Great Lakes Scientist says, “If We Lose The EPA, We Lose Lake Erie”

Users who are viewing this thread

Terry

The Plumbing Wizard
Staff member
Messages
29,942
Reaction score
3,458
Points
113
Location
Bothell, Washington
Website
terrylove.com
http://www.greatlakesnow.org/2017/0...st-says-if-we-lose-the-epa-we-lose-lake-erie/

"Lake Erie is important not just for its drinking water, beaches, swimming and boating, but for its fish. The number of anglers on Lake Erie is greater than any other of the Great Lakes.

The lake, unfortunately, is famous for getting so polluted in the late 1960’s, one of its tributaries caught fire. The incident helped lead to the formation of the EPA, the Clean Water Act and other regulatory agencies and regulations."

Richard Nixon was the Environmental Protection Agency/Founder
Born in the wake of elevated concern about environmental pollution, the EPA was established on December 2, 1970.
https://www.epa.gov/History
 

Gary Swart

In the Trades
Messages
8,101
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Location
Yakima, WA
The so-called "conservative" party should change its name to the "destruction" party. Conserve means to save or preserve which is exactly the opposite of the republican party stands for today. The sort of remind me of the ancient Vikings that plundered England and the coast of Europe. It was all for the wealth. Republicans do not care a fig about what the earth will be like after a few more years of uncontrolled mining, river and lake pollution, fracking, and oil spills. Their no rules policies are designed to enrich the already wealthy and to hell with the rest of the people and the rest of the world.
 

Stuff

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,221
Reaction score
130
Points
63
Location
Pennsylvania
It is simply that the me generation has finally taken over. The me generation moniker was describing a culture of narcissism. It is normal that once the previous generation has retired the next generation influences the government to support their views. That has happened. Unfortunately conserve is not part of the vocabulary of this generation. "Conservative" is part of the vocabulary but now means "everything for me."
 

WorthFlorida

Clinical Trail on a Cancer Drug Started 1/31/24. ☹
Messages
5,727
Solutions
1
Reaction score
982
Points
113
Location
Orlando, Florida
Not only Lake Erie, perhaps Seattle also. Problems of Lake Erie are very similar to Lake Okeechobee in Florida. The EPA, Army Core of Engineers and the state conservationist are in constant battle on how to fix it and maintain it.
 

Jadnashua

Retired Defense Industry Engineer xxx
Messages
32,770
Reaction score
1,190
Points
113
Location
New England
But, but, it will make things easier for companies to make money! That must be good! I am very disgusted with the direction things are taking...and, no I did not vote for those currently in charge but I did vote.

For those that may not know, Lake Erie is quite shallow as opposed to the other Great Lakes which can easily exceed 1000' deep in places - sometimes lots deeper, Lake Erie is barely 60' deep across most of it so there is very little water to dilute anything that is dumped into it. Seems the current administration doesn't seem to understand that smaller streams become bigger streams that eventually dump into things, and if you don't protect all of those smaller areas, the aggregate of them is major pollution...control has to start somewhere, and that is the main thing that is being contested...small streams verses large, navigable waterways...you can't keep them viable if you don't manage the small ones, too! That logic seems to evade those now in charge.
 

Terry

The Plumbing Wizard
Staff member
Messages
29,942
Reaction score
3,458
Points
113
Location
Bothell, Washington
Website
terrylove.com
In the Seattle area, the water in Lake Washington was so bad that parents wouldn't let their kids swim in it. And it happened quickly. In the 40's, my parents had a home on the water, like a Summer cabin. They pumped water from the lake for their drinking water. It was just a pipe out about thirty feet into the lake. The water was very clear and clean in the 40's.

By the 60's, the water was so dirty that swimming even a few feet down made you invisible to anyone above. You could swim underwater and miss someone underwater by a few feet and not be seen. It was great for ball tag. Not so good for the fish though.
Forward Thrust was passed to spend money on sewer systems in Seattle and Bellevue. I remember all over the Eastside roads being dug up and sewer lines being installed with man hole covers. With all of that, there were able to clean the lake up and now nobody worries about swimming in it.

It really does make an enormous difference when we take care of our environment. I remember Los Angeles in the 70's, and trying to see the hills. They were lost in the smog. I would be told that back in the day, that they were so beautiful to see. That would have been something my grandfather might have seen in the 1800's before he left for the gold rush in Alaska. He was originally from Riverside.

When I traveled to India, the skies would be smokey from the brick making. Someone was making money, and the air was dirty. In the last year, I read that they warned people in Dehli to stay indoors because of the air pollution. Right! Everybody walks everwhere there. Were people supposed to not go to work? Not having clean air and water is a huge hit on any economy. I had to be so careful of where I drank water, or what food I ate.

The USA is a first world country because of our air and our water. Lose that, and we become like any other third world country where being sick is considered normal.

I did catch the line tonight, that for every new regulation, they would remove two.
How many regulations are they gunning for? I'm trying to picture us as Guatamala and what that would look like.

Here is an update on a bill that congress passed last week
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/the-most-dangerous-bill-y_b_14067390.html?
 
Last edited:

Jacobsond

DIY Junior Member
Messages
105
Reaction score
10
Points
18
Location
Fairmount, North Dakota
Website
www.nielsenelectric.com
Stop drinking the coolade of fake inaccurate news. There are going to be changes in the EPA to take away some of the rules that delay or deny stuff. Are are lakes and waterways going to be poisoned by the evil Trump people that want to ruin the earth. Get real.Those of us that think that the EPA has overreached it purpose still want and demand clean air and water. The government has regulations on top of regulations on top of even more regulations. These regulations are put in place by un-elected career people that make their life and career out of thinking about more regulations and red tape.
 

Stuff

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,221
Reaction score
130
Points
63
Location
Pennsylvania
I don't understand how you can "want and demand clean air and water" but at the same time think that less regulation is OK. With less regulation how will you know if you have clean air and water? With less regulation we would have never know that Flint had a lead problem. Or do you not believe that lead and other contaminates are a problem?

I go back to the me generation and the narcissistic attitude. It is much easier and cheaper for an individual to pollute than try to clean up the pollution after it is released. It is much easier and cheaper for society to not pollute than try to clean up the pollution after it is released.

The regulations are administered by career people but under direction of congress. If congress says stop looking at what gets dumped into a stream then they stop looking.
 

Rayh78

Member
Messages
98
Reaction score
3
Points
8
Location
Colonial Heights, Virginia
Stuff,

Think there is a lot of fake news.
Less regulation does not mean water and air testing will end. These are very common and easy to do test. That people will still do even if you read some fake news they will become illegal to do. Never going to happen.
There is such a thing as over regulation of anything.
What if every toilet flapper change out required a permit first. Yes stupid, but just shows there can be a thing as over regulation. And don't think anyone is really thinking the EPA will close down or we will lose it.
Now it seems popular to support bloated government. Already takes 2 or 3 government workers to do one job like the private sector.
 

Bluebinky

Member
Messages
588
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
Des Moines, WA
I'm trying to be optimistic here. We need more regulations for the things that really matter, and less for the things that don't. The key, I think, is the the regulations need to be simpler and easier to comply with. A clean and healthy place to live should be everyone's top priority. We can do that and still have our "toys" and do fun things.

My main house, south of Seattle, was on a failed septic system. I've spent over $10,000 in fees, environmental studies, and such to try to hook up to the city sewer. Now the city says that "the computer model shows that there are salmon in that stream you want to dig up". Well, about 40 years of experience says that there are no fish in the irrigation channel that I personally dug by hand in the 70s. What the state licensed environmental scientist says in writing to back me up carries no weight because the elevation changes to gradually according to the incorrect radar images done years ago. Now I'm out of money to spend on it. Strange how the lateral lines just replaced themselves one Sunday.

Anyway, in four years, we will be so sick of this guy that we'll probably end up being even stupider by voting communist...
 

Jadnashua

Retired Defense Industry Engineer xxx
Messages
32,770
Reaction score
1,190
Points
113
Location
New England
People need to realize that no law is going to please everyone, and writing one that is not ambiguous and perfectly clear is harder than most people think. As a result, to get across the nuances of the intent, and try to clarify the numerous ways to interpret it, it can become complex. That doesn't make it wrong or right, it's somewhat a result of the lawyers we have and the special interests various groups have to bend the law to their advantage.

Hopefully, we can all agree that polluting our air and water is not a good thing. What this administration is pushing, though, appears to be a much less restrictive cost-benefit factor. Example...lead in water is not good, but how much is okay? The problem is, as research continues, we find that what we thought was okay, now isn't. So, if it cost millions to save a few people from it, is that cost worth it to society? That's the big question that this administration is trying to equate - put a cost on it, and then, you have the moral and maybe legal problem of is it worth it to injure someone for someone else's profits? How much is health and life worth?

Another example...there is quite strong evidence that fracking is causing numerous earthquakes, some of which are causing damage not counting the subsistence of the land created by extracting that oil. Some states have moved to limit the use of that technique. Should the extraction of that extra gas and oil be worth it to cause damage to life and property? Is the cost of not doing it worth the benefit? These can be tough decisions...this administration appears to be shifting from conservatism to optimism...if it makes money, it must be good. The little guy is likely to get left on the short end of the stick.

The problem, as I see it, is it takes years and decades to build up the 'defenses, so to speak' and maybe days to delete them, often, with little discussion on the ramifications. With the large number of billionaires in the cabinet, the guidance does not seem to be in the court of the little guy. Even some of the oil companies are now hedging their bets that fossil fuels and CO2 is causing problems, and they're diversifying into other things. Denying it as even a possibility is fraught with potential problems, and looking for alternatives that are sustainable has advantages for all should at least be kept in the thinking process. There's enough solar in just a portion of the southwest of the USA such that if there were a good distribution system and storage, we'd not need to use any fossil fuels for heating and electrical use at all in this country. Not researching and supporting alternative energy sources is foolish. There's enough uranium dissolved in the oceans to provide reliable nuclear for 10,000 years (and maybe a few centuries in known land mines), but little research has been done on safe nuclear reactors that are safe and reliable. Putting all of our eggs in one basket is problematic. Just look at the ice sheet in Antarctica - big chunks breaking off. The last one about the size of Delaware, and significant cracks in other sections. The Arctic, navigable now for a good portion of the year. The water coming off the glaciers in Greenland is easily detected and increasing rapidly. But, global warming doesn't exist.
 

3jakes

New Member
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
South Central PA
There's enough solar in just a portion of the southwest of the USA such that if there were a good distribution system and storage, we'd not need to use any fossil fuels for heating and electrical use at all in this country.

If someone wanted to finance that grid & build it from the southwest up to Maine, I feel certain the EPA would be first in line to slow down if not stop outright the construction.
 

DougB

Member
Messages
341
Reaction score
22
Points
18
Location
Minneapolis - Land of 10,000 taxes
But, but, it will make things easier for companies to make money! That must be good! I am very disgusted with the direction things are taking...and, no I did not vote for those currently in charge but I did vote.

Times have changed since the 1960's - everyone is much more aware of the environment, auto safety, you name it. There are now rules, filtering / treating for discharging water. These water ways have been cleaned up. We can continue to monitor and grant permits, but perhaps we don't need all the bureaucracy. The government has to get smaller - otherwise it will consume us.

I'd get rid of the Education Department.
 

Stuff

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,221
Reaction score
130
Points
63
Location
Pennsylvania
I keep hearing the call for fewer regulations but very few concrete examples of regulations that are OK to repeal. As above there are specific examples of where the interpretation of regulations is questioned, not the regulation itself.

I disagree that everyone is more aware. Lots still saying there is no such thing as global warming/climate change. Still many that refuse to wear seat belts. Probably most impacting this site: Drano is still being poured down drains.
 

DougB

Member
Messages
341
Reaction score
22
Points
18
Location
Minneapolis - Land of 10,000 taxes
Lots still saying there is no such thing as global warming/climate change.

The climate has been changing forever. I'm in Minneapolis, where there was atleast one mile of glacial ice, about 12,000 years ago. That ice melted! How was that possible? Oh it got warmer. I guess it got warmer cause the Eskimo's were smoking.

Maybe you can tell me what the 'right' temperature is - for every square mile on the globe? Then it should never vary. All that ice age stuff will never happen again. You really believe your own BS?
 

DougB

Member
Messages
341
Reaction score
22
Points
18
Location
Minneapolis - Land of 10,000 taxes
With less regulation we would have never know that Flint had a lead problem.

The water tested OK. The problem was the pipes in the homes. Flint has gone downhill, high unemployment, many abandon homes. Do you think they are going to spend millions ripping out plumbing in homes that are falling down?

This water testing is a joke. Minneapolis tests our water a zillion times a day - and the costs keep going up (on the water bill). The problem is they test it at the water works. The miles and miles of old, rusty pipes, deliver, to some folks, water that looks like ice tea - cause there's so much rust.

They relined the mains in my neighborhood, and it got somewhat better (but there is still rust, from the miles and miles of mains that supply us). Luckily, I'm handy, and I installed a large Aqua Pure whole house filter. I have to use more expensive 2 micron filters - 2 sets of 4 a year - about $150.

So the water tests fine, we pay up the butt for the testing, and get this product. So much for rules and regulations.
 
Last edited:

CountryBumkin

Active Member
Messages
915
Reaction score
70
Points
28
Location
Orlando, FL
Nothing gets friendly people fighting faster than talking politics.
I thought this was a Plumbing forum. How can I be expected to take the advice from a (pick your evil). :D
I suggest this thread be moved to Terry's Corner before someone gets hurt.

Now back to talking about crap!
 

DougB

Member
Messages
341
Reaction score
22
Points
18
Location
Minneapolis - Land of 10,000 taxes
Example...lead in water is not good, but how much is okay? The problem is, as research continues, we find that what we thought was okay, now isn't.

Ya know, pay enough money, and you can get a study with any results you want. Life expectancy keeps increasing, yet we find boogeymen like: picograms of lead to be harmful. It's gotten to the point where they don't allow any? maybe a trace of lead in the brass castings. People have been drinking water through brass faucets for over 120 years. It's the mindset that creates regulations like this - that needs to go.
 

Jadnashua

Retired Defense Industry Engineer xxx
Messages
32,770
Reaction score
1,190
Points
113
Location
New England
The water tested OK. The problem was the pipes in the homes.
It's fairly obvious if you know any chemistry, that water is considered the universal solvent...given enough time, it can dissolve most anything. Aligned with that, it's particular 'pollutants' have known characteristics. What was ignored in Flint was the treatment of that water to prevent it from releasing the lead that was known to be in some of those pipes. They did this to save some money. The previous water supplier understood that, treated the water so that it wouldn't release the lead, but it cost more, and those that took over decided it was fine to omit it to save some money...guess who lost? Ignoring the past history means, often, that you're bound to repeat the mistakes. The current laws on the books took years to develop and implement. how long before we realize we're making mistakes again by arbitrarily repealing many of those regs? Just looking at the cost and not understanding the benefits is problematic.

The issue, as I see it with our current spate of climate change is the speed with which it is happening. From what we can decipher from things in the past, those changes took centuries and were very gradual. 16 out of the last 17 years have progressively been hotter than the year before. That does indicate a troubling trend. There's a huge amount of methane trapped in the tundra of the world that appears to be now being released at a rapidly increasing rate...much worse than CO2 as a greenhouse effect, and that could accelerate things beyond what we currently think is happening.

One has to take the big picture...not a narrow, personal one.
 
Top
Hey, wait a minute.

This is awkward, but...

It looks like you're using an ad blocker. We get it, but (1) terrylove.com can't live without ads, and (2) ad blockers can cause issues with videos and comments. If you'd like to support the site, please allow ads.

If any particular ad is your REASON for blocking ads, please let us know. We might be able to do something about it. Thanks.
I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks