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.
Where in the constitution does it say an employer has a right to posion or
cripple his employees, or a contractor has a right to poision his clients or
their children, or a big agribusiness the right to leave laborers dead in the
fields (happens a lot more often than you might imagine)? I work with an
older gent whose gone thru a helluva lot of chemotherapy recently, and who invented one of the most infamous EPA-banned substances ever. Little did he know that his esoteric laboratory sample would be turned into
something which has caused millions of birth defects rampant to this day.
Last year our own classroom put about 700 hundred contractors thru EPA
mandated lead safety certification. A handful griped. Every single one was
grateful afterwards. Most classes had one or two attendees who had already suffered from lead poisioning themselves, or whose kids were poisioned. (It's real good for your business when you owe 250K in personal medical bills). Once these folks learn to work clean and are properly equipped they're productivity typcially goes up 40% to 200%.
They're blowing their cheapo competition away. It's like an arms race and
they wonder why on earth they weren't doing things this way all along.
Some of them have hired twenty or so new employees just in the last six
months. The regulations are a minor nuisance, but are also a catalyst to
dramatically improved productivity and getting out of the stone age. And
more and more nowadays, clients absolutely demand it. Would you want
noise and lead paint dust in your living space?
Ahh, but Pete, we do not disagree. We want responsible government that gives us responsible (and Constitutionally legal) oversight of environmental matters.
That about sums up my opinion but adds that we should not do this from the POV of fear of the unknown which in this and some other cases is "chemistry".
I was thanking you for seeing my side Sorry about the confusion.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
You're still arguing environment.
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
No, of course I don't want cancer at work, lead paint in my schools, pesticides in my water, mercury in my tuna, trichlorethylene in my soil, dirt roads soaked with diesel fuel, acid rain on my car, etc, etc etc.
I also don't want a government agency that can arbitrarily decide that I should be relieved of all of my money, possessions, and property without going through the proper channels of due process as mandated by the Constitution. No matter what the EPA has started out as, that is what they have become, and it's wrong.
I am always amazed at the people that mention the US Constitution when it is apparent they haven't read it or really understand what it does and does not say.
The Constitution specifically charges the government to "Promote the General Welfare of the Public". It also gives the federal government the responsibility of Regulating Interstate Commerce.
The moment pollutants from Pennsylvania cross the state boundary into New Jersey, the federal government must intercede.
Perhaps we should all live in the shadow of a mountain of Coal Ash, waiting for the opportune time to come washing down and burying our hometowns?
Or maybe A nice,healthy Nuclear Power plant built just upwind of your home? Who needs gubmint regulashuns?
(Just took a break to peel garlic ... yumm). More to the specific air quality
regulations behind this thread ... I know all the foibles about this for decades back, a lot of counterproductive chuckholes in the road; but eventually it has gotten from point A to B. Just this morning I ordered a
rush truckload of compliant outdoor finishes. Yeah, right in the middle of
winter. Very impractical stuff it would seem because it costs about 75
dollars a gallon or more (or way way higher for true marine finishes).
But I can hardly keep it in stock. European stuff, finally coaxed into this
country by those damned "regulations". Took some education, but basically in terms of real world use it's the most cost-effective stuff one can buy. I applies dramatically better, dries faster, looks wonderful, etc,
so dramatically reduces labor expense. Plus it lasts way way longer than
the cheaper stuff. Do the math and over time clients start understanding its the most economical kind of product available. But the high-tech Euro
mfg wouldn't even look at the US market until regulations coaxed things
into a realistic market. (It's made in the Midwest now that the market has
grown so heavily - so everyone wins).
You make excellent points. The general welfare clause and interstate commerce clause very likely do give the fed the authority for some level of environmental oversight as it pertains to interstate affairs. I am willing to concede that. The scope of what may be an interstate affair may become grey at certain points but again, that is what courts are for. But my other points remain; no section of the Constitution gives the feds or any other level of government the power to create an agency who's authority usurps the basic fundamental principles of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, most importantly the denial of due process. And as that is the structure of the EPA, as they currently exist they remain an unconstitutional organization.
Originally Posted by wblynch