• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EPA, what is more important, public health or business concerns?

EMNofSeattle said:
You mean where a township purposefully permitted development on a site they knew was heavily polluted and in fact had threatened to take it via eminent domain? Oh yeah and all the waste dumped there had been permitted by the public agency that owned the canal Classic liberal thinking, government screws up and the answer is more government
Click to expand...

You're illustrating one purpose of the EPA - develop national standards for dealing with toxic wastes (among other tasks). Love Canal and many other environmental disasters served as proof the model of leaving environmental decisions to local communities HAD FAILED because of corruption or ignorance or both. What does a tiny little town know about the health effects of chemicals dumped in a landfill? Nothing is the normal answer. How about long term storage plans? Nothing. Etc. But you can fill an EPA with experts on that and much more.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
You mean where a township purposefully permitted development on a site they knew was heavily polluted and in fact had threatened to take it via eminent domain? Oh yeah and all the waste dumped there had been permitted by the public agency that owned the canal Classic liberal thinking, government screws up and the answer is more government
Click to expand...

'Scuse you, but under EPA regulations, all such heavily polluted sites are identified...because thanks to the EPA, industries are required to inform the government where and how they dispose of hazardous waste...and anyone who sells property is required to inform the buyer of any and all pollution which is contained on the property or to which the property may be exposed. Any realtor will tell you the same thing. A problem like Love Canal likely would be next to impossible today thanks to EPA regulation and oversight.

The states keep lists of such known sites - here's a link to Washington's, and here's a link to California's.

That's the kind of information we have access to for our own protection...thanks to - indeed, not possible without - the "big government" that y'all despise so much.
 
"The answer is more government??". That is a knee jerk reaction if I ever heard one.

Lets take the opposite approach. Are you saying that the opposite, less government is a solution? That has NO chance of working though Trump seems dead set on trying it. Better government may end up being less government. However admiring less just because it is less is foolhardy.

The answer is better government. If in aiming for better government, we get to less government, bravo.

Expecting companies, particularly American companies to clean up after themselves no matter how much they pollute is at best naive, at worst, unscrupulous. IMO, we needed deregulation, just not corrupt and willynilly deregulation. We needed a corporate tax cut, just not one that took the nominal rate all the way down to 21%. Are you folks seeing a pattern here.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
'Scuse you, but under EPA regulations, all such heavily polluted sites are identified...because thanks to the EPA, industries are required to inform the government where and how they dispose of hazardous waste...and anyone who sells property is required to inform the buyer of any and all pollution which is contained on the property or to which the property may be exposed. Any realtor will tell you the same thing. A problem like Love Canal likely would be next to impossible today thanks to EPA regulation and oversight.

The states keep lists of such known sites - here's a link to Washington's, and here's a link to California's.

That's the kind of information we have access to for our own protection...thanks to - indeed, not possible without - the "big government" that y'all despise so much.
Click to expand...

There was Never any confusion about the polluted nature of love canal. Hooker chemical had acquired permits to dump chemicals there, the canal was drained it filled in lined with clay as was standard at the time for that type of operation. Hooker had refused to sell the land to the township before hand, the local government authorities threaten to take it by eminent domain, hooker then informed the government authorities not to place the love canal school on top of the canal, when they were scuffed off they then agreed to sell the land on the condition that their liability be limited to a couple of million dollars. So using it as an example for why we need the EPA, then going off on this rant that the EPA is the reason we know where polluted sides are is not an argument

Not only that, but if the school board had agreed in the deed not to place the school on the dump site (as hooker tried to make them agree to) there would’ve been no problem, it was the school board constructing a school there that breached the clay cap causing the pollution. Those chemicals would’ve stayed safely buried for a million years never hurting a fly if the government didn’t put a school on top of it.

“Well now because of the EPA they have to tell you the site was a dump” but love canal was your example and in that example the company told the town and school board exactly what that site was used for, it was no secret.
 
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle said:
There was Never any confusion about the polluted nature of love canal. Hooker chemical had acquired permits to dump chemicals there, the canal was drained it filled in lined with clay as was standard at the time for that type of operation. Hooker had refused to sell the land to the township before hand, the local government authorities threaten to take it by eminent domain, hooker then informed the government authorities not to place the love canal school on top of the canal, when they were scuffed off they then agreed to sell the land on the condition that their liability be limited to a couple of million dollars. So using it as an example for why we need the EPA, then going off on this rant that the EPA is the reason we know where polluted sides are is not an argument

Not only that, but if the school board had agreed in the deed not to place the school on the dump site (as hooker tried to make them agree to) there would’ve been no problem, it was the school board constructing a school there that breached the clay cap causing the pollution. Those chemicals would’ve stayed safely buried for a million years never hurting a fly if the government didn’t put a school on top of it.

“Well now because of the EPA they have to tell you the site was a dump” but love canal was your example and in that example the company told the town and school board exactly what that site was used for, it was no secret.
Click to expand...

Do you know why federal agencies are generally more trusted than state or local agencies? Because the federal agencies don't have a dog in the fight. The town and school board believed that they needed more tax revenue...and so this happened. This is also why the Republican governor-appointed city manager switched from the good water supply to the polluted water supply in Flint, Michigan - it all started with the city of Flint going bankrupt, so Governor Snyder appointed a city manager to go in and save money...and the Flint water crisis was the direct result.

See what I'm referring to? The state and local politicians had a financial interest in cutting corners...whereas the Feds don't. THAT is why federal oversight is so crucial - they have no state or local dog in the fight, and so are seen as much less corrupt than the locals.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
You mean where a township purposefully permitted development on a site they knew was heavily polluted and in fact had threatened to take it via eminent domain? Oh yeah and all the waste dumped there had been permitted by the public agency that owned the canal Classic liberal thinking, government screws up and the answer is more government
Click to expand...

Except that the Love Canal disaster arose specifically because there was no oversight. with no regulations at all. (1920s)

By the 1950s it had long since turned into an unregulated dumpsite then just covered with dirt.

One is much better armed with the knowledge that had there been an EPA back then, problems wouldn't arise later.

Love Canal was a perfect failure as a typical unregulated search for profits...not because of anything the govt. did or didn't do.

I could just as easily conclude, this is typical righty, rent-seeking creed for profits, getting govt. out of the way.

[It] was and that's why another disaster and Trump wants to take us back there.

Oh yea, land use and building permits are all quite purposeful especially when issued without regard to the environment.
 
independentusa said:
There are hearings today in Congress with the head of the EPA being questioned about his work. My question is, what should be more improtatnt to the EPA, public health or business concerns when it comes to our environment? Should we do as many Gopers want and just do away with the EPA and only concern our government with helping business no matter what? Should we be concerned with the effects of business on our public health and take action where necessary? What is your opinion?
Click to expand...

You set up a false premise.

The EPA is the Jack Booted thugs who threaten a Wyoming Rancher with a $75,000 per day fine for creating a pond on his own land to water his cattle and entertain his children.

The choice is not between some Holy Crusaders protecting the sacred Earth from the Damnable Industrialists.

The choice is between a gang of unrestrained, power mad, pencil necked zealots enacting grudge-revenge enforcement against regular citizens based on nothing more than their own biases.

It is long past time when this out of control fascist agency was reigned in.

Every one of the 50 states has its own Natural Resources Department. The EPA is a Nixon Era political device that is a redundant waste of time, energy and money.
 
independentusa said:
I don't understand your post, are you for or against one side or the other of the issues I posted?
Click to expand...

NTG is against President Trump.

Doesn't matter the issue.
 
independentusa said:
There are hearings today in Congress with the head of the EPA being questioned about his work. My question is, what should be more improtatnt to the EPA, public health or business concerns when it comes to our environment? Should we do as many Gopers want and just do away with the EPA and only concern our government with helping business no matter what? Should we be concerned with the effects of business on our public health and take action where necessary? What is your opinion?
Click to expand...

Like most big government agencies, the EPA has evolved into a monster. Of course businesses shouldn't be able to pollute the waters and the air, and they're not going to start now that President Trump is rolling back certain regulations. The wacky leftie environmentalists see everything as an affront, without actually trying to find the truth. These folks are far too reactionary.
By the way, Richard Nixon instituted the EPA...bet you thought it was a leftie. huh?
 
code1211 said:
You set up a false premise.

The EPA is the Jack Booted thugs who threaten a Wyoming Rancher with a $75,000 per day fine for creating a pond on his own land to water his cattle and entertain his children.

The choice is not between some Holy Crusaders protecting the sacred Earth from the Damnable Industrialists.

The choice is between a gang of unrestrained, power mad, pencil necked zealots enacting grudge-revenge enforcement against regular citizens based on nothing more than their own biases.

It is long past time when this out of control fascist agency was reigned in.

Every one of the 50 states has its own Natural Resources Department. The EPA is a Nixon Era political device that is a redundant waste of time, energy and money.
Click to expand...


Perfectly sensible and well-balanced response.


not
 
Critter7r said:
Perfectly sensible and well-balanced response.


not
Click to expand...

No examples, links or support of any kind.

Great liberal response! Good job, Jimmy. Here's your Gold Star!

 
code1211 said:
You set up a false premise.

The EPA is the Jack Booted thugs who threaten a Wyoming Rancher with a $75,000 per day fine for creating a pond on his own land to water his cattle and entertain his children.

The choice is not between some Holy Crusaders protecting the sacred Earth from the Damnable Industrialists.

The choice is between a gang of unrestrained, power mad, pencil necked zealots enacting grudge-revenge enforcement against regular citizens based on nothing more than their own biases.

It is long past time when this out of control fascist agency was reigned in.

Every one of the 50 states has its own Natural Resources Department. The EPA is a Nixon Era political device that is a redundant waste of time, energy and money.
Click to expand...

Do you know anything about the law. the law does not allow you to "dam' up the flow of water flowing through you property, which is exactly what the rancher did. The reason for the law is to keep people from taking all of the water for themselves and leaving little or nothing for the others down stream.
 
itsforthekids said:
Like most big government agencies, the EPA has evolved into a monster. Of course businesses shouldn't be able to pollute the waters and the air, and they're not going to start now that President Trump is rolling back certain regulations. The wacky leftie environmentalists see everything as an affront, without actually trying to find the truth. These folks are far too reactionary.
By the way, Richard Nixon instituted the EPA...bet you thought it was a leftie. huh?
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding me, businesses won't do what they did in the past. To increase profits and thus to help their own pockets full of cash, business leaders will do whatever they can to cut costs. If that means dirting the air and water, so be it. One good example is the change in the mining of coal laws. They are now allowing,
under Trump's changes in the law, the coal companies to dump their sludge in rivers and streams. Who do you think requested those changes and do you really think the coal companies won't do so to increase profits?
 
independentusa said:
You have got to be kidding me, businesses won't do what they did in the past. To increase profits and thus to help their own pockets full of cash, business leaders will do whatever they can to cut costs. If that means dirting the air and water, so be it. One good example is the change in the mining of coal laws. They are now allowing,
under Trump's changes in the law, the coal companies to dump their sludge in rivers and streams. Who do you think requested those changes and do you really think the coal companies won't do so to increase profits?
Click to expand...

No, they're not.
 
itsforthekids said:
I only weep for people who's lives are ruined by the EPA.
Click to expand...

And I weep for the millions of people who have had their lives destroyed by the businesses that use and abuse our environment. A good example is one of the corporation farms here is Wisco. Recently it has been discovered by investigators that all of the houses surrounding the farm have had their wells polluted by the run off from the farm which milks over 5,000 cows a day. The nitrate levels, which comes from the cow manure, is so high they will not be able to use their wells. thus they can not live there without poisoning themselves and their kids and they can't sell their places because everyone knows of the problem. It would not be so tragic, but these huge corporation farms are showing up all over our state. The ground water of our state will soon be undrinkable, but it is okay, the corporations are making money. This is just one of the things happening in our state alone that shows that corporations will do anything to make money and don't give a damn about the rest of us. So weep for those whose lives have been ruined by the EPA, probably because they, the ruined ones, were breaking the law, but I will be happy for the millions whose lives are saved or improved by the EPA.
 
independentusa said:
There are hearings today in Congress with the head of the EPA being questioned about his work. My question is, what should be more improtatnt to the EPA, public health or business concerns when it comes to our environment? Should we do as many Gopers want and just do away with the EPA and only concern our government with helping business no matter what? Should we be concerned with the effects of business on our public health and take action where necessary? What is your opinion?
Click to expand...



The core principles of the EPA have nothing to do with business concerns than is prescribed by law. The President can direct the EPA to do, or not do, whatever he wants that can make it through the courts. The easiest way to beat even that is to simply depopulate the EPA, which Trump means to cut in half.
 
independentusa said:
And I weep for the millions of people who have had their lives destroyed by the businesses that use and abuse our environment. A good example is one of the corporation farms here is Wisco. Recently it has been discovered by investigators that all of the houses surrounding the farm have had their wells polluted by the run off from the farm which milks over 5,000 cows a day. The nitrate levels, which comes from the cow manure, is so high they will not be able to use their wells. thus they can not live there without poisoning themselves and their kids and they can't sell their places because everyone knows of the problem. It would not be so tragic, but these huge corporation farms are showing up all over our state. The ground water of our state will soon be undrinkable, but it is okay, the corporations are making money. This is just one of the things happening in our state alone that shows that corporations will do anything to make money and don't give a damn about the rest of us. So weep for those whose lives have been ruined by the EPA, probably because they, the ruined ones, were breaking the law, but I will be happy for the millions whose lives are saved or improved by the EPA.
Click to expand...

So, even WITH the bloated bureaucracy of the EPA, they couldn't stop this from happening? With their $8 BILLION DOLLAR budget? Thank you for making my point.
 
itsforthekids said:
So, even WITH the bloated bureaucracy of the EPA, they couldn't stop this from happening? With their $8 BILLION DOLLAR budget? Thank you for making my point.
Click to expand...

Ah, but that is where you are wrong. It wasn't the EPA that allowed such environmental carnage to take place, it was the Wisconsin Department of Natural resources. And guess what the GOP controlled governor and legislature have done over the past eight years, they have gutted the department including firing all of the scientists. Is this beginning to sound familiar. Now they are allowing businesses to do as they want to the environment as long as it earns a profit. That is who allowed the environmental destruction I mentioned in my last post. And that is what will happen to the rest of the nation as the EPA is destroyed in the same manner. The air and the water will be dirtier, but the 1% will continue to get theirs and that is all the GOP in congress and the Whtiehouse are worried about. Sounds like that is all you are worried about.
 
independentusa said:
Ah, but that is where you are wrong. It wasn't the EPA that allowed such environmental carnage to take place, it was the Wisconsin Department of Natural resources. And guess what the GOP controlled governor and legislature have done over the past eight years, they have gutted the department including firing all of the scientists. Is this beginning to sound familiar. Now they are allowing businesses to do as they want to the environment as long as it earns a profit. That is who allowed the environmental destruction I mentioned in my last post. And that is what will happen to the rest of the nation as the EPA is destroyed in the same manner. The air and the water will be dirtier, but the 1% will continue to get theirs and that is all the GOP in congress and the Whtiehouse are worried about. Sounds like that is all you are worried about.
Click to expand...

Yea...I want dirty air and polluted water.:roll:
 
independentusa said:
Do you know anything about the law. the law does not allow you to "dam' up the flow of water flowing through you property, which is exactly what the rancher did. The reason for the law is to keep people from taking all of the water for themselves and leaving little or nothing for the others down stream.
Click to expand...

That must be exactly the legal point cited by the EPA when they dropped the suit AND allowed the pond to stay in place and said the fines need not be paid.

You need to contact the EPA to find out if THEY know anything about the law.

Your knowledge is obviously superior to theirs.

This whole example is just further proof that the jack booted thugs were acting on a grudge kind of a crusade and that the actual negative impact they overstated in their case was not real.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/9/wyo-rancher-facing-20m-epa-fines-claims-victory/
 
itsforthekids said:
Yea...I want dirty air and polluted water.:roll:
Click to expand...

Apparently you do as that is what is going to happen once the GOP and Pruitt finish gutting the EPA like the GOP has done in Wisconsin and you are approving of what the GOP is doing. to give you another example, a county is Wisconsin passed a rule that they could control the mining of sand in their county. This sand is what is used in cracking. This sand is full of silica, which can cause cancer. It is also so light that it floats in the air for hours and can be driven by the wind. The county wanted to limit the number of such mines in their county. The mining interests went to their GOP legislators and they immediately passed a law disallowing local counties from interfering with the sand mines. The GOP doesn't worry about people's health as long as business can do what they want and this is now happening at the Federal Level.
 
independentusa said:
Apparently you do as that is what is going to happen once the GOP and Pruitt finish gutting the EPA like the GOP has done in Wisconsin and you are approving of what the GOP is doing. to give you another example, a county is Wisconsin passed a rule that they could control the mining of sand in their county. This sand is what is used in cracking. This sand is full of silica, which can cause cancer. It is also so light that it floats in the air for hours and can be driven by the wind. The county wanted to limit the number of such mines in their county. The mining interests went to their GOP legislators and they immediately passed a law disallowing local counties from interfering with the sand mines. The GOP doesn't worry about people's health as long as business can do what they want and this is now happening at the Federal Level.
Click to expand...

That very same silica is what's mined for solar cells. But I guess since you LIKE solar panels, that's okay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom