Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
What's up with TARGET: EPA! ??
Sunday, August 21, 2011 4:39 AM
PIZMOBEACH
... fully loaded, safety off...
Sunday, August 21, 2011 4:41 AM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Sunday, August 21, 2011 4:55 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: EPA, Dept. of Education ( big union safe haven ) lead the way to for targets of reform in this country.
Sunday, August 21, 2011 5:11 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Sunday, August 21, 2011 5:38 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Nah, any and ALL businesses whose bottom line is affected by any kind of regulation, not just coal, is the answer (with the backing of the Kochs). Did you catch my thread on their latest battle with regulation? The right hates anything that gets in the way of profits...you know, like not polluting with their waste, paying the money to ensure oil rigs are safe, not being able to drill whereEVER they want to, minor stuff like that. And yes, it was predicted a while ago that the EPA would be the next target. The Republicans you speak of were our daddy's Republicans. Just as today's Tea Party isn't Ron Paul's Tea Party, these right-wing, corporate shills aren't our daddy's Republicans. They figure they've got carte blanche to go as far right as they can possibly imagine (and beyond), and are gettin' it while the gettin's good.
Monday, August 22, 2011 1:54 AM
DREAMTROVE
Monday, August 22, 2011 3:52 AM
Monday, August 22, 2011 5:17 AM
Quote:In April 2008, the Bush EPA released a 20-page spreadsheet [PDF] of 94 EPA rules or actions under just the Clean Air Act that had been challenged in court until that point during the Bush administration. As of August 2011, 37 of those cases have been decided by a court, and in nearly two-thirds of those cases (23), the courts overturned the Bush EPA rules. (The remaining 57 cases have either settled, been voluntarily dismissed, voluntarily remanded, or are still pending in court.) In 15 of those 23 adverse rulings, the courts found that the Bush EPA had contradicted or disregarded the plain language of the Clean Air Act. This is the worst way for EPA to lose a federal environmental lawsuit, because it reflects a court’s judgment that the agency defied the plain instructions of the law. Public health and environmental groups were the prevailing parties in 18 of those 23 Clean Air Act rulings against the Bush EPA. These groups prevailed in 13 of the 15 “plain language” court decisions. EPA lost this startling number of Clean Air Act cases because the Bush administration had adopted unlawful regulations that benefited polluting industries at the expense of human health and the environment, despite unambiguous statutory directives requiring otherwise. This was truly out-of-control behavior. …. When the Obama administration took office in January 2009, it inherited the legal obligation to respond to court orders in not just these 23 Clean Air Act cases, but also in numerous other losing cases under other environmental statutes that EPA administers. The current administration inherited the responsibility to fix a decade-long mess consciously created by the Bush administration and industry supporters out of a shared ideological-economic agenda to violate environmental laws and weaken public health safeguards. It is striking how thoroughly today’s fiercest EPA critics ignore this history and its implications. Conservative politicians like the House members quoted above, pundits like the Wall Street Journal editorial board, and industry lobbyists ignore this unprecedented wave of Bush administration lawbreaking that the Obama EPA now must rectify. http://www.grist.org/politics/2011-08-08-gop-attacks-the-epa-for-doing-its-job long as Bush had control of the EPA, you didn't hear anything from them, as he was doing an excellent job of UNdoing everything the EPA stood for. Now that the Obama administration is trying to rectify those illegal acts, the GOP will fight them tooth and nail. Wanna hear what they have to say about it?Quote:"[T]he scariest agency in the federal government is the EPA ... an agency that has lost its bearings." -- Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) "[T]he epitome of the continued and damaging regulatory overreach of this Administration." -- Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky.) "EPA's regulatory jihad" -- Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.) "The out-of-control regulation authority" -- Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)Similar statements from House or Senate Republicans were notably absent during the prior Republican administration. This despite the fact that federal courts found the Bush administration EPA to have violated federal environmental laws repeatedly and egregiously. Of COURSE it's not "reform", it's predictable behavior. One doesn't need to see conspiracies everywhere to explain that one. And of COURSE there are profits in de-regulation, it's ridiculous to say there aren't. Just look how much money BP saved by not having to abide by EPA standards! It is the reason corporate powers don't want the EPA around; producing your product is always cheaper without having to abide by regulation, having to deal with fines (tho' they don't mind that as much), etc. The article I cited covers it really well, and there's much more there.Quote: These adverse court rulings occurred primarily in the Bush administration's second term, because it took this long for unlawful, deregulatory regulations issued during the first term to wind their way through the courts. When federal courts returned these unlawful regulations to EPA for correction, the Bush administration then failed to repromulgate these "remanded" rules before leaving office. sometimes the failure was rooted in the same ideological defiance that had resulted in the original court rulings against EPA. A good example of this is the April 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs. EPA that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act; the Bush administration ran the clock out for the last two years of its second term, refusing to respond to the Supreme Court's remand. When the Obama administration took office in January 2009, it inherited the legal obligation to respond to court orders in not just these 23 Clean Air Act cases, but also in numerous other losing cases under other environmental statutes that EPA administers. The current administration inherited the responsibility to fix a decade-long mess consciously created by the Bush administration and industry supporters out of a shared ideological-economic agenda to violate environmental laws and weaken public health safeguards. Worse, these anti-EPA critics show no evident regard for the massive health toll to the American people -- the tens of thousands of deaths, tens of thousands of heart attacks, hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks and other diseases -- that resulted from this campaign of delay and law-breaking by the prior administration.It goes back to the Clinton Administration, by the way, too, tho' not in NEARLY the quantity. And for their part, today's industry critics of EPA not only supported the Bush administration's law-breaking -- by intervening on the administration's behalf in virtually every lawsuit in which the courts found inadequate standards to have violated the Clean Air Act -- some of these industry groups actively facilitated the Bush administration's law-breaking ( http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0521-05.htm; "EPA Relied on Industry for Plywood Plant Pollution Rule"), by supplying EPA political appointees with the bogus legal theories that the Bush appointees adopted over the objections of career EPA staff and attorneys. (It is surely the case that the expert career attorneys in EPA's Office of General Counsel had advised Bush political appointees in advance that some or many of these rules faced very high legal risks or were indefensible on precisely the grounds for which the rules were subsequently invalidated.)
Quote:"[T]he scariest agency in the federal government is the EPA ... an agency that has lost its bearings." -- Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) "[T]he epitome of the continued and damaging regulatory overreach of this Administration." -- Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky.) "EPA's regulatory jihad" -- Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.) "The out-of-control regulation authority" -- Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)
Quote: These adverse court rulings occurred primarily in the Bush administration's second term, because it took this long for unlawful, deregulatory regulations issued during the first term to wind their way through the courts. When federal courts returned these unlawful regulations to EPA for correction, the Bush administration then failed to repromulgate these "remanded" rules before leaving office. sometimes the failure was rooted in the same ideological defiance that had resulted in the original court rulings against EPA. A good example of this is the April 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs. EPA that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act; the Bush administration ran the clock out for the last two years of its second term, refusing to respond to the Supreme Court's remand. When the Obama administration took office in January 2009, it inherited the legal obligation to respond to court orders in not just these 23 Clean Air Act cases, but also in numerous other losing cases under other environmental statutes that EPA administers. The current administration inherited the responsibility to fix a decade-long mess consciously created by the Bush administration and industry supporters out of a shared ideological-economic agenda to violate environmental laws and weaken public health safeguards. Worse, these anti-EPA critics show no evident regard for the massive health toll to the American people -- the tens of thousands of deaths, tens of thousands of heart attacks, hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks and other diseases -- that resulted from this campaign of delay and law-breaking by the prior administration.
Monday, August 22, 2011 5:29 AM
Monday, August 22, 2011 6:46 AM
Monday, August 22, 2011 11:30 AM
Monday, August 22, 2011 3:09 PM
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: If TPTB own the printing press which mints the bills and issues the currency of the world, what purpose could they possibly have for profit?
Monday, August 22, 2011 4:43 PM
Tuesday, August 23, 2011 3:12 AM
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: To propagate your own genetic line by eliminating the competition. That would be why there is genocide, and war, and weapons, and violence, or why men evolved to be strong, to fight off other men, in short, the one of the cornerstones of evolution.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011 5:23 AM
Quote:Originally posted by pizmobeach: So, Evolution = Bad?
Tuesday, August 23, 2011 5:31 AM
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: Quote:Originally posted by pizmobeach: So, Evolution = Bad? Idiocy = good? I'm sorry, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, and not applying any logic to the connections above. I give up.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011 7:00 AM
Tuesday, August 23, 2011 2:11 PM
RIONAEIRE
Beir bua agus beannacht
Tuesday, August 23, 2011 3:30 PM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Tuesday, August 23, 2011 3:41 PM
Quote:Posted by DreamTrove: This isn't reform, this is about attacking America. It's terrorism, plain and simple. The fossil fuel industry is synthesizing one trillion gallons of chemical weapons which they are using to destroy the country and kill all the people. This is the agenda. There is no profit. No one makes money by pouring chemicals into the Earth here, it's extraneous to the industry. It serves one purpose: To kill Americans. It's that simple. And effective. More effective than striking America with a nuclear weapon. Already, more explosives have been dropped on America by this so called "industry" then were dropped on Iraq and Afghanistan. Now they've already hit the US with a million times the amount of chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein had, and I concede all of Rap's claims of Iraqi WMDs.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011 4:30 PM
ANTHONYT
Freedom is Important because People are Important
Tuesday, August 23, 2011 6:11 PM
Tuesday, August 23, 2011 8:23 PM
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 4:34 AM
M52NICKERSON
DALEK!
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 4:45 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: but by flushing it down the water table to force gas out of the ground,
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:02 AM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Quote:I'm just a person who is passionate about helping breech the gap between the public and real life events, especially internationally. Ending only September the 3rd, a group is planned to protest every day for two weeks, and more than 2100 people have signed up. Already, an estimated 222 people have been arrested, 65 on Saturday, 45 on Sunday, 52 on Monday and 60 on Tuesday, including Canadian actors Margot Kidder (best known as Lois Lane in four of the original Superman movies) and Tantoo Cardinal (indigenous actor best known for her roles in Legends of the Fall, Dances with Wolves, and Smoke Signals). Arrestees whose ID stated they resided in DC were released after paying a $100 fine while 55 other participants from last Saturday’s demonstration were kept in jail for two nights before having all charges dropped and being released. On Tuesday afternoon, they were greeted with food and drink outside the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Moultrie Courthouse by a group of supporters.... {more}
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:20 AM
Quote:The growing use of deep wells for disposal of wastes seems to suggest that the earth has an enormous capacity to store liquids. This, unfortunately, is not true: The earth actually contains few empty spaces and liquids can only be accommodated by compressing or displacing existing fluids or deforming the surrounding strata. Nearly three-quarters {Prolly more now- Signy} of the existing wells in the US operate at pressures greater than gravity flow. The possible consequences of high pressure injection include the fracturing of geologic strata, migration of wastes along existing faults and fractures, rupture of rock formations many miles away and movement of waste up the well casing, resulting in the aquifer contamination, and the triggering of seismic activity.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:23 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: but by flushing it down the water table to force gas out of the ground, It should be noted that the fracking fluids are not being pumped into the water table, but well below it. Water wells are normally around a few hundred to maybe 3000 feet deep. Gas wells are in the order of 5000 to 6000 feet deep.
Quote: It should also noted that deep well injection has been used to dispose of waste materials since the 50's.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:45 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: NICK I took... oh, less than three seconds... to type "deep well problems" into google, the very first citation from the Journal of Water Pollution Control (1977... not a new problem!) said Quote:The growing use of deep wells for disposal of wastes seems to suggest that the earth has an enormous capacity to store liquids. This, unfortunately, is not true: The earth actually contains few empty spaces and liquids can only be accommodated by compressing or displacing existing fluids or deforming the surrounding strata. Nearly three-quarters {Prolly more now- Signy} of the existing wells in the US operate at pressures greater than gravity flow. The possible consequences of high pressure injection include the fracturing of geologic strata, migration of wastes along existing faults and fractures, rupture of rock formations many miles away and movement of waste up the well casing, resulting in the aquifer contamination, and the triggering of seismic activity. Stuff like this happens all the time... sometimes catastrophically like the BP well blowout, sometimes little by little. Deep well injection- like (ahem!) nuclear power is not a 100% safe, foolproof technology. You have to think about the consequences of failure, because failure is part of the real world.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:51 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: It should also be noted that fracking fluids aren't SUPPOSED to be pumped into the water table, and yet they keep showing up in the water. It's probably coincidence, though. Maybe the fracking tapped into a heretofor unknown vein of chlorofluorocarbons and dioxyns... Thing is, you (and the people doing the actual fracking) don't really know HOW and WHERE the rock is going to fracture, or where the fluids will go once the rock DOES fracture.
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Heck, they used to use depleted uranium in Fiesta Ware dishes, too, but I'm sure it's okay. The 50s were that quaint time when we were actually told that dying of radiation sickness was really not a bad way to go, as it was actually quite painless. Sorry, but arguing from a point of view that "that's the way it was done in the 50s" doesn't really fly very well with me. Heck, why not have a cigarette and a shot of whiskey before your commute, just to calm your nerves? Not picking a fight, Nick - just pointing out what I see as a few flaws in your reasoning.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 7:30 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: but by flushing it down the water table to force gas out of the ground, It should be noted that the fracking fluids are not being pumped into the water table, but well below it. Water wells are normally around a few hundred to maybe 3000 feet deep. Gas wells are in the order of 5000 to 6000 feet deep. It should also noted that deep well injection has been used to dispose of waste materials since the 50's. I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
Quote:Originally posted by KWICKO: Maybe the fracking tapped into a heretofor unknown vein of chlorofluorocarbons and dioxyns
Quote:Originally posted by M52NICKERSON: It should also noted that deep well injection has been used to dispose of waste materials since the 50's.
Quote:We are all not dead or dying yet.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 7:49 AM
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: 2/3 of that water comes back up to the surface where it either splashes back to a surface pool, is sent to a water treatment plant or is spread on the roads as salt. Then it enters the groundwater.
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: Ooh, and industry favorite. No, it hasn't, that's actually a lie, just an ordinary one. Water has been used to displace fossil fuels since the 50s, but no one was pumping a million gallons of chemical WMDs into the bedrock of America's agricultural heartland until the Halliburton loophole of 2005 made it legal for them to do so.
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: BTW, for those who do not recognize it, the excuse flags Nick as an industry spokesman, as no one else uses that line.
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: No, flat out no. All of us are not "not dead or dying." Many of us are dead, and many of us are dying. That's why they're adding 5 floors to the local cancer center. We've been told we live on a primary brain cancer hotspot. A waitress at the local soda fountain just died of it. This is becoming amazingly common for a one in a million condition. I've now known as many people to die of fracking contamination as from war, gang violence, suicide and AIDS. the only thing it hasn't displaced is car crashes, and perhaps what we might call old age. Also, medical malpractice, which is still way up there.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 9:14 AM
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 10:00 AM
Quote:So, sure, I may see holocaust-like conspiracies where they don't exist, but much better that someone see them and herald the possibility
Quote:Evidence shows that the children of Holocaust survivors, referred to as the “Second Generation”, can be deeply affected – both negatively and positively -- by the horrific events their parents experienced. The intergenerational transmission of trauma is so strong that Holocaust-related influences can even be seen in the “Third Generation”, children of the children of survivors. According to studies, the long-term effects of the Holocaust on the children of survivors suggest a "psychological profile." Their parents’ suffering may have affected their upbringing, personal relationships and perspective on life. Eva Fogelman, a psychologist who treats Holocaust survivors and their children, suggests a second generation 'complex' characterized by processes that affect identity, self-esteem, interpersonal interactions and worldview. http://judaism.about.com/od/holocaust/a/hol_gens.htm commonalities Gorko sees in children of survivors are feelings of being separate or “different” from the rest of the world; having an “escape plan” and security issues... http://www.chron.com/life/houston-belief/article/Holocaust-survivors-trauma-filters-through-1702341.php not mentioned it before and won't again, and I have no right to judge you. I could also be totally wrong. I've just seen a pattern in your thinking which gravitates to conspiracies about so many things, it made me wonder. Some of your bliefs and opinions are so far out in left field, I don't know where they could possibly come from. And all this IS my HUMBLE opinion...I've just not been able to figure out where else some of the stuff you believe--and in some cases think EVERYONE believes--could possibly originate I sincerely hope your sister makes a full recovery, by the way. I just think what she experiences and what you see around you is not necessarily indicative of the wider world. Nor do I deny the existence of such pollution; I would be the last person on earth to do so, given my priorities. I just don't think it's a "conspiracy", except insofar as there's certainly a "conspiracy" to do away with regulation, which I believe inhibits maximizing profit.Quote: if there weren't a willful hand of evil in it, then the lawsuit-conscious businessmen would curb the damage to avoid the liability... I think you have to believe in the existence of evil in order to understand this one. Greed alone does not explain it. Certainly greed explains it; liability isn't a deterrent. Surely you've heard of all the times the corporation has made more money off what they do than any "fine", to the point where they figure that into the equation--how many people might sue versus how much profit can be made. Liability can be hidden (a normal human failing), can be delayed (and corporations know just how to do so), avoided (with enough money you can hire great attorneys) and can be calculated (there's a word for just that about people in insurance companies); that you need to believe in "the existence of evil" is something that's personal to YOU, not everyone.Quote: it looks to me like you've rejected everything everyone has said on the board thus farI don't know how you come to that, as I've seen no such thing on the board as a whole.Quote: BTW, for those who do not recognize it, the excuse flags Nick as an industry spokesman, as no one else uses that line. Another which is too far out to believe, as a snark it's a poor one at best, and given your focus on conspiracies, some would think you were being quite serious. You so often say "everyone know" or some variation of that about things which NOBODY believes, that I can't help wondering how you come to some things you consider fact. I've called you on it (your wild theories stated as fact); I will continue to call you on it. What you theorize, opine or believe is not necessarily what is real or what others believe, pure and simple.
Quote: if there weren't a willful hand of evil in it, then the lawsuit-conscious businessmen would curb the damage to avoid the liability... I think you have to believe in the existence of evil in order to understand this one. Greed alone does not explain it.
Quote: it looks to me like you've rejected everything everyone has said on the board thus far
Quote: BTW, for those who do not recognize it, the excuse flags Nick as an industry spokesman, as no one else uses that line.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 10:27 AM
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: That was a snark intended to imply that you were swallowing the company line, and now regurgitating it. This is something regulators do a lot. And yes, it's worth it to industry to go to regulators and feed them nonsense so that they will spew it. Industry doesn't care where they spew it. They don't care where anything gets spewed.
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: IIRC, this was a thread on the EPA, and I can tell you that, while I admit they do not agree with me on the issue of a possible Blue Gold* conspiracy, they do think that there is no gas. The feeling at the agency seems to concur with the NYT piece that fracking is a ponzi scheme and they are suspicious of yield claims. They are also seriously concerned about the groundwater and biosphere contamination with CFC and other additive toxins. Far more concerned than you are posting here, and a good number of those are industry people.
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: So, sure, I may see holocaust-like conspiracies where they don't exist, but much better that someone see them and herald the possibility that there is a stealth terrorist attack when it's not there then that no one be allowed to dare suggest such a thing if that is the case that this is what is happening. I guess, IOW, consider me to be the anti-pirate news. I'll occasionally say "It's the Nazis" just in case it is.
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: I would snark you for throwing out the baby with the bathwater by rejecting everything I say just because you disagree with some of it, but so far, it looks to me like you've rejected everything everyone has said on the board thus far. So, at least it's not personal
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: ETA: The point was the inject of the chemicals themselves, not to displace them.
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: Also, there's a fundamental logical flaw in the belief that water treatment by vaporizing volatiles or diluting solutes (legally 10:1 is sufficient) has any serious mitigating effect on the end macro contamination.
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: Specifically, doctors say my sister was likely not poisoned by drinking the affected water, but by inhaling the fumes that evaporated from it, containing light weight CFCs such as TCE.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 12:30 PM
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 12:56 PM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: So while fracking may not be a good idea it is not going to be the end of everything.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 1:02 PM
MINCINGBEAST
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 1:09 PM
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: Mike I considered that angle, but looking into it what I found was that while you have a point: "industrial byproducts are being added to fracking fluid as a means of getting rid of them" it doesn't seem that this matches the scale and scope of what's going on here. I can't find any reference to the industry either spinning or CFCs or haloalkanes, or spinning off the billions of gallons being used here. It does seem to me that the WMDs in this case are being intentionally synthesized for the purpose of adding them to the fluid. I don't want to say "source it or surrender" but I am genuinely interested if this is the case, if you have anything on the quantity and toxicity of byproducts that would lead to this conclusion. It's certainly a logical one, OTOH, you have to consider that all three fracking major backers, BP capital, Bechtel and Halliburton, are heavily invested in water monetization schemes, so there's a 4x for the money. Obviously, these guys are cheap bastards, so even if they wanted to intentionally poison the water supply, they would go with toxins they had on hand if they had them.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 1:10 PM
Quote:Originally posted by mincingbeast: I think a lot of the hostility towards the EPA is it's protective function. The EPA is like a condom. Condoms are no fun. Like a condom, the EPA comes between our sensitive bits and the free market. That's no fun. Hence, the EPA must be destroyed. Also, the EPA is good for us, like broccoli. Things that are good for us are no fun, like broccoli. Therefore, devil take the EPA, and also the broccoli from my plate.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:47 PM
Thursday, August 25, 2011 5:34 AM
Quote:that fracking is super dangerous and that the government and corporations don't really care about the everyman
Thursday, August 25, 2011 7:14 AM
Thursday, August 25, 2011 7:26 AM
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: I don't have to rely on the website, I know people in the EPA. Also, though the CFCs in question are labeled as carcinogens in your own link, I don't need to rely on govt. labeling, as I am in a scientific cancer research group.
Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:08 AM
Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:36 AM
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: Nick, I believe you when you say that you are a pool inspector. That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:41 AM
Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:04 AM
Thursday, August 25, 2011 1:40 PM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Well, let us get back on track. New York State is not waiting for the EPA and plans on impementing it's own regulations when it comes to Fracking. http://www.propublica.org/article/new-york-environment-commissioner-expects-little-from-epa-fracking-study/single Perhaps the states are going to have to take a more active role in writing their own regulations and not rely on the EPA.
Thursday, August 25, 2011 3:00 PM
Quote:Originally posted by dreamtrove: He's a total tool. The NY DEC is much more corrupt than the EPA. They want to pretend that they've taken every precaution, but they're really chanting drill baby drill. I was at an local govt. meeting on this last night, and there were about 100 people there, about 10 pro-drilling, and the rest anti. I couldn't confirm that any of the pro-drillers were actually from our town.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL