Republican's Assault on Clean Water and Democracy

[martybegan]

Bfgrn:

I believe there should be room for debate on strictly local anomalies. But tell me WHY should we believe THAT is the intent of the Republican legislation? These are the same people calling for the EPA to be abolished, so if they can't abolish it, they can try to castrate it. These are also the same people who consistently make the list of the Dirty Dozen by the League of Conservation Voters.

BTW, where is the link to your article? And provide documentation on your radiation standards for Yucca Mtn accusation.

Well that debate is certainly not welcome by your radical eco-left pals because they have funds to raise and partisian fires to light. Particularly the ones who won't be happy til the population of mankind is trimmed to their liking. So where DOES rationality and science get considered? You've now seen how these issues become an IDENTICAL shouting match between partisians. Doesn't matter what the topic is -- it will end up in an attempt to impeach sources (like I did with pointing out the OP was written by R. Kennedy, because I like to toss bombs into discussions that have turned into partisian pissing matches) OR -- your guys did it first, OR -- you really don't want clean ____ because you're willing to accept some level of risk or contamination. Therefore you are poisoning the earth for spite.

I believe as the reliable half-cocked RDean put it "... so Republicans LIKE filth".

People like me who make science and engineering an entire belief system really don't want to have a lot to do with y'all. Except when it becomes neccessary to correct some govt overreach that one side or the other has managed to finagle and has to be undone.

Without the shouting and political farting around -- we might find some respect for each other's concerns here. Especially when you discover how deeply I also care about the environment despite my disdain for air-headed leftist eco-nauts.

I'm saving the Yucca Mtn/Marble Statue stuff for a separate thread under Energy or the Environment. I wanted to update it from my notes circa 1998 before posting it to avoid any embarrassement or surprises. But trust me -- those statues radiate more than the EPA standard..

As for the arsenic limits and that quote -- I've provided a source below. I only chose arsenic because I KNOW the science is not settled on that one. In fact, it appears that the EPA spun the wheel of fortune to determine the levels.

http://www.rsc.org/images/scaf0030704_tcm18-9777.pdf

The average
level measured in US groundwater
samples is around 1 ppb, but higher levels
are not uncommon. Compared to the rest
of the US, Western states have more
water systems with levels exceeding 10
ppb, and levels exceed 50 ppb in some
locations. Levels exceeding 10 ppb are
also found in parts of the Midwest and
New England. According to EPA, 5.5%
of water systems, serving 11 million
people, exceed the 10 ppb level.

EPA’s revision of the arsenic rule has
been hugely controversial. Critics say
there is little evidence as to whether
significant adverse health effects occur
from ingesting arsenic at very low levels,
and consequently the costs of the new
rule for the American public utilities is
not justified.10 Indeed, the NRC report
stated: “No human studies of sufficient
statistical power or scope have examined
whether consumption of arsenic in
drinking water at the current MCL [50
ppb] results in an increased incidence of
cancer or noncancer effects.” Subsequent
studies, reviewed at the time of the 2001
reappraisal, failed to fill this gap.

The most contentious point in the
scientific debate has been the assumption
that the toxicity of arsenic increases
linearly (i.e. uniformly) in proportion to
increases in its concentration.10,11
Virtually all known toxicological
processes follow a sublinear model–i.e.
increases in cancer risk are negligible at
low doses. Critics say the NRC accepted
that only sublinear models were plausible
but was forced to opt for the linear model
instead because it could not agree on
which sublinear model was correct. This,
they claim, led to a conclusion in favour
of a lower arsenic standard that was not
supported by the science.

Happy now?? -- I'm NOT a REPUB. In fact a pox on both parties. And if the eco-left simply wants to constantly neglect science and reason in order to get their way all the time -- then they are no more environmentalists than their arch rivals..

Did you READ your own link Einstein?

In developing standards, EPA is required
to set a Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL), defined as the maximum
allowable concentration using the best available
technology, treatment or other
means, and taking costs into consideration.
EPA’s cost determinations are
typically based on costs to systems
servicing more than 50 000 people. Less
than 2% of community water systems are
this large, but they serve roughly 56%
of the population served by community
systems. The smallest systems, those
serving fewer than 3300 people, will be
exempt from the new standard for up to
9 years and EPA has announced financial
assistance to help them comply with this
and other SDWA rules.

Costs for upgrades to treatment plants go beyond just the initial captial costs. Operating costs increase as complexity goes up, and this cost is passed onto consumers. By making rules that may not have an actual benefit for the cost you are not only needlessly making a process more complex, but you are using funds that could be better put to use in other areas of the plant.

Making a water treatment plant too complex due to overreaching on the standards is a waste of money.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn:::

Yeah -- I read that part.. How many of the 11 million people above 10ppm are on those small systems?

And the 9 year exemption seems to run out (coincidentally) by my calculations this year..
Could be ... -- that's why the bill is there.. That might make sense.. That exemptions like that one are just now coming due and up til now -- the states could ignore them or set a lower priority..

And who cares if the FEDs are gonna kick in a few percent or a free loan? We're talking about the SCIENTIFIC NEED to declare a limit that low..

So, this is going to be the same whining as the coal burning power plants who are now being required to comply with regulations they KNEW were coming for over a decade...VICTIM-HOOD...

There is nothing here that makes the EPA an outlier...the World Health Organization's standard is 10 parts per billion.

You article's sources in the 'critics' section has Steve Milloy as a source. Do you know who Steve Milloy is?

And you have the nerve to call people 'leftist eco-nauts' ...

 

[Stephanie]

Kennedy is a nut.

He is very sane, and like all true liberals, his concern for other people is genuine. He always says there are no Republican children or Democrat children, they are all American children.

And there is nothing radical about protecting our environment. If we don't do that well, then economic issues will be meaningless. Good environmental policy is always good economic policy, because it encourages us to properly value our natural resources, and it's the undervaluation of those resources that causes us to use them wastefully. Pollution is waste.

RFK Jr has a very well developed understanding of what constitutes a true free market, and common sense reasons we must protect our environment if we really believe in a free market economy.

If they "genuine cared about people" they would donate all their wealth to their cause.
Instead they have sucked off the people of this country ALL THEIR LIVES with their hairbranded ideas and got away with RAPE, MURDER, DRUGS, etc etc etc..

 

[flacaltenn]

So, this is going to be the same whining as the coal burning power plants who are now being required to comply with regulations they KNEW were coming for over a decade...VICTIM-HOOD...

There is nothing here that makes the EPA an outlier...the World Health Organization's standard is 10 parts per billion.

You article's sources in the 'critics' section has Steve Milloy as a source. Do you know who Steve Milloy is?

And you have the nerve to call people 'leftist eco-nauts' ...

Oh well -- i thought you were interested in the science and reason part of it -- but evidently you are more interested in "the process" of obtaining power to control the science and reason..

The only ARTICLE I posted was from the ROYAL CHEMICAL SOCIETY.. You know the place in Britain where all the brilliant Chemists hang out?

If I'm gonna get pummeled for that -- then you are a TRUE leftist eco-naut. and if yu have the notion that you're actually contributing to the preservation of the environment with an attitude like that --- you're deluded..

 

[Bfgrn]

So, this is going to be the same whining as the coal burning power plants who are now being required to comply with regulations they KNEW were coming for over a decade...VICTIM-HOOD...

There is nothing here that makes the EPA an outlier...the World Health Organization's standard is 10 parts per billion.

You article's sources in the 'critics' section has Steve Milloy as a source. Do you know who Steve Milloy is?

And you have the nerve to call people 'leftist eco-nauts' ...

Oh well -- i thought you were interested in the science and reason part of it -- but evidently you are more interested in "the process" of obtaining power to control the science and reason..

The only ARTICLE I posted was from the ROYAL CHEMICAL SOCIETY.. You know the place in Britain where all the brilliant Chemists hang out?

If I'm gonna get pummeled for that -- then you are a TRUE leftist eco-naut. and if yu have the notion that you're actually contributing to the preservation of the environment with an attitude like that --- you're deluded..

Albert Camus said: "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners."

You may not like environmentalists, but they are not on the side of the executioners. People like Steve Malloy ARE. I guess you are unaware of all the money and power the dirty energy cartels have and USE in the debate over pollution, harm to humans, fish and foul.

Milloy has spent much of his life as a lobbyist for major corporations and trade organizations which have poisioning or polluting problems. He originally ran the National Environmental Policy Institute (NEPI) which was founded by Republican Rep Don Ritter (who tried to get tobacco industry funding) using oil and gas industry funding. NEPI was dedicated to transforming both the EPA and the FDA, and challenging the cost of Superfund toxic cleanups by these large corporations.

NEPI was also associated with the Air Quality Standards Coalition (AQSC) which was devoted to weakening Clean Air laws. This organization took up the cry of "we need sound science" from the chemical industry as a way to counter claims of pollution -- and Milloy became involved in what became known as the "sound-science" movement. Its most effective ploy was to label scientific findings that were detrimental to the large funding corporations as "junk." Milloy was one of its most effective lobbyists because he wrote well, and used humor.

Milloy joined Philip Morris's specialist-science/PR company APCO & Associates in 1992 as a consultant, working behind the scenes on a business venture known as "Issues Watch". By this time, APCO had been taken over and become a part of the world-wide Grey Marketing organization, and so Milloy was able to use the international organization as a feed source for services to corporations who had international problems.

Issues Watch bulletins were only given out to paying customers, so Milloy started for APCO the "Junkscience.com" web site, which gave him an outlet to attack health and environmental activists, and scientists who published findings not supportive of his client's businesses. Like most good PR it mixes some good, general criticism of science and science-reporting, with some outright distorted and manipulative pieces.

The Junkscience web site was supposedly run by a pseudo-grassroots organization called The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), organized by APCO for Philip Morris, which initially paid ex-Governor Garrey Carruthers of New Mexico as a front. Milloy actually ran it from the back-room, and issued the press releases. Then when Carruthers resigned, Milloy started to call himself "Director." Bonner Cohen -- who also worked for APCO -- became "President."

Initially all of this was funded by Philip Morris, but later PM broadened the focus to gather even more funding by garnering participation from energy, pharmaceutical, chemical companies. TASSC's funders include 3M, Amoco, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Exxon, General Motors, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lorillard Tobacco, Louisiana Chemical Association, National Pest Control Association, Occidental Petroleum, Philip Morris Companies, Procter & Gamble, Santa Fe Pacific Gold, and W.R. Grace, the asbestos and pesticide manufacturers.

TASSC was then exposed publicly as a fraud, and so Milloy established the "Citizens for the Integrity of Science" to take over the running of the Junkscience.com web site

 

[flacaltenn]

Carry on Comrade.. Your emphasis and infatuation with distraction -- interests me not at all.

I can out environmental you however -- most days of the week...

 

[Bfgrn]

Carry on Comrade.. Your emphasis and infatuation with distraction -- interests me not at all.

I can out environmental you however -- most days of the week...

All your contortions, and the acceptable limit chosen by the EPA is the SAME as the World Health Organization...LOL

Take your condescending attitude and shove it up your ass. You don't even know how to read an article YOU post...

Here is a primer Einstein...

bibliography:
–noun, plural -phies.

a list of source materials that are used or consulted in the preparation of a work or that are referred to in the text.

The most contentious point in the
scientific debate has been the assumption
that the toxicity of arsenic increases
linearly (i.e. uniformly) in proportion to
increases in its concentration.10,11

10. Arsenic, Drinking Water, and
Health, A Position Paper of the
American Council on Science and
Health, ACSH, 2002.

11. S. Milloy, National Research
Council poisons arsenic debate, Fox
News, 27 April 2001.
ww.foxnews.com

The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) describes itself as "a consumer education consortium concerned with issues related to food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, the environment and health. ACSH is an independent, nonprofit, tax-exempt organization. The nucleus of ACSH is a board of 350 physicians, scientists and policy advisors - experts in a wide variety of fields - who review the Council's reports and participate in ACSH seminars, press conferences, media communications and other educational activities."

To its credit, it has taken a strong public position against the dangers of tobacco, one of the leading preventable causes of death in today's society. However, it takes a generally apologetic stance regarding virtually every other health and environmental hazard produced by modern industry, accepting corporate funding from Coca-Cola, Kellogg, General Mills, Pepsico, and the American Beverage Association, among others.

 

[flacaltenn]

You're a regular walking compendium of conspiracy theories ain't ya?

Want to toss the ROYAL CHEMICAL SOCIETY in the Gulag also? Should THEY be embarrassed?

The only parts that I extracted can be found in IDENTICAL verbage in EPA reports and essays.. Asswipe.

So no entity that is being challenged by the Red guard wing of enviromentalism can defend themselves in honest scientific debate comrade? Remember MTBE? How about Hydro power? Ethanol?

NOTHING is debateable with you guys except for the mighty brilliance of your politicians and teams of lawyers who PRETEND to analyze the science but are focused on acquisition of power...

 

[Bfgrn]

You're a regular walking compendium of conspiracy theories ain't ya?

Want to toss the ROYAL CHEMICAL SOCIETY in the Gulag also? Should THEY be embarrassed?

The only parts that I extracted can be found in IDENTICAL verbage in EPA reports and essays.. Asswipe.

So no entity that is being challenged by the Red guard wing of enviromentalism can defend themselves in honest scientific debate comrade? Remember MTBE? How about Hydro power? Ethanol?

NOTHING is debateable with you guys except for the mighty brilliance of your politicians and teams of lawyers who PRETEND to analyze the science but are focused on acquisition of power...

I didn't WRITE the article you posted, but it's my fault that I am smart enough to decipher the bibliography? No, it's probably my fault that you are not smart enough... you are the one constantly beating his chest.

Here is my view on environmental issues. When it comes to human life being extinguished, there really is no debate. People like Malloy use obfuscation and junk science to allow polluters to keep polluting and making $$$billions, while human beings are harmed and extinguished. If you can internalize and excuse 13,000 Americans prematurely dying every year because of pollution from coal burning power plants, then you are not a thinking man. As a matter of fact, you are not even a human being, you are some sort of malignancy.

 

[Disenchanted61]

Republicans have certainly proven to be a destructive force on this planet; to no end, but until they are held accountable by the opposition, nothing will change..

 

[Chris]

Like the 104th Congress when Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, the House today is swinging a sledgehammer at a cornerstone of contemporary American democracy and undermining the most extraordinary body of environmental law in the world.

Chief among the attacks is HR 2018, known as the "Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011." The bill, currently working its way through the House, hogties the federal government's role in administering the federal Clean Water Act and gives states a veto power over a host of critical water quality decisions that the Clean Water Act currently authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to make. This approach will foster a 1950s-style race to bottom as shortsighted and self-interested state politicians dismantle their clean water laws in order to recruit filthy polluters.

Corporate polluters -- through massive campaign donations and relentless fear-mongering -- can easily dominate the state political landscapes. Their indentured servants in Congress -- many flying the Tea Party banner -- are working to disrupt the existing balance between state control and federal oversight in our environmental laws by returning us to the days of limited federal supervision -- a time when local government was on the side of polluters in a partnership that was stealing people's livelihoods, their recreation, their health, safety, property values and their childhoods.

The original drafters of the Clean Water Act were keenly aware of the problems inherent in leaving all responsibility to the states. Prior to 1972, that scheme had ignited rivers and firestorms and left Lake Erie declared dead. We saw the results first hand here on the Hudson River in the 1960s -- where hundreds of fishermen lost their jobs because their beloved waterways had become too polluted to allow anyone to safely eat the fish. The Clean Water Act, enacted shortly thereafter, created a beautifully simple yet powerfully effective tool to help address these problems: a federal safety net for water quality that guarantees a minimum level of protection to all Americans, no matter where you live. And for nearly 40 years this approach has been working.

More

The Republicans want to turn America into Dickinsean England.

Plutocracy and pollution forever!

 

[peach174]

So where will the 31 Billion dollars come from to fund this?
Why can't you get it, WE Don't Have The MONEY !!!!!!!!!
When we get out of this mess then we can consider things like this but now right now.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ditch Water...yum.

I think more and more people are wondering, "Yeah, how the fuck are Dems still a major political Party anyway?"

 

[peach174]

The Laws that are still in place keeps our water clean you social loons.
Minimum level of protection? How about way over the top protection.
Minimum is OK, tests that are unnecessary is way over the top this is what it cost all of us too much money.

 

[Chris]

So where will the 31 Billion dollars come from to fund this?
Why can't you get it, WE Don't Have The MONEY !!!!!!!!!
When we get out of this mess then we can consider things like this but now right now.

We have plenty of money.

All we have to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts and raise the top rate by 3%.

But the Republicans are so anti American that they want to destroy Social Security, Medicare, and the EPA, so the extraction companies can have free reign over an impoverished and polluted landscape.

 

[Dot Com]

When the Repubs had moderates in their party, they were stewards of the country's natural wild lands. Now, not so much.

 

[Chris]

When the Repubs had moderates in their party, they were stewards of the country's natural wild lands. Now, not so much.

Ronald Reagan ruined the Republican Party.

Before Reagan, Republicans had some decency about them.

Not now.

 

[peach174]

So where will the 31 Billion dollars come from to fund this?
Why can't you get it, WE Don't Have The MONEY !!!!!!!!!
When we get out of this mess then we can consider things like this but now right now.

We have plenty of money.

All we have to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts and raise the top rate by 3%.

But the Republicans are so anti American that they want to destroy Social Security, Medicare, and the EPA, so the extraction companies can have free reign over an impoverished and polluted landscape.

You haven't done any of the math.It doesn't bring in much money at all compared to all the big programs.
Getting Social Security out of the politicians hands so that they can't spend the surplus is not destroying it.
Paul Ryan's plan is better than Obama's. Obama's is is going to make our seniors have to go to the emergency rooms because Doctors can't afford the cap.
EPA is costing all of us too much money, with tests that a totally unnecessary and way over the top.
The lefty socialism is anti American. Chris

 

[Disenchanted61]

Ditch Water...yum.

I think more and more people are wondering, "Yeah, how the fuck are Dems still a major political Party anyway?"

Zappa also said: " Give a person a big nose and funny hair, and anything is possible."
Maybe we should take this into consideration during the next Presidential Election
because nothing else seems to be is working towards our favor.