Environment is Cleaner Than it's Been in More Than 100 Years

[Mr. H.]

Detroit and Buffalo have amazingly clean air these days lol. So what about WORLD air and the oceans, dingbats?

Oh, so that's why Obama unilaterally brokers overseas climate deals?

 

[bendog]

I know this will drive the environmental wackos. "How dare anyone claim the environment is clean!"

Michigan s Environment is Cleaner than it s Been in More than 100 Years Michigan Capitol Confidential

Michigan's Environment is Cleaner Than it's Been in More Than 100 Years

Disease, contamination and pollutants are mostly in the past while

Many people view the relationship between humans and nature as a zero-sum game: Our progress comes at the direct expense of the environment. Actually, that’s not the case.


Recently, we’ve been able to dramatically improve our standard of living while simultaneously leaving behind a cleaner environment. In fact, Michigan’s environment is arguably cleaner than it has been in more than 100 years.


Consider how clean our drinking water has become. In the early 20th century, waterborne infectious diseases such as cholera, dysentery and typhoid were leading causes of death, and typhoid epidemics annually sickened thousands in American cities. With technological leaps in filtration – now to the level of filtering microbes and chemical compounds, disinfection and water analysis – these waterborne illnesses have been practically eradicated in Michigan and the United States.

The water in our rivers, lakes and streams is also less contaminated than it used to be. Treated wastewater and storm water contain significantly lower levels of contaminants, as technology and control systems have advanced. Some wastewater treatment plants in Michigan discharge water of higher quality than their receiving streams. For example, the PARCC Side Clean Water Plant in Plainfield, Michigan discharges four million gallons of water per day into the Grand River that is of better quality than the river’s water. Other Michigan treatment plants can also produce effluents better than river water much of the time.


Wildlife habitats are improving, too. In a 2010 Detroit News article, Jim Lynch chronicled the repopulation of wildlife around Detroit, writing, “After decades of struggling to overcome the Detroit River’s polluted past, a variety of fish and bird species have re-established themselves ... [t]he budding osprey population is joined by increasing numbers of walleye, lake sturgeon and whitefish as well as bird species like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon.”​

Quick let's get rid of the EPA, and clean water and air acts. Mission accomplished. LOL

 

[francoHFW]

Detroit and Buffalo have amazingly clean air these days lol. So what about WORLD air and the oceans, dingbats?

Oh, so that's why Obama unilaterally brokers overseas climate deals?

No, that's why he has stopped 86ing them ike Booshies and is getting China and India aboard, Rushbot etc.

 

[bripat9643]

A lot of this is good news. I can't say all of course. Solar is now number two most installed source of energy. No longer a toy or rich mans energy source.

What does "installed energy source" mean?

 

[bripat9643]

I know this will drive the environmental wackos. "How dare anyone claim the environment is clean!"

Michigan s Environment is Cleaner than it s Been in More than 100 Years Michigan Capitol Confidential

Michigan's Environment is Cleaner Than it's Been in More Than 100 Years

Disease, contamination and pollutants are mostly in the past while

Many people view the relationship between humans and nature as a zero-sum game: Our progress comes at the direct expense of the environment. Actually, that’s not the case.


Recently, we’ve been able to dramatically improve our standard of living while simultaneously leaving behind a cleaner environment. In fact, Michigan’s environment is arguably cleaner than it has been in more than 100 years.


Consider how clean our drinking water has become. In the early 20th century, waterborne infectious diseases such as cholera, dysentery and typhoid were leading causes of death, and typhoid epidemics annually sickened thousands in American cities. With technological leaps in filtration – now to the level of filtering microbes and chemical compounds, disinfection and water analysis – these waterborne illnesses have been practically eradicated in Michigan and the United States.

The water in our rivers, lakes and streams is also less contaminated than it used to be. Treated wastewater and storm water contain significantly lower levels of contaminants, as technology and control systems have advanced. Some wastewater treatment plants in Michigan discharge water of higher quality than their receiving streams. For example, the PARCC Side Clean Water Plant in Plainfield, Michigan discharges four million gallons of water per day into the Grand River that is of better quality than the river’s water. Other Michigan treatment plants can also produce effluents better than river water much of the time.


Wildlife habitats are improving, too. In a 2010 Detroit News article, Jim Lynch chronicled the repopulation of wildlife around Detroit, writing, “After decades of struggling to overcome the Detroit River’s polluted past, a variety of fish and bird species have re-established themselves ... [t]he budding osprey population is joined by increasing numbers of walleye, lake sturgeon and whitefish as well as bird species like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon.”​

Quick let's get rid of the EPA, and clean water and air acts. Mission accomplished. LOL

Let's do get rid of the EPA. It's a commie operation bent on destroying our economy.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'll bet this thread didn't go as expected for the loser who posted it. He has now suggested getting rid of the EPA.....the very reason that he was able to start the thread in the first place.

 

[bripat9643]

Detroit and Buffalo have amazingly clean air these days lol. So what about WORLD air and the oceans, dingbats?

Oh, so that's why Obama unilaterally brokers overseas climate deals?

No, that's why he has stopped 86ing them ike Booshies and is getting China and India aboard, Rushbot etc.

Translation: he unilateral brokers overseas climate deals. BTW, they are dead on arrival since they have to be approved by the Senate.

 

[bendog]

I'll bet this thread didn't go as expected for the loser who posted it. He has now suggested getting rid of the EPA.....the very reason that he was able to start the thread in the first place.

Well, we have Bripat as usual flipping the bird to logic and reason. But, there is some truth to the notion that the EPA goes beyond it's legislative purpose in reducing CO2 emissions. Nevertheless, we have the usual anarchists supporting eliminating restrictions on property owners putting pollutants in water and the air regardless of the effects down stream or wind.

 

[bripat9643]

I'll bet this thread didn't go as expected for the loser who posted it. He has now suggested getting rid of the EPA.....the very reason that he was able to start the thread in the first place.

It went exactly as I expected. All the usual environmental nutburgers admitted that no matter how clean the environment got, that they wouldn't be satisfied. They would continue to push for stronger regulation even it costs $100 trillion.

If a rational person was told that the envirnment was cleaner now than it was in 1914, he would say "OK, mission accomplished. No need for a additional regulations," but not an environmental nutburger like you.

 

[bripat9643]

I'll bet this thread didn't go as expected for the loser who posted it. He has now suggested getting rid of the EPA.....the very reason that he was able to start the thread in the first place.

Well, we have Bripat as usual flipping the bird to logic and reason. But, there is some truth to the notion that the EPA goes beyond it's legislative purpose in reducing CO2 emissions. Nevertheless, we have the usual anarchists supporting eliminating restrictions on property owners putting pollutants in water and the air regardless of the effects down stream or wind.

Another lie from a commie environmental nutburger.

 

[bripat9643]

It's not important. The EPA does a lot more than regulated chemical spills.

You still haven't answered the question: how clean is clean enough?

I suggest you read our environmental laws. You can start with RCRA, which delineates when clean is clean enough for specific compounds.

The law keeps changing because of numskulls like you. When are environmental regulations going to be tight enough to satisfy all the environmental wackos?

Dude, chemicals like Benzene are carcenogens. They produce cancer in people and animals at very low concentrations. This is why the U.S. drinking standard for benzene is 5 parts per billion. If you don't mind drinking this stuff have at it, but you don't have a right to expose me and my children to it. And neither does the petro-chemical industry.

So you're saying the 5 parts per billion is clean enough? If I'm not mistaken, a few years ago they couldn't even measure 5 parts per billion.

I don't know who told you this but it is incorrect. We've had the capacity (via gc/ms) to measure contaminants down to 5ppm for decades. We can now even measure them in many cases down to parts per trillion.

You just admitted that what I said was true. They could only measure to 5 ppm "for decades," which means they couldn't measure parts per billion.

How fucking stupid are you?

The claim that low concentrations of a chemical will cause cancer because they are carcinogens at high concentrations is dubious, so say the least. Many chemicals that are harmful in high concentrations are actually beneficial in low concentrations. For example, radiation has been found to be beneficial to your health in low concentrations.

Before you go banning some chemical and forcing consumers to pay $billions of dollars to reduce it's concentration in the environment, at least make sure you have your facts straight. So far you don't.

There is nothing dubious about the fact that benzene causes cancer at low concentrations. It is well documented. in the scientific literature. It isn't a matter of if benzene causes cancer. Benzene CAUSES cancer. It is a documented fact. And by the way, benzene isn't banned. It is one of the most widely used chemicals around. It is even in your gasoline.

Sorry, but it's not documented. Whenever the EPA does tests to determine whether a substance is carcinogenic, it gives large doses of the substance to test mice. If the mice develop cancer, then the EPA sets some safe limit that might be a millions times lower than the amount given to the test mice. This procedure is based on a theory that if large doses are dangerous, then small doses are dangerous in proportion. This theory has been proven to be wrong in numerous cases.

One thing scientists never do is say some substance cause cancer no matter what the dose. Only morons like you do that.

Furthermore, where did I claim Benzene was banned?

 

[NYcarbineer]

How funny is it when a RWnut posts a thread vindicating environmentalism,

thinking he's condemning environmentalism?

 

[bripat9643]

Now we are trying to say that carcinogens in low levels are ok? Sorry. That doesn't fly unless you are only worried about the almighty dollar. Benzene is nasty bad substance. There is no argument on this. Again, if everything is based on cost and the dollar, we are truly screwed. Human health is far more important. Corporations can do their work environmentally safe. It may cost a few bucks more but its more than worth it. Those companies that get caught trying to cut corners should be called on it and brought into court. Creating your product environmentally safe is both responsible and responsible. Chemicals in drinking water should result in large fines.

The MCLs the EPA use are based on extensive toxicological and risk-based analysis. What this means for benzene is that below the MCL there is no evidence for health risks. Sorry, but this is the best we can do. And despite its risks, benzene is a very important industrial chemical, with many important applications. You'd be hard pressed to replace it with anything safer that has similar characteristics. The issue is using it, storing it, transporting, and when necessary, disposing of it safely. That is what the regs require the industry to do.

The fact is there is no evidence for health risks at levels far above the standard set by the EPA. That level is purely arbitrary and set by a mathematical formula, It wasn't determined by testing at those levels. That's what your "risk based analysis" refers to.

 

[bripat9643]

How funny is it when a RWnut posts a thread vindicating environmentalism,

thinking he's condemning environmentalism?

My thread proves that you're a bunch of nutburgers who want to drive mankind back to the Stone Age.

 

[ScienceRocks]

A lot of this is good news. I can't say all of course. Solar is now number two most installed source of energy. No longer a toy or rich mans energy source.

What does "installed energy source" mean?

106mw of coal was installed this year
7gw of natural gas was installed this year
5gw are going to be installed this year

It is the total name plate installation of this year.

 

[bendog]

How funny is it when a RWnut posts a thread vindicating environmentalism,

thinking he's condemning environmentalism?

you give him too much credit. lol He still doesn't bet it.

 

[bendog]

A lot of this is good news. I can't say all of course. Solar is now number two most installed source of energy. No longer a toy or rich mans energy source.

What does "installed energy source" mean?

106mw of coal was installed this year
7gw of natural gas was installed this year
5gw are going to be installed this year

It is the total name plate installation of this year.

Not that I doubt you, but I'm curious. Got a link?

 

[ScienceRocks]

A lot of this is good news. I can't say all of course. Solar is now number two most installed source of energy. No longer a toy or rich mans energy source.

What does "installed energy source" mean?

106mw of coal was installed this year
7gw of natural gas was installed this year
5gw are going to be installed this year

It is the total name plate installation of this year.

Not that I doubt you, but I'm curious. Got a link?

Here is the first three quarters of this year Wind Solar 77 Of New US Electricity Generating Capacity In November US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The two solars currently on course for another 1.5-2gw for the last quarter following history the past 2 years. This will make solar around 5gw...

 

[bripat9643]

How funny is it when a RWnut posts a thread vindicating environmentalism,

thinking he's condemning environmentalism?

you give him too much credit. lol He still doesn't bet it.

You're the one who doesn't bet [sic] it, numskull.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

How funny is it when a RWnut posts a thread vindicating environmentalism,

thinking he's condemning environmentalism?

you give him too much credit. lol He still doesn't bet it.

You're the one who doesn't bet [sic] it, numskull.

The sic goes in his quote dummy, not yours.