these regulations. That is not the case. Profit is determined by risk and the going rate of return on assets for any enterprise. You never increase or decrease rates of profit except by increasing or decreasing risk. The rate of profit will remain constant.

    What you do change is wage income. What level or lower wages are you willing to accept a more pristine environment. Some occupations have totally vanished under environmental control. Lead used to be a major industry. No all the jobs associate with it have gone as no one uses it. Same with Asbestos. It used to be a major industry. Now it is totally banned. All those who worked in those industries are unemployed. But profits have not changed much except to rise a little, as risks of doing buisnes have increased some.
     
  5. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,086
    Thanks Received:
    6,888
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,931
    I asked first. Obviously, you are OK with increased birth defects. The question is how many is OK? Should we slip the parents a "few bucks"? Or should they just "buck up" and know they are doing something "good" for the country?
     
  6. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,827
    Thanks Received:
    8,081
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,363
    What regulation that Republicans want to repeal will increase cancer? Can you name even one?


    What is the evidence that mountain top removal for coal mining causes cancer?

    We all know this isn't the real reason for the regulations. Environmental wackos like you and the toadies at the EPA simply oppose the use of fossil fuels and will use any means to put a stop to it.
     
  7. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,827
    Thanks Received:
    8,081
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,363

    What turds like you don't understand is that concept of trade-offs and the fact that cleaning up the last 0.00001% of a pollutant can cost 100 million times more than cleaning up the first 99%. Yet, you insist an 0.0% pollution.

    You're a bunch of numskulls who will destroy this economy and have us all living like feudal serfs for the sake of your impossible schemes to save the planet.
     
  8. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,763
    Thanks Received:
    15,636
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,931
    I know that you worry about Americans, deanie...

    The Democrat executive rammed through a healthcare plan complete with a panel that keeps suggesting that those pesky diagnostic tests aren't really necessary....

    How many deaths would be OK as long as eveyone is on ObamaCare???
    What's the plan of the Obama administration?


    1. ObamaCare itself is still just a nightmare, but already questions are being raised--by Reuters, no less--about the possibility of patients' being denied care for political reasons:
    Cancer experts fear new U.S. breast imaging guidelines that recommend against routine screening mammograms for women in their 40s may have their roots in the current drive in Washington to reform healthcare.
    Critics of the guidelines, issued on Monday by the U.S. Services Task Force, an independent panel sponsored by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Quality, say the new guidelines are a step backward and will lead to more cancer deaths.
    Len Lichtenfeld of the American Cancer society says his group still recommends mammograms for 40-something women:....
    Experts question motives of mammogram guidelines | Reuters

    2. ...slipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age.” The CER would identify (this is language from the draft report on the legislation) medical "items, procedures, and interventions" that it deems insufficiently effective or excessively expensive. They "will no longer be prescribed" by federal health programs.” Are you thinking ‘seniors’? George F. Will - How the GOP Should Measure the Stimulus

    3. The recently released Annual Report of the Medicare Board of Trustees reveals that the Medicare payment rates for the doctors and hospitals serving seniors will be cut by 30% over the next 3 years.
    The American Spectator : The Obamacare Disaster

    4. Avastin, the world’s best selling cancer drug, is primarily used to treat colon cancer and was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2008 for use on women with breast cancer that has spread. ...The FDA advisory panel has now voted 12-1 to drop the endorsement for breast cancer treatment. The panel unusually cited "effectiveness" grounds for the decision. But it has been claimed that "cost effectiveness" was the real reason ahead of reforms in which the government will extend health insurance to the poorest. US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels' - Telegraph

    5. (Reuters) - Doctors criticized proposals by a government-backed panel recommending against prostate cancer screening in healthy men -- saying they went too far and may put some men at risk of the deadly cancer.
    The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which advises the government on health prevention measures, ....
    PSA test for prostate cancer not recommended: panel | Reuters
     
  9. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    What regulation that Republicans want to repeal will increase cancer? Can you name even one?

    Umm all of them.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,827
    Thanks Received:
    8,081
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,363
    As of yet, no one has proven that birth defects will increase. We certainly can't trust the EPA to give us the straight poop on such subjects.
     

Share This Page