Regulation of industry good for our health

It's a good thing we have the Environmental Protection Agency (imperfect though it is) and laws like the Clean Water Act to protect our health from corner-cutting industries. In Mexico, their laws and enforcement are weaker, and people are dying as a result.

This sad film, Silent River, discusses diseases of residents near Rio Santiago, Guadalajara brought on by unregulated industrial pollution:

http://www.silentriverfilm.com/film.html

Thank goodness we created the EPA decades ago. Remember how Pittsburgh's rivers used to be dead like this?

Views: 2244

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on November 2, 2015 at 9:14am

Why would environmental regulation be best done at a local level? Think about it a little abstractly for a minute: suppose you have someone polluting a small stream in one location, but that pollution is flowing downstream and hurting the health of people downstream, people outside the town, outside the county, and outside the state where the pollution started. What's the best level for regulating this: town, county, state, country?

You said "state or local". Would you trust a county upstream of you to regulate the water quality for your drinking water? Wouldn't you rather that a state-level organization, that draws on expertise from state universities and talent (Penn State, Carnegie Mellon, etc) is checking your water quality, and not somebody from Podunk County Community College? The same reasoning applies when you compare state- to national-level regulation.

You say national agencies are "meant to promote political agendas", and you're implying that state agencies are not? I see no qualitative difference in government behavior at state and national levels. They're the same kind of animal.

The chemical spill in Charleston, WV that shut off water supply to 300,000 people last year was the result, in large part, of a state level regulatory agency that was captive to the coal industry, and lax on inspection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Elk_River_chemical_spill 

The people whose water was polluted would be in better shape if the EPA had taken a bigger role.

Permalink Reply by Barry D on November 3, 2015 at 8:50am

Paul, Oh teah

Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on November 1, 2015 at 11:19pm

What happens when a state (guess which) doesn’t regulate oil & gas enough?

John Oliver video has the disturbing/humorous answer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYusNNldesc

Permalink Reply by Gas Boy on November 3, 2015 at 3:42pm

Send the EPA to Mexico..............it's the least the U.S. could do since they are polluting the air that we breathe.

Also, send all the enviro-nutz as well.............

Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on December 7, 2015 at 4:32pm

A vivid example of the chemical industry and big corporations putting profits before public health: The DuPont Teflon plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia released perfluorooctanoic acid (also known as PFOA or C8) into the air and rivers for decades. Environmental impact: over one hundred dead cows, birth defects in the children of workers, and increased risk of: high cholesterol; a form of bowel disease called ulcerative colitis; pregnancy-induced hypertension; thyroid disease; testicular cancer; and kidney cancer. Financial impact: DuPont’s legal settlement of about $300 million.

A good read: https://theintercept.com/2015/08/17/teflon-toxin-case-against-dupont/

Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on January 10, 2016 at 5:02pm

A long article about DuPont's toxic chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and how it sickened thousands of people: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-du...

"All told, 70,000 people were drinking poisoned water. Some had been doing so for decades."

"Last May, 200 scientists from a variety of disciplines signed the Madrid Statement, which expresses concern about the production of all fluorochemicals, or PFASs, including those that have replaced PFOA. PFOA and its replacements are suspected to belong to a large class of artificial compounds called endocrine-disrupting chemicals; these compounds, which include chemicals used in the production of pesticides, plastics and gasoline, interfere with human reproduction and metabolism and cause cancer, thyroid problems and nervous-system disorders. In the last five years, however, a new wave of endocrinology research has found that even extremely low doses of such chemicals can create significant health problems. Among the Madrid scientists’ recommendations: ... ‘‘Whenever possible, avoid products containing, or manufactured using, PFASs. These include many products that are stain-resistant, waterproof or nonstick.’’ "

Morals of the story:

(1) don't trust corporate interests to protect your health

(2) insist that regulators such as the EPA do their job

(3) be careful about new chemicals getting into your water supply

0ym9x5ag7ury2Permalink Reply by 0ym9x5ag7ury2 on January 10, 2016 at 6:12pm

Here's an example of Unregulated Oil & Gas contamination of Drinking Water in the Ohio Valley.

In the summer of 2011 Midland PA notified all citizens using their drinking water that they had a high turbidity due to something in the Ohio River that was unexpected by them.

I was drinking coffee from a thermos that I brought from home due to the fact that Frack Waste water was being dumped into the Monongahela River in PA, and Frack water was being "Processed" by dilution in the Mahoning River. Now anyone who knows the area can figure out that the Mahoning River dumps into the Beaver River then into the Ohio River.

So what we experienced was an unexpected concentration of frack waters due to a lack of control of how much frack water was being dumped into our Rivers to the point that Processing by Dilution was no longer working.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Permalink Reply by Barry D on January 10, 2016 at 6:52pm

Ron,

With all due respect, there is no proof of your assertion.

Heavy rain and runoff from melting snow cause increases in turbidity in waterways such as the Beaver, Mahoning and Ohio Rivers.

The amount of turbidity is an on going issue for many public water systems using rivers as a water source. The sources of turbidity are varied.

Further, I believe the practice of "dilution" ito the waterways of PA has been banned by the DEP. So this is a moot issue.

Perhaps we should deal with the real culprits and outlaw rain and snow fall.

0ym9x5ag7ury2Permalink Reply by 0ym9x5ag7ury2 on January 11, 2016 at 1:59pm

Barry,

    I no longer have access to the email that was sent by Midland to all employees, there was a statement about unknown contaminants but I can't remember the exact wording.

Midland supplied us with water for several years and only had this problem one time. I had been following the Frack Water Dilution in the Mahoning River and read about the Mon River being used by PA to dispose of their frack water at the same time, so I was aware that it would all be passing by Midland as they took in the water to process it for home & industry use.

I had asked an EPA Rep at one of our 2010 meetings how dumping frack water into the Rivers was call processing it, when he told us earlier that the frack water can't be separated by the facilities where dumped. He said dilution was the only way to reduce the concentration. He assured me that they were watching the frogs and other aquatic life at the river.

"No Proof Of My Assertion". Is that like when Chesapeake Rations our Royalties but we have no Proof of theft, so we have to remain silent due to their employees saying that there has been no conviction therefore no Theft?

Chesapeake is STEALING MY ROYALTIES. I can say that since their Revenue Department sent me the proof.

And one more thing, if it feels like theft, then it is theft.

Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on February 29, 2016 at 12:04pm

More Teflon / PFOA news: Hoosick Falls, New York is suffering from PFOA pollution.

“One resident called 911 asking whether the village’s water would burn his skin off. Families have lined up to have their blood drawn and their wells tested. Banks stopped giving out mortgages, and some local residents stopped washing their dishes, their clothes and themselves.

… state and local officials assured the public on several occasions that the water was safe — most recently in December, even after the federal Environmental Protection Agency had recommended to the village’s mayor that residents avoid using Hoosick’s well water.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/nyregion/fears-about-water-supply...

Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on March 14, 2016 at 11:27pm

[New York governor] "Cuomo cautioned that the state’s residents should anticipate the discovery of PFOA and other chemicals in the drinking water of other locations. “We’re going to continue to find situations like this all throughout the state, all throughout the country,” he said, noting that past methods of disposing of toxic chemicals were not always prudent. “Now, in many ways, we’re paying the price as a society.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/nyregion/pollutant-is-removed-fro...

Permalink Reply by Barry D on March 15, 2016 at 7:59am

Hey, Chicken Little,

I have to admit that there is nothing more entertaining, as I drink my morning coffee, than one of your inane posts/replies.

I can hardly wait to see how are you going to connect this incident to the oil and gas industry.

BTW - NY is a state that has been controlled by Democrats for years.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service