Republican crooks claim Coal Ash is not Toxic

[Smilodonfatalis]

5 years after coal-ash spill, little has changed

The House has even passed a bill, claiming that Coal Ash is not Toxic.

I guess next they will pass a bill claiming up is down.

Below is a quote from the Environmental Health Policy Institute

"coal's post-combustion wastes contain a highly concentrated toxic stew of heavy metals, from arsenic, boron, and chromium to lead, mercury, selenium, and zinc."

 

[GreenBean]

Is being a hysterical, patchouli-slathering ecoterrorist a requirement for being in your sleeper terrorist cell?

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Is being a hysterical, patchouli-slathering ecoterrorist a requirement for being in your sleeper terrorist cell?

Why don't you stuff your head in a box of coal ash?

Exactly what is hysterical or unreasonable about my post?

How does being in favor of classifying toxic waste as toxic make me a terrorist?

 

[GreenBean]

Is being a hysterical, patchouli-slathering ecoterrorist a requirement for being in your sleeper terrorist cell?

Why don't you stuff your head in a box of coal ash?

Exactly what is hysterical or unreasonable about my post?

How does being in favor of classifying toxic waste as toxic make me a terrorist?

It's ASH not Chemicals , ashes , in case you weren't aware are a naturally occurring substance and are not very harmful. Now if you wanna talk about Love Canal or Global Warming theory perhaps you'll be garnished with some credibility

{Just curious - that's not really you in that profile pic is it ? ... I should have known - a Blonde ! .... youre like a beer bottle empty from the neck up}

 

[Wry Catcher]

Notice, only the few, and the dumbest of the few, will argue with the evidence. Even the usual members of the echo chamber have just enough sense to avoid this thread.

 

[Abraham3]

It's ASH not Chemicals , ashes , in case you weren't aware are a naturally occurring substance and are not very harmful. Now if you wanna talk about Love Canal or Global Warming theory perhaps you'll be garnished with some credibility

{Just curious - that's not really you in that profile pic is it ? ... I should have known - a Blonde ! .... youre like a beer bottle empty from the neck up}

Wow... you don't see that level of stupid every day.

Maybe not ever.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Is being a hysterical, patchouli-slathering ecoterrorist a requirement for being in your sleeper terrorist cell?

Why don't you stuff your head in a box of coal ash?

Exactly what is hysterical or unreasonable about my post?

How does being in favor of classifying toxic waste as toxic make me a terrorist?

It's ASH not Chemicals , ashes , in case you weren't aware are a naturally occurring substance and are not very harmful. Now if you wanna talk about Love Canal or Global Warming theory perhaps you'll be garnished with some credibility

{Just curious - that's not really you in that profile pic is it ? ... I should have known - a Blonde ! .... youre like a beer bottle empty from the neck up}

Are you willing to defend this ^^^ post?

Coal Ash: Toxic ? and Leaking | PSR

Does this make you reconsider ^^^?

Now, apologize to the author of the OP (or be known as just another right wing ignorant jerk. BTW, we have enough of them.).

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Is being a hysterical, patchouli-slathering ecoterrorist a requirement for being in your sleeper terrorist cell?

Why don't you stuff your head in a box of coal ash?

Exactly what is hysterical or unreasonable about my post?

How does being in favor of classifying toxic waste as toxic make me a terrorist?

It's ASH not Chemicals , ashes , in case you weren't aware are a naturally occurring substance and are not very harmful. Now if you wanna talk about Love Canal or Global Warming theory perhaps you'll be garnished with some credibility

{Just curious - that's not really you in that profile pic is it ? ... I should have known - a Blonde ! .... youre like a beer bottle empty from the neck up}

If you understood anything about science, you would know ashes are made up of chemicals. And high levels of mercury, arsenic, etc. are harmful.

Of course that is not me in the profile picture. You think a Playboy model would waste time posting on a political message board?

BTW, my sister is a blonde and she makes $100,000 annually as a business executive.

Don't know how much you make, but I bet she has a more successful career than you.

 

[bripat9643]

5 years after coal-ash spill, little has changed

The House has even passed a bill, claiming that Coal Ash is not Toxic.

I guess next they will pass a bill claiming up is down.

Below is a quote from the Environmental Health Policy Institute

"coal's post-combustion wastes contain a highly concentrated toxic stew of heavy metals, from arsenic, boron, and chromium to lead, mercury, selenium, and zinc."

The Environmental Health Policy Institute is a branch of the group Physicians for Social Responsibility. In other words, it's a den of communists. It has no credibility whatsoever.

Your own article failed to mention any bill declaring coal ash to be non toxic. However, it did mention that the EPA wants it to be declared to be hazardous waste, which would increase the cost of using coal to generate electricity by several orders of magnitude.

 

[bripat9643]

It's ASH not Chemicals , ashes , in case you weren't aware are a naturally occurring substance and are not very harmful. Now if you wanna talk about Love Canal or Global Warming theory perhaps you'll be garnished with some credibility

{Just curious - that's not really you in that profile pic is it ? ... I should have known - a Blonde ! .... youre like a beer bottle empty from the neck up}

Wow... you don't see that level of stupid every day.

Maybe not ever.

It's not hazardous waste. End of story.

 

[bripat9643]

Why don't you stuff your head in a box of coal ash?

Exactly what is hysterical or unreasonable about my post?

How does being in favor of classifying toxic waste as toxic make me a terrorist?

It's ASH not Chemicals , ashes , in case you weren't aware are a naturally occurring substance and are not very harmful. Now if you wanna talk about Love Canal or Global Warming theory perhaps you'll be garnished with some credibility

{Just curious - that's not really you in that profile pic is it ? ... I should have known - a Blonde ! .... youre like a beer bottle empty from the neck up}

If you understood anything about science, you would know ashes are made up of chemicals. And high levels of mercury, arsenic, etc. are harmful.

It's 99.999% inert material. It has higher concentrations of certain toxic substances. That doesn't make it "hazardous waste." Do you want your children to play in it? No, obviously not. However, that doesn't mean it needs to be treated the same PCBs.

If your claim were true, then human sewage would have to be treated as hazardous waste, and every city in the country would have to be shut down.

 

[Wry Catcher]

5 years after coal-ash spill, little has changed

The House has even passed a bill, claiming that Coal Ash is not Toxic.

I guess next they will pass a bill claiming up is down.

Below is a quote from the Environmental Health Policy Institute

"coal's post-combustion wastes contain a highly concentrated toxic stew of heavy metals, from arsenic, boron, and chromium to lead, mercury, selenium, and zinc."

The Environmental Health Policy Institute is a branch of the group Physicians for Social Responsibility. In other words, it's a den of communists. It has no credibility whatsoever.

Your own article failed to mention any bill declaring coal ash to be non toxic. However, it did mention that the EPA wants it to be declared to be hazardous waste, which would increase the cost of using coal to generate electricity by several orders of magnitude.

I told you all, only the dumbest ^^^ of the dumb will defend GreenBean.

Mitch McConnell: Saving my ass in 2014 in the primaries is my number 1 priority. Screw the jobless, I need to keep my job.

 

[bripat9643]

It's ASH not Chemicals , ashes , in case you weren't aware are a naturally occurring substance and are not very harmful. Now if you wanna talk about Love Canal or Global Warming theory perhaps you'll be garnished with some credibility

{Just curious - that's not really you in that profile pic is it ? ... I should have known - a Blonde ! .... youre like a beer bottle empty from the neck up}

Wow... you don't see that level of stupid every day.

Maybe not ever.

I'm not surprised that you would call an obvious fact "stupidity." That seems to be the modus operandi of the environmental movement these days.

 

[bripat9643]

5 years after coal-ash spill, little has changed

The House has even passed a bill, claiming that Coal Ash is not Toxic.

I guess next they will pass a bill claiming up is down.

Below is a quote from the Environmental Health Policy Institute

"coal's post-combustion wastes contain a highly concentrated toxic stew of heavy metals, from arsenic, boron, and chromium to lead, mercury, selenium, and zinc."

The Environmental Health Policy Institute is a branch of the group Physicians for Social Responsibility. In other words, it's a den of communists. It has no credibility whatsoever.

Your own article failed to mention any bill declaring coal ash to be non toxic. However, it did mention that the EPA wants it to be declared to be hazardous waste, which would increase the cost of using coal to generate electricity by several orders of magnitude.

I told you all, only the dumbest ^^^ of the dumb will defend GreenBean.

Mitch McConnell: Saving my ass in 2014 in the primaries is my number 1 priority. Screw the jobless, I need to keep my job.

How ironic.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's ASH not Chemicals , ashes , in case you weren't aware are a naturally occurring substance and are not very harmful. Now if you wanna talk about Love Canal or Global Warming theory perhaps you'll be garnished with some credibility

{Just curious - that's not really you in that profile pic is it ? ... I should have known - a Blonde ! .... youre like a beer bottle empty from the neck up}

If you understood anything about science, you would know ashes are made up of chemicals. And high levels of mercury, arsenic, etc. are harmful.

It's 99.999% inert material. It has higher concentrations of certain toxic substances. That doesn't make it "hazardous waste." Do you want your children to play in it? No, obviously not. However, that doesn't mean it needs to be treated the same PCBs.

If your claim were true, then human sewage would have to be treated as hazardous waste, and every city in the country would have to be shut down.

Dumbest of the dumb. Human waste is treated, not dumped into our rivers and streams. Of course humanity has in the past, but we no longer suffer from water born deadly diseases.

Do you have a source to prove fly ash is 99.999% inert material or are you a liar?

Here's an example for you to consider:

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific American

 

[Kosh]

If you understood anything about science, you would know ashes are made up of chemicals. And high levels of mercury, arsenic, etc. are harmful.

It's 99.999% inert material. It has higher concentrations of certain toxic substances. That doesn't make it "hazardous waste." Do you want your children to play in it? No, obviously not. However, that doesn't mean it needs to be treated the same PCBs.

If your claim were true, then human sewage would have to be treated as hazardous waste, and every city in the country would have to be shut down.

Dumbest of the dumb. Human waste is treated, not dumped into our rivers and streams. Of course humanity has in the past, but we no longer suffer from water born deadly diseases.

Do you have a source to prove fly ash is 99.999% inert material or are you a liar?

Here's an example for you to consider:

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific American

Oh my you far left AGW cultists will believe anything:

A comment from the article:

1 - The article's title was misleading. Gram for gram, nuclear waste is much more radioactive than fly ash.

2 - The 'scientific study' compared a measured exposure with an estimated exposure. Hmmm. Not what I'd consider good science.

3 - The issue of exposure is, further, a false one. Hardly anyone (at least who knows what they're talking about) is afraid of being near a properly functioning nuclear reactor. They're clean places, carefully monitored, in the main, and so on. And coal-fired power plants are, in fact, nasty places, and dirty.

The problem with the comparison is that if the coal-fired plant is struck by lightning, or a bomb, or a plane, or catches on fire, or breaks in half in an earthquake, your exposure will be mostly to particulate pollution, and for a few hours, during which you may leave the area.

Conversely, if anything happens to a nuclear power plant to cause an accident, the risk of immediate exposure to a dangerous or lethal dose of radiation is fairly high.

Even operator error can be critical with a nuclear plant -- think of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, that reprocessing accident in Japan a few years back. Human error becomes disproportionately risky with nuclear installations.

4 - The article doesn't address a REAL question that I've asked some high-level, knowledgeable nuclear proponents and opponents -- What is the radiation release in fly ash compared with the radiation in nuclear waste, expressed on a kilowatt to kilowatt basis?

Now THAT would be something interesting to find out.

 

[Abraham3]

The article doesn't address a REAL question that I've asked some high-level, knowledgeable nuclear proponents and opponents -- What is the radiation release in fly ash compared with the radiation in nuclear waste, expressed on a kilowatt to kilowatt basis?

If you'd actually asked "some high-level, knowledgeable nuclear proponents and opponents, why haven't you gotten an answer?

 

[flacaltenn]

Since that spill is in my state, We prefer that it be contained and not allowed to spread further. Thats better done without arguing over how hazardous the waste is.. AND MOREOVER! The folks in Tenn want assurances that the most polluting energy generator in this area ---- which by the way is a FEDERAL GOVT entity ---- assure us that their OTHER TVA plants have a better handle on the coal ash dams..

PREVENTION is the more important issue.. Because well handled coal ash is not a crisis..

That said --- spills like these ARE a toxic concern. Because THIS spill landed on peoples houses farms and lakes. There are many coal ash runoffs into lakes around the country. And the state still stocks the lakes and encourages recreation..

 

[flacaltenn]

WryCatcher was justified in bringing upnthe radioactive aspect. This USED to be a strong argument for the relative dose exposure from coal verus nuclear. Because CLEARLY before advanced scrubbers were required on coal stacks, they WERE a much larger point source of enviro radioactivitity than nuclear. Personnel working in the firebox for a coal plant are restricted by time exposures and must wear nuclear hazard suits and dosimeters... But as usual, that SciAmer article and the media do bend the risks out of proportion. One of the reasons coal ash is contained in slurries is to keep it from beinf airborne. And living in proximity to coal ash dams has less of an exposure over a decade than a Barium enema..

Or less of an exposure than walking the MARBLED halls of Congress. Since that marble is also raising background exposures slightly...

 

[GreenBean]

It's ASH not Chemicals , ashes , in case you weren't aware are a naturally occurring substance and are not very harmful. Now if you wanna talk about Love Canal or Global Warming theory perhaps you'll be garnished with some credibility

{Just curious - that's not really you in that profile pic is it ? ... I should have known - a Blonde ! .... youre like a beer bottle empty from the neck up}

If you understood anything about science, you would know ashes are made up of chemicals. And high levels of mercury, arsenic, etc. are harmful.

It's 99.999% inert material. It has higher concentrations of certain toxic substances. That doesn't make it "hazardous waste." Do you want your children to play in it? No, obviously not. However, that doesn't mean it needs to be treated the same PCBs.

If your claim were true, then human sewage would have to be treated as hazardous waste, and every city in the country would have to be shut down.

Coal ash pollution contains toxins such as arsenic, lead, selenium, and chromium. But in trace amounts.

Decaying leaves also produce Toxins - leaves litter the forest floors - should all forests be considered toxic waste sites ? As previously posted feces is high in Toxins. ....speaking of feces ... some of the posts on this thread resemble feces - should they be considered Toxic Waste and treated like PCBs ?