EPA announces rules curbing cancer-causing pollution from chemical plants...

[Fred Bloggs]

The agency claims the proposed rules will result in a 96% reduction in the population facing cancer risk from 200 polluters.

https://grist.org/regulation/epa-chemical-plants-pollution-cancer/

 

[Martin Brown]

On 07/04/2023 16:41, Fred Bloggs wrote:

The agency claims the proposed rules will result in a 96% reduction in the population facing cancer risk from 200 polluters.

https://grist.org/regulation/epa-chemical-plants-pollution-cancer/

Given that you have already got extensive MTBE in your groundwater from
badly maintained underground gasoline fuel tank leaks and utilities that
value profit over peoples lives then the outcome is inevitable.

https://archive.epa.gov/mtbe/web/html/water.html

I was once involved in a US superfund project to clean up extremely
contaminated sites. We provided the analytical equipment. My rough guess
is that for every $1 spent on the science $99 was spent on lawyers.

I doubt if they ever got around to cleaning anything up. The budget
entirely disappeared into the labyrinthine US legal system.

--
Martin Brown

 

[a a]

On Friday, 7 April 2023 at 17:41:34 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:

The agency claims the proposed rules will result in a 96% reduction in the population facing cancer risk from 200 polluters.

https://grist.org/regulation/epa-chemical-plants-pollution-cancer/

EPA can claim nothing
since you consume cancerogenic GMO food on a faily basis.
Cancer was certified to be a decisive factor to control population growth.

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 20:57:35 +0100, Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 07/04/2023 16:41, Fred Bloggs wrote:
The agency claims the proposed rules will result in a 96% reduction in the population facing cancer risk from 200 polluters.

https://grist.org/regulation/epa-chemical-plants-pollution-cancer/

Given that you have already got extensive MTBE in your groundwater from
badly maintained underground gasoline fuel tank leaks and utilities that
value profit over peoples lives then the outcome is inevitable.

https://archive.epa.gov/mtbe/web/html/water.html

I was once involved in a US superfund project to clean up extremely
contaminated sites. We provided the analytical equipment. My rough guess
is that for every $1 spent on the science $99 was spent on lawyers.

I doubt if they ever got around to cleaning anything up. The budget
entirely disappeared into the labyrinthine US legal system.

Probably not. The US EPA considers this to be a feature, not a bug.

EPA cancer risk estimates are famously pessimistic.

An odd thing is emerging from the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown, almost 40
years ago - the animals in the high-radiation exclusion zone are
thriving - this was not supposed to happen at all. Perhaps the
radiation risk models need work.

Joe Gwinn

 

[a a]

>

Darius the Dumb has posted yet one more #veryStupidByLowIQaa article.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 6:05:27 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 20:57:35 +0100, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 07/04/2023 16:41, Fred Bloggs wrote:
The agency claims the proposed rules will result in a 96% reduction in the population facing cancer risk from 200 polluters.

https://grist.org/regulation/epa-chemical-plants-pollution-cancer/

Given that you have already got extensive MTBE in your groundwater from
badly maintained underground gasoline fuel tank leaks and utilities that
value profit over peoples lives then the outcome is inevitable.

https://archive.epa.gov/mtbe/web/html/water.html

I was once involved in a US superfund project to clean up extremely
contaminated sites. We provided the analytical equipment. My rough guess
is that for every $1 spent on the science $99 was spent on lawyers.

I doubt if they ever got around to cleaning anything up. The budget
entirely disappeared into the labyrinthine US legal system.
Probably not. The US EPA considers this to be a feature, not a bug.

EPA cancer risk estimates are famously pessimistic.

An odd thing is emerging from the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown, almost 40
years ago - the animals in the high-radiation exclusion zone are
thriving - this was not supposed to happen at all. Perhaps the
radiation risk models need work.

There is no such thing. The place is a disaster:

A statistical meltdown
When the first reports on wildlife in the Chernobyl zone came to international attention in the early years of this century, scientists described it as flourishing in the absence of people. But two evolutionary biologists who teamed up to study the area’s birds around that time, Anders Møller of University Paris-Saclay in France and Timothy Mousseau of the University of South Carolina, presented a different picture. Their surveys showed that certain bird species tended to have more genetic mutations, smaller brains and less viable sperm in sites with higher radiation levels. And in 2007, they counted 66 percent fewer birds — and 50 percent fewer bird species — in highly radioactive places compared to background-level sites.

In dozens of studies, the pair also documented that, with higher radiation levels, there were significantly lower numbers of soil invertebrates and a lower abundance of certain insect species and such mammals as hares and foxes. Working with collaborators in Finland, they also documented a range of health effects in bank voles.


Further reading- everything is heavily mutated, sick, and defective:

https://knowablemagazine.org/article/food-environment/2022/scientists-cant-agree-about-chernobyls-impact-wildlife

Joe Gwinn

 

[a a]

On Saturday, 8 April 2023 at 03:39:52 UTC+2, a a wrote:
Darius the Smart has posted yet one more #verySmartByHighIQaa article.

 

[a a]

>

Darius the Dumb has posted yet one more #veryStupidByLowIQaa article.

 

[Lie by a a]

a a <manta103g@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 8 April 2023 at 03:39:52 UTC+2, a a wrote:


Darius the Smart has posted yet one more #verySmartByHighIQaa article.

Another lie. Darius the dumb is extremly ignorant and it is not
possible for darius the dumb to post anything that even remotely
approaches such a state.

Previous lies by darius the dumb aka. the a a troll:

Lie: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=166924650000
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=166924651800

Lie: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=166935241600
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=166935247700

Lie: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=167224207900
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=167224246500

Lie: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=167245911900
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=167245918100

Lie: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=167595788800
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=167595877000

Lie: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=167890290600
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=167890312800

Lie: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=168099704800
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=168099715300

 

[Martin Brown]

On 07/04/2023 23:05, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 20:57:35 +0100, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 07/04/2023 16:41, Fred Bloggs wrote:
The agency claims the proposed rules will result in a 96% reduction in the population facing cancer risk from 200 polluters.

https://grist.org/regulation/epa-chemical-plants-pollution-cancer/

Given that you have already got extensive MTBE in your groundwater from
badly maintained underground gasoline fuel tank leaks and utilities that
value profit over peoples lives then the outcome is inevitable.

https://archive.epa.gov/mtbe/web/html/water.html

I was once involved in a US superfund project to clean up extremely
contaminated sites. We provided the analytical equipment. My rough guess
is that for every $1 spent on the science $99 was spent on lawyers.

I doubt if they ever got around to cleaning anything up. The budget
entirely disappeared into the labyrinthine US legal system.

Probably not. The US EPA considers this to be a feature, not a bug.

It looked from the outside like a way to line the pockets of armies of
fat slimy lawyers and avoid doing any useful remediation work at all.

EPA cancer risk estimates are famously pessimistic.

An odd thing is emerging from the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown, almost 40
years ago - the animals in the high-radiation exclusion zone are
thriving - this was not supposed to happen at all. Perhaps the
radiation risk models need work.

That is work in progress. I know that people who work regularly in
unusually low radiation environments are monitored for adverse effects.
Mostly down very deep mines also used for dark matter searches.

Several papers on the low dose radiation safe limit are about. If you
think about it life evolved a very long time ago when there were
significantly more long half life radioisotopes about. It would be
surprising if our repair mechanisms couldn\'t cope with some damage.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2592992/

In fact it is known (and has been known for a long time that just the
right amount of radiation can stimulate the immune system). However, it
is considered too risky to use apart from in the treatment of cancer
where it is more a side effect of the treatment than anything.

Uranium is common at ~2ppm in many crustal rocks and 0.7% of that is
U235 (half life 700My). 3By ago ~3 half lives that would have been ~6%.

It is a hotly contested issue as to how much radioactivity is a safe
amount with most of the public viewing \"any\" as too much. Blissfully
unaware that bananas, Brazil nuts and instant coffee are about the most
radioactive items in their home. Radium dial watches if present more so.

--
Martin Brown

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:23:26 +0100, Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 07/04/2023 23:05, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 20:57:35 +0100, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 07/04/2023 16:41, Fred Bloggs wrote:
The agency claims the proposed rules will result in a 96% reduction in the population facing cancer risk from 200 polluters.

https://grist.org/regulation/epa-chemical-plants-pollution-cancer/

Given that you have already got extensive MTBE in your groundwater from
badly maintained underground gasoline fuel tank leaks and utilities that
value profit over peoples lives then the outcome is inevitable.

https://archive.epa.gov/mtbe/web/html/water.html

I was once involved in a US superfund project to clean up extremely
contaminated sites. We provided the analytical equipment. My rough guess
is that for every $1 spent on the science $99 was spent on lawyers.

I doubt if they ever got around to cleaning anything up. The budget
entirely disappeared into the labyrinthine US legal system.

Probably not. The US EPA considers this to be a feature, not a bug.

It looked from the outside like a way to line the pockets of armies of
fat slimy lawyers and avoid doing any useful remediation work at all.

It can be that too, but this is always true, so cannot be the cause.

A parallel is citing greed as the cause of something undesired, the
problem being that except for a few saints, everybody is greedy to
some degree, so greed per se fails as an explanation. One must
continue digging.

An approach commonly used by the EPA is use regulations to make
something wildly impractical in practice, versus simply prohibiting
it, simply to exhaust opponents in endless litigation et al.

EPA cancer risk estimates are famously pessimistic.

An odd thing is emerging from the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown, almost 40
years ago - the animals in the high-radiation exclusion zone arel
thriving - this was not supposed to happen at all. Perhaps the
radiation risk models need work.

That is work in progress. I know that people who work regularly in
unusually low radiation environments are monitored for adverse effects.
Mostly down very deep mines also used for dark matter searches.

Hmm. Darkness-emitting scientists?

Several papers on the low dose radiation safe limit are about. If you
think about it life evolved a very long time ago when there were
significantly more long half life radioisotopes about. It would be
surprising if our repair mechanisms couldn\'t cope with some damage.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2592992/

In fact it is known (and has been known for a long time that just the
right amount of radiation can stimulate the immune system). However, it
is considered too risky to use apart from in the treatment of cancer
where it is more a side effect of the treatment than anything.

Uranium is common at ~2ppm in many crustal rocks and 0.7% of that is
U235 (half life 700My). 3By ago ~3 half lives that would have been ~6%.

It is a hotly contested issue as to how much radioactivity is a safe
amount with most of the public viewing \"any\" as too much. Blissfully
unaware that bananas, Brazil nuts and instant coffee are about the most
radioactive items in their home. Radium dial watches if present more so.

Yes, all true.

In the US, we have a fetish about Radon gas diffusing up from the
granite bedrock below and seeping into home basements, where it
supposedly causes cancer, as predicted using linear extrapolation from
acute cases to trace amounts.

One cannot detect any such effect in direct tests because everything
else swamps any such effect, if there is in fact any effect
whatsoever.

Joe Gwinn