Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ILoveRegulation
Participant[quote=njtosd]
Carcinogens (and other toxic substances) are like people. Some are well known and common in the popular press while others are less well known. But they are everywhere. The key to whether something poses a dangerous risk of carcinogenicity/toxicity has much more to do with concentration than with chemical characteristics. For this reason, it is perfectly reasonable to question whether the economic cost of lower emissions is actually justified by the benefit gained by the public.[/quote]Who makes the decision on what is an acceptable cost to the public? You? Me? Is it acceptable to you if you get cancer because someone decided that it was an acceptable ‘cost’? I guess so.
Typically, it’s the poorest people who have to bear the brunt of the ‘cost’ as they tend to have little political power that would enable them to keep the big polluters away. So basically what you are saying is that it’s OK if some of the poor are killed so long as the executives doing the poisoning don’t have to take a pay cut.
I don’t like your standard and prefer the standard proffered in the article I linked to: Best available technology. Polluters should be forced to use the best available pollution-prevention technology available. Let the CEOs running these outfits wait another year to add a second yacht to their fleet. The wait won’t kill them.
Participant[quote=njtosd]
Carcinogens (and other toxic substances) are like people. Some are well known and common in the popular press while others are less well known. But they are everywhere. The key to whether something poses a dangerous risk of carcinogenicity/toxicity has much more to do with concentration than with chemical characteristics. For this reason, it is perfectly reasonable to question whether the economic cost of lower emissions is actually justified by the benefit gained by the public.[/quote]Who makes the decision on what is an acceptable cost to the public? You? Me? Is it acceptable to you if you get cancer because someone decided that it was an acceptable ‘cost’? I guess so.
Typically, it’s the poorest people who have to bear the brunt of the ‘cost’ as they tend to have little political power that would enable them to keep the big polluters away. So basically what you are saying is that it’s OK if some of the poor are killed so long as the executives doing the poisoning don’t have to take a pay cut.
I don’t like your standard and prefer the standard proffered in the article I linked to: Best available technology. Polluters should be forced to use the best available pollution-prevention technology available. Let the CEOs running these outfits wait another year to add a second yacht to their fleet. The wait won’t kill them.
Participant[quote=njtosd]
Carcinogens (and other toxic substances) are like people. Some are well known and common in the popular press while others are less well known. But they are everywhere. The key to whether something poses a dangerous risk of carcinogenicity/toxicity has much more to do with concentration than with chemical characteristics. For this reason, it is perfectly reasonable to question whether the economic cost of lower emissions is actually justified by the benefit gained by the public.[/quote]Who makes the decision on what is an acceptable cost to the public? You? Me? Is it acceptable to you if you get cancer because someone decided that it was an acceptable ‘cost’? I guess so.
Typically, it’s the poorest people who have to bear the brunt of the ‘cost’ as they tend to have little political power that would enable them to keep the big polluters away. So basically what you are saying is that it’s OK if some of the poor are killed so long as the executives doing the poisoning don’t have to take a pay cut.
I don’t like your standard and prefer the standard proffered in the article I linked to: Best available technology. Polluters should be forced to use the best available pollution-prevention technology available. Let the CEOs running these outfits wait another year to add a second yacht to their fleet. The wait won’t kill them.
Participant[quote=njtosd]
Carcinogens (and other toxic substances) are like people. Some are well known and common in the popular press while others are less well known. But they are everywhere. The key to whether something poses a dangerous risk of carcinogenicity/toxicity has much more to do with concentration than with chemical characteristics. For this reason, it is perfectly reasonable to question whether the economic cost of lower emissions is actually justified by the benefit gained by the public.[/quote]Who makes the decision on what is an acceptable cost to the public? You? Me? Is it acceptable to you if you get cancer because someone decided that it was an acceptable ‘cost’? I guess so.
Typically, it’s the poorest people who have to bear the brunt of the ‘cost’ as they tend to have little political power that would enable them to keep the big polluters away. So basically what you are saying is that it’s OK if some of the poor are killed so long as the executives doing the poisoning don’t have to take a pay cut.
I don’t like your standard and prefer the standard proffered in the article I linked to: Best available technology. Polluters should be forced to use the best available pollution-prevention technology available. Let the CEOs running these outfits wait another year to add a second yacht to their fleet. The wait won’t kill them.
ParticipantCan any of you Republican voters point out something positive that the Republican Congress has done since taking office? I can’t think of anything. First, they voted against a tax cut for 98% of Americans. Now, they are trying to stop the EPA from regulating toxic chemicals:
http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20110125/court-order-could-cause-epa-feud-gop-congress-boil-over
A vote for a Republican is a vote for cancer.
Oh, almost forgot, Republicans are going to cut the budget by a massive 2%. I guess that’s something.
You Republicans are confusing individual rights with corporate rights. Republicans are paid to care about the latter and don’t give a rat’s about the former.
ParticipantCan any of you Republican voters point out something positive that the Republican Congress has done since taking office? I can’t think of anything. First, they voted against a tax cut for 98% of Americans. Now, they are trying to stop the EPA from regulating toxic chemicals:
http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20110125/court-order-could-cause-epa-feud-gop-congress-boil-over
A vote for a Republican is a vote for cancer.
Oh, almost forgot, Republicans are going to cut the budget by a massive 2%. I guess that’s something.
You Republicans are confusing individual rights with corporate rights. Republicans are paid to care about the latter and don’t give a rat’s about the former.
ParticipantCan any of you Republican voters point out something positive that the Republican Congress has done since taking office? I can’t think of anything. First, they voted against a tax cut for 98% of Americans. Now, they are trying to stop the EPA from regulating toxic chemicals:
http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20110125/court-order-could-cause-epa-feud-gop-congress-boil-over
A vote for a Republican is a vote for cancer.
Oh, almost forgot, Republicans are going to cut the budget by a massive 2%. I guess that’s something.
You Republicans are confusing individual rights with corporate rights. Republicans are paid to care about the latter and don’t give a rat’s about the former.
ParticipantCan any of you Republican voters point out something positive that the Republican Congress has done since taking office? I can’t think of anything. First, they voted against a tax cut for 98% of Americans. Now, they are trying to stop the EPA from regulating toxic chemicals:
http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20110125/court-order-could-cause-epa-feud-gop-congress-boil-over
A vote for a Republican is a vote for cancer.
Oh, almost forgot, Republicans are going to cut the budget by a massive 2%. I guess that’s something.
You Republicans are confusing individual rights with corporate rights. Republicans are paid to care about the latter and don’t give a rat’s about the former.
ParticipantCan any of you Republican voters point out something positive that the Republican Congress has done since taking office? I can’t think of anything. First, they voted against a tax cut for 98% of Americans. Now, they are trying to stop the EPA from regulating toxic chemicals:
http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20110125/court-order-could-cause-epa-feud-gop-congress-boil-over
A vote for a Republican is a vote for cancer.
Oh, almost forgot, Republicans are going to cut the budget by a massive 2%. I guess that’s something.
You Republicans are confusing individual rights with corporate rights. Republicans are paid to care about the latter and don’t give a rat’s about the former.
Participant[quote=faterikcartman]
You’re right on the money. I know the political bent on this forum is generally pretty far left, but I always secretly pray that it is just from all the constant brainwashing from the likes of college professors and Keith Olberman. Deep down if we went issue to issue surely people must see that the nanny state is corrosive and ultimately nibbles away at our freedom bite by bite.[/quote]Speaking of brainwashing and drug bans, are you aware that Ronald Reagan, Patron Saint of The Right, started the War on Drugs?
Nothing like starting a war on a harmless activity to further the cause of individual rights.
Participant[quote=faterikcartman]
You’re right on the money. I know the political bent on this forum is generally pretty far left, but I always secretly pray that it is just from all the constant brainwashing from the likes of college professors and Keith Olberman. Deep down if we went issue to issue surely people must see that the nanny state is corrosive and ultimately nibbles away at our freedom bite by bite.[/quote]Speaking of brainwashing and drug bans, are you aware that Ronald Reagan, Patron Saint of The Right, started the War on Drugs?
Nothing like starting a war on a harmless activity to further the cause of individual rights.
Participant[quote=faterikcartman]
You’re right on the money. I know the political bent on this forum is generally pretty far left, but I always secretly pray that it is just from all the constant brainwashing from the likes of college professors and Keith Olberman. Deep down if we went issue to issue surely people must see that the nanny state is corrosive and ultimately nibbles away at our freedom bite by bite.[/quote]Speaking of brainwashing and drug bans, are you aware that Ronald Reagan, Patron Saint of The Right, started the War on Drugs?
Nothing like starting a war on a harmless activity to further the cause of individual rights.
Participant[quote=faterikcartman]
You’re right on the money. I know the political bent on this forum is generally pretty far left, but I always secretly pray that it is just from all the constant brainwashing from the likes of college professors and Keith Olberman. Deep down if we went issue to issue surely people must see that the nanny state is corrosive and ultimately nibbles away at our freedom bite by bite.[/quote]Speaking of brainwashing and drug bans, are you aware that Ronald Reagan, Patron Saint of The Right, started the War on Drugs?
Nothing like starting a war on a harmless activity to further the cause of individual rights.
Participant[quote=faterikcartman]
You’re right on the money. I know the political bent on this forum is generally pretty far left, but I always secretly pray that it is just from all the constant brainwashing from the likes of college professors and Keith Olberman. Deep down if we went issue to issue surely people must see that the nanny state is corrosive and ultimately nibbles away at our freedom bite by bite.[/quote]Speaking of brainwashing and drug bans, are you aware that Ronald Reagan, Patron Saint of The Right, started the War on Drugs?
Nothing like starting a war on a harmless activity to further the cause of individual rights.
-
AuthorPosts
