Re: Q&A the Other Way, si vous plais -- Dracut Information Resource Forum

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

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:11:46 04/19/01 Thu
Author: Ed Valis
Subject: Re: Q&A the Other Way, si vous plais
In reply to: Eira 's message, "Re: Q&A the Other Way, si vous plais" on 16:05:19 04/16/01 Mon

BLAH BLAH BLAH!

Alot of generic retoric about zero growth with no substantive/real backup to how the stated effects of these chemicals could be directly shown to possibly happen from the proposed prject.

WHERE'S THE BEEF???

Any of the chemicals you mentioned are emitted from the cars, boiler/heater/lawnmower, carpeting/flooring (formeldehyde) and every other combustion source out there! The major difference between the Nickel Hill emissions and these sources is that the Nickel Hill emissions will be from a single "point" at a height of 150'-200' and these others will be right into our faces (on a daily and almost continuous basis!!).

If I were a betting man, I would put my money on being exposed to these "treacherous" compounds from the lower ground level sources rather than a source like Nickel Hill. Just because a source is bigger and more visible to the general public does not make it the automatic culpret from an exposure to chemical perspective!

Also, these compounds were considered and analyzed in detail using air quality dispersion modeling with MADEP and EPA promulgated and developed standards and guidelines!!!

WE NEED A LITTLE LOGIC HERE!! HELP!!!!

DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND REVIEW THE ALREADY EXTENSIVE INFORMATION ON THIS PROJECT AVAILABLE. Continued generic arguments as to effects from compounds emitted from this project are getting boring and leading to the discredit of those who continue to use them!

Keep the comments coming, it's like shooting fish in a barrel!

Ed :=)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Q&A the Other Way, si vous plais -- Mary, 07:21:23 04/20/01 Fri