It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alaskans’ Cost of Staying Warm: A Thick Coat of Dirty Air (This is What Climate Regulations Do)

page: 7
26
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes I think that is exactly the case based on the work done by James Engstrom. The standard to PM2.5 is too low.

Tired of Control Freaks




posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks



What if the government wants your land and you won't sell. So then they decide to enforce the law and yank your stove.

So, the government wants land in Fairbanks so they take your stove. Which government? City? State? Federal?



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I would suggest that it can happen in any level of governmeent. Remember ordinary citizens cannot access the justice system because of cost so there really is no way of fighting back.

Remember civil forfeiture was introduced to support drug laws. Its was only supposed to be used against drug dealers, the mafia ect.

How many ordinary citizens have lost their property without being convicted of any crime?

Is it so far fetched that some level of government wants to force you to sell your land to them?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

How many ordinary citizens have lost their property without being convicted of any crime?
Is this a quiz?



Is it so far fetched that some level of government wants to force you to sell your land to them?
Not at all. Eminent domain is written into the US Constitution. And they don't have to take your stove to exercise it.
constitution.findlaw.com...

edit on 1/3/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I imagine that there are rules to Eminent Domain. What if the motive for wanting the land is stores of natural gas?
What if the motive is to get a distressed sale?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

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?

Tell me why an ordinary citizen has to justify wanting government not to over regulate. I thought it was up to the government to justify regulation?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You could always read the link.
Or, if you're really into it, the court cases.
 


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?
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?



Tell me why an ordinary citizen has to justify wanting government not to over regulate.
Why would I do that? I think the reasons are obvious. You think pollution standards are unjustified, I take it.


edit on 1/3/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/3/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No the reasons are not obvious to me.

We are talking about 1 standard, the one for PM 2.5. Does that have to mean I don't agree with any of them?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




Does that have to mean I don't agree with any of them?

No.

Any particular reason you find that one particularly troublesome?



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I have evidentary reason to believe that its set to low (did you look up James Engstrom)

I suspect that wood smoke and other particulates have degrees of adverse impact that make the PM 2.5 standard of 35 ug/m3 on a daily average as being too low.

I don't believe an appropriate cost/benefit analysis was conducted to justify the standard.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




I have evidentary reason to believe that its set to low (did you look up James Engstrom)

So you advocate for higher standards?



I don't believe an appropriate cost/benefit analysis was conducted to justify the standard.
How many cases of asthmatic effects and other effects would justify some (as yet unspecified) cost impact?
scholar.google.com...,5&as_vis=1



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Look Up James Enstrom and his study of PM 2.5 first before I answer your questions.

First look up the increase in the incidence of childhood asthma since the 1950s ( it has gone up by 800 %) and many scientists believe that failure to expose children to sufficient particulate has resulted in ever increasing childhood asthma rates.

Before you try to get me to shed tears with cries of "think of the children", I think we need to know why asthma rates are increasing even as pollution rates are going down.

Are stringent standards of PM2.5 particulates making our children sicker? Why do children living on farms in rural area that are more exposed to particulates and allergenic material getting less asthma?

I am not easily swayed by emotions. But facts will get my attention

Tired of Ccntrol Freaks



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Oops sorry, I mean that the standard is too high and consideration should be taken to lowing it.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




Look Up James Enstrom and his study of PM 2.5 first before I answer your questions.

Ok. But is his study more rigorous than the many others?

Is this what you're talking about?

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.
www.jpands.org...

Ah. Ok, so more people don't die because of fine particulates. What about other health effects? Isn't that a California regulation? Is it those standards which are the cause of the brouhaha in Fairbanks?
edit on 1/3/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well I respect James Engstrom and have communicated with him personally. I am convinced that his integrity is above reproach. The fact that hes was fired for failing to adjust his study results to comply with university policy underscores his integrity. The fact the the senate was involved in trying to protect him is another (although I hold the senate in no high esteem) this study has been the subject of very intense scrutiny. I believe that it has been found to be sound

The fact that the EPA must either admit to conducting human experiments for having exposed sensitive population to PM2.5 at high as 600 ug/m3 or admit that they knew in advance that there wasn't likely to be much adverse impact also influences me.

www.forbes.com...



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
The "contributor" who wrote that article seems to be somewhat biased. But that's ok.

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

www.forbes.com...

What happened with that lawsuit? Anything after all these years?

edit on 1/3/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes it is the standards for PM2.5 that is the same for James Enstroms study and the EPA standard.

Even if PM2.5 is identified as something that can make asthma worse, there are thousands of other particulates and allergens that do the exact same thing. Controlling PM2.5 does not control grass pollen, cockroad poop and on and on. Is there a benefit to controlling 1 toxicant in the face of the presence of hundreds of others.

If EPA is testing subjects at 600 ug/m3 what justification is there for a standard of PM2.5 ofjust 35.

Do we have unlimited funds to try to address over the top concerns just because local activists want us to?

Is there not something more useful that we can address the money to?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks




Is there a benefit to controlling 1 toxicant in the face of the presence of hundreds of others.

If there is a particular high volume source of a particular pollutant, I would say yes. There is certainly a benefit. But hell, everybody dies in the end. Right?



Is there not something more useful that we can address the money to?
What money? The money Alaska gets from oil? Hell, they're giving that away.



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes - the university was required to restore James Engstrom funding that they had seized and he has retained all rights of a retired professor at UCLA

www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org...

www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org...


Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

We are not talking particularly high volumes of PM2.5 particulate. The current violation is at 47.1 ug/m3 and the old standard was 60 ug/m3.

I would suggest that the money could all be directed to replacing the offending stoves but hey that is just me. Funny how you think they are giving money away and yet you agree that a large percentage of the population are below the poverty line.

Tired of Control Freaks



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join