The EPA Is Killing America

This week the EPA released their plan to make energy prices skyrocket, even as they were dumping three million gallons of highly toxic waste into the Colorado River drainage,

They have become a very expensive and extremely destructive agency under Barack Obama, and need to be terminated.

People kayak in the Animas River near Durango, Colo., Thursday, Aug. 6, 2015, in water colored from a mine waste spill. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said that a cleanup team was working with heavy equipment Wednesday to secure an entrance to the Gold King Mine. Workers instead released an estimated 1 million gallons of mine waste into Cement Creek, which flows into the Animas River. (Jerry McBride/The Durango Herald via AP) MANDATORY CREDIT

People kayak in the Animas River near Durango, Colo., Thursday, Aug. 6, 2015, in water colored from a mine waste spill. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said that a cleanup team was working with heavy equipment Wednesday to secure an entrance to the Gold King Mine. Workers instead released an estimated 1 million gallons of mine waste into Cement Creek, which flows into the Animas River. (Jerry McBride/The Durango Herald via AP) MANDATORY CREDIT

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to The EPA Is Killing America

  1. Latitude says:

    EPA: Amount of mine waste water 3 times original estimate

    The Environmental Protection Agency said Sunday the amount of waste water that spilled from the Gold King Mine and turned the Animas River orange was three times its original estimate.

    http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/08/09/state–emergency-durango-la-plata-county/31381113/

  2. flavrt says:

    Moving beyond any whiff of hyperbole, the EPA is literally killing America.

    • rah says:

      You really can’t get too hyperbolic about an agency that has done illegal human experimentation and mislead or failed to inform the volunteer subjects on the dangers of what they were being exposed to.

  3. Ernest Bush says:

    For those who don’t think this will affect you much, most of that water will be watering your fruit and vegetables probably starting with the current growing season. Those of us who take our drinking water out of the Colorado River, including Los Angeles, will be drinking whatever is in it every day. Broccoli, lettuce, cabbagand cauliflower will bring it to your local super market this winter from Yuma County, AZ, and Imperial County, CA.

    The Colorado River water we drink at Yuma, AZ, is so laden with minerals that it already is not a publicly approved water supply and will probably never be. Some people have to use lotion or Dove soap to kill the itch from bathing in it.. I would say I can’t wait for the extra mineral content, but my household drinks and draws cooking water from a carbon and reverse osmosis system. Maybe it’s time for a whole house system.

    • Ernest Bush says:

      Forgot to mention there are fish and shrimp farms using that water, not to mention the talapia, perch, and catfish in the river itself. There is also a huge migrating bird population that winters on this water shed. Another great government project brought to you by the Obama Democrat government.

  4. omanuel says:

    We live in the never-never land of deceit that George Orwell predicted in the futuristic novel he started writing in 1946.

    THE GOOD NEWS: Today, seventy years after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the people of Japan were finally told the truth:

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/08/09/national/nagasaki-mayor-atomic-bomb-survivors-caution-security-bills-70th-anniversary-bombing/?utm_source=Daily+News+Updates&utm_campaign=10fcdf8581-Monday_email_updates10_08_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c5a6080d40-10fcdf8581-332818853#comment-2184023567

    After WWII, public knowledge of composition (neutrons) and energy (neutron repulsion) was forbidden in cores of

    1. Heavy atoms like Uranium
    2. Some planets like Jupiter
    3. Ordinary stars like the Sun
    4. Galaxies like the Milky Way
    5. The expanding Universe

    Neutron-repulsion in cores of U and Th atoms melted deep-seated rocks that became the islands of Japan.

    • Hugh says:

      Oh crap.

    • omanuel says:

      Japan has little or no fossil fuels and is now compelled to return to nuclear energy, although the public is justifiably terrified of nuclear energy after the atomic bombs of 1945 and the recent tsunami and nuclear reactor meltdown.

      The only viable solution is absolute honesty about nuclear physics: An open admission NEUTRON REPULSION causes heavy atoms, stars and galaxies to:

      Fragment (fission and or explode)
      Emit neutrons that decay to H atoms

  5. AndrewS says:

    I’m not so sure that this was an accident. It just so neatly dovetails into the anti-capitalist/anti-life agenda of the Obama administration. Good read here, (don’t know how long this will be available): Chapter 7: On The Environment
    http://www.marklevinshow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/301/2015/08/Plunder-Deceit-Chapter7.pdf

  6. Tony B says:

    Got to wonder: Not a word about the spill from The Sierra Club or Greenpeace USA. Perhaps fossil fuel companies weren’t involved? A major source of funding was responsible? And a government sympathetic to the movement is in charge?

    • Disillusioned says:

      You’re Right! Just checked Sierra Club’s and Greenpeace latest news sections. Zilch. NADA.

      But Greenpeace has stories of spills – from oil and coal companies.

  7. Mike D says:

    The outrage from environmental groups has been almost non-existent, compared to if this had been a private company responsible. But at least some are being consistent:

    http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2015/animas-river-spill-08-06-2015.html

    EPA Response to Million-gallon Mine Waste Spill in Colorado Deeply Inadequate
    Feds Downplay Wildlife Impacts, Ignore Downstream Endangered Fish, Birds

    DURANGO, Colo.— The Center for Biological Diversity today blasted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for downplaying the possibility of impacts to fish and wildlife….

    In a statement late Wednesday, the EPA pointed to fish populations already decimated by mine pollution to downplay the potential for downstream impacts, claiming that “due to current and longstanding water quality impairment associated with heavy metals there are no fish populations in the Cement Creek watershed and populations in the Animas River have historically been impaired for several miles downstream of Silverton.”

    “Endangered species downstream of this spill are already afflicted by same toxic compounds like mercury and selenium that may be in this waste,” said McKinnon. “These species are hanging by a thread, and every new bit of toxic exposure makes a bad situation worse. EPA’s downplaying of potential impacts is troubling and raises deeper questions about the thoroughness of its mine-reclamation efforts.”

    The Center will seek records from the federal agency about this week’s spill under the Freedom of Information Act. It will scrutinize the EPA’s compliance with the Endangered Species Act and other laws in connection with potential impacts to endangered species from mine-reclamation programs and disasters.

    • Mike D says:

      They’re going to get something, as they should. And odds that any EPA employees will be fired for the millions of dollars it will cost taxpayers to try to mitigate the damage are very low. At best someone who’s a few months from retirement might have to go early, but will get their full pension anyway. That’s the worst that ever seems to happen.

      Here’s something that I haven’t seen on any report anywhere else. The possible length of the cleanup effort:

      “Begaye said he wanted it started as soon as possible, adding that one EPA official said the cleanup could take decades, a remark that got a visible reaction from the people in the audience.”

  8. markstoval says:

    The EPA’s actions in this mess is typical of government. There is nothing unusual, but it is easier to see in this case. The EPA has long been a disaster for the American people under Republicans or Democrats.

    Both parties have allowed the EPA (and so many other agencies) to act outside the law with immunity. As I understand it, the law governing this disaster on the Colorado River says that the owner of the property is totally responsible even if the EPA is the cause of the disaster! Even if it were proved that the EPA did it on purpose, the law says the private owner is still responsible.

    There is no area of life that has not been made worse by the government. Try to think of any area of science that has not been bastardized by the federal government in one way or another.

    Folks, put that in your pipe and smoke it over. Then ask yourself why people don’t see that it is the state (government) itself that is the enemy.

    • Gail Combs says:

      “…Then ask yourself why people don’t see that it is the state (government) itself that is the enemy…”

      Oh we see it Mark. All you have to do is look at Rasmussen polls on the subject such as Is Congress for Sale?

      Only 13% of Likely U.S. Voters think Congress is doing a good or excellent job….

      Only 16% don’t think most members of Congress would sell their vote….

      Just 14% think member of Congress almost always get reelected because they do a good job representing their constituents. Sixty-five percent (65%) think it’s because the election rules are rigged to benefit incumbents,….

      Just 31% of voters think their local congressional representative agrees with them ideologically….

      And then the MSM (both sides) wonder why Donald Trump is so popular. Maybe it is because Americans are sick and tired of the PC police and being ignored by Congress. I might not like the guy but it is SOOoooo refreshing to see someone tell the MSM and the Thought Police to stick it where the sun don’t shine. I might even vote for him since he wants to put the interests of the USA first unlike the Hitlery and the Twig.

  9. ren says:

    Daytime high temperatures across much of the northern Rockies will range from the middle to upper 90s with localized areas reaching triple digits.

  10. Henry P says:

    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/no-consensus-earths-top-of-atmosphere-energy-imbalance-in-cmip5-archived-ipcc-ar5-climate-models/

    [just to give you an idea of the complexity of the problem; there are not too many of us who figured it out correctly, i.e the Gleissberg cycle / DeVries cycles]

  11. This very issue will definitely serve several political purposes:

    Provide for the excuse of extracting more money from the already-beleagered “tax-payer”,
    An excuse to forcibly “move” the affected population away from the areas, and into the already-crowded “cities” elsewhere,
    Destroy what is left of any independent, small-family farming and ranching,
    Render completely unusable, any of the wild areas for any human uses whatsoever, for an indeterminable amount of time,
    Poison any of the deliberate “hold-outs” who choose to remain there,
    An excuse to call in international “aid” to deal with this contrived “emergency”,
    To strong-arm the affected states into accepting total federal control of their entire infrastructure and public welfare,

    . . . and so on, and so on, and so on, . . .

    NOW. Do we have the full grasp of what is going here? Taken together with exactly WHERE the J.A.D.E. H.E.L.M. 15 exercises are taking place, does this not leave plenty of folks wondering what is to come next???

  12. I posted the following at RealClimateScience.com , but it’s important enough I thought I should repeat it here.

    I don’t think the EPA should be disbanded entirely. What it really needs is a complete overhaul of its managerial staff, so that it can be guided by good conservative stewards. That implies people who will apply the laws properly and without an ulterior motive.

    I don’t accept the idea that’s kind of blowing in the wind these days, that the federal government has or should have no jurisdiction over actual pollution (not to include CO2, for the obvious reason that it’s not a pollutant in the quantities that are issue.)

    The kinds of things EPA goes after these days are often nothing or are greatly exaggerated. But the tragedy of the commons is quite real.

    For that reason the federal government has some constitutional power over this, under both its interstate commerce authority and under the doctrine (pursuant to the Bible, common law, equity, and the Bill of Rights, and also implied by the “republican form of government” clause) of preservation of life.

    While I don’t ordinarily make the argument for government power in a particular area, this is an important one, and the post does read that the EPA should be “terminated” because it has committed major transgressions.

    Those transgressions are not a result of the delegation of proper environmental regulatory power from the Congress to the EPA with regard to air, water, and soil, which is important. Some of the power wielded by the EPA is improper and illegitimate, so it should be curtailed. But this tyranny is as much the fault of the three branches of government as it is of the EPA. Should the Congress, White House, and Supreme Court be “terminated” too? Or should they just have their wings clipped, so to speak?

    RT

    • rah says:

      Obama’s EPA, like much of the rest of his administration, are performing in contravention of the Constitution. Without Congressional oversight or specific action, the EPA can do about anything this POTUS wants it to do even in violation of it’s charter. Those people, including the president, are simply criminals.

    • Also, in reply to Mark Stoval who implies that the problem is the existence of states themselves with all the power they wield, this is the argument of the Anarchist movement. This philosophy comes from Atheism and seems to base its argument on the notion that regardless of the outcome, states must be fought because they violate the natural right to liberty. The problem is simply this, that liberty has limits, and a properly run state must gives effect to those limits without going too far. For those who reject a higher power over us, the question of where the boundaries to that range of limits should lie is completely subjective — and without common agreement as to those boundaries, the absence of a state implies that all disputes will be settled by duel or other, more expansive warfare.

      The argument against a state also implies that, beyond the fact that everyone is born with the same powers and responsibilities, that no one has the power to delegate any of their powers to someone else. For that’s all that a properly constituted state is … the delegation of personal power by everyone involved, to a minority, in the interest of greater order and, therefore, prosperity.

      Now if the argument is going to be that we’ll never achieve perfection and therefore it’s better not to try, again we’re back to the question of Theism vs. Atheism, because there will be a debate about whether our philosophy affects the outcome due to the influence of that higher power, and whether the very doctrine of Theism or Atheism produces the better overall outcome for people.

      And then there are those Atheists who would argue that it’s not even about what produces the best outcome, but that people have the right to do whatever they want regardless of its effect other people, including their own children, or even on themselves. This is social Darwinism, which is the logical end of both Anarchism and Atheism.

      The state itself is not the enemy. There is an enemy, and he has power, though his power is not absolute, and that power will only grow as states become less rational. The extreme end of the spectrum, in which the enemy’s power is strongest, is represented by the most irrational state possible. But the complete absence of a state is virtually as bad. It is also frankly unachievable as it would produce a new, reactionary state which would be worse than the one we have.

      RT

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey Richard! You say, “The argument against a state also implies that, beyond the fact that everyone is born with the same powers and responsibilities, that no one has the power to delegate any of their powers to someone else.”

        I do not think that is correct. My understanding of the argument against a state is not that “no one has the power to delegate any of their powers to someone else” but rather that no one has the right to COMPEL others to delegate their powers. Simply put, you and your friends, if you all so choose, may form any state you wish. What you may not do, is to then force others to join or obey that state.

        • Hey Jason.

          States can exist without compelling others to participate. So to argue that states should not exist is to argue that it is wrong to set up a state. That’s what I was getting at.

          Moreover, Mark did not argue that compelling membership in the United States is the cause of our problems, but that ” it is the state (government) itself that is the enemy”. That quote is not an argument against compelling citizenship, but an argument against the existence of states. If state government itself, wherever it may be found, is the enemy, then state government, wherever it may be found, is evil. My general response to that, which is obviously from a Christian perspective, is that states are morally neutral. They can do good or evil, but for us to try to make ourselves live without them will cause more evil than to try to improve the ones we have.

          As far as the necessity or lack thereof of obeying a state that one occupies, obviously there is scripture about that. But that was not where I was trying to go; my main focus was to emphasize that such a debate is really a subconscious or semi-conscious proxy for the Theism/Atheism struggle, a struggle which perfuses any issue that might be raised in defense of Anarchism.

          – Richard

        • I think back to Reagan’s famous quote (which I myself have quoted before, I think even at this very website), “Government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem.”

          My view is that there’s a huge, huge difference between identifying government as “the problem” an identifying it as “the enemy”. In the former expression, there is room allowed for the idea that government is not necessarily in need of being eliminated. We can acknowledge its imperfections and work to improve it, without ever concluding that all government must be eliminated from our lives, forever.

          Similarly, A government certainly may be an enemy to us. But once you start talking about “government” in general being “the enemy”, the conversation has veered off onto a totally new track, the one of Anarchism.

          Anarchists, being Atheists, will argue that there’s no enemy that we can’t see. So, by implication, if “the enemy”, the overarching enemy of all time is this mere inanimate creation of man, then it’s theoretically possible to destroy it, remove it from our environment like a poisonous mine leachate, and then live happily ever after in the utopia we’ve supposedly created. But Christians know that this is a lie and a trap, so we could never agree with such an idea.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Richard! Thanks so much for clarifying your views on this. Personally, while I see a great appeal to the anarchist point of view, I think that a min-archy such as Jefferson envisioned is probably as good as we can get. Powerful states are too dangerous to let roam loose.

        • Anytime. Thanks for asking.

  13. rah says:

    OT.

    Big Brother finally has caught up with this truck driver.

    I, like all drivers of my classification, must log my entire life in 15 minute increments as being on one of four activity states to demonstrate compliance with Federal DOT hours of service regulations. Those activities are:
    On Duty Driving
    On Duty Not Driving
    Off Duty
    Off Duty Sleeper Berth.

    Years ago I took this salary driver job because they said that the DOT would be forcing everyone to be going on electronic driver logs and obviously income based on being paid by the mile would be negatively impacted by going on e-logs. I started the salary on call job in November three years ago when they said everyone when they said all drivers would required to be on e-logs by January the next year. That didn’t happen but they said everyone would switch over by July. That didn’t happen either. And so it went. The mandatory switch has been held up in court all that time and still is. But the company I work for has been on the e-log bandwagon the whole time. For the last three years all new hires automatically went on e-logs along with any driver that had a log violation or an accident. And at every single quarterly safety meeting they have been saying everyone just needs to volunteer to go on e-logs since it will become mandatory eventually anyway. I hate nags!

    I have stayed on paper logs because it provides flexibility. Allowed me to time my penetrations into the highest traffic areas during off peak hours. Allowed me to divert my route and take a longer one or stop and take an early break and then take off and make up the distance during the next driving shift in order to avoid bad weather. Allowed me to get out and back a little quicker so not only did I have more home time I also was available quicker to take the next load during busy times. And because to be quite frank, having some damned black box bitching at me is not my idea of a good work environment.

    So now after all that time, with over 70% of the company drivers already on e-logs they are saying the company will require everyone to be on them by the end of the year! I am so damned tired of hearing about it that I have finally given in. I take the class today at 09:00.

    I will still do what I can to get out and back as efficiently as possible, however it will require altering my trip planning and taking breaks at places I would never have considered before. I am also going to slow down in order to get fuel bonuses. In the past I have been leaving about $1,600 a year on the table in fuel bonuses because I have always tried to get out and back as quickly and safely as possible without getting a ticket. Now I’m going to work on getting some of that fuel bonus money. They’re directing the orchestra, so I’m going to play their tune for them and what happens, happens. So if despite my best effort the freight isn’t where it’s supposed to be when it’s supposed to be there then it’s on them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s