Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: WinMod70
Can somebody answer this comment on this site:
"Enviornmental protections are necessary. Obviously we need to consider the cost of regulations, but anyone who wants to do away with pollution standards and controls because they view them as some sort of assault on "personal liberty" is being disingenuous and very short-sighted."
4 posted on 01/25/2013 10:13:33 AM PST by conservative98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: conservative98

Anyone who says that the EPA is the proper way to regulate pollution is being disingenuous or dense. There has never been any proof of global environmental effects. Pollution tends to have environmental effects that are localized to the area of the pollution. Therefore pollution controls belong at levels of government more answerable to the people actually affected. A non-constitutional agency with a left wing agenda and all the power of a bloated federal bureaucracy has very little to do with environmental protection and everything to do with economic control.


11 posted on 01/25/2013 10:56:17 AM PST by RightOnTheBorder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: conservative98
Enviornmental protections are necessary.

I can tell you about lead based paint "protections". It used to be the standard was 40 mu/DL. Lead paint has been disappearing for a long time and particularly during the building boom starting in the 90s it's out of many houses or so covered in modern paint as to be encapsulated.

Over that time lead based problems with children's blood plummeted. Just what you'd expect and a good thing. Although, you have to keep in mind that dose makes the poison and some lead dust may have a powerful effect on a baby, but as it grows that effect drops. Few American kids are lead poisoned in a way that affects their growth or cognitive skills. Most poor children lack cognitive skills because they're in an environment populated by imbeciles, government schools and drug abusers. All those factor in, plus imagine a household in which a toddler is so hungry and uncared for that it has time to gnosh on a lead painted window sill. Something else is desperately wrong with that kid, but that's another story of government incompetence and failure.

So things are quickly getting better and the lead problem is fading away rapidly. It's no longer a problem and the measurements show it. Out of no where and without any science to back it up the stardard is lowered to 20 mu/DL of blood. Lead "poisoning" suddenly skyrockets and bureaucratic jobs are saved. Is that the kind of protection we needed? Is it even real or just a bogeyman?

Without some objective stop on the "protection" you get crazy nonsense. At what stage of earth's development to you set your standard? These regulatory agencies suffer two major diseases: regulatory capture - where the regulated control the regulators to such an extent that the "regulation" works to keep out competition; the other is mission creep - where the agencies purpose is no longer relevant or they've "won" and should be shut down.

No one will ever be safe enough, but we're not spewing lead into the air like we used to. Furthermore, despite the massive reduction in lead in the US atmosphere and environment (it's hard to absorb the low-toxic metallic form of lead) there's little evidence we're smarter or healthier.

At what point do you declare victory and move on?

28 posted on 01/26/2013 4:44:50 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson