| Author |
Message |
    
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 01:55 pm: | 
|
Thread transplanted from another topic...
Originally posted by Davegess in the Xb 100 hp at the wheel Quick Board discussion thread.
Friday, February 28, 2003 - 11:05 pm .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:Good point anon, with catalysts we are mining heavy metals, a pretty nasty business at best and often a seriously dirty business to improve air quality. We certainly see better air in LA but is it at the cost of serious ground water pollution in South Africa? Don't think that answer is well known or even much asked.
Second, what happens to all those heavy metals in the landfills in 100 years? We have never done it so we don't know. I do know that the best landfill practices 50 years ago resulted in all sorts of nasty chemicals making it into our water. We have fixed that but are today.s best practices good for long range storage of the crap in used up catalysts? Will we find in 50 years that platinum is migrating into the air from old landfills? We don't know.
Plus less parts is better than more parts on general principle.
|
Jim_Witt
| | Posted on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 11:24 pm: |
|
Dave,
I realize I'm off topic but did you know that approximately 70% of the heavy metals including mercury and cadmium found in landfills come from electronic equipment discards? Plus the semiconcuctor industry is a well known source for polluting our environment and water tables, especially in Arizona. They have destroyed the ground water extensively in my area over the last 35 years. There have been tons of law suits against Motorola in the Phoenix metropolitan area.
Probably not, but did you ever notice there’s no birds, bugs or animals in the immediate area of a semiconductor plant. I could tell you stories you wouldn’t believe. If the general public knew how hazardous they are and were, they would never be built in populated areas.
Cheers,
-JW:> |
Davegess
| | Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 03:28 am: |
|
If the Prez has his way those pesky law suits will go away. Won't be any enviromental laws, or labor laws either, to break. |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 10:28 am: |
|
"If the Prez has his way those pesky law suits will go away. Won't be any enviromental laws, or labor laws either, to break."
New topic? Dave, you have allowed yourself to fall victim to the bullshit liberal green propaganda. Sure there is always a half truth to support such paranoid assertions. However, if you look at his record as governor of Texas, GW did more than any prior Governor to improve the dismal state of the environment in the Lone Star State. Nothing is ever good enough for the fanatical greenies. The middle ground is where rationality lies. Not in those who would fake evidence and drum up unfounded doomsday scenarios to support their own extremist personal agendas. |
Jim_Witt
| | Posted on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 06:13 pm: |
|
Blake mentioned:
New topic? Dave, you have allowed yourself to fall victim to the bullshit liberal green propaganda.
Just curious, where do you propose one can “find” unbiased non-partisan “whole truths” on environmental issues that directly pertain to drilling for oil, natural gas exploration, logging issues and fair emissions standards that directly effect our environment?"
-JW:> |
Davegess
| | Posted on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 10:35 pm: |
|
Blake, I'm not brainwashed by those guys I am one of those guys
Jim, you can talk all you want about oil and gas, you should see what a paper mill can do.
Dave |
Jim_Witt
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 01:09 am: |
|
Dave (AKA an admitted Bullshit liberal),
Been there done that. Worked on a paper mill in northeastern Arizona for 3 years, also numerous coal fired powerhouses. It’s an interesting observation the morning after they turn the scrubbers off at night. When I mentioned fair emissions standards (or clean air act) I was talking about all pollution generating sources, including young George.
Here's some propaganda for you to digest, "Let Texas Industry Run Texas".
Under George W. Bush's leadership, Texas ranks number one in a many categories of pollution and environmental degradation. For example, Texas is:
#1 in the Emission of Ozone Causing Air Pollution Chemicals
#1 in Toxic Chemical releases into the Air
#1 in use of Deep Well Injectors as method of Waste Disposal
#1 in counties listed in top 20 of Emitting Cancer Causing Chemicals
#1 in Total Number of Hazardous Waste Incinerators
#1 in Environmental Justice Title 6 complaints
#1 in production of Cancer causing Benzene & Vinyl Chloride
#1 Largest Sludge Dump in Country
Cheers,
-JW:> |
Davegess
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Cool somepalce else we can argue!!
Not to knock Jim, but these sorts of discussions can be driven by lots of numbers that can be bent to prove just about anything. Not sure what numbers I beleive. we have reached the point in the enviromental debate where people on both sides of the debate realise the importance of apperance and "spin" stuff for the best effect.
To quote Mark Twain "There are 3 kinds of lies, lies, damn lies and statistics" |
Road_Thing
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Dave: Amen!
r-t
 |
Mikej
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Not to mention the fact or idea that there are global ebbs and flows of global temperatures over time spans exceeding 100year cycles, more like 500-1000 year cycles. Who's to say if current measurements are indicative of a global "normal" shift vs the demonized human produced global warming. 
Anyway, thought I heard some knuckles getting cracked and thought I'd pull up a chair to watch from at least 20 rows back. Don't want any of the smack splatter to get on me. |
Road_Thing
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Oh, Jim, by the way, if Texas is such a bad place, feel free to boycott our oil industry and run your vehicles on gasoline refined in Arizona from crude oil produced in Arizona.
Better tune for high mileage...
r-t
|
Davegess
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 12:59 pm: |
|
RT don't get me wrong, I mostly agree with Jim. We need to work a lot harder to reduce out usage of STUFF. We also need to push China and India toward using our transportaion technologies. If they progress along the same curve we took we will all be choking on the air and water. Imagine a billion people using old fashioned two storkes and four strokes with no emissions controls. And burning coal without scrubbers. They will generate enough smog to cover the globe.
Me I try to avoid buying gas if at all possible. that's why I have a car that gets 35-40 mpg and a bike that betters that. Not that I don't consume the usual tons of stuff all Americans do. |
Wuerger190
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 02:39 pm: |
|
Jim-
Yes, Texas has a lot of pollution. What do you expect from the country's second-most-populous state? Texas is also home to 60 percent of America's petrochemical industry, and 25 percent of its oil refineries. This production has to occur somewhere, which means that Texas pollutes on behalf of the rest of the country. What's more, Texas has cut its pollution by more than any other state over the last decade, and even when the measure is adjusted to take into account the size of the state, this is quite remarkable.
Alot of the Texas bashing came about when Houston was deemed the smog capital. Anyone who claims that Houston's smog problems are equal to or worse than L.A.'s is misinformed. The EPA does not rank cities, but the Houston Chronicle did, using EPA data to great fanfare, it told readers that their city was the smoggiest in the country. But it shouldn't have. The thing is, Houston had an unusually hot summer and Los Angeles an unusually cool one-which created a one-year anomaly in smog readings, almost certain to be reversed if the Chronicle makes a new assessment using the same criteria. Yet even these criteria weren't well chosen. Alternative interpretations of the same EPA data from last year show no change at all between Houston and L.A.; the air in both cities is smoggy, but L.A. remains king.
Still, anti GWB advocates mention Houston's unfriendly skies at every opportunity. The Sierra Club has run ads blaming it all on Bush. Count on someone bringing up Houston during prime time at the Democratic convention in-where else?-Los Angeles. |
Jim_Witt
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 03:18 pm: |
|
Bumber, can’t find one of my posting on this topic. It went something like this. Where do you propose one can “find” whole truths, non-partisan, non-biased facts related to our environmental issues?
-JW:> |
Road_Thing
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 03:25 pm: |
|
Dave, I agree that we Americans use way too much STUFF. The amount of packing material alone that we, as a nation, throw away is incredible.
I agree that we all need to try to improve the environment, hopefully without destroying industries and creating undue hardships on the people they employ.
I agree that we Americans use way too much energy per capita and that we should conserve where we can.
BUT, it bugs me when anybody knocks Texas. The fact of the matter is America's economy largely runs on energy, that energy is largely derived from oil & gas, and the bulk of the domestically produced portion of that oil & gas comes from Texas, as it has for the last 100 years or so.
Has there been an impact on Texas' environment? Sure. Is it George W's (or any other individual person's) fault? I don't think that case can be made. Is Texas a beautiful state and a great place to live? Yup. Have the non-producing regions of the country enjoyed having cheap energy for the last century? I think so.
To be an energy consumer in a non-producing state and then hold up Texas as an example of "pollution and environmental degradation" is disingenuous; it's kind of like eating lettuce in Wisconsin in the wintertime and saying "Look at how ugly the central valley of California is! All that fertilizer and dust and stuff...yuck!"
Sorry, I didn't mean to rant, but Jim's post pushed my HOT button. I may elaborate more eloquently on this theme once my blood pressure goes back down.
r-t
|
Featheredfiend
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 04:06 pm: |
|
JW,
The industries you mentioned were established long before GW was governor. They exist together because of their shared(supplier/user) interests. This reduces transportation costs and, in many cases, by-products that would otherwise be landfilled or incinerated, are used in another manufacturing process. This is a real savings in pollution. No other state could accomplish this as efficiently.
By virtue of locale, it is Texas' obligation to provide these raw materials for all of America.
When it comes to pounds of pesticide applied to ground, Iowa is near the top nationally.
Iowa is one of the leading "manufacturers" of raw materials for the food industry.
By virtue of locale, it is Iowa's obligation to provide these raw materials for all of America.
As to your comment regarding a powerhouse turning off the scrubbers at night - was it illegal? If so, did you report it?
Unless your name is Fred Flintstone, vinyl chloride, plays a major part in your existence.Your car, motorcycle, home, food packaging, canned beverages, computer, blood and IV bags, etc. What about that total recovery waste system(I'm a little envious). No PVC?
Feathered |
Jim_Witt
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 04:23 pm: |
|
BTW, I only posted the Bush/Texas link to get a few hairs raised, start a reaction and because Blake said the opposite was true. I'm not a tree-hugger but I am totally for enforcing current environmental regulations, protecting and cleaning up our polluted environment.
Just because a state is lucky (or unlucky) enough to posses a huge petrochemical industry, oil refineries and semiconductor facilities doesn’t give that state the right to pollute the environment or contaminate the ground water. Nor does it give any company in any state the right to take their operations overseas or Mexico with lesser environmental restrictions to make a greater profit for their benefit.
There’s no doubt the environmental groups have gotten out of hand in many areas over the years, but if they would of stayed in the closet, our environment and ground water would be in critical shape today. Big business has only complied with in certain extents because they’ve been exposed over the years and they’re been forced into it via regulations. Plus we can physically see and experience the results nowadays even if you haven’t a biological or chemical degree.
The scary part is when our own government can’t agree what’s right or wrong with our environment and political partisan and economic woes governs the outcome. I’ll tell you what, I haven’t a clue how to accurately distinguish or decipher the posted and compiled data that’s available to the general public on our environmental concerns. However what I do know for a fact is our air is polluted and our ground water is contaminated. Being a native in Arizona I can physically see what poor planning, lax or no environmental regulations have done to our once crystal clear skies and pure ground water. Plus because of my work disciplines, I have physically experienced the contamination process taking place via our air and ground water in many Arizona industries.
Isn't freedom of speech and thought great thing!
-JW:> |
Whatever
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 04:34 pm: |
|
Actually,
Being of some knowledge in this field AND a liberal greenie, I would like to share with you ONE OF MY TRUE EXPERIENCES.
And you can make one big guess at the end of it who is the greatest polluter on Earth and how that ties into GWB.
When I was working for an environmental consulting firm we were on a site in Louisiana that was an USArmy ammunition plant. When drilling to put in monitoring wells we encountered some explosives which most resembled the remnants of land mines. Needles to say the drillers were a little freaked out about it, but I, being of the newly graduated and inexperienced type went right on drilling.
Oh, no one got blown up, but the long and the short of it is... this Vietnam era landfill did not even 'exist' according to our government. It was just something that got quickly brushed under the rug, back into silence, back into DENIAL.
Number one reason we keep going to war and creating new environmental problems... we are a culture of mass consumers that think we are at the center of the Universe and everyone else should pay for our consumptive patterns.
THIS IS A KNOWN FACT IN MOST OF EUROPE AND MOST OF THE WORLD... it is only in America we are in denial about such situations... all because we can justify it as exaggeration by the Luddites who eat granola.
My personal opinion. We will never solve our current crisis as long as we focus on destruction instead of a constructive solution.
If you want to argue with me, back it up with FACTS of your personal experience, not something you read in the corporate controlled media !!!
 Charlotte |
Road_Thing
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 04:39 pm: |
|
"I only posted the Bush/Texas link to get a few hairs raised" Whew, that's a relief...
...for a minute there, I thought you were trying to make me believe that "Under George W. Bush's leadership, Texas ranks number one in a many categories of pollution and environmental degradation" was an example of an "unbiased non-partisan “whole truths” on environmental issues!"
OK, I'm back down to 120/65. If you want me to stay there, you won't start in on how the oil companies are ripping off American consumers!
r-t |
Whatever
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 04:49 pm: |
|
Roadthang,
Don't you know saying something like that about the oil companies is 'unpatriotic'? 
Pray for an early Spring... I would move to Texas at this point if I could keep my job. |
Mikej
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 04:56 pm: |
|
"but I am totally for enforcing current environmental regulations"
As long as they are universally applied to both government and non-government agencies and properties equally. This is not the case, and therefore the regulations are a lost cause.
Kind of like outlawing speeding, but allowing legislators freedom to speed. Kind of like requiring catalytic convertors, but allowing the post office to operate their postal jeeps without them, then requiring private citizens to add the cats before they can license their surplus purchased postal jeeps for use on the same roadways they've been drivenon for the previous ten years.
Hypocracy, just another fact of life. Double-standards are not a new style of Oreo's. |
Road_Thing
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 05:01 pm: |
|
Char, if you truly understood how nice it is to live here, you'd QUIT your job and come on down!!
...didn't you post something about digging in permafrost earlier in the winter? Forecast low temp for the remainder of the week in Houston is 53 F...
r-t |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 05:12 pm: |
|
A really good point that was made in a P.J O'Rourke book echo's what Dave said...
Ecology is a luxury of the rich.
Somebody who wonders where the next meal is going to come from will not be very environmentally responsibile. They just wanna eat. If it came down to "don't poison this stream OR feed my kids", I would feed my kids. So would anyone else. Family starving? It's spotted owl for dinner!
And before anyone launches on a tirade about the evilness of greedy humans, nature is no different. It exploits whatever resources it can to whatever degree possible, until it is stopped by some outside force (consumption of resources, disease, predation, etc). It's the way things work. Humans, to their credit, are looking around and thinking that they might want to solve the problem before things get really bad. But they will only do so with a full stomach.
Back 50 years before world war 1, I wonder if you could have told someone that the only effective way to keep war from happening, was for two or more major superpowers to develop incredible weapons of mass destruction and super effective methods of delivering them. In short, that the path to peace was to prepare for war. They probably would have thought you were nuts! But I can't believe there would not have been another war were it not for Mutually Assured Destruction. It still holds today, except for cases when you have a verifiable sociopath trying to get his finger on the trigger, but thats a different rant B)
I almost wonder if the environmental issues are the same. In the last 200 years, look how technology has changed everything. Now look 200 years forward, and think how much different things may be. Obviously, we should clean up where we can and when we can, and minimize pollution wherever possible. But strangling industry and development may not be nearly as effective as putting practical and realistic but usable limits on industry.
Take the time, money, and human capitol we are applying towards environmental issues. Now, apply that same amount or more towards technological solutions to the problem. Suprise! 50 years from now we have cost effective hydrogen fuel cells for vehicles, and the hydrogen is produced in huge ponds of farmed genetically engineered bacteria that consume organic products to produce hydrogen gas. Or something else like that. That will have a bigger impact on the planet then playing politics over power grabs based on lousy science. Bite the bullet, find a goal, and use the resources it takes to get there.
Unfortunately, the greens (and even the EPA) have abandoned science to such a degree as to have totally destroyed any credibility. Hundreds of thousands of people die every year because they can't get the cheap and effective pesticide DDT. Why? Because it kills birds by weakening their shells, right? Except it DOESN'T! Under the harsh light of controlled science, it could never be proven, and people spent a lot of time trying. So hundreds of thousands or people are dying every year because some greens a) can't do valid science and b) need a cause to rally around true or not. THAT is evil.
Also take the PVC "cancer" scare for example. Know how they come up with that stuff? Start with some rats that are genetically predisposed to have cancer. These little cancer bombs have such a hair trigger, that you can reliably cause tumors just by overfeeding them. Now force feed them the substance in question until they start developing cancer. Take that amount, normalize it for the weight of a human, and divide it by like 70. That then becomse the "safe maximum exposure" for a substance.
But using that same logic, FOOD is a cancer agent, as those same rats will get tumors no matter what they eat. Obviously, while there may be outcomes of the tumor bomb rats that are worthy of investigation, to arbitrarily say that if a whole bunch of something is toxic, then a little bit must be toxic also, is just stupid, but that is what we are currently supposed to believe. It is junk science. ANYTHING is toxic in large enough quantities, even pure water.
... stuffing hand in mouth before ranting any more...  |
Road_Thing
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 05:23 pm: |
|
Reepi--"An environmentalist is someone who already HAS a cabin in the mountains..."
(that's a JOKE, son!)
r-t |
Mikej
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 05:27 pm: |
|
I think I'll try to find the Jetsons on television this Saturday and get a preview of the future. I think I'll try to pick out the SpaceBuell. |
Mikej
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 05:33 pm: |
|
 |
Rudebike
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 06:02 pm: |
|
Remember Dennis Hopper's line from the movie "Water World"?
"If I see a tree, I'm gonna ram it! I'm talkin' developement!" |
Jim_Witt
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 06:15 pm: |
|
Tom wrote:
OK, I'm back down to 120/65. If you want me to stay there, you won't start in on how the oil companies are ripping off American consumers!
Woa,
Maybe someone else mentioned that, but I sure didn't. I simply stated their environmental concerns are NOT their first priority (meaning polution and ground water specifically).
-JW:> |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 09:15 pm: |
|
Wuerger190, RT, Bill,
Thanks.
Jim,
You want the truth? Take a sample of opposing arguments, apply critical thinking and logic, find the middle ground, there you have it, probably as close as you will ever get.
Char,
You think the mostly liberal mainstream mass media is controlled by conservative industry interests? |
Road_Thing
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 09:26 pm: |
|
Jim_W: Hey, what can I say, I was on a roll...
r-t |
|
President Bush Destroys the Environment in Favor of Industry »
Archive through March 03, 2003