The EPA's Science Problem

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:35 am

dudejcb wrote:
nitram wrote:What about all of the heat produced by these 'mirror farms'?

They don't produce heat. They concentrate radiant heat already produced by the sun that would've heated the ground had they not reflected it to their target.

That said, I think a good sand or hail storm could be problematic.


Tell that to the birds that get fried flying over big solar array fields. Ever taken a good hard look at a panel? They are reflective enough to kick back a nice shine. I have been involved in two installations of solar ( against my wishes ) and they are not all absorption. There is a fair amount of reflection back into the atmoshpere.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6539
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am


Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:22 am

ScaupHunter wrote:
dudejcb wrote:
nitram wrote:What about all of the heat produced by these 'mirror farms'?

They don't produce heat. They concentrate radiant heat already produced by the sun that would've heated the ground had they not reflected it to their target.

That said, I think a good sand or hail storm could be problematic.


Tell that to the birds that get fried flying over big solar array fields. Ever taken a good hard look at a panel? They are reflective enough to kick back a nice shine. I have been involved in two installations of solar ( against my wishes ) and they are not all absorption. There is a fair amount of reflection back into the atmoshpere.

Dude is actually correct. He is not talking about photovoltaics, but solar thermal plants. They are solar collectors and act much like when we use a magnifying glass start a fire. They do nothing but concentrate the sun's energy to a small target which is then heated to typical thermal power plant temperatures and everything beyond that is essentially the same as a conventional thermal power plant regardless of the energy source. Granted if something flies near the tower, you betcha that concentrated energy is going to fry their ass. As far as the nice shine, that is wasted energy and there should not be much of that in a well designed facility.

Were you involved in a photovoltaic site or a solar thermal site? They are quite different. Both ridiculously expense and require vast amounts of land per unit of energy produced. Granted the best places for them is land that has a hard time keeping a desert tortoise alive. I'll bet the shade under the mirrors makes a more hospitable environment just like the warmth of the pipelines in the Arctic help some of the wildlife up there.

Image

Image
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16060
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby huntmmup » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:14 am

It is really funny that you worry about birds getting baked by solar panels more than you worry about your kids and grandkids having to deal with an atmosphere full of green house gasses.
huntmmup
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:29 am

huntmmup wrote:It is really funny that you worry about birds getting baked by solar panels more than you worry about your kids and grandkids having to deal with an atmosphere full of green house gasses.



It is funny that you think a citizen should worry about your paranoid GAIA conspiracy theory which is not proving out to be happening instead of the Dbag liberals trying to steal Americas freedoms in the name of their control freak natures. :thumbsup:
Last edited by ScaupHunter on Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6539
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:34 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:
dudejcb wrote:
nitram wrote:What about all of the heat produced by these 'mirror farms'?

They don't produce heat. They concentrate radiant heat already produced by the sun that would've heated the ground had they not reflected it to their target.

That said, I think a good sand or hail storm could be problematic.


Tell that to the birds that get fried flying over big solar array fields. Ever taken a good hard look at a panel? They are reflective enough to kick back a nice shine. I have been involved in two installations of solar ( against my wishes ) and they are not all absorption. There is a fair amount of reflection back into the atmoshpere.

Dude is actually correct. He is not talking about photovoltaics, but solar thermal plants. They are solar collectors and act much like when we use a magnifying glass start a fire. They do nothing but concentrate the sun's energy to a small target which is then heated to typical thermal power plant temperatures and everything beyond that is essentially the same as a conventional thermal power plant regardless of the energy source. Granted if something flies near the tower, you betcha that concentrated energy is going to fry their ass. As far as the nice shine, that is wasted energy and there should not be much of that in a well designed facility.

Were you involved in a photovoltaic site or a solar thermal site? They are quite different. Both ridiculously expense and require vast amounts of land per unit of energy produced. Granted the best places for them is land that has a hard time keeping a desert tortoise alive. I'll bet the shade under the mirrors makes a more hospitable environment just like the warmth of the pipelines in the Arctic help some of the wildlife up there.

Image

Image



Smaller solar electric systems. I would not involve myself with the stupidity that is solar thermal systems. Both were grant funded and I got tagged with getting them off the ground and built. Both were expensive and have a shorter life span that is shorter than the cost return time frames. While not-reflective like solar thermal, they still reflect a fair amount of sunlight. Particularly when it is incidental to the angle of the panels. Our large array with fixed positions is decent at making electricity but not great. Toss in lots of cloudy and rainy days in the NW and it was a total waste. The smaller project at the main offices works more effectively since the panels move to match up with the proper angles to maximize the energy creation potential. The downside is the electricity needed to turn the panels and monitor those proper angles reducing the total efficiency of the system. Frankly solar is not anywhere close to where it needs to be to work as a cost effective solution. It likely never will be. Phsyics being what it is, solar is approaching the diminishing returns point.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6539
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:54 am

ScaupHunter wrote: Frankly solar is not anywhere close to where it needs to be to work as a cost effective solution. It likely never will be. Phsyics being what it is, solar is approaching the diminishing returns point.
:thumbsup: Except for certain niche applications.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16060
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby boney fingers » Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:00 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote: Frankly solar is not anywhere close to where it needs to be to work as a cost effective solution. It likely never will be. Phsyics being what it is, solar is approaching the diminishing returns point.
:thumbsup: Except for certain niche applications.


I looked into a solar water system for pumping water to cattle on a remote farm and after looking at the numbers, I concluded that unless you live miles from the grid (and then just maybe because the use of a combustion engine pump would still be cheaper), there is no way it would ever be a cost effective system. Sadly, the government is funding these projects to farmers even when they make no sense. I also ran the numbers on a solar electric system for my business and even with the tax incentives, it was very unlikely it would ever come close to paying for itself in its projected lifetime.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:15 pm

huntmmup wrote:It is really funny that you worry about birds getting baked by solar panels more than you worry about your kids and grandkids having to deal with an atmosphere full of green house gasses.


:violin: I poured some old gas on the concrete today just for you.... :hi:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56808
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:11 pm

I drove my Suburban to work today in his honor.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6539
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby cartervj » Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:13 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
huntmmup wrote:It is really funny that you worry about birds getting baked by solar panels more than you worry about your kids and grandkids having to deal with an atmosphere full of green house gasses.


:violin: I poured some old gas on the concrete today just for you.... :hi:



I blow black smoke every time I pass an Obama sticker or a Greenie sticker :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

that F250 7.3 sure can turn it out :beer:
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7302
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby nitram » Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:00 pm

The Supreme Court today upheld a contentious EPA rule enacted in 2011, mandating “polluting states … to reduce smokestack pollution that sullies the air in downwind states,” according to the Associated Press. The EPA claims “the investments would be far outweighed by the hundreds of billions of dollars in health care savings from cleaner air,” the AP reports, and “the rule would prevent more than 30,000 premature deaths and hundreds of thousands of illnesses each year.” Ironically, Administrator Gina McCarthy recently admitted that the agency used fraudulent data when crafting the Clean Air Act; this week she vowed to silence “critics … challenging the credibility of world renowned scientists and institutions like Harvard University and the American Cancer Society.” Don’t worry – this time the science is settled.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or f-ing beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.- Al Swearengen
User avatar
nitram
hunter
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: West OK on the South Canadian Riviera

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:58 am

The EPA actually has a very important job to do. We all remember the stories of rivers catching fire, horrible working conditions, and pollution occuring during the industrial revolution. Those things are what brought about the EPA. It is a real and very serious issue when companies are polluting and yes, killing citizens that are downwind of their point source pollutant injection site. Stopping those activities is a function of the Federal Government. It is also a state function. They overlap in this area. The EPA using fraudulent facts, research, and other devious means to obtain a goal instead of valid and supportable research and facts diminishes their effectiveness, their moral authority, and the belief of the citizens in their enforcement actions. This leads to push back and potential deaths actually occuring that could be prevented due to fraudulent activity on the EPA's part. I for one think that the fraud in the EPA needs to be addressed fully and stringently with firings and jail time for those activities. Get them back onto solid footing and honest work for the citizens and then get any real polluters up to real measurable standards.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6539
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:41 am

Well said. :clapping:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16060
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby Rat Creek » Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:26 am

SpinnerMan wrote:Well said. :clapping:

:ditto:

Sadly, virtually every federal agency was created for the right reasons, but once bureaucrats and politicians get involved, they grow and grow to become fiefdoms. :mad:

The EPA likely still does some good work on occasion, but they are so large and are writing so many stupid rules based upon sketchy facts (at best) and complete fraud (at worst), that like the IRS, they need to be trimmed by about 90% and return to their core.

But we know that will NEVER happen. They have thousands and thousands of do nothing federal employees who must be taken care of for life. :no:
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4392
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby cartervj » Wed Apr 30, 2014 5:27 pm

Rat Creek wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:Well said. :clapping:

:ditto:

Sadly, virtually every federal agency was created for the right reasons, but once bureaucrats and politicians get involved, they grow and grow to become fiefdoms. :mad:

The EPA likely still does some good work on occasion, but they are so large and are writing so many stupid rules based upon sketchy facts (at best) and complete fraud (at worst), that like the IRS, they need to be trimmed by about 90% and return to their core.

But we know that will NEVER happen. They have thousands and thousands of do nothing federal employees who must be taken care of for life. :no:



The BIGGEST problem is that Federal funds are dictated by spending the entire budget, no incentive to keep the cost down. Spend it all and ask for more, keep growing til they reach the point of creating jobs thru any means of justification.
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7302
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby cartervj » Wed Apr 30, 2014 7:46 pm

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/29/New-Documents-Seem-to-Show-EPA-Played-Politics-With-Enviro-Policy

New documents released this week raise serious questions about whether the EPA delayed publication of new environmental rules in order to help Democrats running for re-election in the upcoming 2014 midterm elections.

Worse, the new documents also contradict sworn testimony given before a Senate committee by Obama's Environmental Protection Agency chief, Gina McCarthy, insisting the EPA had published the rules in a timely manner.

Even though the agency had announced the rules two months previously, the EPA waited until November 8 to submit its New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) rules for power plants--rules that will send electric costs soaring, eliminate thousands of jobs, and close coal-fueled power plants across the country. Because of the late submission, the Federal Register didn't publish the rules until January 8.

According to Politico, "The delay means that the soonest congressional Republicans can force a vote on repealing the rule is January 2015." This would be months after the issue could have posed a problem for Democrats seeking re-election in November of this year.
In a letter sent to the EPA, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) charges that the dilatory publication of the rule was motivated by politics.
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7302
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu May 01, 2014 6:17 am

cartervj wrote:
Rat Creek wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:Well said. :clapping:

:ditto:

Sadly, virtually every federal agency was created for the right reasons, but once bureaucrats and politicians get involved, they grow and grow to become fiefdoms. :mad:

The EPA likely still does some good work on occasion, but they are so large and are writing so many stupid rules based upon sketchy facts (at best) and complete fraud (at worst), that like the IRS, they need to be trimmed by about 90% and return to their core.

But we know that will NEVER happen. They have thousands and thousands of do nothing federal employees who must be taken care of for life. :no:



The BIGGEST problem is that Federal funds are dictated by spending the entire budget, no incentive to keep the cost down. Spend it all and ask for more, keep growing til they reach the point of creating jobs thru any means of justification.

It just like base closings. It doesn't matter if there is no doubt that base is no longer needed, the politicians never want the money to stop flowing. The same thing happens with a lot of major site clean ups. Clean the site up and the flow of money stops, so make sure it never gets clean enough. I worked on a project in 1997. As far as I can tell, despite the huge amounts of money spent, it has not advanced anywhere close to as fast as it should have and that is not surprising since back then it was an open question of what will we do once the cleanup is done.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16060
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby cartervj » Thu May 01, 2014 7:39 pm

"Internal memos reveal EPA worked behind the scenes to kill Alaska mine project
WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency came under fire Thursday after new emails surfaced that allegedly show government officials worked in secret with tribal leaders and other environmental groups to preemptively oppose the controversial Pebble Mine project in Alaska before a review was even conducted.

The internal memos published by The Washington Times show EPA officials working behind the scenes as early as 2008 to kill the gold and copper mine project -- two years before any scientific
study or survey was conducted looking into the environmental impact.

“As you know I feel that both of these projects (Chuitna and Pebble) merit consideration of a 404C veto,” EPA official Phillip North wrote, according to the emails.

North, according to the Times, pushed to have the mine’s veto added to the agenda of a 2009 agency retreat.

But the EPA announced in 2011 there would be a neutral and scientific review of the mining project. At the time, they said that concerns raised by environmental groups and local tribes would be investigated, but that no decision had been made.

“Alaska is a long way from Washington, D.C.,” Rep. James Lankford, R-Okla., told Fox News. “There is no reason for Washington, D.C., to run affairs in Alaska.”

Lankford says the EPA pre-judged the case and didn’t wait for a full scientific review.
“They are to be neutral in this, and they are definitely not neutral in this,” he said.

In a statement Thursday, the EPA said the emails in question were "aut****d by a low level staffer stationed in Alaska who had no decision making authority for the Agency.

"Additionally, the focus should be on what the agency has actually done which is taking a deliberative approach based on the science. In fact, the agency leadership had not made a decision on whether to proceed to 404(c) action until the scientific analysis was complete," the EPA said.
The newly published emails are just the latest twist in the Pebble Mine saga which began years ago.
Mine opponents have been urging EPA to take steps to protect the region. They say the project would threaten the billion-dollar commercial fishing industry in Bristol Bay and the 14,000 jobs linked to it.
Supporters, including Pebble Limited Partnership, the investment group behind the proposed multi-billion dollar copper and gold mine, accuse the government of using “junk science” to sabotage the deal.
“Rather than allowing the filing of a mining permit application, the EPA employees secretly plotted with environmental activists to undermine the ability of land owners to objectively evaluate and develop the proposed mining of the Pebble deposit … and thereby establishing a precedent that will have long-term harmful impacts on investment and job creation in the United States,” Pebble Partnership wrote in an April 29-dated letter to the EPA.

The letter also accuses the EPA of misusing taxpayer money to “create a flawed, junk science laden report, called the Bristol Bay Assessment, designed to negatively influence government, financial markets, and public policy.”
Pebble Partnership has said the mine deposit is one of the largest of its kind in the world, with the potential of producing 80.6 billion pounds of copper and 107.4 million ounces of gold over decades.
In February, the EPA announced it was taking the first steps toward restricting the development of the mine, citing concern for a premier sockeye salmon fishery in southwest Alaska. The agency employed a rarely used veto process under the Clean Water Act that gives the government the ability to stop or slow the process."

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...mine-project-killed/

In short, the EPA heads had their minds made up and looked for ways to backup their decision. I've posted on another thread that EPA uses junk science and/or refuses to make the information they used to make a decision public -- for good reason, as they have no backup data worthy of being called scientific. Time to put the neo-Luddites of EPA on a short leash -- require all data be made public and reduce their budget to ensure they do their basic mandate and don't stray.

The email provides proof of what I and others have said about the EPA -- do confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up. There are laws and court decisions against use of junk science, no wonder EPA is afraid of being exposed to legal and public review.
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7302
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby dudejcb » Thu May 01, 2014 9:44 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
huntmmup wrote:It is really funny that you worry about birds getting baked by solar panels more than you worry about your kids and grandkids having to deal with an atmosphere full of green house gasses.


:violin: I poured some old gas on the concrete today just for you.... :hi:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Inda strikes! I spilled a little filling the lawn mower the other day :) My bad. :lol3:
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby dudejcb » Thu May 01, 2014 9:55 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:The EPA actually has a very important job to do. We all remember the stories of rivers catching fire, horrible working conditions, and pollution occuring during the industrial revolution. Those things are what brought about the EPA. It is a real and very serious issue when companies are polluting and yes, killing citizens that are downwind of their point source pollutant injection site. Stopping those activities is a function of the Federal Government. It is also a state function. They overlap in this area. The EPA using fraudulent facts, research, and other devious means to obtain a goal instead of valid and supportable research and facts diminishes their effectiveness, their moral authority, and the belief of the citizens in their enforcement actions. This leads to push back and potential deaths actually occuring that could be prevented due to fraudulent activity on the EPA's part. I for one think that the fraud in the EPA needs to be addressed fully and stringently with firings and jail time for those activities. Get them back onto solid footing and honest work for the citizens and then get any real polluters up to real measurable standards.

This is well said. However, the negative symptoms you allude to affect all organizations or bureaus, in and out of the public sector, not just the EPA. It happens at all levels of government and society. mechanisms originally set in place for the public good, are, over time, co opted to a greater or lessor degree by those it was intended to govern or regulate.

We often say this is the way of the world. But really, it's the way of people.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 01, 2014 10:42 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:The EPA actually has a very important job to do. We all remember the stories of rivers catching fire, horrible working conditions, and pollution occuring during the industrial revolution. Those things are what brought about the EPA. It is a real and very serious issue when companies are polluting and yes, killing citizens that are downwind of their point source pollutant injection site. Stopping those activities is a function of the Federal Government. It is also a state function. They overlap in this area. The EPA using fraudulent facts, research, and other devious means to obtain a goal instead of valid and supportable research and facts diminishes their effectiveness, their moral authority, and the belief of the citizens in their enforcement actions. This leads to push back and potential deaths actually occuring that could be prevented due to fraudulent activity on the EPA's part. I for one think that the fraud in the EPA needs to be addressed fully and stringently with firings and jail time for those activities. Get them back onto solid footing and honest work for the citizens and then get any real polluters up to real measurable standards.

Please post verifiable accounts of the fraudulent practices of the EPA, scaup.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby Indaswamp » Fri May 02, 2014 2:21 am

ScaupHunter wrote:The EPA actually has a very important job to do. We all remember the stories of rivers catching fire, horrible working conditions, and pollution occuring during the industrial revolution. Those things are what brought about the EPA. It is a real and very serious issue when companies are polluting and yes, killing citizens that are downwind of their point source pollutant injection site. Stopping those activities is a function of the Federal Government. It is also a state function. They overlap in this area. The EPA using fraudulent facts, research, and other devious means to obtain a goal instead of valid and supportable research and facts diminishes their effectiveness, their moral authority, and the belief of the citizens in their enforcement actions. This leads to push back and potential deaths actually occuring that could be prevented due to fraudulent activity on the EPA's part. I for one think that the fraud in the EPA needs to be addressed fully and stringently with firings and jail time for those activities. Get them back onto solid footing and honest work for the citizens and then get any real polluters up to real measurable standards.


I'm reminded of a famous Rahm Emanuel Quote....something about using the power of the federal government to "Nudge" people in the direction they want them to go.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56808
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby Rat Creek » Fri May 02, 2014 7:24 am

Glimmerjim wrote:Please post verifiable accounts of the fraudulent practices of the EPA, scaup.

How about this one as it happened to me. Not sure if you call it fraud or just idiots in action. Hardly any difference to me.

I, along with five neighbors at the Lake of the Ozarks share a septic system for our cabins. As we wanted to be sure we were not swimming with poo, we put in a modern multistage system rather than a passive system. The last stage of the five stages is to bombard the exiting water with UV light to kill anything that is left. The system is all below ground. The only thing showing is the locked power panel and locked covers (manhole covers or as you libs put it, personhole covers).

We received a threatening letter from the EPA stating we were violating the law and would be fined $10K per day :eek: if we did not “improve the waste water treatment plant.” I called to explain that we had a septic system, not a plant. :huh: The EPA thug explained that because we had a multi-stage system, we were held to the same standard as cities who have waste water plants. So, we are under the same rules as a major city with a million residents. Brilliant. :no:

To avoid the fines, we had to build a security fence around…well…nothing. :huh: The fence encloses a locked power panel and two locked personhole covers. All other systems are below ground level.

We also had to put warning signs on all sides of the fence, that encloses nothing, warning people of this non-existent waste water plant. :lol3:

We also had label the outflow that runs into some rip-rap, with a large sign that identifies it as…wait for it…outflow #001. Yes, it had to be a three digit number to be in compliance. I guess in case we decide to add 998 more outflows to our single system.

One more thing. We had to have monthly testing of the flow for three years at the price of $80 per month ($960 per year). Why? Because the EPA says these systems are untested as they have only been around for twenty years. :eek:

Now the punchline. I asked what the requirement would have been had we installed a passive system which has been demonstrated to be what is polluting the Lake of the Ozarks in some coves. The answer was there would be no requirement of any sort. Install it and forget it. No signs, no testing, no nothing.

Total bill for no reason and no benefit? $4,500 !!! Got to love Big Gov. How could we function without them? :huh:

There! That is the modern EPA in action.
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4392
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri May 02, 2014 8:23 am

Not to pick a bone here. But............ You have a septic system that drains directly to a lake? Very different regulations where you live brother. No way in hell that would fly here. The State would laugh you out of their offices if you even bothered to ask for a direct effluent discharge through rip rap to a body of water. They would require you to actually install a plant.

Bravo on the UV system and being environmentally conscientious under the regulations you abide by. :thumbsup:
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6539
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: The EPA's Science Problem

Postby Rat Creek » Fri May 02, 2014 10:50 am

The passive systems are just like all the others that have been installed forever. They have drain fields and are not supposed to drain to the lake, but the problem is people install those and forget about them, unless they back up in their house. The problems are all tied to the 50+ year old homes and their 50= year old systems. When it rains hard, you know what happens, and in those coves the e coli and other bad stuff flows downhill. The brilliant people at the EPA have no interest in monitoring the old systems. Instead, they monitor new systems which are light years ahead.

As for the discharge from a Waste Water Treatment Plant (like ours) :lol3: , any system of fully treated water can be discharged into waterways, with a permit. That is what every waste water plant in America does. Not that I plan to drink it, but per our installer, the water coming out of the new multi-stage systems is much, much cleaner than the water in the lake. :thumbsup:

But Scaup, it isn't about the environment, we just do not want to swim with poo. Not real complicated. :hi:
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4392
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests