What this great nation would be WITHOUT the EPA

[Immanuel]

Isn't this kind of like asking the question 'What this great nation would be WITHOUT the Postal Service'?

At the time of inception, it was the right thing to do. Later on, it became a burden to society.

Every good idea has an expiration date. Some times the date is tomorrow, some times the date is 20 years from now.

There is no expiration date on protecting the environment and the health and safety of the people. Whatever gave you the idea that there is? The only burden is on the criminals who dump their toxic waste into our soil, lakes, and streams, and foul our groundwater (on which 40% of the population depends for drinking water) and the air we breathe.

Protecting the environment is still a great idea and always will be, but is an overblown government agency the right way to do it? Social Security is a great idea... but now with advancements in investing letting the government control your investments is about the dumbest thing anyone on the face of the earth can do. Providing health care for the poor is a damned good idea... but not in the manner Obamacare has gone about doing it.

A lot of great ideas come out of liberal minds. Unfortunately they get twisted by government intervention and politics.

Immie

 

[percysunshine]

how long will Fukushima remain contaminated?

Longer than your or my life time. The Japanese EPA could not stop Fukushima. So my US Postal Service analogy still holds.

This assumes that ANYONE ELSE can predict and prevent a megathrust Earthquake and ensuing tsunami. Bad assumption. Bad analogy.

It assumes no such thing. Analogy holds.

 

[percysunshine]

put down the Drudge kool aid

contaminated aquifers remain that way for a looong tome.

Yes, but there exists an age old legal remedy for contaminated aquifers. Unless, the definition of the word 'contaminated' changes, then we end up in rainbows of unicorns land.

If your suggestion is that we stop using them, then you are going to have to explain to 140 million Americans (particularly out west) where they are going to get their drinking water, and where the farmers are going to get their irrigation water.

I have not suggested anything like that.

Keep firing the straw man scattergun. Some day you might hit something.

 

[orogenicman]

Yes, but there exists an age old legal remedy for contaminated aquifers. Unless, the definition of the word 'contaminated' changes, then we end up in rainbows of unicorns land.

If your suggestion is that we stop using them, then you are going to have to explain to 140 million Americans (particularly out west) where they are going to get their drinking water, and where the farmers are going to get their irrigation water.

I have not suggested anything like that.

Keep firing the straw man scattergun. Some day you might hit something.

Perhaps if your response wasn't so vague and condescending...

Care to give us a detailed description of this "age old remedy for contaminated aquifers"?