New EPA nomination - Page 2 - Fly Fishing Forum
Our Environment We are stewards of wild places

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old 08-29-2003, 10:03 AM
Eddie Eddie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Portland, ME.
Posts: 1,586
47% of the voters, voted for this kind of policy. That is almost a majority. Like it or not, pollution and the environment is not a big deal to many.
As for industry, if they went out of business every time regs. were tightened up, they would have been gone long ago.
__________________
One cast can change your day...maybe your life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #17  
Old 08-29-2003, 01:47 PM
flytyer flytyer is offline
Pullin' Thread
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NW Washington
Posts: 3,346
Juro,

You are correct, based upon the information you provided on the wind farm, I was mis-informed. The news media had the wind farm being located on the island. Thnaks for clearing it up for me, and I must say that I too am opposed to placing the wind towers in the bay.

OC,

Exactly my point with saying that there will be no net increase in pollution by the power companies. If the total emitted is within the current permit levels and there is more power produced, there is no net gain in pollution while more power is being produced. And this is accomplished at less cost (and with smaller or no rate increases to consumers) than if new plants were built or the older existing ones had to meet the newer more stingent levels.

loco_alto,

There has been no determination that lowering the aresenic levels in drinking water would make the water any more safe for us than leaving them where they have been. And, it does not make sense to make the level so low that the vast majority of bottled spring water (which we are told is the purest and best for us since it has none of thos nasty chemicals added to purify it that our water treatment plants must add) would not be able to meet the standard.

Regarding so-called green-house gasses, there has been no conclusive or any proof offered by the proponents of reducing them that any global warming has occured. Local, short-lived increases in temperature have been offered as proof that it is happening, and that is not science, it is wishful thinking or begging the issue. Interestingly, these so-called climate changes have been found to be within normal climate fluctuations here in the U.S. that occur over a 50 to 130 year cycle. And, as is well known, a single, small volcanic eruption puts as much green-houee gas into the atmoshpere as 50 years worth of human activity. There have been quite a few very large vocanic eruptions and a lot of small ones in the last 20 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #18  
Old 08-29-2003, 02:46 PM
OC OC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I've lost them all but I'm looking for new ones
Posts: 1,368
Sorry my good friend Flytyer there will be more gross air pollution than there is now it just will not go over the permit limits. If you watched the Leher report a couple nights ago the head of air pollution for the EPA even addmitted such after continuously saying that the new standards will have no effect on power companies going over the permitt standard. The question to him would there be more air pollution he just used the permit value as his answer untill he could no longer worm his way out of it and said that pollution would go up but not to worry because it would not exceed permit standards. You and I are both in the enviro work world you know as well as me how the game is played. Double speak, double speak. If the nation wide permit total for air pollution is 200 million tons per year and we are currently at 160 million tons per year and after a couple of years air pollution is 190 million tons then it went up. I don't care about the increase in power I care that we have less air pollution that destroys the lakes on the East coast and effects so many peoples health nation wide.
Have a good weekend and see you soon on the river.
OC
__________________
OC

Last edited by OC; 08-29-2003 at 04:17 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #19  
Old 08-29-2003, 02:52 PM
loco_alto's Avatar
loco_alto loco_alto is offline
any fish, any time
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oregon
Posts: 465
flytyer - the science is clear on these issues

I won't try to convince someone who considers a marketing ploy for "clean bottled water" as a substitute for scientific study

As someone who has been involved with developing such reports, I can assure that there is no conspiracy or ulterior motive behind it. Public opinion and political self-interest are vastly more squishy than the facts on these issues.
__________________
Steve
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #20  
Old 08-29-2003, 07:33 PM
flytyer flytyer is offline
Pullin' Thread
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NW Washington
Posts: 3,346
OC,

Yes, I will concede this is the case. However, our country uses a lot more power today than it did just 10 years ago due to the information explotion known as the internet. And in that time there has not been much in the way of new power getting on-line. The fact is we need to have some more power or many more areas of the country are going to experience the "brown outs" and outright loss of power that happened in CA 2 years ago. The other alternative is for all of us who use technology to use it a lot less, and I don't see that as very viable.

My fantasy is that power would be produced only through non-polluting methods and means and do so without the use of power dams and their riverine destructiveness. Perhaps before I leave this world this will happen.

loco_alto,

I am not aware of any study that has been done on the need to lower arsenic levels in drinking water. I am aware that some folks decided that if you lower the allowable level of arsenic, it is a good thing without having done any study to back up the claim that it is too high now. This is not science. The cost of meeting this much lower level is very high though. And virtually every town, city, municipality, etc. in the U.S. would have to invest large chunks of change to meet it. And after doing so, is there really any benefit?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #21  
Old 08-29-2003, 07:56 PM
loco_alto's Avatar
loco_alto loco_alto is offline
any fish, any time
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oregon
Posts: 465
A summary of the NAS report is available here:

http://www.nap.edu/execsumm/0309063337.html

In support of your point:

"No human studies of sufficient statistical power or scope have examined whether consumption of arsenic in drinking water at the current MCL results in an increased incidence of cancer or noncancer effects. Therefore, the subcommittee's characterization of risks at the current MCL is based on observed epidemiological findings, experimental data on the mode of action of arsenic, and available information on the variations in human susceptibility."

Yet, the committee had to draw a conclusion. They used the available evidence from human and cellular based studies to do so conclude:

"On the basis of its review of epidemiological findings, experimental data on the mode of action of arsenic, and available information on the variations in human susceptibility, it is the subcommittee's consensus that the current EPA MCL for arsenic in drinking water of 50 g/L does not achieve EPA's goal for public-health protection and, therefore, requires downward revision as promptly as possible."


The fact that the "perfect" study wasn't available doesn't invalidate their conclusion. Sometimes you just put 1 + 1 together to conclude the obvious. Their recommendation to revise downward as promptly as possible reinforces this.
__________________
Steve
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #22  
Old 08-29-2003, 09:31 PM
juro's Avatar
juro juro is offline
Coast2coast Flyfishaholic
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Steelhead country|striper coast|bonefish belt
Posts: 20,593
Flytyer,

Just wanted to say all this hoopla has nothing to do with friendships, in fact it's our freindship that let's us debate such issues so vigorously without fear of taking each other too seriously!

Peace,
Juro
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #23  
Old 08-29-2003, 10:59 PM
flytyer flytyer is offline
Pullin' Thread
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NW Washington
Posts: 3,346
Juro,

I coudn't have said it any better. And it is also how information is disseminated in a fashion comprised of good form and without put-downs. The very reasons I have become associated with this forum and the fine folks who participate in it.

loco_alto,

Many folks do not not what the subcommittee based its recommendation on for lowering the arsenic levels. However, I take exception to their conclusion that despite the fact that there are zero, nadda, no studies that show there is an increased incidence of cancerous or non-cancerous effects, they decided that the levels should be reduced anyway. And they based this upon how arsenic is absorbed and possibly stored in the human body, observed epidemiological findings (these were with laboratory mice, a species that is remarkably susceptable to cancer), and available information on the variation in the susceptibility of humans to arsenic.

Hmmmmm.... I had several professors who call conclusion of this sort wishful thinking at best and begging the issue at worst since there is no evidence to back the conclusion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #24  
Old 08-29-2003, 11:19 PM
Mean Mr Mustard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I, too, believe pollution levels will increase as a result of this change in the Act.

As to the arsenic, is it naturally occuring or introduced by man to facilitate their particular ore extraction method?

mmm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #25  
Old 08-29-2003, 11:22 PM
BobK BobK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lake Ontario Tribs
Posts: 871
Just remember this....

For what it's worth, arsenic is a naturally occurring element, and is found universally occurring naturally in ground water in low levels. Sounds like we are trying to be "too safe" at times.

This is a "POOR CHOICE" for trying to bash the current administration for all of the nonscientists out there trying to make a point.

Also keep in mind that most metals also are naturally occurring (e.g. mercury, etc.) and these also occur in water to varying degrees just from rainfall/ground water coming in contact with ores everytime it rains. Virtually everything has some solubility, that's why we studied "solubility product constants" in college.

ALL pollution is not man-made, contrary to popular opinion.

BobK
__________________
BobK
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #26  
Old 08-29-2003, 11:42 PM
loco_alto's Avatar
loco_alto loco_alto is offline
any fish, any time
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oregon
Posts: 465
Flytyer - not true.

The NAS report used studies of humans to draw their conclusions. Humans in Taiwan, Chile and Argentina. The resulting effects are primarily bladder and lung cancer. nasty.

The only piece of the puzzle that is missing is data from arsenic levels equivalent to the US drinking water standard. That data doesn't exist.

So, to conclude something about these lower exposure levels, NAS considered studies of non-human subjects. These studies show that arsenic exposure at the US standard has ill effects. These ill effects are entirely consistent with studies done on humans at higher exposure levels. Put 1+1 together.
__________________
Steve
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #27  
Old 08-30-2003, 05:35 PM
flytyer flytyer is offline
Pullin' Thread
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NW Washington
Posts: 3,346
As Bob K put it, "arsenic .... is found universally occurring naturally in ground water in low levels".

Must be the new math I've been hearing math professors talking about the last few years where the operations you use to get the answer are more important than being correct. Let's see: People exposed to elevated levels or arsenic (Taiwan, Argentina, Chile) have higher cancer rates (1) + no data showing that current standards also cause increased cancer rates (0) = a need to make the acceptable level much lower because it has to be better (2). Or (1+0=2) Hmmmmm........ Very interesting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #28  
Old 08-30-2003, 05:47 PM
Eddie Eddie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Portland, ME.
Posts: 1,586
"TOO SAFE"?

What about being conservative when it comes to the the health of our children, and our natural resources? I would rather have stringent levels and raise them if the science alows it. The burden of proof is being forced on the wrong side of the issue. Conservatives seem wreckless.
__________________
One cast can change your day...maybe your life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Fly Fishing Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nomination for the 2009 Golden Coconut award... juro Bonefish, Tarpon, and other Obsessions 0 05-04-2009 01:41 PM
EPA cleanup settlement in WI marvin Worldwide Flyfishing Discussion 1 07-04-2002 10:26 AM
EPA pushes to allow mountaintop mine waste dumping into rivers and streams Dble Haul Our Environment 0 04-26-2002 03:02 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:22 PM.



Copyright Flyfishingforum.com (All Rights Reserved)