Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EPA refused to share water quality data with N.M.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
    I agree that should be the issue. Negligence and mismanagement of the agency is the narrow issue, but it is not a case of "fix this problem ensure future transparency: end of discussion".

    As is clear from the other posters, it is about the agency itself. It is a case of the canary in the coal mine got it wrong this instance, therefore lets shoot the canary and not replace it.

    The thinking seems to be another Love Canal won't happen and if it does, the market will provide a solution by making a new area for low income housing so the poor benefit too.
    You do know that Love Canal made everyone leave their homes, not build "low-income housing", right?
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #17
      There is no doubt we need to protect our resources and the public health, but I think the states can do the job.
      Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
      Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        You do know that Love Canal made everyone leave their homes, not build "low-income housing", right?
        Love Canal also occurred before the EPA and pollution rules existed. What the company(s) involved were doing wasn't illegal and common practice for the time. What the developer did was common practice for the time.

        That it ended with people getting hurt from the pollution and their homes being abandoned was a fault of the times not something someone did illegally.

        Cleaning up such massive pollution was a real necessity. But, today the EPA is quibbling over meaningless lower standards that do nothing to improve health or rid us of mass pollution.

        Lowering the ozone standard from 75 ppb to 70 ppb will cost nearly $100 billion a year for no discernable improvement in health.

        Lowering the arsenic in drinking water standard from 50 ppb to 10 ppb did nothing to improve health but it did double to triple the cost of drinking water in more than half the US.

        Removing lead from every product in existence practically hasn't improved public health in many cases but it did wreck whole industries and in some cases resulted in a decrease in the quality of people's lives.

        The EPA once had a real and needed purpose. Today it has turned into a punitive arm of the Leftist environmentalist movement to destroy people's lives and wreck the economy in some vain effort to "save the planet."

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          You do know that Love Canal made everyone leave their homes, not build "low-income housing", right?
          Yes I am aware. I have to use my emoticons more often

          The government got all involved and interfered what would have been the proper market non-regulatory solution.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
            Yes I am aware. I have to use my emoticons more often

            The government got all involved and interfered what would have been the proper market non-regulatory solution.
            I disagree. Without the government buy-out, those homeowners would have gotten nothing. The "non-regulatory proper market" doesn't buy homes in toxic areas.
            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment

            Latest Topics

            Collapse

            Working...
            X