EPA declares hay a pollutant [see UPDATE]

reply to post by MrXYZ


Actually I posted this article on the baldegger see a few pages back
www.edinburgh.ceh.ac.uk...

It's a bit like with the unions: "We have weekends, and hardly any childlabor anymore. We don't need them anymore"
Same with environmental regs: "We can't light most of our rivers anymore. We don't need them anymore"

As I posted earlier as well: there is a canal, about 25 cm deep in my area. 30 years ago you could smell it from 10m away, and you couldn't see the bottom. 20 years ago you couldn't smell it anymore, but visibility was still around 1cm. These days you can see the bottom. But if we stopped regulating now, I doubt it would take 30 years for it to revert to the state it was in when I was a kid.

UPDATED INFO
EPA Never Said Hay is a Pollutant

edit on Tue Sep 20 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: to add EPA material to OP

Thanks for the update.

reply to post by MrXYZ


oh brother! You are trying to tell me now that people who have asthma are getting it from hay on farms?
By the way, just because something was said at a Ted conference doesn't make it good. Take Bill Gates and his vaccine depopulation. He talked about it at Ted too.
I actually agree with you that much of processed food is devoid of it's natural qualities and stripped of vitamins, with added chemicals of varous kinds. But are you going to now be the food police in addition to the hay police? They can jolly well regulate aspartame if they want my respect.
That Ted guy after listening a few minutes I didnt hear anything about hay pollutants, only chemicals in rubber duckies. What was your point with that? Is that a pitch for all regulations being justified by Big Government?

reply to post by MrXYZ


yah I'd love to get you and my sister in the same room and see what happens. She happens to have a ranch in Kansas, and I will ask her about this and see what she has to say. And while I am thinking of it, Kathleen Sebelius had to give my sister an award one year, and apparently upon seeing to whom the award was going remarked, "Oh it's YOU".

Originally posted by nixie_nox
And for all the idiots who think the EPA has nothing better to do, remember that the next time you go to the tap for a drink of water, it isnt full of mercury, dirt, and poo thanks to EPA regulation.
Check out the EPA website for the superfund sites in your area and there are some that are not so pretty.

Yes, I'd like to see them regulate flouride out of it too.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

oh brother! You are trying to tell me now that people who have asthma are getting it from hay on farms?

You might want to read up...again, NO ONE is claiming hay is a pollutant!! It's a rumour started by R-CALF, a biased interest group.

What I'm saying is that dust and pollution are causing asthma, and that's a FACT. So preventing dust/pollution from happening makes total sense. As for your "food police" comment, without the EPA and the other guys checking our food, companies wouldn't even have to declare what's inside your foood!! Not sure about you, but I want to know WHAT I'm feeding my kids (and what I eat myself) rather than betting on companies acting morally...because they demonstrably don't do that!

reply to post by mamabeth


Your confusing MacDonalds with Taco Bell who uses the fake beef or the 30% beef mixture. Macdonalds has the opposite problems, the average patty has the meat of over a 1000 different cows in it.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


So would I. But the reason they don't? 40% of the population is on public water. Many of them have been treated wtih fluoride for 50 years now.

So if the government came out and suddenly said it was bad, the lawsuit would be of epic proportions and unmanageable.

I have no problem with fluoride being used as a topical application, I don't think it is meant to be ingested.

reply to post by butcherguy


You just compared a natural occurance to a man made one.

Just because it involves those oh so natural vegetables, doesn't make it safe.

Where in the world Does hectares up hectares of hay occur naturally? And I am not talking about wild, natural grasses. I am talking hay the way it is.

Just because somewhere in the world it is a natural occurence, doesnt meant it occurruing naturally. That would be like dumping used oil on the ground and saying that your sending it back to where it came from.

reply to post by Misoir


ALRIGHT !!!

When I was a kid I baled and loaded a many a wagon load of this stuff.

Now that I'm old, do I still have a case against the guys I worked for.

I need to SUE somebody.

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by Misoir

 

I need to SUE somebody.

I suggest whoever taught you reading.

reply to post by nixie_nox

You just compared a natural occurance to a man made one.

Yes, I certainly did. I did it because it happens. It is real. The division between grasses that die on the pampas, plains or steppes around the world and the much smaller amount that die because we harvest, store and feed them to animals is simply how you decide to perceive it.

The amount of grass harvested, stored, eaten and excreted by wild rodents far exceeds the amount that is used by man and his domesticated animals. If you take into account wild ruminants, it makes man look even smaller......
add the most numerous of the animal kingdom, insects, and it makes our small footprint look silly.

The most detrimental poison that we spread in the world right now, IMO, is radiation. Tons of radioisotopes that don't occur in nature with long half-lives, causing mutations in not only our species, but all the rest of the plant and animal kingdoms.

My point is that silage is chopped grasses that is stored for use as animal feed. The leachate that may come from silage is not hazardous waste. If it is..... then every decomposing plant is leaching hazardous waste into the environment.

Your analogy to pouring oil onto the ground does not work at all. Oil is something that is found in the ground, but it is rarely found on the surface in nature..... Rotting plants are. Decomposing plants are an integral part of the ecosystem. Fractionated petroleum products are not.

I am adding a link comparing grass consumption by cows versus grasshoppers....

Grasshoppers vs. Cows

Let me add that I am not taking up any arguments for cows. I've known cows. Cows are stupid. I don't like cows.

I wonder what they would say to the upsurge in the usage of hay as insulation and, as a result of it making walls so thick, soundproofing in some UK homes.
It's become quite fashionable for those who can afford to build their own homes.

Originally posted by Suspiria
I wonder what they would say to the upsurge in the usage of hay as insulation and, as a result of it making walls so thick, soundproofing in some UK homes.
It's become quite fashionable for those who can afford to build their own homes.

Well, those houses obviously need to be considered hazardous waste sites. Tear those houses down and truck them to a special landfill where the leachate can be captured and dried.

Does anyone know what they do with the sludge that remains after they dry out the leachate from a landfill?

Why they take it to another landfill. Those landfills are even more special.

reply to post by nixie_nox

Where in the world Does hectares up hectares of hay occur naturally? And I am not talking about wild, natural grasses. I am talking hay the way it is.

I just wanted to let you know that all those grasses that we cut to make hay occur naturally, in the wild.

Corn is another story. With the best of the paleobotanists theories and research, it is believed that corn (maize) came about only through human intervention with the selective breeding of a species(called teosinte) in Mexico as far back as 10,000 years ago.

If you are speaking of the fact that we cut it and store it, again I will refer you to the lowly vole. Have you ever watched one of these industrious rodents harvesting hay in the summer? I have. There are a lot more voles, woodchucks, marmots, mice and bunnies than there are farmers.