Q
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
No the EPA does not need to go. Instead, as with any government office, the activism needs to be cut out and replaced by real science and engineering.
EPA/OSHA/Unions/Taxes/Regulation pushed a ton of jobs and industry over seas. God forbid we ever get in a real war.
Or we could take most of the employees in the myriad of alphabet soup agencies and redefine their mission to combat human trafficking.
God bless America
God bless America
That has happened but one thing that the EPA has done right is reduce the number of hazardous chemicals being dumped into the environment and get rid of a large number of hazardous chemicals. They have done more questionable stuff for sure but the impact on hazardous chemical reduction has been important.
And like unions or MADD they had a place at one point. Now they are like a bunch of destructive nags.
However the liberals right and left all of sudden have a soft spot for communist China (trade tariffs) they push hard to get a minimum wage at around 15 bucks how many in China are making that? I still clueless why we are doing any trade with them we have been allowing them to take jobs from here and support their military at the same time. And they don't have the regulations, osha's, unions etc. And pollute far beyond any . We could donate our EPA to them. I am all for clean water, air, etc. and rational regulation seems hard to get that from any federal or state government. I guess they have to make themselves relevant. Probably preaching to the choir.
Yep. Political agendas have swamped out science and engineering.
That may be the intent but they simultaneously protect big business by setting levels of things much higher than are safe for those that can pay/lobby. Free market capitalism mixed with the highly regulatory environment of socialism has given us the unholy form of crony capitalism we have today. The EPA exists to protect the largest polluters just as the CDC serves to protect the largest insurance companies. Small business and the individual lose in 2 different ways.
You sound like me talking to people about emissions equipment on their vehicles.
They tell me its a bunch of bull shit. I ask them off the remember the brown cloud in Denver?
The problem with things like the EPA is that there are two different perspectives. One is what people see in the news or online and the second is first hand experience. Because of the industry I work in I have been involved with the EPA for over 30 years is some form or fashion. I have seen some very nasty chemistries removed from the public domain because the manufacturers and industry would not self-police. Those chemistries were cheaper than their replacements and very effective but very harmful to the environment, people manufacturing them, using them and exposed down stream of their application.
I am not sure about them protecting the larger polluters at the expense of smaller companies by setting levels of this or that. In my area a level is a level is a level and it is all related to exposure, either human or environmental. I would be interested in examples for my own education.
I appreciate the dislike of the EPA as it is a bureaucracy and maddening to deal with but most people do not understand the chemistry of what they are being exposed to.
Glyphosate comes immediately to mind as its in the news. PCBs, BPAs, benzine, mercury, enough pesticides I go crosseyed at, etc etc. Its the levels they set are high enough not to impede those who can influence what is 'safe'. The flip side is the regulatory environment puts a higher cost to entry on smaller businesses and negatively impacts the health of the individual. Its actually three different things I unintentionally conflated in my statement. I looked at starting a business using ozone medically and the cost to entry was too high via regulations set by the EPA, FDA, and OSHA. The usage would have been safe but the legal fees to get to that point prevented its creation. Looks like if I had enough cash, I could sell a straight up carcinogen and have the EPA declare it safe though:
From the current EPA Website:
www.epa.gov
EPA scientists performed an independent evaluation of available data for glyphosate and found:
Opensectrets.org put together FEC data here from February 2019 of Monsantos current campaign contributions
www.opensecrets.org
House
Total to Democrats: $92,500
Total to Republicans: $193,500
Senate
Total to Democrats: $23,500
Total to Republicans: $41,500
Based on data released by the FEC on February 01, 2019.
From the current EPA Website:
Glyphosate | US EPA
Glyphosate is a widely used herbicide that controls broadleaf weeds and grasses and has been in use since the 1970s.
www.epa.gov
EPA scientists performed an independent evaluation of available data for glyphosate and found:
- No risk to human health from current uses of glyphosate.
- No evidence that glyphosate causes cancer.
- No indication that children are more sensitive to glyphosate.
- No indication that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor.
Opensectrets.org put together FEC data here from February 2019 of Monsantos current campaign contributions
Monsanto Co PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates
Monsanto Co gave $0 to federal candidates in the 2021-2022 election cycle. See the details.
www.opensecrets.org
| Total Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates (33% to Democrats, 67% to Republicans) | $351,000 |
Total to Democrats: $92,500
Total to Republicans: $193,500
| Recipient | Total |
|---|---|
| Abraham, Ralph (R-LA) | $2,000 |
| Aderholt, Robert B (R-AL) | $7,500 |
| Arrington, Jodey (R-TX) | $3,000 |
| Bishop, Sanford (D-GA) | $7,500 |
| Bost, Mike (R-IL) | $1,000 |
| Bustos, Cheri (D-IL) | $2,500 |
| Butterfield, G K (D-NC) | $1,000 |
| Calvert, Ken (R-CA) | $5,000 |
| Clay, William L Jr (D-MO) | $5,000 |
| Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO) | $5,000 |
| Collins, Doug (R-GA) | $2,000 |
| Conaway, Mike (R-TX) | $10,000 |
| Costa, Jim (D-CA) | $5,000 |
| Davis, Rodney (R-IL) | $10,000 |
| Denham, Jeff (R-CA) | $2,000 |
| Emmer, Tom (R-MN) | $1,000 |
| Fudge, Marcia L (D-OH) | $4,000 |
| Garamendi, John (D-CA) | $2,000 |
| Graves, Sam (R-MO) | $5,000 |
| Harris, Andy (R-MD) | $2,000 |
| Hartzler, Vicky (R-MO) | $2,000 |
| Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) | $10,000 |
| Hudson, Richard (R-NC) | $3,500 |
| Hultgren, Randy (R-IL) | $2,000 |
| Kelly, Robin (D-IL) | $2,500 |
| Kelly, Trent (R-MS) | $4,000 |
| LaHood, Darin (R-IL) | $3,000 |
| LaMalfa, Doug (R-CA) | $2,000 |
| Lawson, Al (D-FL) | $2,000 |
| Loebsack, David (D-IA) | $7,500 |
| Long, Billy (R-MO) | $5,500 |
| Lucas, Frank D (R-OK) | $7,500 |
| Luetkemeyer, Blaine (R-MO) | $3,500 |
| McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) | $10,000 |
| Newhouse, Dan (R-WA) | $3,500 |
| Nunes, Devin (R-CA) | $3,500 |
| O'Halleran, Tom (D-AZ) | $1,000 |
| Paulsen, Erik (R-MN) | $5,000 |
| Peters, Scott (D-CA) | $2,000 |
| Peterson, Collin (D-MN) | $10,000 |
| Richmond, Cedric (D-LA) | $2,500 |
| Rochester, Lisa Blunt (D-DE) | $2,000 |
| Rogers, Hal (R-KY) | $1,000 |
| Rouzer, David (R-NC) | $7,500 |
| Ryan, Paul (R-WI) | $10,000 |
| Scalise, Steve (R-LA) | $2,500 |
| Schrader, Kurt (D-OR) | $7,500 |
| Scott, Austin (R-GA) | $5,000 |
| Scott, David (D-GA) | $2,500 |
| Shimkus, John M (R-IL) | $6,500 |
| Simpson, Mike (R-ID) | $7,500 |
| Smith, Adrian (R-NE) | $10,000 |
| Smith, Jason (R-MO) | $2,000 |
| Thompson, Bennie G (D-MS) | $7,500 |
| Thompson, Glenn (R-PA) | $4,000 |
| Valadao, David (R-CA) | $5,000 |
| Wagner, Ann L (R-MO) | $10,000 |
| Walden, Greg (R-OR) | $1,500 |
| Walorski, Jackie (R-IN) | $2,500 |
| Wolff, Denny (D-PA) | $3,500 |
| Yoder, Kevin (R-KS) | $4,000 |
| Young, David (R-IA) | $9,000 |
Total to Democrats: $23,500
Total to Republicans: $41,500
| Recipient | Total |
|---|---|
| Blunt, Roy (R-MO) | $10,000 |
| Casey, Bob (D-PA) | $2,500 |
| Cassidy, Bill (R-LA) | $5,000 |
| Crapo, Mike (R-ID) | $3,000 |
| Donnelly, Joe (D-IN) | $5,000 |
| Ernst, Joni (R-IA) | $2,500 |
| Fincher, Steve (R-TN) | $1,000 |
| Fischer, Deb (R-NE) | $3,500 |
| Hatch, Orrin G (R-UT) | $0 |
| Hawley, Josh (R-MO) | $5,000 |
| Heitkamp, Heidi (D-ND) | $4,000 |
| Hyde-Smith, Cindy (R-MS) | $2,500 |
| Kennedy, John (R-LA) | $1,000 |
| Lee, Mike (R-UT) | $1,000 |
| McCaskill, Claire (D-MO) | $5,000 |
| Risch, James E (R-ID) | $1,500 |
| Roberts, Pat (R-KS) | $3,500 |
| Sinema, Kyrsten (D-AZ) | $5,000 |
| Smith, Tina (D-MN) | $2,000 |
| Strange, Luther (R-AL) | $1,000 |
| Wicker, Roger (R-MS) | $1,000 |
Last edited:
Can anyone explain to me the reasoning behind the US. EPA having such a massive Hard-on against Diesel, when the rest of the world seems to embrace Diesel ?
.
.
I'm gonna go out on limb and assume you're little boy Obama did such a fine job Maybe Trump should seek his advice? Probably already has Just to make sure he knows what not to do in any situation how could he wrong?
that stuff on diesel motors is a bunch of bullshit. A little was needed. They've gone way overboard. Now it's tier 1 2 3 4 and let's come up with some more tiers its bullshit.
Especially on Ag and mining equipment used in the middle of nowhere.
Roundup is not a carcinogen. Are you really going off what a moonbat California jury said?Glyphosate comes immediately to mind as its in the news. PCBs, BPAs, benzine, mercury, enough pesticides I go crosseyed at, etc etc. Its the levels they set are high enough not to impede those who can influence what is 'safe'. The flip side is the regulatory environment puts a higher cost to entry on smaller businesses and negatively impacts the health of the individual. Its actually three different things I unintentionally conflated in my statement. I looked at starting a business using ozone medically and the cost to entry was too high via regulations set by the EPA, FDA, and OSHA. The usage would have been safe but the legal fees to get to that point prevented its creation. Looks like if I had enough cash, I could sell a straight up carcinogen and have the EPA declare it safe though:
From the current EPA Website:
Glyphosate | US EPA
Glyphosate is a widely used herbicide that controls broadleaf weeds and grasses and has been in use since the 1970s.
EPA scientists performed an independent evaluation of available data for glyphosate and found:
Its no secret Monsanto paid Hillary hundred of thousands in speaking fees and as much again to the Clinton Foundation. Take a look at current campaign contributions though-
- No risk to human health from current uses of glyphosate.
- No evidence that glyphosate causes cancer.
- No indication that children are more sensitive to glyphosate.
- No indication that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor.
Opensectrets.org put together FEC data here from February 2019 of Monsantos current campaign contributions
Monsanto Co PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates
Monsanto Co gave $0 to federal candidates in the 2021-2022 election cycle. See the details.
House
Total Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates
(33% to Democrats, 67% to Republicans)$351,000
Total to Democrats: $92,500
Total to Republicans: $193,500
Senate
Recipient Total Abraham, Ralph (R-LA) $2,000 Aderholt, Robert B (R-AL) $7,500 Arrington, Jodey (R-TX) $3,000 Bishop, Sanford (D-GA) $7,500 Bost, Mike (R-IL) $1,000 Bustos, Cheri (D-IL) $2,500 Butterfield, G K (D-NC) $1,000 Calvert, Ken (R-CA) $5,000 Clay, William L Jr (D-MO) $5,000 Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO) $5,000 Collins, Doug (R-GA) $2,000 Conaway, Mike (R-TX) $10,000 Costa, Jim (D-CA) $5,000 Davis, Rodney (R-IL) $10,000 Denham, Jeff (R-CA) $2,000 Emmer, Tom (R-MN) $1,000 Fudge, Marcia L (D-OH) $4,000 Garamendi, John (D-CA) $2,000 Graves, Sam (R-MO) $5,000 Harris, Andy (R-MD) $2,000 Hartzler, Vicky (R-MO) $2,000 Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) $10,000 Hudson, Richard (R-NC) $3,500 Hultgren, Randy (R-IL) $2,000 Kelly, Robin (D-IL) $2,500 Kelly, Trent (R-MS) $4,000 LaHood, Darin (R-IL) $3,000 LaMalfa, Doug (R-CA) $2,000 Lawson, Al (D-FL) $2,000 Loebsack, David (D-IA) $7,500 Long, Billy (R-MO) $5,500 Lucas, Frank D (R-OK) $7,500 Luetkemeyer, Blaine (R-MO) $3,500 McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) $10,000 Newhouse, Dan (R-WA) $3,500 Nunes, Devin (R-CA) $3,500 O'Halleran, Tom (D-AZ) $1,000 Paulsen, Erik (R-MN) $5,000 Peters, Scott (D-CA) $2,000 Peterson, Collin (D-MN) $10,000 Richmond, Cedric (D-LA) $2,500 Rochester, Lisa Blunt (D-DE) $2,000 Rogers, Hal (R-KY) $1,000 Rouzer, David (R-NC) $7,500 Ryan, Paul (R-WI) $10,000 Scalise, Steve (R-LA) $2,500 Schrader, Kurt (D-OR) $7,500 Scott, Austin (R-GA) $5,000 Scott, David (D-GA) $2,500 Shimkus, John M (R-IL) $6,500 Simpson, Mike (R-ID) $7,500 Smith, Adrian (R-NE) $10,000 Smith, Jason (R-MO) $2,000 Thompson, Bennie G (D-MS) $7,500 Thompson, Glenn (R-PA) $4,000 Valadao, David (R-CA) $5,000 Wagner, Ann L (R-MO) $10,000 Walden, Greg (R-OR) $1,500 Walorski, Jackie (R-IN) $2,500 Wolff, Denny (D-PA) $3,500 Yoder, Kevin (R-KS) $4,000 Young, David (R-IA) $9,000
Total to Democrats: $23,500
Total to Republicans: $41,500
Based on data released by the FEC on February 01, 2019.
Recipient Total Blunt, Roy (R-MO) $10,000 Casey, Bob (D-PA) $2,500 Cassidy, Bill (R-LA) $5,000 Crapo, Mike (R-ID) $3,000 Donnelly, Joe (D-IN) $5,000 Ernst, Joni (R-IA) $2,500 Fincher, Steve (R-TN) $1,000 Fischer, Deb (R-NE) $3,500 Hatch, Orrin G (R-UT) $0 Hawley, Josh (R-MO) $5,000 Heitkamp, Heidi (D-ND) $4,000 Hyde-Smith, Cindy (R-MS) $2,500 Kennedy, John (R-LA) $1,000 Lee, Mike (R-UT) $1,000 McCaskill, Claire (D-MO) $5,000 Risch, James E (R-ID) $1,500 Roberts, Pat (R-KS) $3,500 Sinema, Kyrsten (D-AZ) $5,000 Smith, Tina (D-MN) $2,000 Strange, Luther (R-AL) $1,000 Wicker, Roger (R-MS) $1,000
If it was cancer causing, half of all farmers and 100% of their help would have cancer due to negligence when handling it and the fact it is impossible to get most farm help to wear gloves or respect chemicals.
In addition I have yet to see ONE study that indicates that glyphosate has caused cancer in anything mammalian.
I have reviewed some reports shared in LinkedIn and that is all I have seen so far.
Im going off what multiple doctors have told me. We have even identified the gene they look at see if the body can rid itself of glyphosate or not. Mine cant. Ive had the DNA test for it. Ive been told flat out I cant have it in my diet. Its a giant pain in the ass finding food without it at this point in human history. I hope you never have to deal with that issue but I assure you its real.
Last edited:
It is overdone. And even if you believe in making the air cleaner out of the exhaust then what came in the intake,
It is AWFUL for the environment. All those service calls/destroyed motors/replaced components/def manufacturing/reduced lifespan vehicles is a giant net negative for the environment.
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Greece and India have all banned it for being a carcinogen. Its not just wacky California. Doctors in half of the free world think its bad enough to keep out of their nations. Case and point right here- they arent being paid off like our politicians are.
The EPA let dioxin, asbestos and others exist on the market for many many years. They knew asbestos was a carcinogen in 1918. Banned in 1989. They absolutely knew dioxin was in 1978 and suspected much longer, yet it stayed on the market..... although Monsanto workers had been getting cancer from it since 1949. Still believe their studies?
Last edited:
Now your just lying. A couple provinces banned it. Not "Canada". Not going to fact check the rest of that hippy bs
8 of 10 provinces in Canada restricted it. Vancouver outright banned it. Where is the lie? Are you going to argue Agent Orange (dioxin) was safe? Asbestos? There was a point the EPA said these were fine too.
Chemicals are dangerous. We should ban everyone then 90 percent of the world can starve to death.
Why don't you look up stuff like gramoxone or province.
Roundup is harmless when you don't bathe in it
You are wasting your time. Some people simply refuse to believe some things.
Thank you for your science lesson.
It's common sense. But you need to get out in the real world to get some of that
You think Im a socialist? Thats so far past laughable Im not sure what to say. The EPA believed in climate change until 2017. Under Trump they dont. They will again once hes gone. Its politics not science, just like the rest. That was the entire point of my post to begin with. I find it bizarre you insist on believing what the government tells you about Roundup. You dont seem like someone who believes the government otherwise. Why do you cling to believing them on this one issue?
Last edited:
[
Its common sense that emissions controls are overdone. Now the science lesson is complete. It must also be common sense that Round Up is safe unless you bathe in it. Or which was it, earlier it was safe, but now if you bathe in it, its dangerous?
You are quite full of shit on this subject so I feel I have wasted enough time. This reminds of a debate with an SJW. No thoughts, nothing to think about, just feelings and insults. Its a big world out there buddy. I hope some day you come realization you know less than what you think you know. Common sense, thats funny.
Its common sense that emissions controls are overdone. Now the science lesson is complete. It must also be common sense that Round Up is safe unless you bathe in it. Or which was it, earlier it was safe, but now if you bathe in it, its dangerous?
You are quite full of shit on this subject so I feel I have wasted enough time. This reminds of a debate with an SJW. No thoughts, nothing to think about, just feelings and insults. Its a big world out there buddy. I hope some day you come realization you know less than what you think you know. Common sense, thats funny.
I put ZERO stock is what a doctor might say concerning cases like this unless they were directly involved with a study. Doctors have become political activists some form or fashion and push some agenda as if they were an elected official.
As far as glyphosate in your diet is concerned, just how much do you think you are being exposed to on a daily basis? I am not so sure that the information provided to you is absolutely correct. Here is some information directly from the National Pesticide Information Center:
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/glyphotech.htmlMetabolism
- Glyphosate undergoes little metabolism and is excreted mostly unchanged in the feces and secondarily in the urine.3,13,62
- Samples taken from goats and hens fed glyphosate contained the parent compound and AMPA, but there was no evidence of other glyphosate metabolites in body tissues, eggs, or milk.6
- High ratios of glyphosate to AMPA were detected in a human patient's blood serum 8 hrs (22.6 μg/mL glyphosate to 0.18 μg/mL AMPA) and 16 hrs (4.4 μg/mL glyphosate to 0.03 μg/mL AMPA) post-ingestion, as well as in the patient's total amount of urine. This indicates that glyphosate metabolism was minimal.63
You are making an assumption that politicians make educated decision when it comes to science. That is a mistake. Health Canada stands behind the safety of glyphosate.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/health-canada-herbicide-glyphosate-roundup-1.4975945
The use of Roundup with glyphosate on our ecosystem is a waste of money. The only thing that it does perform well at...is to cause cancer in humans and animals.
Several months ago, I heard on the news that oatmeal has traces of glyphosate in it. Safe to say that people should stop eating oatmeal that has glyphosate in it.
Now I'm wondering what other foods have glyphosate in it?
Can somebody please provide me a list?
Thanx...
Erno
Several months ago, I heard on the news that oatmeal has traces of glyphosate in it. Safe to say that people should stop eating oatmeal that has glyphosate in it.
Now I'm wondering what other foods have glyphosate in it?
Can somebody please provide me a list?
Thanx...
Erno
Last edited:
Do you have any idea of what food production in the world would look like without glyphosate? I would guess the answer is no.
That is what happens when a gang of libtard senators get wind of douchebag ass-hats "rolling coal" on YouTube then have all of the evidence they need right there on video. Coupled with the power of "Nobama", well... regulation ahoy!
Congress could have done that, in fact they are the ones tasked by Constitution to do that.
Pass a law that makes it illegal to dump production waste into the environment.
Bam!
The 435 pukes that are empowered to do the job do the job without creating an unaccountable letter agency.
If Congress cant do its job.......fire them.
This one scares me.
Recent health class I learned something about "GMO"
I thought "GMO" was undertaken to increase yield of the modified commodity.
So I thought "GMO" agri products would be done to create "Two" shoots of wheat where before there was only one.
Not so.
Apparently in Agri products "GMO" is to increase resistance to Roundup.
As weeds develope natural resistance to Roundup after 40 years of use farmers need to exponentially increase the resistance of their crop as greater amounts of Roundup are used.
More Roundup, more uptake by the crop, more Roundup in our food.
I theorize this is why every kid has immuno issues these days.
But........
Im a little leery of the "lets beatup on Roundup" hysteria going on these days.
Its almost like Roundup endorsed Trump judging by the hate its getting.
Id like to hear from smarter people on this.
This is what I fear.
Globalists think the US has unfair advantage and decides that banning glyphosate would bring us to our knees, cap population, in fact roll back population and create the world they desire.
They had no problem sentencing most of the third world to a lifetime of malaria and disease when they banned DDT.
And furthermore...don't expect Trump & Company, and the rest of his evil cohorts, to resolve the serious problem of glyphosate and the use of other dangerous chemicals and minerals like asbestos in our ecosystem anytime soon.
It's no wonder that Trump's fuck buddy Putin, and the rest of his filthy rich oligarchs in Russia, brand Trump as a blessing...by his dictatorial policy of allowing them (Russkies) to export asbestos to the United States; along with each asbestos laden crate having a Trump logo with his picture on it --- With the Russian peoples logo, saying thanks to Trump's seal of approval on the outside of every single crate.
Beam me up Scotty...
It's no wonder that Trump's fuck buddy Putin, and the rest of his filthy rich oligarchs in Russia, brand Trump as a blessing...by his dictatorial policy of allowing them (Russkies) to export asbestos to the United States; along with each asbestos laden crate having a Trump logo with his picture on it --- With the Russian peoples logo, saying thanks to Trump's seal of approval on the outside of every single crate.
Beam me up Scotty...
I appreciate that perspective but I have a slightly different view point. Monsanto was not well liked in Europe because of the way they did business. Monsanto was the large American company that would storm the walls and take market share due to force of will, product performance and cornering the market on intellectual property. Their European competition had a more "warm and fuzzy" business model and they could not out compete Monsanto in their own back yards. For about 20 years European companies and regulatory bodies have been taking shots at glyphosate. Notice that the push for glyphosate being a "probable" carcinogen came from the WHO. Where is the WHO located? Switzerland. I think this is payback for Monsanto's being an American company and beating the pants off the European competitors. Honestly, Monsanto made some dick moves to farmers and while karma is a bitch BUT this is a witch hunt.
