Abortion vs. Air Pollution.

[techs]

I am not intending this as a debate on abortion. I was just wondering why so many people who oppose abortion don't support things like environmental protection and health care for children? I know many do, but it seems that is a secondary concern for many at best. Yet it is an area which change can come about through law and not a constitutional amendment.

[Ya_know]

Polution sucks! Ok, next thread...

[Orangeman]

First, let me say this forum is a great idea. Now we can duke it out all we want..:D

Second, Air, water, and environmental pollution is a greater problem than abortion. Lets worry about the living first....:D

[Major Kong]

Welpers I don't oppose abortion and I do oppose pollution big big (of course my livelyhood deals with it day to day, but more on the Hazardous Waste and Oil Pollution Prevention front - SPCC for those in the know - oops back to reviewing my MSDS's to figure out where I'm a sendin' all these old lab chemicals - I sure wish them lab folks would clean out their cabinets more often than once every 10 years :mad: ).

[Wayward Clam]

Yeah, everybody agrees pollution sucks.

But can we agree on what to do about it?

That, I seriously doubt.

[Ya_know]

Yeah, everybody agrees pollution sucks.

But can we agree on what to do about it?

That, I seriously doubt.

Well, what do we do?

[techs]

I was just wondering why the Right to Lifers were not generally considered to be supporters of things like pollution control and health care. It just seems strange to be so concerned about the unborn while being less concerned about the living. I just had that thought recently. I think it came from Clintons address at the convention when he reported that almost 25 percent of children in Harlem, NYCity have asthma.

[Wayward Clam]

All right, I throw these into the ring:

1. Electric cars,

2. More solar and wind power.

I've yet to hear convincing arguments AGAINST these being things we should make widespread.

[Major Kong]

Well it all depends on the type of pollution your talkin' about? With Air Pollution you are actually talking about 2 different types of sources. One is fugitive and the other is point source. To be honest about the best control for fugitive sources is proper grading and revegetation. Of course paving or concreting the area has the sme effect too. If your talking point source - what y'all lay folks call stack emissions - well there are several options depending on the process your trying to control. Wet scrubbers, either venturi's or dynamic, are very good at taking Particulate Matter down to 2.5 microns out of the air (called PM2.5) at about a 95% removal rate. For PM10 it's about 99%. These are very good for dry dust sources. Now for individual metals and gases like SOx and NOx baghouses are very efficient, but they have to be properly maintained. As a tertiary measure the tried and true electrostatic precipitators (ESP's) are very effective. Other factors that can be included concerns feed stocks and modifying specific internal processes to either eliminate or minimize emissions. For instance using low sulfer fuels in boilers and generators, or using a more pure feedstock if available. Overall though it depends on the industry and the process you want to control.
Water Pollution is actually much easier, but that's a whole other topic.

[Orangeman]

I was just wondering why the Right to Lifers were not generally considered to be supporters of things like pollution control and health care. It just seems strange to be so concerned about the unborn while being less concerned about the living.



The Pro-Lifers couldn't care less about the quality of life for a baby's life once its born. They're the same people who are against free heath insurance for poor people.

You hit the nail on the head, what they're really concerned about is Women being sexually aggressive. They're against Women's Lib & against poor people... :thumbs:

[imaeditedbysowulo]

All right, I throw these into the ring:

1. Electric cars,

2. More solar and wind power.

I've yet to hear convincing arguments AGAINST these being things we should make widespread.


Electric car manufacturers should be given some type of tax break or incentive in order to produce them. Anyone that buys them should get some type of break too. Maybe free batteries or whatever those things need to keep goin, or maybe you don't charge them for the electricty it takes to charge them or discount it. Who knows, there are a bunch of things that could be done but won't because the oil companies rule this world.

As for the rest of the pollution, that should be decided by the scientists that actually understand the cause and effects and ramifications of all the different pollutants we have created. They know what they are talking about, so on pollution they are the ones we should be listening to.

Kinda like scientists and stem cell research but that's a different thread.

[Duke of Rezin]

We have taxpayer funded abortion on the grounds that by not providing abortion assistance the patient's First Amendment rights would be infringed, as the cost of an abortion might be prohibitive. So why don't we have taxpayer funded guns? The purchase price of many firearms is roughly equivalent to the cost of an abortion. Aren't are Second Amendment rights being denied by the prohibitive cost of firearms?

[Major Kong]

As for the rest of the pollution, that should be decided by the scientists that actually understand the cause and effects and ramifications of all the different pollutants we have created. They know what they are talking about, so on pollution they are the ones we should be listening to.

In 25 years of being an environmental professional I can honestly say that I have met exactly zero scientist who even remotely understand the concept of pollution controls, how they work and how to implement them. That responsibility is in the purview of the Environmental Engineer and the ***** of the Environmental Technician! :thumbs: :thumbs:

[TripleRLtd]

In 25 years of being an environmental professional I can honestly say that I have met exactly zero scientist who even remotely understand the concept of pollution controls, how they work and how to implement them. That responsibility is in the purview of the Environmental Engineer and the ***** of the Environmental Technician! :thumbs: :thumbs:Sorry Major, but THEY are all political activists, too. Sad, this world is. That EVERYTHING revolves around politics and PACS. Oh, and who, in fact, is supporting your research efforts...http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/sad2.gif
BTW, Duke:
We have taxpayer funded abortion on the grounds that by not providing abortion assistance the patient's First Amendment rights would be infringed, as the cost of an abortion might be prohibitive. So why don't we have taxpayer funded guns? The purchase price of many firearms is roughly equivalent to the cost of an abortion. Aren't are Second Amendment rights being denied by the prohibitive cost of firearms? WHAT????http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Major Kong]

Sorry Major, but THEY are all political activists, too. Sad, this world is. That EVERYTHING revolves around politics and PACS. Oh, and who, in fact, is supporting your research efforts...http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/sad2.gif

Nope not in my realm. Like I said I've been an Environmental Engineer (yes I actually have a degree and I are an injunear) and I've dealt with zero scientist in all of my years. Hard to believe I know, but true. As a matter of fact, sorry I can't provide a link, I have actually been involved in two national technical committees - one on Toxic Release Inventory Guidance (we actually wrote the industry guidance that the EPA incorporated into their "official guidance") and the other on the proper handling of secondary materials for Phase IV Land Disposal Restrictions (deals with 40 CFR 268 regulations). Neither one of these committees was there a scientist in the vicinity.
Now that being said I will agree with you that scientist are very instrumental in other aspects within the Environmental regulatory world, but that is outside my realm and what I'm writing about here. I deal with the how to control not the why do we have to control. Sorta like strategy and tactics. The strategy is the what, the tactical is the how. I'm a pollution tactitian whose favorite acronym is BADCT! :D :thumbs:

We in the industry call it Bad Cat. :)

[TripleRLtd]

Sorry Major, I didn't mean to make it sound like I was questioning your "ethics". Of course it's not in your realm. You have education and 'sense"!! But, ANYTHING with a political connotation is going to involve those with "big bucks" who support the "so called" research. For "their" own reasons of course: and usually, they are political, in one way or another. THAT is what is so sad!!! That even scientists and scholars are bought out on a daily basis!! So: who can one trust??

[Major Kong]

So: who can one trust??

Why us injunears of course!!! :thumbs2: :thumbs2:

[TripleRLtd]

Why us injunears of course!!! :thumbs2: :thumbs2:Computer "INJUNEARS", too!!http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
Right???
I think so, anyway.....
http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[meatwad]

The Pro-Lifers couldn't care less about the quality of life for a baby's life once its born. They're the same people who are against free heath insurance for poor people.

You hit the nail on the head, what they're really concerned about is Women being sexually aggressive. They're against Women's Lib & against poor people... :thumbs:

I'm lost. Was that a joke or a serious comment?

[Cleetus]

I'm lost. Was that a joke or a serious comment?
I'm betting on serious. Honestly, I have only met one person that is a pro-lifer that is also very opposed to the death penalty.

[paraflyer]

All that previous chat about electric cars, has ANYONE on the Enviro side figured out what the owners are to do to charge their battery packs?

Can't build more nuke plants.

Hydrogen for fuel cells......OK, so there's a mass amount of hydrogen developed and put into storage somewhere....just lemme find a match. BOOM! Instant bad day.

Solar cells....waay too inefficient at the moment, plus what do you do on cloudy days?

Wind Power? Gotta put up with the NIMBYs, can't have the windmills blocking their view.

Not that I'm trying to be totally negative, but it's a valid point.

[amyb]

"Right to Lifers", interesting. Those "right to lifers" extremists think that blowing up an abortion clinic is "for their cause/mission in life", yet they injure/kill the people who go in their to get help and the people who work there.

[meatwad]

I'm betting on serious. Honestly, I have only met one person that is a pro-lifer that is also very opposed to the death penalty.

I don't agree with the death penalty in probably 99% of the cases that it's used, just like I don't agree with abortion in 99% of the cases that it's used.

I think that someone who is pro-abortion/anti-death penalty makes less sence than someone who is anti-abortion/pro-deat penalty.

[Wayward Clam]

All that previous chat about electric cars, has ANYONE on the Enviro side figured out what the owners are to do to charge their battery packs?

Can't build more nuke plants.

Hydrogen for fuel cells......OK, so there's a mass amount of hydrogen developed and put into storage somewhere....just lemme find a match. BOOM! Instant bad day.

Solar cells....waay too inefficient at the moment, plus what do you do on cloudy days?

Wind Power? Gotta put up with the NIMBYs, can't have the windmills blocking their view.

Not that I'm trying to be totally negative, but it's a valid point.

No, it's not.

Solar cells and wind power are both FINE. The problems with them aren't technological or environmental they are ECONOMIC. Business won't get behind them for the exact same reason they won't get behind electric cars--they can't make money off the process.

As for the NIMBYs, you'll find it a hell of a lot easier to convince them about windmills than nuclear reactors or stored hydrogen!

The one natural resource that both Canada and the USA have in plenty is OPEN LAND.

[paraflyer]

No, it's not.

Solar cells and wind power are both FINE. The problems with them aren't technological or environmental they are ECONOMIC. Business won't get behind them for the exact same reason they won't get behind electric cars--they can't make money off the process.

As for the NIMBYs, you'll find it a hell of a lot easier to convince them about windmills than nuclear reactors or stored hydrogen!

The one natural resource that both Canada and the USA have in plenty is OPEN LAND.

Perhaps, but most engineers don't even want to think of erecting wind turbines in Tornado Alley, either......

As for said NIMBYs, there was a proposal to have one setup in Massachusetts, and the project died because John Q. Public decided they didn't look nice, obstructed the view, etc.....