Author Topic: Alert,,, WMD has been Found in ALaska (Read 935 times)

slimm50 · « **Reply #30 on:** January 24, 2005, 02:43:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Environmentalists are stuck in the 50's where oil exploration is concerned. Modern drilling has a very low environmental impact. Companies today go to great legnths to minimalize the effects of drilling. Most modern locations, you would never know a rig had been there at all.

I agree with RPM here. Most environmentalists are woefully ignorant of modern technology, and of how corporate mentality has evolved since the 50s.

john9001 · « **Reply #31 on:** January 24, 2005, 02:45:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
lmao.... care to share?

no, i don't , it would take too much typing to explain in detail what happened and you still would not belive me. And i do not have a "offical" source so i can not "prove" anything.

Charon · « **Reply #32 on:** January 24, 2005, 02:52:08 PM »

Quote

EPA does things like set salinity limits of wastewater that are lower than those for drinking water... When I explained that the treatment (if even possible) to get to that level would raise everones sewer bill to as much as $150 a month for this dubious "improvement" in wastewater.....I was told by a representative that $150 a month was not too much to pay to protect the environment. Under their plan.... If you pumped water out of the ground and then let it just spill back onto the land you would be in violation and a gross polluter.

I used to work for the Water Quality Association which represented people like Culligan International. Water softener discharge was always a big issue in parts of California for that very reaon. The association filed a number of suits to get bans overturned, though, as I remember, most of those were against local communities. Our association PE was ex EPA, and he gave me an early education on how the agency works.

Charon

Raider179 · « **Reply #33 on:** January 24, 2005, 03:53:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
no, i don't , it would take too much typing to explain in detail what happened and you still would not belive me. And i do not have a "offical" source so i can not "prove" anything.

then why bother posting at all.

rpm · « **Reply #34 on:** January 24, 2005, 06:45:08 PM »

You misread my last post. I was not talking about any cover-up at TMI. I was referring to the SL-1 reactor in Idaho that exploded in 1961. linkage

lazs2 · « **Reply #35 on:** January 25, 2005, 08:50:29 AM »

I would like to ban certain "types" of water softeners in my community (ones that don't recover the brine). the reason being that the EPA is making it impossible for me to do anything else. The city gets the blame while the 3 hippie professional students that wield the power of life or death over as many as 60 communities are never brought to task.

When people see how much the EPA is really costing them there will be a big shakeup.... It will be reminicent of the way the IRS gets a little nicer and whenever a flat tax is on the table or how the DMV gets more polite whenever privatization is mentioned.

lazs

Charon · « **Reply #36 on:** January 25, 2005, 09:25:37 AM »

Quote

I would like to ban certain "types" of water softeners in my community (ones that don't recover the brine). the reason being that the EPA is making it impossible for me to do anything else. The city gets the blame while the 3 hippie professional students that wield the power of life or death over as many as 60 communities are never brought to task.

I can certainly understand that. Is it just the EPA in California or do you have a state Water board that runs its own agenda in addition to the feds? I know where air quality is concerned CARB tends to be out in front of the feds.

Charon

rpm · « **Reply #37 on:** January 25, 2005, 10:20:29 AM »

Lazs, I figured you'd be more up in arms over the MTBE fiasco. The EPA caused more contamination and has done more long term damage to the environment than the reactor accident at TMI by forcing the use of MTBE in gasoline.

The EPA is a friend of business, not citizens. Try filing a complaint sometime and just see the wall of red tape and deaf ears that you will encounter while the polluter keeps doing business as usual.

Raider179 · « **Reply #38 on:** January 25, 2005, 10:50:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dune
Just as an FYI, as I heard it explained.

We won't ever run out of oil. The problem is that it will cease to be economically feasible to extract it. The example used was a room full of peanuts. Eventually it would be so hard to find any that haven't been eaten that there wouldn't be any point to looking.

This is my current understanding of the oil situation as well Dune.

Charon · « **Reply #39 on:** January 25, 2005, 10:55:37 AM »

Quote

Lazs, I figured you'd be more up in arms over the MTBE fiasco. The EPA caused more contamination and has done more long term damage to the environment than the reactor accident at TMI by forcing the use of MTBE in gasoline.

There are a lot of people you can point a finger at for that one, from EPA to the ethanol mfgs to the oil industry.

In a nutshell, the oil industry asked to be allowed to meet a goal using it's own solutions but ended up being told HOW to meet the goal. The ethanol industry pushed and won an "oxygenate" mandate from EPA (with the assumption that ethanol would be a primary oxygenate). Oxygenates were a solution to a problem that was largely disappearing through the use of oxygen sensors in cars. It is useful, however, in limited CO non-attainment areas ("wintertime" reformulated gasolines).

However, ethanol is very hard to work with since you can't ship it blended (or alone) in standard pipelines. The oil industry promoted MTBE as an effective alternative. However, if given the choice they could have met the ozone/smog standards without an oxygenate. Now, there are problems with MTBE (though the extent beyond taste and odor have not been established).

About par for the course where Washington is concerned. Since the marginal to negative clean air benefits of oxygenates are getting established and publicly understood , the ethanol lobby is now pushing the "foreign oil" angle, which aslo has a hard time adding up.

Charon

Charon · « **Reply #40 on:** January 25, 2005, 10:56:40 AM »

ugh, dbl post

lazs2 · « **Reply #41 on:** January 25, 2005, 02:48:02 PM »

I was very much against mtbe when it came out. I even attended a very large protest at the capital and did the letter writing thing.

The EPA is willing to accept any science no matter how fraudulent so long as it gives them more control and grows their power.

The EPA controls the water quality control board, parts of fish and game, and carb. They will soon be in every single aspect of our daily lives and making everything they touch turn to ****.

lazs

oboe · « **Reply #42 on:** January 25, 2005, 02:58:10 PM »

For the unfamiliar, the MTBE problem is that it is a hydrocarbon that is water soluble - therefore when this is added to gasoline, if a gas storage tank leaks the MTBE mixes with the groundwater and contaminates it. And I believe the ratio is such that a very very small quantity of MTBE can contaminates very very large amounts of water. Since its water soluble, cleanup of the groundwater is impossible, or at least prohibitively expensive?

Did I describe the gist of the problem?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #43 on:** January 28, 2005, 02:03:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by genozaur
I love this story.
Step one: the voice of the people says 'Let's protect Mother Nature.
Step two: 'Let's do it' says the federal government, and makes the land a federal sanctuary.
Step three: 'Let's do it' says the government and starts oil drilling in this NOW FEDERAL land .

On October 18, 1867, when the US federal government purchased Alaska from the Czar, Alaska was completely owned by the US federal government.

58% of Alaska is presently owned federally, 29% is owned by the State of Alaska.