Thanks Barack 3 West Virginia Coal Plants to Close

[Big Fitz]

Cowman, me or anyone else could give you 10 links showing the effects of mercury on humans and wildlife, how much power plants add to the environment and even added costs (which I provided in my above post) but you know what?

If you disagreed with it you would simply pooh-pooh the sources. So why bother?

Yep. Stop using coal because it puts off Mercury vapor... but let's make sure it's in every lightsocket in America! HOORAY! it's just different somehow.

You're a ******* moron. Just because you get your ass kicked on a subject you know nothing about you resort to bullshit childish posts.

and you failed to meet my challenge. So what's to respond to other than your butthurt over not being able to provide credible sources to back your desire for tyrannical government.

You've been a ******* moron here since day one. If you are really an expert in the field of electrical utilities, you should be able to find some credible trade links to back your bullshit up.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Funny, when I asked a right winger how many babies born with birth defects are acceptable, the right winger said, well, if we want jobs, some things are unavoidable.

So I asked the right winger how many of their kids would they let have a birth defect to help the country and they said "None".

Just when I think that "rdean" has reached the PINNACLE of hypocrisy, he surprises me, AGAIN!

An avowed leftist and Obama Kool-Aid drinker, badgering a "right winger" about how many babies born with birth defects is acceptable, while his own leftist ideology believes it is perfectly fine that over 50 MILLION unborn American babies have been SLAUGHTERED since 1973.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

GOOD! It's a dirty energy that pollutes our planet. Get rid of it altogether.

This talking point was brought to you by the People's Democratic Committee for the Expansion of Public Idiocy.

The arrogance of your position is astounding: let economic human interests be granted the forefront of all endeavors so that even our future generations will be harmed by us having completely destroyed the natural environment in trying to get energy NOW! NOW! NOW!

If you are idiotic enough to believe that coal mining is not environmentally damaging enough to warrant a switch to a cleaner energy, then you must be a republican.

The ignorance of your position is astounding. The fact of the matter is that coal mining is NOT environmentally damaging "enough" to warrant a switch to "cleaner" energy (I will assume you are referring to the extremely inefficient enviro-nazi favorites "wind and solar energy").

I have read most of the postings on this topic, and I have alternately been shaking my head in disgust and laughing my ass off at how LITTLE people like you know about coal-fired power plants, nuclear power plants, and all other forms of power generation.

As I stated in a posting I made on page 1 or 2 of this topic, I am a retired power plant engineer who worked in both nuclear power plants and coal-fired power plants.

The bottom line is that the majority of the leftist enviro-nazi types in here have NO CLUE what they are talking about. Bumper sticker slogans and subjective and biased websites and editorial commentaries are no substitute for the FACTS. But all of you LEFTISTS rarely concern yourselves with facts, anyway.

That's really all I can say. It would take me ALL DAY to refute all of the GARBAGE I have read on this topic.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I've seen the claims the EPA makes. I've also seen some bogus claims by the AMA. However, I've never seen any claim the the incidence of elevated mercury levels, asthma or heart attacks was higher in the immediate vicinity of coal fired power plants. If you have such evidence, then tell me where I can find it. I would love to see it.

Well Jeez dude, if you don't like the EPA data and call the AMA data bogus, you don't leave much to post. The state agencies (whom are influenced by what largest industry in W. Va?) even admit that
"
in the 14 counties where the biggest coal mining operations are located residents reported higher rates of cardiopulmonary disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, diabetes, and lung and kidney disease. In each of those counties, mining topped 4 million tons of coal a year.

"Residents of coal mining communities have long complained of impaired health. This study substantiates their claims. Those residents are at an increased risk of developing chronic heart, lung and kidney diseases," said Dr. Michael Hendryx, associate director of the Institute for Health Policy Research in West Virginia University's Department of Community Medicine and lead author of the study."

But of course, they're owned by local business so they're doing the usual "Of course it COULD just all be a really big coincidence!" thing. They like their jobs.

So okay. Ya got us. The EPA and Obama conspired to put 100 people out of work in W. Virginia, not because the facilities were old and it was discovered people were getting sick and dying or anything - nope, they did it because they hate miners. Yeah that makes sense. No "It's bad because it happened under Obama!" going on here! Got it.

Obama conspires and HAS put more than 100 people out of work asshole.

Well I won't return your petty insults but if you think that with all ANY U.S. president has on their plate, they are sitting in a backroom rubbing their palms together and saying "Hey, let's conspire to put 100 people out of work!", it says something about your um, well the way you look at things.
So the fact that in every county where this is done at these older plants, more people die and get sick, is irrelevant. Why? Um... er... Because Obama is conspiring! Got it.

While I do think we over-regulate many industries and businesses, when people get sick and die, I don't find regulations that will reduce that effect objectionable.

You may now continue with your well-reasoned, insightful and logical rhetoric.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Funny, when I asked a right winger how many babies born with birth defects are acceptable, the right winger said, well, if we want jobs, some things are unavoidable.

So I asked the right winger how many of their kids would they let have a birth defect to help the country and they said "None".

how many bugs or rat feces is tolerable in your can of beans?

Defect Levels Handbook

I don't have a problem with reasonable safety regs on any industry. It keeps me healthy happy and hale. What I have a problem is when people want levels of regulation with NO DISCERNABLE IMPROVEMENT over the previous standard with increased costs.

You want pure air and water? Live in a biosphere and drink distilled water. Don't live on Earth.

You assert there would be no discernable improvement. From what I have seen, the plants being closed are all older, with older technologies which release levels of mercury and other toxins that have been shown to increase the incidents of emphysema etc... to locals. The new regs would require upgrading the equipment so that those levels would go down but the cost / benefit analysis has led the companies to determine it wouldn't be worth it because they are used primarily for "peaking" and generate 1% or less of the power produced. Is this incorrect?
Would the new technology NOT reduce the amount of toxins in the air surrounding the plants?
Obviously, there are "internet experts" (i.e. idiots blinded by ideology of Right OR Left) on every subject here. Whereas you seem to cite a few more facts, use a bit more reason and sling a few less insults. Thus your posts are actually more credible. You assert the new regs will provide no discernable improvement over the previous standard. If you can verify that, then I am happy to stand corrected. Hell, I won't even call you "asshole" if I don't like anything of reason that you post! Non-whackjobs are like that

Truthseeker, I would also look forward to your two cents on this.

I look forward to your reply.

 

[Gadawg73]

Obama wanting to raise the capital gains tax will cost more jobs than anything else.

 

[Mustang]

Thanks Barack… 3 West Virginia Coal Plants to Close | The Gateway Pundit

Three West Virginia coal plants just announced they will close this year. Metro News reported: Ohio based FirstEnergy Corporation announces it will close three coal fired power plants in West Virginia by this fall. The closings come directly from the impact of new federal EPA regulations. The plants to close are Albright Power Station, Willow Island Power Station, and the Rivesville Power Station. The company says 105 employees will be directly impacted. The three plants produce 660 megawatts and about 3-percent of FirstEnergy’s total generation. In recent years, the plants served as “peaking facilities” and generated power during times of...

Coal-fired power plants and nuclear power plants are built (and approved by the gov't to operate) with a defined life expectancy. That's true with passenger planes, as well. Very often, utility operaters request, and receive, extensions to operate those power plants after their initial licensed operation period has passed. But they're not built to operate forever, just like passenger planes are not licensed to be flown forever.

Deal with it!

 

[IndependntLogic]

Thanks Barack… 3 West Virginia Coal Plants to Close | The Gateway Pundit

Three West Virginia coal plants just announced they will close this year. Metro News reported: Ohio based FirstEnergy Corporation announces it will close three coal fired power plants in West Virginia by this fall. The closings come directly from the impact of new federal EPA regulations. The plants to close are Albright Power Station, Willow Island Power Station, and the Rivesville Power Station. The company says 105 employees will be directly impacted. The three plants produce 660 megawatts and about 3-percent of FirstEnergy’s total generation. In recent years, the plants served as “peaking facilities” and generated power during times of...

Coal-fired power plants and nuclear power plants are built (and approved by the gov't to operate) with a defined life expectancy. That's true with passenger planes, as well. Very often, utility operaters request, and receive, extensions to operate those power plants after their initial licensed operation period has passed. But they're not built to operate forever, just like passenger planes are not licensed to be flown forever.

Deal with it!

NO NO NO!!! Obama spent hours "conspiring" on how to put 100 people in the boonies out of work!!! This had nothing to do with safety, obsolete technology or anything else! Obama personally figured out a way to put 100 people out of work!!!!

 

[DaGoose]

Yep. Stop using coal because it puts off Mercury vapor... but let's make sure it's in every lightsocket in America! HOORAY! it's just different somehow.

You're a ******* moron. Just because you get your ass kicked on a subject you know nothing about you resort to bullshit childish posts.

and you failed to meet my challenge. So what's to respond to other than your butthurt over not being able to provide credible sources to back your desire for tyrannical government.

You've been a ******* moron here since day one. If you are really an expert in the field of electrical utilities, you should be able to find some credible trade links to back your bullshit up.

"You've been a ******* moron here since day one" means "You keep kicking my ass and won't let me get away with posting bullshit".

Never said I was an expert, just that I have more than 30 years experience as a power plant technician. You don't like what I post? Tough shit. Go find another power plant tech to tell me where I'm wrong.

And posting links for people like you is nothing more than a merry go round. I can sure post them but you'll discredit every link as being a "lie" or "biased". And then you'll post a buch of RW bullshit that says there's no problem and that the scientists are all wrong (kinda like you guys do with Climate Change. The wingnuts know more than scientists).

Been there, done that, did that, tried that.

 

[Big Fitz]

You assert there would be no discernable improvement

There has been no proof there would be a greater benefit compared to the cost, no.

From what I have seen, the plants being closed are all older, with older technologies which release levels of mercury and other toxins that have been shown to increase the incidents of emphysema etc... to locals.

Really? There has been direct linkage to the burning of coal and illness in the area? I'd love to see that information. Got it from a non- anti-coal advocacy site?

The new regs would require upgrading the equipment so that those levels would go down but the cost / benefit analysis has led the companies to determine it wouldn't be worth it because they are used primarily for "peaking" and generate 1% or less of the power produced. Is this incorrect?

Partially correct, they are used for peaking and the upgrades would be too expensive for them to operate, therefore it is better to shut them down. I don't know the portion of electricity they produce, but of course, the unintended consequence of this is to significantly increase the cost of electricity for their customers. This will harm the local economies, and put about 100 families into financial hardship.

Would the new technology NOT reduce the amount of toxins in the air surrounding the plants?

Of course, if a new Clean Coal facility or two were built to replace them, then hmmm... jobs would increase in the area due to new construction, new infrastructure, AND the jobs could be preserved and prices of electricity could possibly even DROP! My goodness!

But it's not really about doing a smart thing with coal with improved technology. Is it? It's about killing off coal for unproven science fiction tech of pinwheels, mirrors and moonshine which are far far more expensive and less reliable for political and social engineering reasons.

Obviously, there are "internet experts" (i.e. idiots blinded by ideology of Right OR Left) on every subject here.

Obvious poster is obvious.

Whereas you seem to cite a few more facts, use a bit more reason and sling a few less insults. Thus your posts are actually more credible. You assert the new regs will provide no discernable improvement over the previous standard. If you can verify that, then I am happy to stand corrected. Hell, I won't even call you "asshole" if I don't like anything of reason that you post! Non-whackjobs are like that

Very kind of you, but don't worry. I've been called worse by better for less. I'm not a thin skinned little blue blood who runs for mummy's lawyer whenever my tea isn't the right temperature.

Yes, because the assertation has not been credibly proven to my mind, and AFAIK anyone elses. It's a nice theory, and if true, it would be a good idea to implement. What it all comes down to is that there is a concerted movement in this nation to politically defraud this nation based on environmental threats. Therefore, because there HAS been so much fraud, the ones screaming "The Sky Is Falling" need to prove their assertions before any of them should be enacted. This, rather than making changes then looking like a dipshit after the world doesn't blow up. I mean this apocalyptic behavior has been around for millenia, but our modern versions starting back with the Reverend Miller in the 1840's preaching the rapture has become infused with environmentalists decrying the end of the world with Malthusian hysterics as the only solution. Therefore, before we go all Y2K crazy again over mercury emissions... let's see some hard evidence, direct causation in nature and pricetags for treating with sober estimates on what the cost for doing something will actually profit us.

The onus for proof is on those who assert this change is a benefit. I will not sit there and try to prove a negative.

Therefore, the challenge still stands to everyone who agrees that the new regulations are good and will prove to be a benefit to society even after you factor in all the costs. I submit most have not considered all the cost to the increased benefits, mostly because it quickly would show that this change is less about helping people keep healthy and more about politics.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wowee, the logic on this one. "You shut down excessively dirty power plants that can't follow the regulations and spew out all sorts of toxins into the environment. You don't care about poor children!"

Get back to me when I stop doing something like campaign to stop your free school lunches like conservatives do. "No free school lunches for poor kids."

You gotta eat, Little Freddie Mercury Jr!

So... a tenuous CHANCE at dying from some pollutant caused disease which a direct causation cannot be established on one end....

Or starvation, or death by exposure on the other hand because there's no jobs and power's too expensive.


Hmmmmm.... what to choose... what to choose....

Hmmm... you remember that whole shitstorm about conservatives cutting off heating oil programs for the poor? Yeah... wait, you're telling me that was a mistake? You're telling me that liberals are somehow anti-poor? Do you have ANY idea what's going on in this country regarding the class wars of poor vs rich? Yeah... those liberals... always against the poor!

Also... mercury is 'some pollutant' to you? And half of all mercury pollution in the atmosphere being caused by humans isn't a problem for you?

Non-sequitur. Stay on point.

 

[thereisnospoon]

GOOD! It's a dirty energy that pollutes our planet. Get rid of it altogether.

This talking point was brought to you by the People's Democratic Committee for the Expansion of Public Idiocy.

The arrogance of your position is astounding: let economic human interests be granted the forefront of all endeavors so that even our future generations will be harmed by us having completely destroyed the natural environment in trying to get energy NOW! NOW! NOW!

If you are idiotic enough to believe that coal mining is not environmentally damaging enough to warrant a switch to a cleaner energy, then you must be a republican.

Oh please spare us the tree hugger dirt eater enviro wacko talking points.

 

[thereisnospoon]

See what I mean here? This is what i'm talking about regarding the CFL's. You guys are always up in arms about CFL's which yes, can be dangerous when broken because of the mercury... but you're fine with the levels of mercury being ejected into the atmosphere and wish the EPA wouldn't be able to regulate any of that shit because it affects business.

Half of all mercury in the atmosphere comes from nature yes. But half of it comes from man. That doesn't ******* blow you away, that we pump as much mercury into the atmosphere as this gigantic ******* sphere we call Earth does? And that's just the mercury. That's not talking about the Benzene. That's not talking about the Formaldehyde, that's not talking about the Ozone. That's not talking about all the other astronomical quantities of pollutants we pump into our world for us to breathe, for our children to breathe, for our descendants to breathe.

And somehow, the EPA and environmentalists are a bad thing. We need to be able to pump MORE of that shit into the atmosphere. We need to be able to dump more of that shit into our lakes and rivers. We need to be able to ingest more of that stuff in our food.

All for business and the Almighty Bottom Line.

My challenge to you.

Prove DIRECT CAUSATION of these mercury vapors from burning coal and illness. Not chances, not threats. ACTUAL CAUSATION from a specific sources not this 'non point' fuzzy projections shit.

Secondly, show me a cost-benefit analysis that there is a SIGNIFICANT improvement to the quality of life and health for those people directly affected by these new regulations.

Come up with some real data from non-blog, non-activist BS sources, and I may consider what you have to say as being something other than diseased rants of an ill mind, Cowpie.

Oh, and as for the infamous 'bottom line', tell me how any business survives to do good for anyone else if they do not honor the EEEEEEEEVILLLLLL bottom line?

Cowman, me or anyone else could give you 10 links showing the effects of mercury on humans and wildlife, how much power plants add to the environment and even added costs (which I provided in my above post) but you know what?

If you disagreed with it you would simply pooh-pooh the sources. So why bother?

Bullshit excuse. Post the links under one condition. That the links provide FACTS. No blogs. No opinions. No studies from sources funded by those with political agendas.
FACTS ONLY.

 

[daveman]

GOOD! It's a dirty energy that pollutes our planet. Get rid of it altogether.

This talking point was brought to you by the People's Democratic Committee for the Expansion of Public Idiocy.

The arrogance of your position is astounding: let economic human interests be granted the forefront of all endeavors so that even our future generations will be harmed by us having completely destroyed the natural environment in trying to get energy NOW! NOW! NOW!

If you are idiotic enough to believe that coal mining is not environmentally damaging enough to warrant a switch to a cleaner energy, then you must be a republican.

What the hell are you doing? You're irresponsibly and dangerously consuming electricity! You're killing children! You bastard!

GOOD! It's a dirty energy that pollutes our planet. Get rid of it altogether.

You want to shut them down right now?

Okay, with what are you going to replace the 49% of our electricity that comes from burning coal? Remember, it has to be available NOW, and available in sufficient capacity to replace that 49%.

Oh...you mean there isn't anything? Hmmm.

Well, looks like you're going to have to do without electricity altogether. Because industry can't do without it, or else the economy will grind to a complete stop. Hospitals can't do without it, or else people will die.

So it looks like you're holding the bag. Please go to your breaker box and kill the main.

It's for the children, don'tcha know.

 

[Big Fitz]

My challenge to you.

Prove DIRECT CAUSATION of these mercury vapors from burning coal and illness. Not chances, not threats. ACTUAL CAUSATION from a specific sources not this 'non point' fuzzy projections shit.

Secondly, show me a cost-benefit analysis that there is a SIGNIFICANT improvement to the quality of life and health for those people directly affected by these new regulations.

Come up with some real data from non-blog, non-activist BS sources, and I may consider what you have to say as being something other than diseased rants of an ill mind, Cowpie.

Oh, and as for the infamous 'bottom line', tell me how any business survives to do good for anyone else if they do not honor the EEEEEEEEVILLLLLL bottom line?

Cowman, me or anyone else could give you 10 links showing the effects of mercury on humans and wildlife, how much power plants add to the environment and even added costs (which I provided in my above post) but you know what?

If you disagreed with it you would simply pooh-pooh the sources. So why bother?

Bullshit excuse. Post the links under one condition. That the links provide FACTS. No blogs. No opinions. No studies from sources funded by those with political agendas.
FACTS ONLY.

They can't because the data has not been done yet, or the requirements are too scientifically strict. All they have is advocacy models and innuendo from out their endo. The Ecofascisti has sub cults. Pollution is one. Anthropogenic Global Warming is another. Animal Rights yet one more.

It's not about science it's about the diefication of the earth and all living things with the demonization of mankind, particularly western man. It has a Malthusian root, a Luddite path and a nihilistic end.

But these lemmings are dangerous, and want to wash the whole of civilization with them to drown in the sea to save the planet from us... except for them. Because they're enlightened.

 

[daveman]

See what I mean here? This is what i'm talking about regarding the CFL's. You guys are always up in arms about CFL's which yes, can be dangerous when broken because of the mercury... but you're fine with the levels of mercury being ejected into the atmosphere and wish the EPA wouldn't be able to regulate any of that shit because it affects business.

Leftists lie. All the time, leftists lie.

We don't want mercury regulation ended, liar. It's fine at the levels it is now.

Look, I know you're a particularly stupid little person, but this move by the EPA has nothing to do with the public good. It's the leftist agenda being pushed, to close down scary icky nasty coal plants and promote green alternatives (that just happen to be owned by big Dem donors).

It's not "for the children!!" It's "for the Democratic Party!!"

Both sides lie, moron. And you ought to know with some of the whoppers you and the rest of the wingnuts tell on here.

Disagreeing with leftist horseshit =/= lie.

Mercury contamination is fine at the current levels? Where in the hell did you get that from? Is that why 40 states (including RED states) have issued mercury advisories? That Illinois has a recommended intake of one fish a week (and in some cases one meal per month) due to excessive mercury contamination?

And all that mercury comes from power plants? Really?

Look, I know you're a particularly stupid little person, but this move by the EPA has everything to do with the public good. It's the rightist agenda that you're wanting to push which is profits before everything else.

Good unionbot. Just pretend that it's sheer coincidence Obama said he intended to bankrupt the coal power industry.

Mercury contamination is not hard to reduce or control. We spend about one million dollars a year on controlling it (before you get your panties in a twist keep in mind we make about a million dollars a day). And for that we got our levels BELOW the EPA requirements.

Now I know this is hard for pea-brains to comprehend but it's not for the "Democrat party". There is no political advantage to forcing companies to spend money and be responsible to the environment. But someone has to make the RIGHT decision and the GOP sure wasn't doing it, were they?

Good Gaea, you really believe that shit, don't you?

 

[daveman]

Thanks Barack… 3 West Virginia Coal Plants to Close | The Gateway Pundit

Three West Virginia coal plants just announced they will close this year. Metro News reported: Ohio based FirstEnergy Corporation announces it will close three coal fired power plants in West Virginia by this fall. The closings come directly from the impact of new federal EPA regulations. The plants to close are Albright Power Station, Willow Island Power Station, and the Rivesville Power Station. The company says 105 employees will be directly impacted. The three plants produce 660 megawatts and about 3-percent of FirstEnergy’s total generation. In recent years, the plants served as “peaking facilities” and generated power during times of...

Coal-fired power plants and nuclear power plants are built (and approved by the gov't to operate) with a defined life expectancy. That's true with passenger planes, as well. Very often, utility operaters request, and receive, extensions to operate those power plants after their initial licensed operation period has passed. But they're not built to operate forever, just like passenger planes are not licensed to be flown forever.

Deal with it!

NO NO NO!!! Obama spent hours "conspiring" on how to put 100 people in the boonies out of work!!! This had nothing to do with safety, obsolete technology or anything else! Obama personally figured out a way to put 100 people out of work!!!!

A hundred? Chump change. Obama wants to bankrupt the entire coal power industry.

Audio: Obama Tells SF Chronicle He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry | NewsBusters.org

 

[daveman]

Never said I was an expert, just that I have more than 30 years experience as a power plant technician. You don't like what I post? Tough shit. Go find another power plant tech to tell me where I'm wrong.

Okay: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...inia-coal-plants-to-close-16.html#post4807756

 

[IndependntLogic]

Cowman, me or anyone else could give you 10 links showing the effects of mercury on humans and wildlife, how much power plants add to the environment and even added costs (which I provided in my above post) but you know what?

If you disagreed with it you would simply pooh-pooh the sources. So why bother?

Bullshit excuse. Post the links under one condition. That the links provide FACTS. No blogs. No opinions. No studies from sources funded by those with political agendas.
FACTS ONLY.

They can't because the data has not been done yet, or the requirements are too scientifically strict. All they have is advocacy models and innuendo from out their endo. The Ecofascisti has sub cults. Pollution is one. Anthropogenic Global Warming is another. Animal Rights yet one more.

It's not about science it's about the diefication of the earth and all living things with the demonization of mankind, particularly western man. It has a Malthusian root, a Luddite path and a nihilistic end.

But these lemmings are dangerous, and want to wash the whole of civilization with them to drown in the sea to save the planet from us... except for them. Because they're enlightened.

"a Malthusian root, a Luddite path and a nihilistic end."

Dude, where did you go to school??? You sound like a Liberal Elitist!
That is just one of the reasons I like your posts. Also, rather than go the whackjob route and spew gibberish like "Obama wants to bankrupt American industries" (as if a 6th grader couldn't figure out the context of that one), you tend to do something unusual - use facts and such.

So you mention three subcults to the "Ecofascisti".
Pollution
Anthropogenic Global Warming
Animal Rights

Do you not see merit in any or all of these concerns? That would seem a bit extreme to me.

BTW, Who tf is that in your avatar???

 

[Big Fitz]

I have to say Indie... I don't quite know how to take the observation:

You sound like a Liberal Elitist!

Cause I sure as hell hate elitism and liberalism.

I did college multiple times, hated it. Realized I learned far better on my own and did so. I have all sorts of stuff packed in the head which make me dangerous as hell for Trivia games.

The Ecofascisti... at one time, like unions, there was a purpose for them. There is a distinct benefit for protection from hidden dangers, abuse and mismanagement in both the environment and work. If you are Christian, you should pay attention to Genesis and realize that God commissioned us to be 'good stewards' of the Earth, even though we sinned and fucked up the sweet deal we had in Eden. That of course means that you should respect and manage nature and try to live in harmony with it. Of course, that does not mean you should be subjugated to it, for you are still on top of it all and are supposed to be responsible.

So looping back to if there is merit? Absolutely. I'm a conservationist. Manage, don't submit. But, with every issue in the environment, from treatment of animals to pollution, really, there is a need to prove that what you are doing is a help. For instance, Kudzu was brought over to help shore up railroad cuts quickly. Nobody knew that this invasive species could be so dangerous to the south. Best intentions often go awry and that is why we must be so careful in what we choose to do in regards to the environment and never act too quickly.

Pollution really comes down to this for me, you don't shit where you sleep. Pollution often comes from necessary activity to survive. It's the curse of life and the modern western civ has some very nasty waste issues that need to be dealt with. That said, when we fix a problem, we should not automatically go off and continually tighten till an extreme is met. There are many pollutants in daily life that are relatively harmless. Car exhaust outside, for instance, stinks, but generally, unless you are unhealthy is not going to harm you. Your body can tolerate it. On the other hand, in your house for a prolonged period, you're gonna be bright pink and pushing up daisys soon. The response needs to balance the need to live life in the most efficent way possible, and not over react and try to create a 'no risk' impossible to reach world.

The only thing I say I find flat out bullshit is Anthropogenic climate control. Consensus is not science, facts are. There are too many conflicting facts and not enough conclusive proof to generate enough justification to do a damn thing. I require a 'court level' degree of proof. Direct harm/cause must be shown while any solution must not be too espensive or inconvenient for the measure of improvement in life that is directly possible to the solution. This test cannot be met by anyone currently screaming "The Sky Is Falling!", and therefore, the policy should remain at 'no change'. When that information DOES become available, with a reasonable plan to stop it, then I would be for implementing it.

As for my Avvie. That's Jimmer Nagumanee from Menominee! How could you not know the Jimmer? Boopity-BOOP!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VBTGgAKAcA]jimmer chevy took shit - YouTube[/ame]