Trump's nominee for head of the EPA....

Guille said:
:palm: My god, now we've got meth experts on the board.

I for one am proud to say I know nothing about how to make meth.
Click to expand...
Dude...it's not that hard. Hill Jacks all over rural American have been making it for years. If they can do it....gee...just think what a real chemist can do! LOL
 
anatta said:
Thanks..I'll give it a read thru...I am sooo tired of EVERYTHING becoming politicized..
Click to expand...
Tom gets carried away. I've worked with USEPA and their State equivalents for many years now. OK...the culture inside a government beaurocracy is very different than the private sectors. The people who work there tend to have very limited skills sets albeit very specialized ones. Sure, as with any public agency you have your career beaurocrats, your empire builders and your nakedly ambitious but that's true of any human institution. Most the folks I've worked with, though not nearly as dynamic as their private sector counterparts are folks who are public servants doing their job of protecting the public and quite of few have very specialized skill sets that are quite valuable.

I've worked with the Agency on numerous occasions. While respecting their enforcement role they have been of significant value to professionals like me in the private sector who's companies want to be good corporate citizens. Most large chemical manufacturers, distributors and environmental project, compliance and service companies are "Responsible Care" companies who proactively manage the hazards of dangerous chemicals in a responsible manner and from that view point EPA has been an excellent resource.

They have specialist that you would not normally find in the private sector that can help you with relevant permitting issues, particularly historical data. They can help you develop high level safety management programs as well as self audit programs. They also have chemist and toxicologist with profound technical knowledge in developing analytical and health monitoring test methods that help to assure compliance and safety. They are not just a policing agency but also a valuable resource to the private sector. That's why the company I work for, and myself personally, work proactively with the agencies as ultimately we both desire the same result. To protect public health and the environment.
 
Last edited:
Milagro said:
The chemistry in Breaking Bad is mostly accurate, although that scene with the bath and hydrofluoric acid is too stupid for words.
Click to expand...
Yup...there were other aspect that were either bullshit, or they simply got wrong (notice the labeling on their drums?) or things that they did wrong on purpose for the obvious reason.
 
Milagro said:
Forgot about the mercury fulminate, that was also just crap.
Click to expand...
Well I wouldn't say it was crap. Walt didn't say it was mercury fulminate. He said it was "mercury fulminate with a tweek of chemistry" which was how they explained the large crystals. Mercury Fulminate doesn't form large crystals but is a greyish powder.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Tom gets carried away. I've worked with USEPA and their State equivalents for many years now. OK...the culture inside a government beaurocracy is very different than the private sectors. The people who work there tend to have very limited skills sets albeit very specialized ones. Sure, as with any public agency you have your career beaurocrats, your empire builders and your nakedly ambitious but that's true of any human institution. Most the folks I've worked with, though not nearly as dynamic as their private sector counterparts are folks who are public servants doing their job of protecting the public and quite of few have very specialized skill sets that are quite valuable.

I've worked with the Agency on numerous occasions. While respecting their enforcement role they have been of significant value to professionals like me in the private sector who's companies want to be good corporate citizens. Most large chemical manufacturers, distributors and environmental project, compliance and service companies are "Responsible Care" companies who proactively manage the hazards of dangerous chemicals in a responsible manner and from that view point EPA has been an excellent resource.

They have specialist that you would not normally find in the private sector that can help you with relevant permitting issues, particularly historical data. They can help you develop high level safety management programs as well as self audit programs. They also have chemist and toxicologist with profound technical knowledge in developing analytical and health monitoring test methods that help to assure compliance and safety. They are not just a policing agency but also a valuable resource to the private sector. That's why the company I work for, and myself personally, work proactively with the agencies as ultimately we both desire the same result. To protect public health and the environment.
Click to expand...

Obama is to blame for allowing them to formulate rules without any need to do any cost/benefit analysis. Trump should make sure that is a fundamental codasyl to all their work.
 
I think its great that the new EPA head acknowledges that man made global warming is real, its a much more intelligent position than Trump's statements.

I also think its funny to see Trump say shit to get the less informed and unintelligent whipped up, but does not act like he really believes the things he says. He just might be a liberal playing you Conservatives. Maybe, just maybe... lets see.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Tom gets carried away. I've worked with USEPA and their State equivalents for many years now. OK...the culture inside a government beaurocracy is very different than the private sectors. The people who work there tend to have very limited skills sets albeit very specialized ones. Sure, as with any public agency you have your career beaurocrats, your empire builders and your nakedly ambitious but that's true of any human institution. Most the folks I've worked with, though not nearly as dynamic as their private sector counterparts are folks who are public servants doing their job of protecting the public and quite of few have very specialized skill sets that are quite valuable.

I've worked with the Agency on numerous occasions. While respecting their enforcement role they have been of significant value to professionals like me in the private sector who's companies want to be good corporate citizens. Most large chemical manufacturers, distributors and environmental project, compliance and service companies are "Responsible Care" companies who proactively manage the hazards of dangerous chemicals in a responsible manner and from that view point EPA has been an excellent resource.

They have specialist that you would not normally find in the private sector that can help you with relevant permitting issues, particularly historical data. They can help you develop high level safety management programs as well as self audit programs. They also have chemist and toxicologist with profound technical knowledge in developing analytical and health monitoring test methods that help to assure compliance and safety. They are not just a policing agency but also a valuable resource to the private sector. That's why the company I work for, and myself personally, work proactively with the agencies as ultimately we both desire the same result. To protect public health and the environment.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that they didn't do valuable work. If they stick to their basic remit then fine but people like Obama have politicised it, how can you deny that?
 
"I think its great that the new EPA head acknowledges that man made global warming is real, its a much more intelligent position than Trump's statements." J #170

I don't have a compendium on it. So I'll present it in the form of a question.

Even if such disclosure was provided, wasn't there substantial hedging on it? As if: yes, it may be anthropogenic, but perhaps 1% anthropogenic and 99% natural?

The point being,
The head of EPA could acknowledge the FACT that it's anthropogenic, and still exclude all policy decisions that would arrest its progress in the U.S.

Admission is not enough.
 
sear said:
"I think its great that the new EPA head acknowledges that man made global warming is real, its a much more intelligent position than Trump's statements." J #170

I don't have a compendium on it. So I'll present it in the form of a question.

Even if such disclosure was provided, wasn't there substantial hedging on it? As if: yes, it may be anthropogenic, but perhaps 1% anthropogenic and 99% natural?

The point being,
The head of EPA could acknowledge the FACT that it's anthropogenic, and still exclude all policy decisions that would arrest its progress in the U.S.

Admission is not enough.
Click to expand...

Agreed and my guess is he was just saying it to shut up the naysayers. As long as he crushes those job killing regulations I don't give a fuck what he says.

And when pressed on his prior position that it is real all he has to say is "my position hasn't changed however this regulation has too great a cost with very little benefit"

Problem solved
 
Milagro said:
Obama is to blame for allowing them to formulate rules without any need to do any cost/benefit analysis. Trump should make sure that is a fundamental codasyl to all their work.
Click to expand...
<-----complete partisan hackery and nonsense.

Tom. Time and time and time again cost benefit analysis has been used to undermine regulatory laws created to protect human health and safety. When it comes to environmental law cost benefit analysis will always be and should always be a secondary consideration to protecting human health and safety and if you disagree with that then you're simply on the wrong side of the debate factually speaking.

Certainly cost analysis has a role in environmental law but and I stress this again, it's a secondary role and that's the way it ought to be. Human health and safety are of primary consideration.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
<-----complete partisan hackery and nonsense.

Tom. Time and time and time again cost benefit analysis has been used to undermine regulatory laws created to protect human health and safety. When it comes to environmental law cost benefit analysis will always be and should always be a secondary consideration to protecting human health and safety and if you disagree with that then you're simply on the wrong side of the debate factually speaking.

Certainly cost analysis has a role in environmental law but and I stress this again, it's a secondary role and that's the way it ought to be. Human health and safety are of primary consideration.
Click to expand...

I know all that, but cost has to be a factor otherwise they impose measures which result in ruinous costs. Did you read that link to that book about the EPA? I am guessing not.
 
Jarod said:
Trump's nominee to head the EPA acknowledge today that Climate Change is REAL...


How does that make deniers feel? Ready to admit Climate Change is occurring?
Click to expand...

What is even funnier, is the people who fostered climate denial long abandoned it. The oil industry, as evidenced by pretty much every web presence, has admitted climate change is real and anthropogenically forced. All you need do is visit, eg, BP or Exxon websites and see.

Republicans are morons.
 
Milagro said:
I didn't say that they didn't do valuable work. If they stick to their basic remit then fine but people like Obama have politicised it, how can you deny that?
Click to expand...
Cause I've been working with EPA for nearly 30 years. Obama implemented rules well within the regulatory guidelines existing under the Clean Air Act. If the lap dogs of the coal industry doesn't like it they can change the laws. If anyone is politicizing anything it is those who are trying to protect vested financial interest in obsolete technologies like coal power.
 
Milagro said:
I know all that, but cost has to be a factor otherwise they impose measures which result in ruinous costs. Did you read that link to that book about the EPA? I am guessing not.
Click to expand...
Well then we agree then. Cost is a secondary consideration to human health and safety.

If it's a coal or petroleum industry position paper please don't waste my time. I'm also at work and have to get back to the salt mines....if you know what I mean? :)
 
^ no MOTT. You can't just strive by pure science alone- "damn the torpedos"- to eliminate even banal types of pollution ( like Ozone for ex) down to levels that cripple industry (without figuring in cost/benefits).

It's part of the real world equation. Good on those who help private companies with compliance -
but still the compliance has to be in the realm of real world sanity/doableness

EDIT: I'm sure that is what the Michigan vs. EPA case was about, and the decision went to the plantiff
 
Mott the Hoople said:
<-----complete partisan hackery and nonsense.

Tom. Time and time and time again cost benefit analysis has been used to undermine regulatory laws created to protect human health and safety. When it comes to environmental law cost benefit analysis will always be and should always be a secondary consideration to protecting human health and safety and if you disagree with that then you're simply on the wrong side of the debate factually speaking.

Certainly cost analysis has a role in environmental law but and I stress this again, it's a secondary role and that's the way it ought to be. Human health and safety are of primary consideration.
Click to expand...

Looks like others think the same, it is just ludicrous that no account is taken of the effect on jobs, that us just insane.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/13/not-tired-of-winning-yet/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top