The ecological regulations in CA are probably the tightest in the US, as we learned at EK developing new processes. Similarly tight rules apply to parts of NYC and Long Island just FYI.
I myself was referring to the reported unemployment rate in CA and just speculating that the CA rules might be driving out some businesses. For example, if they had not changed the rules about Naptha, then a lot of art supply stores would have lost business. Just a thought, nothing more.
And, as pointed out above, that 11.1% might have been larger if the gov'mnt had not changed the rules and included the military to reduce the percentage a bit.
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
Sorry to sound touch, Ron. But I've been heavily involved in the industrial
coating industry for decades, mostly in distribution, and know the inside
stories far better than most. Both the EPA and Air Resources Board have
come up with goofy rules at times, but overall, many many lives have been spared a premature death. Where my current office is once had dozens of paint and solvent plants within walking distance, now converted
to pharmaceuticals, biotech, and of all things, sake and beer. The former
heavy industry has moved upriver about half an hour drive, where the cancer rate it twelve times what it is here. We have not been locally immune from the recession, but recovered faster than anywhere else in
the country. Residential foreclosures are very rare around here, whereas
inland it is ground zero for the whole disaster. California no longer has a
north vs south divide, but a coastal vs inland socio-politico-economic divide. I come from the cowboy culture of the Sierra, now just a memory,
very similar to the sagebrush mentality today, but have long lived on the
coast, so understand both extremes quite well.
Wanted to add a few more details. Art stores can sell certain solvents otherwise prohibited due to the very small quantities involved. Regulations against them is more of a city ordinance to prevent substance abuse by
gluesniffer types. And I'm not totally blaming the refineries for the cancer
rate upriver, but that whole inland mentality where developers do anything
they please, and can bribe their way around anything. Those refineries were originally out in the boonies. Now they're surrounded with subdivisions, and in one case, a primary school is right across the street from one. The kids are sick all the time. That the fault of zoning easments, just like all the development going on upon unstable slopes or
behind questionable levees. Because jobs inland tend to pay rather poorly
compared to here, and developers only want to make massive cheap boxes most people can't afford, that whole bogus mortgate mess began
in the same neighborhood to allow vast numbers of unaffordable homes to sell anyway. The sheriff enforced rigged elections (he's now in prison
himself). But I don't want to make this specifically political. I can't really
think of any common solvent removed from the market that doesn't have
a reasonable and probably safer substitute. A lot of the confusion lies in
the failure to distinguish between the various completely different kinds of
naptha. We've had paint napthas pulled due to smog, but to no real effect,
because over 60% of our local pollution comes from big container ships
coming from China into the port, and are only under nonexistent internatl
rules. But heck, somebody has to keep WalMart and Home Depot in business, and keep Americans out of work!
I could cite counter arguments as well. I guess it best left alone.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
If you ask me, the subtle underlying movement is to get rid of anything that allows the individual actual choice or control of materials...
Originally Posted by BobD
Trust me, if they could ban art, they would.
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.
I don't doubt the EPA has done some great things over the years. But that doesn't mean the organization is Constitutional, or that it cannot, will not, and has not been used as a way to circumvent the three Constitutional branches of government.
Think about it, the EPA can, with virtually no recourse, walk into a business and decide that the business is not in compliance with some EPA regulation. They can immediately order the business to cease operating, confiscate thousands or millions of dollars worth of equipment and supplies, and effectively put someone out of business. Same with a construction project. They can, and have walked onto a construction site that was properly permitted, declare the area wetlands, put an immediate stop to construction, administer fines, and even require the landowners to spend very large sums of money restoring the land to it's previous condition.
All of this can be done with no prior due process of law, and although some day you may win a case, by then you have spent large sums of money, your business is long gone, or you are now bankrupt and cannot finish your original project.
These are exactly the things our founders warned us about. Let me ask you this; if someone told you that the Federal government was going to create an agency that had the authority to seize land or property outside of the 4th Amendment, administer fines with no law, and function completely autonomously from the three Congressional branches, would you say they are nuts? I would, and I think most people would. But sugar coat it with something nice like "Environmental Protection" and nobody seems to notice.
Typical ignorant rant. It's the job of the EPA to protect people from poisoning, just like it's the job
of the police to protect you from getting shot by a burglar. Neither is perfect, but life would be a lot
worse without them. I've heard this kind of BS for years. Well, it's not good for business when every
last one of your employees dies prematurely of cancer and your corporation gets rightfully sued for
incredible sums of money by the families. And that has certainly happened around here by what were considered "harmless" solvents at that time, but are now regarded with horror and are downright illegal to make in any modern country. I could recite hundred of examples. You have no idea of the kinds of people I'm in contact with.
People are going crazy in their fear of chemicals and chemistry! We are abandoning chemical eduction because of this fear! I've seen people declare chemicals "poisons" that are used internally without any severe effects and yet they are poisons. CA bans Thiourea as a carcinogen, but the common cornflower (IIRC - nut sure if I have the right wildflower here) uses thiourea in its metabolism and grows wild everywhere in CA.
And, as for wetlands, well shutting things down for the sake of endangered species is reasonable as long as it is done in a lawful manner and information hereabouts says that due process is not always observed, nor is the recover of costs very easy. In fact, the EPA can put a lot of people out of work over one poor snail darter! What is more important? The jobs of 100 - 500 construction workers or a stream used for breeding snail darters? If the job is approved, it should be judged by due process before being shut down. Etc.. Etc...
Thank you PE. My concerns have nothing to do with environmental issues and everything to do with the scope of the agencies authoirty, and thus the ability for abuse.
There are ways to protect the environment that respect the principle of due process. I think it is ignorant to assume I would like no environmental oversight. That would be obviously foolish. You're arguing environment while I'm talking about politics.