It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Is this a quiz?
How many ordinary citizens have lost their property without being convicted of any crime?
Not at all. Eminent domain is written into the US Constitution. And they don't have to take your stove to exercise it.
Is it so far fetched that some level of government wants to force you to sell your land to them?
Oh, you should have said that in the first place. I haven't looked into the matter much. I think that if it happens, it shouldn't. Whose stove/property has been seized in Fairbanks?
No - I am asking you if you agree that innocent people have had their property (cash etc) seized without being convicted of a crime under civil forfeiture?
Why would I do that? I think the reasons are obvious. You think pollution standards are unjustified, I take it.
Tell me why an ordinary citizen has to justify wanting government not to over regulate.
I have evidentary reason to believe that its set to low (did you look up James Engstrom)
How many cases of asthmatic effects and other effects would justify some (as yet unspecified) cost impact?
I don't believe an appropriate cost/benefit analysis was conducted to justify the standard.
Look Up James Enstrom and his study of PM 2.5 first before I answer your questions.
It was the most comprehensive peer-reviewed study ever undertaken of
Californians exposed to fine-particulate (PM2.5) diesel matter. The
study found no increased mortality from exposure to small-
particle air pollution that includes diesel engine fuel
emissions—another politically incorrect finding.
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Is there a benefit to controlling 1 toxicant in the face of the presence of hundreds of others.
What money? The money Alaska gets from oil? Hell, they're giving that away.
Is there not something more useful that we can address the money to?