The So Called Deadly Climate Obsession of Governments, written by an idiot

T. A. Gardner said:
I want reasonable regulations. Here's an example: The EPA set for decades the standard for arsenic in water at 50 ppb. That's nothing. At 50 ppm--like you find in places like Bangladesh--arsenic is a health hazard and over time will fuck you up. That's 1000 times the US limit.
During the Clinton administration, test equipment had improved to where even a few ppb of arsenic in water could be measured. The EPA based on nothing reduced the allowable limit to 10 ppb. That cost people getting their drinking water from ground water as much as $100+ a month more for no discernable increase in public safety or health.

So, the US is spending billions to get arsenic out of drinking water that was perfectly safe at the old level. The same thing has happened with hexavalent chromium.

Yet, another example is allowable ozone pollution. Right now 75 ppb is the standard. During the Obama administration the EPA tried to lower this to 70 ppb claiming that the 35 to 50 billion-a-year cost of doing so would save 35 to 50 billion-a-year in medical costs due to asthma. It was amazing how the cost of their proposed regulation just magically was equal to the medical savings.
When Congress questioned this, the EPA refused outright even when subpoenaed, to provide Congress with their original research showing how they got to that number. The fight kept this regulation from being enacted.
Again, a reasonable standard and regulation was being replaced with a stricter one that the EPA could not openly justify. They wanted it simply because that's what bureaucrats do.

Having a reasonable standard is good and I have no problem with such regulations. I have a problem with the zero tolerance / we have to DO SOMETHING! mentality. No, we don't need a zero standard like 90% of the time, and we don't have to do something just to do it. I am a skeptic when it comes to new regulations by government. I don't believe that government has our best interests in mind much of the time when they make them.
Click to expand...

Pro pollution will not be a popular stand .
 
AssHatZombie said:
and dems too.
especially big pharma and social media.

the naziism and the mind control.
Click to expand...

No Nazis. The Nazi party was destroyed in WW2.
Redefinition fallacies (NAZI<->fascist, large corporation<->fascism). Redefinition fallacies in sig (corporation<->fascism, international trade<->fascism, morals<->collusion).

You really should use English, dude.
 
AssHatZombie said:
there is real pollution.
Click to expand...
Define 'pollution'. Void argument fallacy.
AssHatZombie said:
carbon monoxide isn't it.
Click to expand...
Carbon monoxide is a chemical, which is a gas at room temperature.
AssHatZombie said:
it does seem like you really believe no regulation is best.
Click to expand...
Word stuffing.
AssHatZombie said:
that's brainless clueless idiocy.
Click to expand...
Nah. That's a void argument by you. That's a fallacy, dude. You really shouldn't use meaningless buzzwords as the subject of a sentence.
AssHatZombie said:
when did you start worshipping corporations and fascism?
Click to expand...
Redefinition fallacies (worship<->explanation, corporation<->fascism). Void question. Questions based on a fallacy or containing a fallacy are void. They are not really a question.
AssHatZombie said:
what do you call it when the government is all in on enforcing mandates for products of big pharma?
Click to expand...
THIS is fascism. Fascism is government manipulation of markets.
AssHatZombie said:
do you think corporations hate that, or are they for it?
Click to expand...
Complexity fallacy. False dichotomy fallacy. Void question. Some corporations liked it, others hated it, others didn't care.
AssHatZombie said:
just be fucking honest one time.
Click to expand...
I rather think he was. The problem is you. You have to use English to be understood.
 
AssHatZombie said:
people are not corporations.
Click to expand...
Corporations are made up of people. Corporations are people. People are not corporations. Illicit major fallacy. Contextomy fallacy.
AssHatZombie said:
right, corporations are another special interest, with flaws, with plusses and minuses like all others.
Click to expand...
Redefinition fallacy (corporation<->lobby).
AssHatZombie said:
quit being a fucking fascist idiot.
Click to expand...
Insult fallacy.

No argument presented.
 
Into the Night said:
Corporations are made up of people. Corporations are people. People are not corporations. Illicit major fallacy. Contextomy fallacy.

Redefinition fallacy (corporation<->lobby).

Insult fallacy.

No argument presented.
Click to expand...

"made up of" is not the same as "is".

think of your oo

"is a" versus "has a".






https://stackoverflow.com › questions › 263355 › is-a-vs-has-a-which-one-is-better
oop - "Is a" vs "Has a" : which one is better? - Stack Overflow
0. IS-A relation ship represents inheritances and HAS-A relation ship represents composition. For above mentioned scenario we prefer composition as PortfolioA has a List and it is not the List type. Inheritances use when Portfolio A is a type of List but here it is not.
https://www.w3resource.com › java-tutorial › inheritance-composition-relationship.php
Inheritance (IS-A) vs. Composition (HAS-A) Relationship
Aug 19, 2022IS-A Relationship: In object-oriented programming, the concept of IS-A is a totally based on Inheritance, which can be of two types Class Inheritance or Interface Inheritance. It is just like saying "A is a B type of thing". For example, Apple is a Fruit, Car is a Vehicle etc. Inheritance is uni-directional. For example, House is a Building.
https://www.c-sharpcorner.com › blogs › isa-versus-hasa1
Is-A Versus Has-A - c-sharpcorner.com
Well the answer to that is really quite simple: "Is-A" is implemented via INHERITANCE "Has-A" is implemented via COMPOSITION INHERITANCE Inheritance is a good solution when some component would be logically defined, more abstractly, as another object. For instance, think of fruit.
https://www.delftstack.com › howto › java › is-a-vs-has-a-java
IS a vs HAS a in Java | Delft Stack
Nov 30, 2021Inheritance is an IS-A relationship, and Composition is a HAS-A relationship. Both the concepts differ in a certain way but have the same goal, reusability. Let us see the difference between these two concepts below. IS-A Relationship in Java An Inheritance or the IS-A relationship in Java refers to the relationship of two or more classes.
https://www.c-sharpcorner.com › UploadFile › 3614a6 › is-a-and-has-a-relationship-in-java
Is-A and Has-A Relationship in Java - c-sharpcorner.com
An Is-A relationship is also known as inheritance and a Has-A relationship is also known as composition in Java. Is-A Relationship in Java In Java, an Is-A relationship depends on inheritance. Further inheritance is of two types, class inheritance and interface inheritance. It is used for code reusability in Java.
https://ell.stackexchange.com › questions › 80984 › when-to-use-is-and-has
When to use 'is' and 'has' - English Language Learners Stack Exchange
1. Have as you used it, it's the present perfect, where If you use be+-ed you usually form the Passive form. As you can imagine. is come. doesn't make sense, because that's an active action he does. Instead. Lunch is ready. is ok, because it's something "Lunch" suffers.
 
Into the Night said:
No Nazis. The Nazi party was destroyed in WW2.
Redefinition fallacies (NAZI<->fascist, large corporation<->fascism). Redefinition fallacies in sig (corporation<->fascism, international trade<->fascism, morals<->collusion).

You really should use English, dude.
Click to expand...

eugenics is still very popular.

the core of naziism is alive and well.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
That's not entirely true. It wasn't "based on nothing" but rather quite a few expert peer reviews:

Again, you act as if no one actually researches these things. That is incorrect.
Click to expand...

I never stated that. I claimed that in many cases the people researching these things fudge or even outright lie in their research to get things passed into law. In the case of arsenic, at the 50 ppb vs 10 ppb / old v. new standard, the old might--MIGHT have resulted in up to 1% more cancer than the 10 ppb level.

The US National Research Council has noted that as many as 1 in 100 additional cancer deaths could be expected from a lifetime exposure to drinking-water containing 50 μg/L
Click to expand...
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/arsenic
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230893/

As for "peer review," that's often a worthless or near worthless exercise in back patting rather than a truly critical review of someone's work. I see it as mostly an irrelevant appeal to authority rather than something that, on its own, adds credibility.

As for costs...

The final Arsenic Rule published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, lowering the maximum contaminant level for arsenic to 10 ppb from the current standard of 50 ppb, will cost at least $181 million to implement and directly impact community water systems serving 13 million people, according to figures from EPA. The American Water Works Association placed the cost much higher, predicting the new standard would cost $600 million annually and require $6 billion in capital outlays.

EPA estimated the rule's annual cost to households would average about $32 per year but could range up to $60 per household. AWWA again had a much higher projection, predicting that compliance with the new standard could cost individual ratepayers in the desert Southwest, Midwest and New England as much as $2000 a year.
Click to expand...
https://www.waterworld.com/drinking...6/arsenic-rule-to-cost-water-systems-millions

Depending on who's numbers you want to use, implementing this rule was expensive and likely not worth the potential results that would be gained (a minor / very slight reduction in cancer rates--maybe...)

EPA predicts the rule will have a "quantifiable benefit" ranging from $140 to $198 million per year. Reducing arsenic to 10 µg/L from the current 50 will prevent approximately 19-31 cases of bladder cancer and 5-8 deaths due to bladder cancer per year. EPA estimates the reduction also will prevent approximately 19-25 cases of lung cancer and 16-22 deaths due to lung cancer per year.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure how you get lung cancer from arsenic in drinking water but... Also, the EPA has a record of making up their cost benefit numbers out of thin air.

WASHINGTON (May 13, 2021) — Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an interim final rule to rescind the previous administration’s rule entitled “Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process,” also known as the Benefit-Cost Rule. In response to President Biden’s Executive Order 13990, "Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis," EPA reviewed the Benefit-Cost Rule and found that it imposed procedural restrictions and requirements that would have limited EPA’s ability to use the best available science in developing Clean Air Act regulations, and would be inconsistent with economic best practices.

“EPA has critical authority under the Clean Air Act to protect the public from harmful air pollution, among other threats to our health. Revoking this unnecessary and misguided rule is proof positive of this Administration’s commitment to science,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. “We will continue to fix the wrongs of the past and move forward aggressively to deliver on President Biden’s clear commitment to protecting public health and the environment.”
Click to expand...
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-rescinds-unnecessary-benefit-cost-rule

In other words, Trump ordered them to be transparent and open about their data and claims, and Biden let them rescind that order and go back to just publishing their resulting claims without showing proof...

You know that the order probably was a good thing when those that have the most to benefit from not having to abide by it whine the loudest...

This June, the Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a new rulemaking, Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process.

The proposal is, by every measure, an object lesson in this administration’s shambolic governing approach: bad-faith actions, dressed up with claims of high-minded ideals, felled by staggering ineptitude.

Under the guise of boosting “consistency” and “transparency,” the administration is in fact attempting to severely curtail the EPA’s ability to issue, uphold, and strengthen clean air standards by distorting and devaluing how the benefits of pollution protections are calculated. The proposal is without merit, be it legal, scientific, or economic.
Click to expand...
https://blog.ucsusa.org/julie-mcnam...corrupt-and-deeply-consequential-call-it-out/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top