You got to be F-ing kidding me? 20 replies

Please wait...

emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#1 9 years ago

Thank You George W. Bush for getting on your knees and earning your corporate payed salary.

Lets start with this little tid bit

Scientific studies have found that lead is dangerous at much lower levels in the human body than previously thought. The studies show that children's nervous systems are especially vulnerable, and that lead exposure can result in IQ loss and damage to many internal systems.

So what does the White House do?

WASHINGTON — After the White House intervened, the Environmental Protection Agency last week weakened a rule on airborne lead standards at the last minute so that fewer known polluters would have their emissions monitored.

The EPA on Oct. 16 announced that it would dramatically reduce the highest acceptable amount of airborne lead from 1.5 micrograms of lead per cubic meter to 0.15 micrograms. It was the first revision of the standard since EPA set it 30 years ago.

Hey G.W. why dont you save us the trouble of poisoning us and just use a fucking bullet and save some of that taxpayer money thats disappearing faster than a coke line at a GOP fundraiser.




Dot Com

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

26th June 2000

0 Uploads

6,116 Posts

0 Threads

#2 9 years ago

Uh, link or it never happened.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#3 9 years ago

I'm somewhat confused. The way it's worded in the second paragraph it sounds like it's saying they are lowering what is considered the highest acceptable amount of airborne lead from 1.5 to .15 but the first paragraph makes it sound like the opposite.

Edit: Uh, wait, what is the complaint? I did some looking around and the EPA is TIGHTENING it's standards. States have five years to comply with the new standard.




[130.Pz]I.Kluge

Smile!

50 XP

3rd October 2006

0 Uploads

272 Posts

0 Threads

#4 9 years ago

It basically means(From what the paragraphs say), lower levels of lead cause more damage than a higher one. White house jumps on this and lowers lead output to low levels, in so actually endangering all of us.

A link to the source of the research would be appreciated.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#5 9 years ago
Tank-Hunter;4647712It basically means(From what the paragraphs say), lower levels of lead cause more damage than a higher one. White house jumps on this and lowers lead output to low levels, in so actually endangering all of us.

That is so wrong. No, the first quote is saying that lead is simply more poisonous than thought, so that even small amounts can be severely damaging. Not that small amounts are worse than high amounts.




[130.Pz]I.Kluge

Smile!

50 XP

3rd October 2006

0 Uploads

272 Posts

0 Threads

#6 9 years ago
Afterburner;4647713That is so wrong. No, the first quote is saying that lead is simply more poisonous than thought, so that even small amounts can be severely damaging. Not that small amounts are worse than high amounts.

Well I got that from this.

lead is dangerous at much lower levels in the human body than previously thought



[130.Pz]I.Kluge

Smile!

50 XP

3rd October 2006

0 Uploads

272 Posts

0 Threads

#7 9 years ago

I guess I read it wrong....:confused:

lead is dangerous at much lower levels in the human body than previously thought



Nittany Tiger Forum Mod

*Shrug*

289,095 XP

15th September 2004

0 Uploads

27,136 Posts

0 Threads

#8 9 years ago

Ahh, just like everything causes cancer (actually, I think they ran out of things to point at to blame for cancer). Medical science is dynamic, so it's hard to set standards when we find out one fact one year and another, possibly opposite, fact the next.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#9 9 years ago

Sorry, so angry over this that I forgot to post link. It was buried rather quickly, took me some searching to find it.

EPA weakens new lead rule after White House objects - Yahoo! News

The point of the article is that the amount of lead thought needed to cause physical harm in the body has been found to be much lower than previously thought.

Knowing this you would think the White House would raise the lead standard so as to reduce lead pollutants even more. Instead they lowered the standard endangering even more people by allowing the lead content to go higher and requiring less monitoring.

IMHO this is criminal.

EPA documents show that until the afternoon of Oct. 15 , a court-imposed deadline for issuing the revised standard, the EPA proposed to require a monitor for any facility that emitted half a ton of lead or more a year.

The e-mails indicate that the White House objected, and in the early evening of Oct. 15 the EPA set the level at 1 ton a year instead.

According to EPA documents, 346 sites have emissions of half a ton a year or more. Raising the threshold to a ton reduced the number of monitored sites by 211, or more than 60 percent.

The EPA also required states to place monitors in areas with populations of 500,000 or more. But the Natural Resources Defense Council , an environmental group that pushed for tougher lead standards to protect public health, said that a single monitor in a large city was different from a monitor placed near a plant.




Razgriz1928

Strength Through Progress

50 XP

26th October 2007

0 Uploads

1,694 Posts

0 Threads

#10 9 years ago
Killer Kyle;4647730Ahh, just like everything causes cancer (actually, I think they ran out of things to point at to blame for cancer). Medical science is dynamic, so it's hard to set standards when we find out one fact one year and another, possibly opposite, fact the next.

Yeah we can never be truly sure.