To: Starman417
Makes sense that Costner would blame his slowness on the government regulations. Couldn’t be his technology, could it?
4 posted on
06/27/2010 2:39:56 PM PDT by
Brilliant
To: Brilliant
You could be correct, but bureaucratic patterns suggest otherwise.
7 posted on
06/27/2010 2:46:52 PM PDT by
Gene Eric
(Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
To: Brilliant
Nope, it's government regulations. One of the climate blogs had a story dealing with the refusal to accept very effective Dutch oil-skimmers. Not because of the Jones Act, but because the technology used, which sucks in massive amounts of oil mixed with sea water, removes virtually all of the oil in usable form, and returns the sea water and some residual oil to the sea
violates EPA rules against discharging water mixed with oil into the ocean.
If the Obama administration actually cared about the environoment (as opposed to "caring" about everything the way the left "cares" about things, as a rhetorical excuse for arrogating power to the state), all of the foreign skimmer, Costner's centrifuges, and everything else that's been offered to help would be running full tilt instead of being checked for compliance with regulations that are irrelevant in the face of a disaster of this sort.
10 posted on
06/27/2010 2:56:41 PM PDT by
The_Reader_David
(And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
To: Brilliant; Starman417
Makes sense that Costner would blame his slowness on the government regulations. Couldnt be his technology, could it?
Sometimes the better part about being brilliant is to actually research something instead of making masturbatory snide comments--it feels good to you but doesn't do anyone else any good.
The reason he's having trouble with the EPA is that the effluent from the purification process has a higher level of oil residue than is permitted by the EPA for such an effluent. Never mind that it's cleaned about 99% of the oil out of the water leaving it much cleaner than it was, it's still not as clean as some dork at the EPA pushing outmoded science and technology* says it should be. And so we have a situation where much dirtier water has to be endured because it can't be cleaned up as much as someone else says it should be. This is like saying that you can't have a vaccine against a deadly disease that saves 99 out of 100 victims until you make sure the vaccine saves 99.5 out of every hundred victims.
This is also somewhat like the Bureau of Fish and Wildlife telling folks in Louisiana that they can't build berms to protect the mashes and estuaries because they're "endangered."
*One of my uncles was until recently the CEO of a major midwestern electrical utility for almost 30 years. He's had plenty of experience dealing with the EPA. He said they have to meet the guidelines, but there's no way they would ever, at the EPA's suggestion, take EPA as a parter in renovating things or take government loans, also at the EPA's suggestion, to fund the renovation. He said their science is not state of the art and that their scientists are as outmoded as their techniques.
12 posted on
06/27/2010 2:59:11 PM PDT by
aruanan
To: Brilliant
The bureaucrats are always at least ten years behind the technology.
17 posted on
06/27/2010 3:28:03 PM PDT by
reg45
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson