Disturbing, very disturbing. De facto Registration in progress.

[rock jock]

In terms of worse violations of existing environmental laws? In terms of most damage to the environment? The answer to both is the same.

Also untrue.

 

[rock jock]

Trusting??? That's a stretch. Just because they do it doesn't make me trust them or not trust them in any way shape or form.

My point is, if you don't trust the govt to accomplish these basic tasks, then you are a fool for ingesting anything they are responsible for inspecting. That would be the equivalent of buying a vehicle from a company that has the worst QA/QC in the world. Would you take such a car on the highway? Of course not. You would be taking your life into your own hands.

 

[buzz_knox]

That is not true at all. Most air, groundwater, and surface water contamination in the U.S. is associated with the historical practices of private industrial and commercial enterprises.

Wanna bet on that? You think over 50 years of nuclear weapons manufacture with minimal restriction on activities for much of that time due to national security concerns didn't have a greater impact? How about the discharges from the thousands of vessels, military, and other gov't installations that were not covered for years? Let's not even talk about nuclear tests.

I grew up beside one of the largest Superfund sites in the world, Oak Ridge, TN. "Private industrial and commercial enterprises" played no role in putting a significant amount of the world's mercury supply into the groundwater in this area. And "private industrial and commercial enterprises" certainly didn't emit radiation in an amount dozens of times greater than from Three Mile Island several times a year for a few decades.

 

[buzz_knox]

Also untrue.

You'd better cite a source. You see, I've worked in the enviromental law field (including for the federal gov't) and it's status as the worst polluter isn't something that was contested too much.

 

[buzz_knox]

My point is, if you don't trust the govt to accomplish these basic tasks, then you are a fool for ingesting anything they are responsible for inspecting. That would be the equivalent of buying a vehicle from a company that has the worst QA/QC in the world. Would you take such a car on the highway? Of course not. You would be taking your life into your own hands.

What if that was the only car available? What if it was either buy that car and take the risk, or not go anywhere do anything?

You cannot imply trust when you have no real choice in the matter.

 

[buzz_knox]

rock jock, here's the fundamental disconnect. You talk about trust, when you're really talking about faith. You have faith that the gov't will do the right thing. That faith means that in the face of evidence to the contrary, you're still going to believe in the gov't.

Me? I don't. I've been involved in the gov't too long to have faith that we'll do the right thing absent the public holding us accountable. The public keeps the country safe by demanding that the gov't does the job it's required to, and follow its own regs. Absent that pressure, the desire to absolve itself of responsibility and focus on doing business (i.e. keeping itself safe and secure) is the primary concern.

 

[GhostRider66]

Interestingly enough I read an industry paper (some type of smelting process I believe) where they discovered that the EPA restrictions were actually delaying progress/updates in equipment and therefore prolonging and heightening level of air polution (arsenic I think). The gist was that most of these companies would have upgraded two or three times in the last decade to newer, faster and less poluting systems except that the EPA requirements are so strict that they would have had to upgrade the entire facility at the same time or be shut down.

 

[buzz_knox]

Interestingly enough I read an industry paper (some type of smelting process I believe) where they discovered that the EPA restrictions were actually delaying progress/updates in equipment and therefore prolonging and heightening level of air polution (arsenic I think). The gist was that most of these companies would have upgraded two or three times in the last decade to newer, faster and less poluting systems except that the EPA requirements are so strict that they would have had to upgrade the entire facility at the same time or be shut down.

Sounds like the New Source Rules controversy. Activists weren't getting the results they wanted through Congress, so they got EPA to reinterpet its regulations on NSR. EPA had for years held that modifications to an existing source was not the generation of a new source. Many companies told EPA what they were doing, and EPA agreed that there was not a new source. EPA changed the the interpretation so that the modifications were, in fact, the creation of a new source and full implementation was required. It then found companies in violation. Fortunately, courts have been seeing this scam as exactly what it is, especially given that EPA engaged in unconstitutional efforts to deny "violaters" due process and is being hoisted by its own statements contradicting its current position.

So, what was that about "trusting" the gov't?

 

[The Freeholder]

If true, yet another reason for spreading your business around.

 

[DRZinn]

Just to pick nits: faith is belief in the absence of any evidence. Belief in the face of contrary evidence is idiocy.

 

[Guns_and_Labs]

Let's say I lived in a state like CA where they only allow us peasants to purchase one handgun per month anyway.

That's for dealer sales. FTF has no such limit. I just bought three of Mr. Browning's finest from an estate. I filed the multiple purchase form and am waiting for my local chief to come by and try to get me to sell him one of them.