Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

Subject: Neddy, me boy........ Author: Gene [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 17:22:16 08/26/05 Fri In reply to: Ned Depew 's message, "Thanks, Tom. That makes a lot of sense..." on 16:13:21 08/26/05 Fri Why are you so nasty, Ned. I live down wind from the plant and find nothing wrong with their burning TDF and as stated in the papers there will be no significant increase in any pollution materials. It is better to burn them than plug up precious land. I have heard enough of your nimby bullsh*t and don't wish to listen to more of it, it can only get so deep, which is pollution in itself. So why should I attend a bullsh*t session, listening to people who think they know more than the experts, whose job it is to monitor these and other issues. Let them do the job they are paid to do and keep your nose out of other people's business where it has no place to be. We have the one of the largest coal sources in the world and are unable to use them because of environmental concerns by people like you. If these reserves were used we wouldn't be dependent on OPEC oil and be held hostage by an Arab or some dictator in Venezuela. Plus 37% of our electricity is generated by natural gas which could be saved if we used coal. Then you have the Nuclear generation which account for only 27%, which should be increased like Pres. Bush wants. Oh, I forgot, if it doesn't fit your needs then it is no good. Looking out for ones self does not help humanity as a whole. This is your way of thinking: When weeding, the best way to make sure you are removing a weed and not a valuable plant is to pull on it. If it comes out of the ground easily, it is a valuable plant. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> Subject: Nasty? Moi? Author: Ned Depew [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 18:54:26 08/26/05 Fri Gene - Nothing "nasty" about it. I remember you being all excited about the HVEEC - so I though a powerful environmental issue like increasing dangerous pollutants in the air you breathe would interest you. You don't seem to have bothered to have done any research on this issue, and are content to believe LaFarge when they say they won't increase pollution. You don't seem to notice that they also agreed to abide by their permitted guidelines of emissions, and yet have exceeded them repeatedly. The information is out there, Gene, and more will emerge as individuals like me and groups that take a real interest in the welfare of our families and neighbors uncover more and more of the truth. You can ignore it if you want - that seems to be a life-style choice of yours - but you do so at all our peril. What if the evidence documented from reliable sources like the EPA is right, and tiny amounts of dioxin do cause increases in cancer? Is that OK with you? Are you willing to increase your risk of cancer - and that of those around you - for no better reason than so that a large corporation can make more profits? Does that make sense to you? We do need a combination of alternative energy sources and increased conservation/energy efficiency. I disagree (and most experts on energy who aren't employed by Big Oil, the Bush Administration and the Nuclear Industry agree with me) that the Bush "Energy Policy" will help achieve either of these goals - but that's another argument. The point at issue here isn't our coal resources or our dependence on foreign oil. It's the safety of the very air we and our families and neighbors breathe. You may believe that the French-owned multi-national corporation would never twist the facts in their favor and make misleading statements that might endanger people's health just in order to make profits. You may believe that a little fairy comes and trades quarters for teeth. You might have already forgotten big tobacco's twenty year fight to preserve their right to continue to poison people for profit and their lies about their knowledge of the risks of smoking; or Johns-Manville's twenty-year coverup of their knowledge of the health risks of asbestos exposure - or the recent supression of the negative studies abour Vioxx! You might have a short memory. Looking out exclusively for one's self does not help humanity as a whole - but failing to do the research to identify a real danger to one's self, one's friends and family, and hiding one's head in the sand doesn't do much for humanity either. It was people doing that who allowed some of the pollution messes we are now trying to clean up - like the Dewey-Loeffel landfill and the PCBs in the Hudson (about which questions as to their safety were being raised - and ignored - back in the 1940s) - to be created in the first place. This is like your thinking: "If I just ignore it and rely on others to take care of it, it can't hurt me."

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Neddy twists the facts to support his view. Author: Gene [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:53:21 08/27/05 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: "Twists," you say? Show us where. Author: Ned Depew [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 09:09:33 08/27/05 Sat Gene - I've shown you my original sources for some of the facts I've presented - not from me, but based on data collected and analyzed by the EPA, Stanford University and other ususally reliable sources. How have I "twisted" that data? Where is the correct (in your opinion) data available? Only from LaFarge? As you have at some times in the past, you attempt to discredit others, but don't present a scrap of evidence to support your claims. If you have good, well-researched, independent, contradictory data, please present it. If I am wrong, I want to be the first to know. If you have nothing but your "opinion," then we'll take that at its face value.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: "Twists," you say? Show us where. Author: Gene [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 13:24:27 08/28/05 Sun You forgot to mention they burn tires in Ct to produces energy and steam. There by saving their land resources from land fills and mountains of tires. If you are going to present facts lets not leave things out like that. Tires burn cleaner in a cement kiln than they do in a TDF burning facility, that is from the EPA too. So you say it is OK for Ct. but not NY.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Wrong, Gene - just plain wrong... Author: Ned Depew [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 18:41:29 08/28/05 Sun The tires at the CT burn plant are incinerated in a specifically designed and dedicated tire incineration facility, located on the CT shore, several miles upwind of the nearest landmass (the relatively sparsely populated eastern Long Island), where most of the emissions blow harmlessly out to sea. That is the fact. TDF does NOT burn cleaner in a cement kiln than in a dedicated TDF incineration facility. That is simply not the truth, and you will not find a single scientific study that backs up that ridiculous claim. I can't imagine where you get all your mis-information, Gene, but you certainly seem to have an endless supply. Please do us all the honor of posting the address where we can go and see for ourselves scientific proof of your claim. If you want to know where I get my information, one source is the 1988 paper "Domestic Markets for California's Used and Waste Tires," by Seymour I. Schwartz, Professor of Environmental Science and Policy at the University of California at Davis. He ran tests at four separate cement kiln facilities burning tire scrap (which burns more completely and cleaner than the whole tires Lafarge proposes to burn). His results, which are widely available, found that "dioxin and furans increases of between 53% and 100% in four tests; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) increased in three tests (between 296% and 2,230%) but decreased by 68% in a fourth test; lead emissions increased in three tests, by 59%, 388%, and 475%, and decreased in one test by 94%; hexavalent chromium increased in one test by 727%, and decreased in two tests by 36% and 87%" These figures indicate clear increases - sometimes garganutan increases - in some of the most deadly pollutants known to man - and at best, inconsistant results compared to predictions. While tire-burning does reduce some of the less dangerous pollutants released by coal or oil burning, it increases emissions of many much more dangerous chemicals. If you had any interest in finding out the facts, you could have found this information for your self. Among other places, it is available at: West Virginia Envionmental Council . I challenge you to produce the smallest shred of support for your statement, based on scientific fact - and don't try to use that silly "less total pounds of pollution" argument, that compares reductions of relatively benign emissions like SoX with increases in the release of deadly toxins like dioxin and furans. That is a silly "apples and oranges" argument meant to confuse the public. You may fall for it, but no one with an iota of scientific understanding would be taken in. The truth is, I present the facts, and the sources of those facts so that others can read them first hand and make up their own minds. You make statements that you can't back up. That's what I call "twisting."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Wow, kill the Oceans Author: Gene [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 17:51:18 08/29/05 Mon Winds blowing the stuff harmlessly out to sea. So, its OK to put pollution in the Oceans, if there is any, so you say. Aren't the Oceans the life blood of the Planet? under your sceme of things it is better to pollute the oceans than blow a little smoke over people. One and one does equal two to some people.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Better than poisoning people? You bet. Author: Ned Depew [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 18:14:57 08/29/05 Mon Gene - very funny. At least you finally admit that the emissions from these plants are poisons - that's a step toward recognizing reality from earlier when you claimed that the proposed SLC plant was going to be a giant air cleaner! Emissions that go out over the oceans are more widely dispersed and so don't concentrate - which is the most dangerous situation. Also, the long-term effects of these pollutants on the marine eco-system are unknown, whereas the effects on people living downwind are clearly documented. I agree that a better solution would be to not burn tires at all until technology is available to control all these dangerous emissions. But if someone is going to burn them - as you seem to advocate - they should do it in a way that minimizes damage to people. Possible damage to the oceans or CERTAINLY spewing poisons on your friends and neighbors - which would you choose, Gene? OOOh! Think hard!