View Single Post

Default 

June 15th, 2010, 23:55
See, that's just further proof of how badly the EPA is overreaching on this one.

1) Television viewing has a much stronger association with increased morbidity. Don't see the EPA complaining about that being a hazard to human life. Reach.
2) I'd love to see a documented case of premature death due to atmospheric ozone. Hell, I'd be impressed if you could find a death due to concentrated ozone from some industrial accident. You get more ozone from a good lightning strike than an operating motor. Is the EPA going to outlaw lightning? Reach.
3) What's the biggest story over the last decade when it comes to weather patterns? El Nino. Been going on for a couple centuries. Is the EPA going to outlaw ocean currents? Reach with a capital R
4) It's safe to say the USA does not include susceptible populations. The EPA does not regulate for the benefit of citizens of Yemen that haven't discovered the joys of refrigeration. They're supposed to work for us. Beyond reach, right into outright irrelevance.

Like I said, this is a poorly manufactured justification to smooth the legal road for Obama's carbon vouchers, and nothing more.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#214

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,293