Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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}
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?
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}
Lordy, lordy, the longer the come, the fucking dumber they get. Ash is made of chemicals, exactly as are you. And within those chemicals that the ash is made of are some very toxic heavy metals, as well as many other things that are not good to have in our land, air, or water.
Well, it is quite enlightning to see our numbnuts shouting halleluyah for destroying a river with fly ash.
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}
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.
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.
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.
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}
Lordy, lordy, the longer the come, the fucking dumber they get. Ash is made of chemicals, exactly as are you. And within those chemicals that the ash is made of are some very toxic heavy metals, as well as many other things that are not good to have in our land, air, or water.
Yes the AGW cultist promote using something that has a half life of 5000 years as safe.
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.
Untreated sewage IS hazardous. That is why they treat it, stupid.
Here is the problem:
There are millions of tons of this stuff, much of it in residential areas where it gets blown into homes and onto yards where children play. The leachate from this ash also gets into the groundwater. And that's a problem because 40% of Americans get their drinking water from ground water aquifers. You say that you don't want children to play in it. Then you must agree that it is a problem that needs to be mitigated. Am I right?
Obama May Soften Proposed Crackdown On Coal Ash Disposal - Forbes
Despite its efforts to unseat President Obama, the coal sector is now working closely with the White House on certain issues. The Obama administration, in fact, may acquiesce to the industrys concern over how coal ash would be regulated.
While its environmental backers wont be happy, the president and his Environmental Protection Agency will probably opt to continue regulating that coal combustion byproduct as a solid waste, as opposed to a hazardous waste. The difference is that solid wastes are allowed to be recycled and used in such things as cement and dry wall. A hazardous waste ruling would stigmatize that coal ash and would essentially dry up those secondary markets, which would also increase the amount of refuse that must be dispensed.
About 40 percent of all coal ash is recycled, says Rick Boucher, former Democratic lawmaker on the House Energy and Commerce Committee who spoke at an EnergyBiz forum last week. No one would use hazardous waste in a commercial product. He goes on to say that a final ruling, which could get published next summer, will fall into the non-hazardous category but with stricter disposal provisions.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/coal_utilization_byproducts/pdf/coal_util.pdf
Despite the demonstrated capability of newer, Clean Coal technologies to meet future power and environmental demands, the electric power industrys response to the 1990 Clean Air Act has been to increase the levels of environmental control at existing plants that produce conventional coal utilization by-products (CUB) such as fly ash, bottom ash, and wet FGD sludge. For example, the industrys response to the Acts mandate to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides has been to install low-NOx burners; the fly ash produced from these burners can have unburned carbon contents which render the ash unsuitable for use in cement manufacture. This has eliminated a source of revenue for power producers and increased the total cost of their by-product management operations. Also, the response of many major utilities to SO2 emissions requirements has been to accelerate the use of wet FGD devices rather than switch to clean coal combustion technologies. The result has been an excessive growth in the production of wet FGD material that is outpacing the utilities capacity to utilize the material.
Prior to the installation of the NOx burners, there was NO such fly ash stream, so it didn't eliminate an existing revenue source, it simply failed to produce a new one for them.
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.
Untreated sewage IS hazardous. That is why they treat it, stupid.
Here is the problem:
There are millions of tons of this stuff, much of it in residential areas where it gets blown into homes and onto yards where children play. The leachate from this ash also gets into the groundwater. And that's a problem because 40% of Americans get their drinking water from ground water aquifers. You say that you don't want children to play in it. Then you must agree that it is a problem that needs to be mitigated. Am I right?
It's not a problem --- it's a PRODUCT !!! Even the EPA knows that...
Obama May Soften Proposed Crackdown On Coal Ash Disposal - Forbes
Despite its efforts to unseat President Obama, the coal sector is now working closely with the White House on certain issues. The Obama administration, in fact, may acquiesce to the industry’s concern over how coal ash would be regulated.
While its environmental backers won’t be happy, the president and his Environmental Protection Agency will probably opt to continue regulating that coal combustion byproduct as a solid waste, as opposed to a hazardous waste. The difference is that solid wastes are allowed to be recycled and used in such things as cement and dry wall. A hazardous waste ruling would stigmatize that coal ash and would essentially dry up those secondary markets, which would also increase the amount of refuse that must be dispensed.
“About 40 percent of all coal ash is recycled,” says Rick Boucher, former Democratic lawmaker on the House Energy and Commerce Committee who spoke at an EnergyBiz forum last week. “No one would use hazardous waste in a commercial product.” He goes on to say that a final ruling, which could get published next summer, will fall into the non-hazardous category but with “stricter” disposal provisions.
In fact --- as usual --- laws REQUIRING coal plants to seek ways to reduces SOx and NOx emissions, have had the unintended consequence of making this "by-product" less attractive for recycling...
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/coal_utilization_byproducts/pdf/coal_util.pdf
Despite the demonstrated capability of newer, Clean Coal technologies to meet future power and environmental demands, the electric power industry’s response to the 1990 Clean Air Act has been to increase the levels of environmental control at existing plants that produce “conventional” coal utilization by-products (CUB) such as fly ash, bottom ash, and wet FGD sludge. For example, the industry’s response to the Act’s mandate to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides has been to install low-NOx burners; the fly ash produced from these burners can have unburned carbon contents which render the ash unsuitable for use in cement manufacture. This has eliminated a source of revenue for power producers and increased the total cost of their by-product management operations. Also, the response of many major utilities to SO2 emissions requirements has been to accelerate the use of wet FGD devices rather than switch to “clean” coal combustion technologies. The result has been an excessive growth in the production of wet FGD material that is outpacing the utilities’ capacity to utilize the material.
Regulation CREATED a larger waste stream from these plants.. Or -- at least the methods the plant operators CHOSE to use to MEET standards --- increased the UNUSABLE portion of waste from these plants..
LESS recycling --- more of a disposal problem.. Life aint as simple as the enviro-nauts pretend it is..
Untreated sewage IS hazardous. That is why they treat it, stupid.
Here is the problem:
There are millions of tons of this stuff, much of it in residential areas where it gets blown into homes and onto yards where children play. The leachate from this ash also gets into the groundwater. And that's a problem because 40% of Americans get their drinking water from ground water aquifers. You say that you don't want children to play in it. Then you must agree that it is a problem that needs to be mitigated. Am I right?
It's not a problem --- it's a PRODUCT !!! Even the EPA knows that...
In fact --- as usual --- laws REQUIRING coal plants to seek ways to reduces SOx and NOx emissions, have had the unintended consequence of making this "by-product" less attractive for recycling...
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/coal_utilization_byproducts/pdf/coal_util.pdf
Despite the demonstrated capability of newer, Clean Coal technologies to meet future power and environmental demands, the electric power industrys response to the 1990 Clean Air Act has been to increase the levels of environmental control at existing plants that produce conventional coal utilization by-products (CUB) such as fly ash, bottom ash, and wet FGD sludge. For example, the industrys response to the Acts mandate to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides has been to install low-NOx burners; the fly ash produced from these burners can have unburned carbon contents which render the ash unsuitable for use in cement manufacture. This has eliminated a source of revenue for power producers and increased the total cost of their by-product management operations. Also, the response of many major utilities to SO2 emissions requirements has been to accelerate the use of wet FGD devices rather than switch to clean coal combustion technologies. The result has been an excessive growth in the production of wet FGD material that is outpacing the utilities capacity to utilize the material.
Regulation CREATED a larger waste stream from these plants.. Or -- at least the methods the plant operators CHOSE to use to MEET standards --- increased the UNUSABLE portion of waste from these plants..
LESS recycling --- more of a disposal problem.. Life aint as simple as the enviro-nauts pretend it is..
None of your response above addressed the issue I brought up. Issues such as fly ash dust getting in people's houses and yards (which is a big problem in places like across from the Cane Run Power plant in Louisville, Kentucky where the above picture was taken), or toxic leachate getting into aquifers. And make no mistake, fly ash readily releases its toxic metals, as leachate testing aptly demonstrates. In other words, those metals are not strongly chemically bound to the ash, which is why it is of concern. Now, the EPA may allow a less strict classification for fly ash, but that doesn't get the power companies off the hook in dealing with these issues I've raised.
50 year old coal-fired power plants like the Cane Run plant have a huge problem with the disposal/recycling of their fly ash, largely because they've created a huge mountain of it and have no cement plant customer in the vicinity to sell it to for recycling purposes. In fact, in all of Kentucky, there is only one power plant that sells its fly ash to a commercial cement maker, and that is the Mill Creek Plant, which sells its fly ash to Kosmos Cement, across the street. But they have far more fly ash than Kosmos will ever use in 100 years, and in the mean time, that ash, like the ash at the Cane Run plant, sits on the ground blowing around and leaching into the ground water aquifer, which is adjacent to, and directly connected to the Ohio River (the water supply for millions of Americans).
It's not a problem --- it's a PRODUCT !!! Even the EPA knows that...
In fact --- as usual --- laws REQUIRING coal plants to seek ways to reduces SOx and NOx emissions, have had the unintended consequence of making this "by-product" less attractive for recycling...
Regulation CREATED a larger waste stream from these plants.. Or -- at least the methods the plant operators CHOSE to use to MEET standards --- increased the UNUSABLE portion of waste from these plants..
LESS recycling --- more of a disposal problem.. Life aint as simple as the enviro-nauts pretend it is..
None of your response above addressed the issue I brought up. Issues such as fly ash dust getting in people's houses and yards (which is a big problem in places like across from the Cane Run Power plant in Louisville, Kentucky where the above picture was taken), or toxic leachate getting into aquifers. And make no mistake, fly ash readily releases its toxic metals, as leachate testing aptly demonstrates. In other words, those metals are not strongly chemically bound to the ash, which is why it is of concern. Now, the EPA may allow a less strict classification for fly ash, but that doesn't get the power companies off the hook in dealing with these issues I've raised.
50 year old coal-fired power plants like the Cane Run plant have a huge problem with the disposal/recycling of their fly ash, largely because they've created a huge mountain of it and have no cement plant customer in the vicinity to sell it to for recycling purposes. In fact, in all of Kentucky, there is only one power plant that sells its fly ash to a commercial cement maker, and that is the Mill Creek Plant, which sells its fly ash to Kosmos Cement, across the street. But they have far more fly ash than Kosmos will ever use in 100 years, and in the mean time, that ash, like the ash at the Cane Run plant, sits on the ground blowing around and leaching into the ground water aquifer, which is adjacent to, and directly connected to the Ohio River (the water supply for millions of Americans).
All that is true.
flaggintenn said:But toxins are related to dose.
flaggintenn said:CLEARLY not a toxin when used for cement manufacturing (although the stuff will kill you if you eat it).
flaggintenn said:And it's been common practice to have ash ponds that SLOWLY drain into lakes and streams where the fishing and recreation is NOT restricted for health purposes. WHY? Because of dose exposure.
flaggintenn said:There are regulations for selenium and other constituents.. And there's a reason we can pick those levels safely.
flaggintenn said:EVERYONE lives with toxics.
flaggintenn said:I've drunk $20/gallon clean water from a semi processing line -- and it sucks.
flaggintenn said:RADIATION is all around you. Varies NATURALLY over a 3 or 5 times range depending on where you live.
flaggintenn said:Same with mercury or lithium or all the crap we are putting in battery farms for EVehicless and renewables and lightbulbs.
flaggintenn said:We don't do toxic cleanups after massive forest fires or volcanic eruptions.
flaggintenn said:YET -- toxins are randomly distributed into the water and air.. We just clean up the mess best we can.
flaggintenn said:The issue is proper storage, disposal and recycling. Not whether is happen to have a potentially toxic pollutant ---- like your breath for instance.
flaggintenn said:When a coal ash dam break like the Kingston Springs, TN one happens ---- THAT'S a disaster. And NOBODY wants to live near that land anytime soon. But that's TVA for ya.. Outdated, Unsafe, Polluting plants getting waivers from Uncle Sam because he's the slum lord owner of those dumps...
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.
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.
And after your day is done you and the rest of the enviro/ feminist loudmouths ....Chemicals in Cosmetics
In the U.S., major loopholes in federal law allow the cosmetics industry to put thousands of synthetic chemicals into personal care products, even if those chemicals are linked to cancer, infertility or birth defects. At the same time as untested chemicals have been steadily introduced into our environment, breast cancer incidence has risen dramatically.
Following are some of the chemicals commonly found in cosmetics and what they do to us.
Phthalates
Phthalates are a group of endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are found in cosmetics like nail polish and in synthetic fragrance—both perfumes and fragrance ingredients in other cosmetic products. Phthalate exposure has been linked to early puberty in girls, a risk factor for later-life breast cancer. Some phthalates also act as weak estrogens in cell culture systems.
Triclosan
Triclosan is used in antibacterial soaps, deodorants and toothpastes to limit the growth of bacteria and mold. The chemical, which is classified as a pesticide, can affect the body’s hormone systems—especially thyroid hormones, which regulate metabolism—and may disrupt normal breast development. Widespread use of triclosan may also contribute to bacterial resistance to antimicrobial agents.
1,4-dioxane
1,4-dioxane is not listed on ingredient labels. It is a petroleum-derived contaminant formed in the manufacture of shampoos, body wash, children’s bath products and other sudsing cosmetics. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has ranked it as a possible carcinogen, and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) has identified it as a reasonably anticipated carcinogen.
Parabens
Parabens are a group of compounds widely used as an antifungal agent, preservative and antimicrobial in creams, lotions, ointments and other cosmetics, including underarm deodorants. They are absorbed through the skin and have been identified in biopsy samples from breast tumors.
Ethylene Oxide
Ethylene oxide is found in fragrances and is commonly used to manufacture popular brands of shampoo. It is classified as a known human carcinogen and is one of the 48 chemicals that the National Toxicology Program (NTP) identifies as mammary carcinogens in animals.
1,3-butadiene
Shaving creams, spray sunscreens and foundations, and anti-fungal treatments that contain the propellant isobutene may be contaminated with the carcinogen 1,3-butadiene. Exposure occurs mainly through inhalation. This chemical has been found to increase mammary tumors in rodents.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a group of chemicals that occur naturally in coal, crude oil and gasoline. One of the more common PAHs is naphthalene. Some cosmetics and shampoos are made with coal tar and therefore may contain PAHs. They have been shown to increase risk for breast cancer.
Placental Extract
Placental extract is derived from human or animal placentas and is used in hair conditioners, shampoos and other grooming aids, particularly those marketed to women of color. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) has identified progesterone, the major hormonal contaminant in placental extracts, as a reasonably anticipated carcinogen.
Lead
Lead may be a contaminant in over 650 cosmetic products, including sunscreens, foundation, nail colors, lipsticks and whitening toothpaste. Lead is a proven neurotoxin, linked to learning, language and behavioral problems. It has also been linked to miscarriage, reduced fertility in men and women, and delays in puberty onset in girls.
Aluminum
- Lead in lipstick?
- Turns out, the ur*ban legend is true. In October 2007, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics tested 33 popular brands of lipsticks at an independent lab for lead content
Aluminum is found in some underarm antiperspirants. Like cadmium, aluminum is a metal that mimics estrogen and can also cause direct damage to DNA. Studies have not shown a direct causal link to breast cancer risk, but breast tissue has been shown to concentrate aluminum in the same area where the highest proportion of breast cancers are originally diagnosed.
Sunscreen
Many sunscreens contain chemicals that exert significant estrogenic activity, as measured by the increase in proliferation rates of human breast cancer cells in vitro. Studies show these chemicals are accumulating in wildlife and humans.
