Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
What do you think of the EPA
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="p238shooter" data-source="post: 2697740" data-attributes="member: 24583"><p>Currious how those numbers are derived. How does that work out when you take in consideration the surface area of the United States to all the other countries? To me it stands to reason the US would put out a little more pollution than Portugal for example. </p><p></p><p>8th biggest per capita is a number to start with. What number is the US in producing products that are shipped world wide where they do not create any pollution to use them? </p><p></p><p>Countries that do not produce anything most likely will have little or no pollution.</p><p></p><p>Countries that primarily have agricultural industries like Brazil for example would most likely produce little pollution.</p><p></p><p>Now, are the numbers used that consider the US a polluter measured in the same parts per million or in many cases parts per billion. as maximum allowed pollution limits the same numbers that are used in other countries?</p><p></p><p>I would bet the US is scrutinized to find minor hot spots with small amounts of pollution 10,000 times greater than any other country in the world. What other country has as large of an EPA like agency looking for anything they can find? </p><p></p><p>This is similar to my example of the Tulsa area EPA measuring the highway hydrocarbon pollution with their monitor placed on a major thoroughfare half way between our two refineries that are only a few miles a part down wind. As the allowable levels are halved every few years, at some point in time they will be tripped. If one monitor in the city is tripped we are threatened with a new tax.</p><p></p><p>At some point in time the cow farts from the animals in my neighborhood are going to trip one of those monitors 30 miles away when the acceptable level gets reduced to .0000000000000001 parts/billion.</p><p></p><p>Now the other side of my opinion, 30 or so years ago, I was involved in providing and maintaining equipment that helped the EPA find pipes running direct from 13 industries along the Sand Springs Line just upstream of Tulsa, directly out into the Arkansas River bottom that were dumping raw sewage and major chemical waste directly into the river.</p><p></p><p>Yes, the efforts of the EPA were and still are absolutely needed for extreme violations like this, but you can not keep cutting all the limits in half, you eventually reach a non obtainable breaking point. This has happened with a large number of our industries. Many of them could not afford to comply with expenses for a what if situation that in many cases were very remote. </p><p></p><p>I for one do not want a big fine if I happen to spill a little gas filling my lawn mower, or have to pay a fine for the run off water from the road into my drainage ditch in front of my house. </p><p></p><p>To me, there needs to be a little common sense here. We have lowered our US acceptable limits to the breaking point of destruction of our economy and now we sign a world wide agreement that we will keep lowering them while China and other nations do not need to start lowering their limits for several years? We continue to brainwash everyone that any pollution the US makes will destroy the earth. </p><p></p><p>If we could just stop breathing, stop doing anything that produces CO2 we would eliminate all the food for the productive green plants of the world to convert to O2 and mankind alike. Seems to be the plan. Go figure.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="p238shooter, post: 2697740, member: 24583"] Currious how those numbers are derived. How does that work out when you take in consideration the surface area of the United States to all the other countries? To me it stands to reason the US would put out a little more pollution than Portugal for example. 8th biggest per capita is a number to start with. What number is the US in producing products that are shipped world wide where they do not create any pollution to use them? Countries that do not produce anything most likely will have little or no pollution. Countries that primarily have agricultural industries like Brazil for example would most likely produce little pollution. Now, are the numbers used that consider the US a polluter measured in the same parts per million or in many cases parts per billion. as maximum allowed pollution limits the same numbers that are used in other countries? I would bet the US is scrutinized to find minor hot spots with small amounts of pollution 10,000 times greater than any other country in the world. What other country has as large of an EPA like agency looking for anything they can find? This is similar to my example of the Tulsa area EPA measuring the highway hydrocarbon pollution with their monitor placed on a major thoroughfare half way between our two refineries that are only a few miles a part down wind. As the allowable levels are halved every few years, at some point in time they will be tripped. If one monitor in the city is tripped we are threatened with a new tax. At some point in time the cow farts from the animals in my neighborhood are going to trip one of those monitors 30 miles away when the acceptable level gets reduced to .0000000000000001 parts/billion. Now the other side of my opinion, 30 or so years ago, I was involved in providing and maintaining equipment that helped the EPA find pipes running direct from 13 industries along the Sand Springs Line just upstream of Tulsa, directly out into the Arkansas River bottom that were dumping raw sewage and major chemical waste directly into the river. Yes, the efforts of the EPA were and still are absolutely needed for extreme violations like this, but you can not keep cutting all the limits in half, you eventually reach a non obtainable breaking point. This has happened with a large number of our industries. Many of them could not afford to comply with expenses for a what if situation that in many cases were very remote. I for one do not want a big fine if I happen to spill a little gas filling my lawn mower, or have to pay a fine for the run off water from the road into my drainage ditch in front of my house. To me, there needs to be a little common sense here. We have lowered our US acceptable limits to the breaking point of destruction of our economy and now we sign a world wide agreement that we will keep lowering them while China and other nations do not need to start lowering their limits for several years? We continue to brainwash everyone that any pollution the US makes will destroy the earth. If we could just stop breathing, stop doing anything that produces CO2 we would eliminate all the food for the productive green plants of the world to convert to O2 and mankind alike. Seems to be the plan. Go figure. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
What do you think of the EPA
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
