JLW
Diamond Member
- Sep 16, 2012
- 18,320
- 20,224
- 2,405
And how does that justify adding more mercury to the environment via the loosening of coal emissions standards?
Republicans, Trump feel we don't breathe enough Mercury. We NEED more!
- Thread starter deanrd
- Start date
harmonica
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2017
- 43,841
- 20,042
- 2,300
LOOK OUT!!!!!!!!
the Mercury Monster is after US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JLW
Diamond Member
- Sep 16, 2012
- 18,320
- 20,224
- 2,405
^^^^^^^ The post that proves my point.
harmonica
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2017
- 43,841
- 20,042
- 2,300
the Mercury Monster is after ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Manonthestreet
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2014
- 41,120
- 33,189
- 3,645
Been burned for yrs......can you show any harm...why weren't you concerned about it leaching into the water from your planet saving light bulbs....where probably can do more harm...its called hypocrisy
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
No President has sucked more coal dick than Donald Trump.Trump EPA Says Mercury Limits On Coal Plants Too Costly, Not 'Necessary'
When coal is burned it releases mercury into the air, where it can cause health risks to people including neurological disorders, heart and lung problems and compromised immune systems. Babies developing in the womb and young children are especially at risk.
Trump proposal to weaken mercury standards could have broad impact on other anti-pollution rules
Reported emissions declined 69 percent between 2014 and 2016 after coal-fired power plants installed technology to meet the new clean air standards.
Harold P. Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association, said the current rule shouldn't be weakened considering it's estimated to prevent 11,000 premature deaths each year and has dramatically reduced mercury pollution, a potent neurotoxin that causes brain damage in babies.
===================
I'm with the Republicans on this one.
Fuk all those do gooders.
Clean air and clean water? Bah! Who needs them?
I just tell the kids it's not dirty water, it's chocolate. Drink up!
Bon Appétit!
JLW
Diamond Member
- Sep 16, 2012
- 18,320
- 20,224
- 2,405
As you correctly stated the operative word in your original post was "improper" disposal of CFLs. It still all begs the question is why would you want more mercury dumped into our air and water? Do you seriously think mercury is not a poison?
harmonica
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2017
- 43,841
- 20,042
- 2,300
nothing wrong with thatNo President has sucked more coal dick than Donald Trump.Trump EPA Says Mercury Limits On Coal Plants Too Costly, Not 'Necessary'
When coal is burned it releases mercury into the air, where it can cause health risks to people including neurological disorders, heart and lung problems and compromised immune systems. Babies developing in the womb and young children are especially at risk.
Trump proposal to weaken mercury standards could have broad impact on other anti-pollution rules
Reported emissions declined 69 percent between 2014 and 2016 after coal-fired power plants installed technology to meet the new clean air standards.
Harold P. Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association, said the current rule shouldn't be weakened considering it's estimated to prevent 11,000 premature deaths each year and has dramatically reduced mercury pollution, a potent neurotoxin that causes brain damage in babies.
===================
I'm with the Republicans on this one.
Fuk all those do gooders.
Clean air and clean water? Bah! Who needs them?
I just tell the kids it's not dirty water, it's chocolate. Drink up!
Bon Appétit!
Manonthestreet
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2014
- 41,120
- 33,189
- 3,645
You first......We need to save the planet from people who say they can save the planet
airplanemechanic
Diamond Member
- Nov 8, 2014
- 22,646
- 19,106
- 2,415
This is way too much Mercury in the water
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
You are aware that US power plants today us scrubbing technology which removes 99.98% of all the sulfur dioxide and mercury, are you not? Which means boiling water in your home is more dangerous from the trace mercury than the exhaust of 99% of all power plants burning coal.
Its uninformed idiots like you who allow the destruction of the US an its way of life.. Congratulations fool!
Harry Dresden
Only Adamantium Member
i dont want to be as insane as dean is....how about you drink that pint and then as you slowly go nuts we can have a good laugh....
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
WOW...
Mercury is a poison. On that one point we agree. Now tell me why you forced everyone to place Fluorescent tubes in their homes, which when broken, create a mercury poisoning every time one is fractured, levels which meet the EPA standards of a hazardous exposure that should be reported.
Your ******* cures are a bigger threat to us than the original problem... IDIOTS@!
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
You ******* retard!
The standards were so high not one plant in the US could obtain it (and our plants only exhaust water vapor from scrubbing out the pollution). You want them closed and this is your stupid ass way of doing it, damn the consequences of people freezing to death and power costs rising by a factor of 10.
Your socialist control solutions to non problems are ******* ridicules!
JLW
Diamond Member
- Sep 16, 2012
- 18,320
- 20,224
- 2,405
So under your brilliant theory the cure to mercury in the environment is more mercury.
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
So under your brilliant theory the cure to mercury in the environment is more mercury.
NO! That is and was your solution.. ******* retard!
You idiots wanted it in our HOMES as a opposed to being scrubbed from the emissions of our power plants. Today it is scrubbed from the emissions but we still are forced to use poison in our homes by you idiots.
Last edited:
EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 94,989
- 71,005
- 3,645
Democrats embrace science. At least one branch. Let's call it unicorn science. The EPA demanded and mandated use of a fuel that never existed. In 2013 that mandate was expanded with heavy fines for non compliance. It is now days from 2019. The fuel still does not exist. The difference is, we have Trump who scraps nonsense. That leads to the very predictable "Republicans want everyone to DIE!"
EPA Increases Mandates For Fuels That Don't Exist | Investor's Business Daily
EPA Increases Mandates For Fuels That Don't Exist | Investor's Business Daily
JLW
Diamond Member
- Sep 16, 2012
- 18,320
- 20,224
- 2,405
LOL, you are unhinged! You're the one advocating for more mercury in the environment. Read your own friggin posts.So under your brilliant theory the cure to mercury in the environment is more mercury.
NO! That is and was your solution.. ******* retard!
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 16,292
- 14,010
- 2,400
I notice no one here has tried to find the dangerous dose level of Mercury which is found naturally in nature, from HERE is this statement that can't be ignored:
"Emissions from Power Plants
Since mercury occurs naturally in coal and other fossil fuels, when people burn these fuels for energy, the mercury becomes airborne and goes into the atmosphere. In the United States, power plants that burn coal to create electricity account for about 42 percent of all manmade mercury emissions (Source: 2014 National Emissions Inventory, version 1, Technical Support Document (December 2016)(PDF)(discussion starts on page 2-25 of the PDF document). "
Coupled with these from the FIRST LINK at post 1,
"The EPA says it is keeping the 2012 restrictions in place for now, in large part because utilities have already spent billions to comply with them."
and,
"Even though the EPA's mercury standards have faced court challenges, utilities spent more than $18 billion to comply with the requirements. In a letter to the EPA last summer, utilities and regulatory and labor groups said mercury emissions had been reduced by nearly 90 percent over the past decade.
In that letter they also asked the Trump administration's EPA to leave the existing standards in place.
Since many regulators have included the equipment costs in utility rates, some worry that no longer requiring the limits could leave customers paying for the pollution controls without getting cleaner air. That's because it also costs money to continue operating that equipment."
From the SECOND LINK at post 1:
"The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, or MATS as it's called, went into effect in 2015 under the Obama administration. At the time, the cost to industry for installing the technology to reduce mercury emissions was estimated at nearly $10 billion, while the health benefits were calculated at only several million dollars.
But the Obama administration also factored in "co-benefits" the rule would produce, such as reductions in soot and nitrogen oxide, raising the maximum benefits to as much as $90 billion through reduced premature deaths, sick days and hospital visits."
I have yet to see credible disputing response to this suggested benefit of the CURRENT regulations in place that industry already complied with.
At this time relaxing the mercury emission rules makes no sense since the cost is already factored in and the money spent to comply with the 2012 regulations.
"Emissions from Power Plants
Since mercury occurs naturally in coal and other fossil fuels, when people burn these fuels for energy, the mercury becomes airborne and goes into the atmosphere. In the United States, power plants that burn coal to create electricity account for about 42 percent of all manmade mercury emissions (Source: 2014 National Emissions Inventory, version 1, Technical Support Document (December 2016)(PDF)(discussion starts on page 2-25 of the PDF document). "
Coupled with these from the FIRST LINK at post 1,
"The EPA says it is keeping the 2012 restrictions in place for now, in large part because utilities have already spent billions to comply with them."
and,
"Even though the EPA's mercury standards have faced court challenges, utilities spent more than $18 billion to comply with the requirements. In a letter to the EPA last summer, utilities and regulatory and labor groups said mercury emissions had been reduced by nearly 90 percent over the past decade.
In that letter they also asked the Trump administration's EPA to leave the existing standards in place.
Since many regulators have included the equipment costs in utility rates, some worry that no longer requiring the limits could leave customers paying for the pollution controls without getting cleaner air. That's because it also costs money to continue operating that equipment."
From the SECOND LINK at post 1:
"The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, or MATS as it's called, went into effect in 2015 under the Obama administration. At the time, the cost to industry for installing the technology to reduce mercury emissions was estimated at nearly $10 billion, while the health benefits were calculated at only several million dollars.
But the Obama administration also factored in "co-benefits" the rule would produce, such as reductions in soot and nitrogen oxide, raising the maximum benefits to as much as $90 billion through reduced premature deaths, sick days and hospital visits."
I have yet to see credible disputing response to this suggested benefit of the CURRENT regulations in place that industry already complied with.
At this time relaxing the mercury emission rules makes no sense since the cost is already factored in and the money spent to comply with the 2012 regulations.
Last edited:
Trump EPA Says Mercury Limits On Coal Plants Too Costly, Not 'Necessary'
When coal is burned it releases mercury into the air, where it can cause health risks to people including neurological disorders, heart and lung problems and compromised immune systems. Babies developing in the womb and young children are especially at risk.
Trump proposal to weaken mercury standards could have broad impact on other anti-pollution rules
Reported emissions declined 69 percent between 2014 and 2016 after coal-fired power plants installed technology to meet the new clean air standards.
Harold P. Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association, said the current rule shouldn't be weakened considering it's estimated to prevent 11,000 premature deaths each year and has dramatically reduced mercury pollution, a potent neurotoxin that causes brain damage in babies.
===================
I'm with the Republicans on this one.
Fuk all those do gooders.
Clean air and clean water? Bah! Who needs them?
I just tell the kids it's not dirty water, it's chocolate. Drink up!
Bon Appétit!
Man. How anti American are you? Deantard.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Empty buildings (hospice) collecting $2 million a year from Medicare/Medicaid with no patients- Started by Freedomisneverfree
- Replies: 1
-
Notice how when three or four women accuse Cesar Chavez- Started by Crepitus
- Replies: 17
-
-
-
Pentagon bans its own publication from attending Pete Hegseth's morning press conference- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 15
Latest Discussions
-
Trump's last chance stand to save our ballot boxes and why it's so important.- Latest: Fort Fun Indiana
-
-
