Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatDoYouWantNow. Show WhatDoYouWantNow's posts

    Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

    ....but it probably won't do anything to stop the glorious goodness of corporations from bestowing more mercury upon us.

    ________________________________________________________________

    The strict new federal standards limiting pollution from power plants are meant to safeguard human health. But they should have an important side benefit, according to a study being released on Tuesday: protecting a broad array of wildlife that has been harmed by mercury emissions.

    Songbirds and bats suffer some of the same types of neurological disorders from mercury as humans and especially children do, says the study, “Hidden Risk,” by the Biodiversity Research Institute, a nonprofit organization in Gorham, Me., that investigates emerging environmental threats.

    Methylmercury, the most toxic form of the heavy metal, was found to be widespread throughout the Northeast — not just in lakes and rivers, as had already been known, but also in forests, on mountaintops and in bogs and marshes that are home to birds long thought to be at minimal risk.

    The new study found dangerously high levels of mercury in several Northeastern bird species, including rusty blackbirds, saltmarsh sparrows and wood thrushes. Previous studies have shown mercury’s effects on loons and other fish-eating waterfowl, as well as bald eagles, panthers and otters. In one study, zebra finches lost the ability to hit high notes in mating songs when mercury levels rose, affecting reproduction.

    “We’re seeing many other species in a much larger landscape of harm from mercury,” said the principal author, David C. Evers, who is the institute’s executive director. He called the Environmental Protection Agency’s new mercury standards, adopted last month and scheduled to take effect over the next four years, “an excellent step forward in reducing and minimizing the impact on ecosystems and improving ecological health, and therefore our own health.”

    Mercury, which occurs naturally in the earth, is released into the air when coal is burned in power plants. The gaseous mercury can drift hundreds of miles before settling back to earth, sometimes along with rain. The mercury can be absorbed by tree leaves; when they fall to the ground they are swarmed by bacteria and other organisms that convert the mercury to its organic form. The organic form, methylmercury, is a neurotoxin that can enter the food chain. Small insects, worms and snails that feed on forest litter absorb the mercury. In turn, they are eaten by birds and other small animals, and so on through the food chain.

    Dr. Evers said levels of contamination were highest in habitats like marshes and beaver ponds that go through cycles of wet and dry, even if they are far from power plants. He also found that threshold levels at which some species begin to feel the effects of mercury are much lower than previously thought.

    Songbirds with blood mercury levels of just 0.7 parts per million generally showed a 10 percent reduction in the rate at which eggs successfully hatched. As mercury increases, reproduction decreases. At mercury levels of greater than 1.7 parts per million, the ability of eggs to hatch is reduced by more than 30 percent, according to the study.

    Over all, birds in contaminated sites were found to be three times as likely to abandon their nests or exhibit abnormal incubation or feeding behavior. In some nests, the chicks seemed to have been affected most; they vocalized less and did not beg as aggressively to be fed.

    Such consequences mimic the effects of mercury on humans whose primary contact with the toxin is through the consumption of fish. The contamination can be passed to children in the womb or while they are nursing, damaging their nervous systems and impairing their ability to learn.

    “It’s incredibly important that someone is following what is happening to these birds,” said Joanna Burger, a behavioral ecologist at Rutgers University who has studied mercury contamination in animals. “The birds not only act as sentinels to what is happening in nature, but the results of these studies propose hypotheses for effects that have not yet been identified for people.” 

    Dr. Evers has been studying mercury in terrestrial species for 11 years across 11 states, from Virginia to Maine, continually adding new species and ecosystems. In the latest study, done in cooperation with the Nature Conservancy, biologists found that little brown bats, already stressed by white nose syndrome in the Northeast, accumulate substantial amounts of mercury because they can live up to 30 years — three times as long as songbirds.

    The mercury is believed to cause bats to act erratically, and in some cases to lose their adeptness at avoiding wind turbine blades.

    “What people don’t realize is that our rain isn’t just acidic,” said Timothy H. Tear, director of science for the Nature Conservancy in New York. “It is neurotoxic.”

    The effects of mercury can lead to the degradation of entire ecosystems, Dr. Tear explained. “You don’t see birds falling off tree limbs because they have too much mercury,” he said, “but they’re not doing the job they used to.”

     

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/science/study-finds-mercury-in-more-northeastern-bird-species.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fscience%2Findex.jsonp

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatDoYouWantNow. Show WhatDoYouWantNow's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...


    "get government out of the way" ?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from APerfectCircle. Show APerfectCircle's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

    In certain areas govt should get out of the way. And in other areas, like EPA, we need govt. There is a balance that is needed. I don't know anyone who says govt shouldn't be involved entirely. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

    Mercury is also used in flourescent lights which are perferred over incandescent lights because they save electricity!!
    So in electricty production bad (even though a vast majority is captured with clean coal technology)! But, put it in multiple outlets in our homes and its perferred!!

    btw the most toxic form is the mecury dust or gas that is used in flourescent lighting!


    Just sayin!!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatDoYouWantNow. Show WhatDoYouWantNow's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

    In Response to Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...:
    In certain areas govt should get out of the way. And in other areas, like EPA, we need govt. There is a balance that is needed. I don't know anyone who says govt shouldn't be involved entirely. 
    Posted by APerfectCircle


    Well, see now I was thining particularly of some of the primary candidates attacking the EPA. For example, Rick Perry, who thought we simply do not need it.

    These sentiments are repeated in these forums, with little thought for what is being said. As the article demonstrates, it's hard enough to keep up with all the polluters, who are more than happy to pump some really nasty things into your air, water, and earth if it makes a quick buck.

    Well, if we got rid of the EPA or severely curtailed its regulations, these polluters would have a field day. And by the time people realized that getting rid of the EPA was monumentally stupid - because they start dying - it will be too late (impossible) to get the pollutants out of the environment.

    I have a real problem with the wholesale untargeted attacks on the EPA, or in general "government agencies" being uttered by many conservative policians, conservative media, and conservative voters.

    It's not just stupid, it's outright dangerous.

    We want to keep poison out of our environment, out of our food, out of our medicine. We want workers to be reasonably safe in factories. We don't want sweatshops with child labor.

    Etc etc etc.





    Some attacks are more targeted.

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/18/republican-house-votes-to-defund-environmental-protection-agency/

    That being an effort to defund efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

    It'd be nice to hear a lot more targeted attacks from those who oppose "government", rather than meangingless rants and diatribes.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatDoYouWantNow. Show WhatDoYouWantNow's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...


    btw the most toxic form is the mecury dust or gas that is used in flourescent lighting! Just sayin!!
    Posted by sk8ter2008


    No kidding. I try to stick with incandescent.

    Hopefully, LED bulbs - which do not have this problem - will start coming down in price to something more reasonable.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMeffa. Show GreginMeffa's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

    Rick Perry is done.

    It was a republican who created the EPA.  Relax.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatDoYouWantNow. Show WhatDoYouWantNow's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...


    Rick Perry is done.
    Posted by GreginMeffa


    As a candidate, not as a launching pad.

    It was a republican who created the EPA.
    Posted by GreginMeffa


    And now it's Republicans who want to get rid of it...

    Relax.
    Posted by GreginMeffa


    Well that could be said of just about every thread here, man....   
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMeffa. Show GreginMeffa's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

    And now it's Republicans who want to get rid of it...
    -------------------------
    Who?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatDoYouWantNow. Show WhatDoYouWantNow's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

    In Response to Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...:
    And now it's Republicans who want to get rid of it... ------------------------- Who?
    Posted by GreginMeffa


    I named one.

    I gave another example of others seeking to defund specific provisions.

    Come now, man. Where are you demands for lists of all offending Democrats when Bobin starts a thread about one union member who did something bad?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink. Show WhichOnesPink's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

    In Response to Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...:
    And now it's Republicans who want to get rid of it... ------------------------- Who?
    Posted by GreginMeffa


    Didn't you know...Rick Perry = RepublicanS


     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

    I think getting rid of the Federal epa is debatable idea. Allow state epa's to do the job!!
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from zippit. Show zippit's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

    In Response to Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...:
    No kidding. I try to stick with incandescent. Hopefully, LED bulbs - which do not have this problem - will start coming down in price to something more reasonable.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow


    Well, incandescent bulbs will be phased out in no time, so you better stock up.

    And in case you didn't notice, LEDs have virtually taken over the X-mas light market, and Neon signs are a thing of the past, LED's are the same or even cheaper than neon now.

    LED's are gradually taking over the retail design niche, as they use 10% the energy, less heat build up, and up to ten-times the longevity as incandescent lights.

    Plus many state energy codes mandate "watts per suare foot" limits for retail stores, thus driving out compact fluorescents in many cases.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatDoYouWantNow. Show WhatDoYouWantNow's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

    In Response to Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...:
    I think getting rid of the Federal epa is debatable idea. Allow state epa's to do the job!!
    Posted by sk8ter2008


    The problem with that seems fairly obvious to me: Pollutants do not obey state lines.

    A coal state could decide to have very few regulations on emissions, but it is states to the East that pay the price.

    Etc.




    Of course, that would also be worse for any business that operates in more than one state. More regulations to comply with, more legal fees, more logistics headaches.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMeffa. Show GreginMeffa's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

    In Response to Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...:
    In Response to Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs... : Didn't you know...Rick Perry = Republican S
    Posted by WhichOnesPink


    Did you know "Rick Perry" is sngular, and "republicans" plural?

    "an astonishing 17 Democrats sided with big polluters and radical republicans, and cast at least one vote to undermine the Clean Air Act's ability to limit carbon pollution. What's worse, Democrats -- specifically Sens. Jay Rockefeller, Debbie Stabenow, Sherrod Brown, and Max Baucus -- were actually the sponsors of three of the four anti Clean Air Act amendments!"

    Now THATS plural.

    The EPA is fine and Rick is toast.

    This is up there with Tim Thomas on that important things list.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

    In Response to Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...:
    In Response to Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs... : The problem with that seems fairly obvious to me: Pollutants do not obey state lines. A coal state could decide to have very few regulations on emissions, but it is states to the East that pay the price. Etc. Of course, that would also be worse for any business that operates in more than one state. More regulations to comply with, more legal fees, more logistics headaches.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow


    We could use federal courts to decide if, one state is infringing on the other.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatDoYouWantNow. Show WhatDoYouWantNow's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

    We could use federal courts to decide if, one state is infringing on the other.
    Posted by sk8ter2008


    Well, that's piling even more costs onto business.

    On top of that, I'm not sure what you mean. I am not involved in "environmental law" so I am not sure whether one state can sue another over pollution, or what the suit would look like.

    On top of that, you'd have even more of what is often criticized as "judge made law".




    The framers settled on a mixed system with a strong federal government because the prior model did not work. That is why the interstate commerce clause was included, for example. It's inefficient, and more often ineffective, to leave matters affecting five states to five different sets of rules.

    I genuinely do not understand the TP/some conservative view that as a general rule of government, it is better for states to handle things.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatDoYouWantNow. Show WhatDoYouWantNow's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

    In Response to Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...:
    This is up there with Tim Thomas on that important things list.
    Posted by GreginMeffa


    If you shove your head in the sand and pretend Perry is the only one saying it.



    Endless threads about "liberals this" and "democrats that", all pegged to articles about ONE Democrat or ONE liberal.

    I'm just dying to see you demand the same of conservatives here. Why do you feel it unnecessary for them to provide lists?

    Spare me.... 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink. Show WhichOnesPink's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

    I'm just dying to see you demand the same of conservatives here. Why do you feel it unnecessary for them to provide lists?


    Maybe for same reason YOU don't when the Left puts their lists together
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMeffa. Show GreginMeffa's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

    In Response to Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...:
    In Response to Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs... : If you shove your head in the sand and pretend Perry is the only one saying it. Endless threads about "liberals this" and "democrats that." I'm just dying to see you demand the same of conservatives here. Of course, you are silent there.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow


    If ya really need to read between the lines to see I disagree with Perry on the EPA, try a bigger font.  Hell, I think I'd be ok with elevating it to Cabinet Level.

    I've also been telling conservatives to get the F off support for DOMA and kill it.  Shall I mention Roe, or is the font big enough now?

    You equally pi55ed at the dems I mentioned?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatDoYouWantNow. Show WhatDoYouWantNow's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

    In Response to Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...:
    If ya really need to read between the lines to see I disagree with Perry on the EPA, try a bigger font. 
    Posted by GreginMeffa


    Snark now? Well well well.

    If you really need to actually read what I posted to see that I am not posting exclusively about Perry, or even exclusively about completely shutting down the EPA,  well how about you actually read what I posted?

    or don't bother responding.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMeffa. Show GreginMeffa's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

    an astonishing 17 Democrats sided with big polluters and radical republicans, and cast at least one vote to undermine the Clean Air Act's ability to limit carbon pollution. What's worse, Democrats -- specifically Sens. Jay Rockefeller, Debbie Stabenow, Sherrod Brown, and Max Baucus -- were actually the sponsors of three of the four anti Clean Air Act amendments!

    Whose silence again?
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

    In Response to Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...:
    Well, that's piling even more costs onto business. On top of that, I'm not sure what you mean. I am not involved in "environmental law" so I am not sure whether one state can sue another over pollution, or what the suit would look like. On top of that, you'd have even more of what is often criticized as "judge made law". The framers settled on a mixed system with a strong federal government because the prior model did not work . That is why the interstate commerce clause was included, for example. It's inefficient, and more often ineffective, to leave matters affecting five states to five different sets of rules. I genuinely do not understand the TP/some conservative view that as a general rule of government, it is better for states to handle things.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow


    Better does not always indicate great or even good. There are those including me that the feds should pass much more power to states and not try to one size fits all in so many areas.

    The feds should spend more time worrying about infrastructure, foreign policy and protecting nation.
     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatDoYouWantNow. Show WhatDoYouWantNow's posts

    Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...

    In Response to Re: Shrinking Government and Getting Rid of the EPA Will Create Jobs...:
    Whose silence again?
    Posted by GreginMeffa


    YOURS.

    Like pinkie, you only pick threads that criticize Republicans to say "oh, well, you only posted about one Republican. That's not all Republicans. Go draft a list of each and every Republican who said this!"

    So perhaps I'm not very much inclined to go on a fetch mission for you.

    I don't see you or anyone else here holding themselves to this "list everything" standard. Every post would be a fifty page essay if we did that.



    How about you drop this obnoxious zinger game, read my post, and actually respond to it...if you want me to address the Democrats you cited there.
    (And where's the link, since I don't know which amendments you are copy/pasting about).

    Christ. As I even said in my post: I'd much prefer to see targeted attacks on specific EPA (or other agency) regulations, rather than the broadside attacks on entire agencies that I hear here and from Republicans.

    The whole problem I'm getting at is that none of us gets anywhere saying simply "the EPA is bad" or "government is too big" without talking about specific things that should be gotten rid of. That's just ideological mantra. It is meaningless without an object.

    There is quite obviously an awful lot that we do want government to do. Unless you want your kid breathing/drinking mercury.

    So yeah, we need the EPA because it does an awful lot of things we'd appreciate more if we saw the alternative.

    I'm attacking those who attack it broadside. If you want to pretend that I'm talking about "all Republicans" just so you can zing me, that's your business, but you'll simply be behaving obnoxiously.