Drinking from a fire hose...

[brenthutch 388]

It's a little thing I call a cost-benefit analysis. If we are so concerned with mercury, why don't we ban CFLs?

[gowlerk 1,923]

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.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[rushmc 18]

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

[brenthutch 388]

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

[gowlerk 1,923]

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.

[brenthutch 388]

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?

[gowlerk 1,923]

Quote

why 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.

[brenthutch 388]

Show me.

[gowlerk 1,923]

brenthutch

Show 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.

[gowlerk 1,923]

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.html

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 388]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/31/the-epas-mercurial-madness/

The bigger picture

[gowlerk 1,923]

brenthutch

https://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.

[brenthutch 388]

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.

[quade 3]

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

[gowlerk 1,923]

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.

[brenthutch 388]

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?

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Why 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)

[Phil1111 913]

quade

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.

[brenthutch 388]

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.

[quade 3]

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

[Phil1111 913]

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.

[quade 3]

Quote

I think you misunderstood the intention of my post.

I did indeed. Thanks for the clarification.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[GeorgiaDon 340]

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)

[gowlerk 1,923]

brenthutch

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.

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.

[brenthutch 388]

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.