brenthutch 388 #126 January 8, 2017 It's a little thing I call a cost-benefit analysis. If we are so concerned with mercury, why don't we ban CFLs? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,923 #127 January 8, 2017 brenthutchIt's a little thing I call a cost-benefit analysis. If we are so concerned with mercury, why don't we ban CFLs? Since you are so concerned about cost benefit analysis, let's see the one you did. EPA does them and reports them all the time. It's what they do.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #128 January 8, 2017 gowlerk***It's a little thing I call a cost-benefit analysis. If we are so concerned with mercury, why don't we ban CFLs? Since you are so concerned about cost benefit analysis, let's see the one you did. EPA does them and reports them all the time. It's what they do. No, the EPA didn't do them. That's why the court stopped what they were trying to do."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #129 January 8, 2017 gowlerk***It's a little thing I call a cost-benefit analysis. If we are so concerned with mercury, why don't we ban CFLs? Since you are so concerned about cost benefit analysis, let's see the one you did. EPA does them and reports them all the time. It's what they do. I got your cost-benefit analysis right here. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hkkeLpbz0-Y Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,923 #130 January 8, 2017 brenthutch******It's a little thing I call a cost-benefit analysis. If we are so concerned with mercury, why don't we ban CFLs? Since you are so concerned about cost benefit analysis, let's see the one you did. EPA does them and reports them all the time. It's what they do. I got your cost-benefit analysis right here. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hkkeLpbz0-Y Again, not one word about mercury. I can't debate you when you just keep jumping around from topic to topic. You don't want to defend any of your points. You just want to bitch about how much you hate the EPA. Are you a woman?Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #131 January 8, 2017 gowlerk*********It's a little thing I call a cost-benefit analysis. If we are so concerned with mercury, why don't we ban CFLs? Since you are so concerned about cost benefit analysis, let's see the one you did. EPA does them and reports them all the time. It's what they do. I got your cost-benefit analysis right here. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hkkeLpbz0-Y You just want to bitch about how much you hate the EPA. Are you a woman? No but clearly you are a sexist. I'm sorry if you can not keep up with a wide ranging, dynamic and multifaceted discussion. I provided the Gina McCarthy testimony as an example of how the current EPA views a cost-benefit analysis. With regard to mercury, if it was so dangerous, why doesn't the EPA ban CFLs? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,923 #132 January 8, 2017 Quotewhy doesn't the EPA ban CFLs? Because they did a cost benefit analysis. It wasn't worth it.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,923 #134 January 8, 2017 brenthutchShow me. You got me, I'm assuming. But only to make a point. You have been complaining that the EPA going against mercury pollution from burning coal is not worth the price. And that they did not look at the cost. But in reality they could not make such a rule without doing so. CFLs are completely beside the point.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,923 #135 January 8, 2017 Here is some information on sources of mercury pollution worldwide. Gold mining is the worst offender, but not in the US. Coal is the second world wide, first in America. CFLs would come under disposal of products, but I don't know how large a part they would be. Once you understand the nature of the problem, EPA effort to lessen the impact of burning coal seems both reasonable and cost effective. They don't just make shit up to irritate you. They have a jobs to do. One of them is protecting our health. Health care is expensive as you may know. It's all part of the cost benefit work they do. http://www.livescience.com/39982-surprising-mercury-pollution-sources.htmlAlways remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #136 January 8, 2017 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/31/the-epas-mercurial-madness/ The bigger picture Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,923 #137 January 8, 2017 brenthutchhttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/31/the-epas-mercurial-madness/ The bigger picture The bigger bigger picture is that the reason the oceans release so much mercury is that it arrived there from legacy sources of man made pollution in the past. Mining, coal burning, chemical processes. A lot from hundreds of years ago. We did not know better then. We do now.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #138 January 8, 2017 I know you want that to be true, I know that you really really really NEED that to be true but alas it is not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #139 January 8, 2017 Science says otherwise. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1995/fs216-95/ http://www.nature.com/news/humans-have-tripled-mercury-levels-in-upper-ocean-1.15680 http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/ocean-mercury-increasing https://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/pacific_mercury.html Please show us the science that says increasing mercury levels are not due to human made pollution.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,923 #140 January 8, 2017 brenthutch I know you want that to be true, I know that you really really really NEED that to be true but alas it is not. There you go again. I've had enough for now. I'll just let this vague statement of yours stand as it pretty much shows you don't have a real answer.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #141 January 8, 2017 gowlerk ***I know you want that to be true, I know that you really really really NEED that to be true but alas it is not. There you go again. I've had enough for now. I'll just let this vague statement of yours stand as it pretty much shows you don't have a real answer. I'm not providing an answer, I am asking a question. Why does the EPA not ban CFLs? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #142 January 8, 2017 QuoteWhy does the EPA not ban CFLs? CFLs contain a very small amount (less than 4 mg) of mercury, and that is released only if the bulbs are broken or not properly recycled. CFLs use significantly less energy than incandescent bulbs, which requires significantly less coal to be burned and therefore on balance less mercury to be released to the atmosphere. source I am sure you will ignore this post, as you did the earlier one that showed the naiveté of your concept of the role of the "market" in punishing polluters and other bad actors. Don Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 913 #143 January 8, 2017 quadeScience says otherwise. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1995/fs216-95/ http://www.nature.com/news/humans-have-tripled-mercury-levels-in-upper-ocean-1.15680 http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/ocean-mercury-increasing https://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/pacific_mercury.html Please show us the science that says increasing mercury levels are not due to human made pollution. Its always important to understand the source of information and the qualifications of that source. Before the interwebs and breitbart news. People got detailed scientific knowledge from books and scientific journals. Scientific American magazine comes to mind. In order to get a book published or a study published in a magazine like Scientific American. You had to have a degree from a recognized university and peer support. Today anyone with a keyboard and access to the internet can publish. Set up websites and fill them with anything. With a basis in fact or with non-facts skillfully designed to mislead. Mislead those with already preconceived ideologies. Or mislead those who can't or lack the skills of inquiring minds to vet their sources of information. Unfortunately the biased, ignorant and those with minds disabled. By a lack of analytical or inquisitiveness of thought. Are everywhere, even here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #144 January 8, 2017 My comment about the market was about how companies decide to allocate capital, not about pollution. With regard to mercury, I fail to see an urgent need for a 90% reduction from current levels. The jobs that will be lost are real, the increase in utility prices are real. Real pain for real people, with no discernible benefit, again disproportionately hurting the poor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #145 January 8, 2017 Phil1111***Science says otherwise. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1995/fs216-95/ http://www.nature.com/news/humans-have-tripled-mercury-levels-in-upper-ocean-1.15680 http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/ocean-mercury-increasing https://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/pacific_mercury.html Please show us the science that says increasing mercury levels are not due to human made pollution. Its always important to understand the source of information and the qualifications of that source. Before the interwebs and breitbart news. People got detailed scientific knowledge from books and scientific journals. Scientific American magazine comes to mind. In order to get a book published or a study published in a magazine like Scientific American. You had to have a degree from a recognized university and peer support. Today anyone with a keyboard and access to the internet can publish. Set up websites and fill them with anything. With a basis in fact or with non-facts skillfully designed to mislead. Mislead those with already preconceived ideologies. Or mislead those who can't or lack the skills of inquiring minds to vet their sources of information. Unfortunately the biased, ignorant and those with minds disabled. By a lack of analytical or inquisitiveness of thought. Are everywhere, even here. You did see the links from the USGS; yes? I'm reasonably certain they're not simply a fly-by-night web site set up by random internet kooks.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 913 #146 January 8, 2017 I think you misunderstood the intention of my post. Some here have no intention of an objective understanding of the issues, facts and arguments posted. For which posts and links like yours seem useless. If the perceptive peephole of someone is 1/4", a fire hose of information will still have limited effect on the fire... Or none. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #147 January 8, 2017 QuoteI think you misunderstood the intention of my post. I did indeed. Thanks for the clarification.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #148 January 8, 2017 It takes capital to reduce pollution. Businesses voluntarily foregoing profit to spend capital on pollution control not required by regulation is a decision that would put them at a competitive disadvantage and get them in trouble with shareholders. Anyone with an ounce of sense understands that. I am hardly surprised that you see no need to reduce mercury pollution. That is entirely consistent with your posting history. You never admit that any pollutant has any harmful effect. It's a shame you weren't born in the 18th century when you would have been free to pollute to your heart's content without any legal requirement to factor in the health consequences. Your so-called "cost-benefit analysis" must be pretty easy when you never acknowledge any benefit to be gained from pollution control. Your concern for "the poor" rings a little hollow, though, when you dismiss any concern that might arise from their exposure to your waste products. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,923 #149 January 8, 2017 brenthutchMy comment about the market was about how companies decide to allocate capital, not about pollution. With regard to mercury, I fail to see an urgent need for a 90% reduction from current levels. The jobs that will be lost are real, the increase in utility prices are real. Real pain for real people, with no discernible benefit, again disproportionately hurting the poor. The reason you fail to see the need is simple. You personally are not directly affected by the poison. The EPA on the other hand is tasked at considering the health of all people. Not just you. If your children were endangered your attitude would be still be outrage, but in the opposite direction. " Real pain for real people, with no discernible benefit, again disproportionately hurting the poor." Pretty much describes the effects of pollution as seen through experience.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #150 January 8, 2017 I live four miles from a coal fired power plant, it is located on the campus at Penn State in the middle of the town, I have two children who were born in a hospital just three miles from the plant. Listening to you guys my kids should have three eyes and a tail, I should be on oxygen therapy and my wife would have to wipe off a half inch of soot from her Mercedes every morning! Well we don't. You catastrophists need to relax a bit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites