Latest EPA Wood Stove News

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Whitespider
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
22,834
Location
On the Cedar in Northeast Iowa
...the bad thing about tet lead,,,stick your hand in a gas can,,it immediately absorbs into your skin!!!
L-O-L ‼ Yes‼ It did‼
And I used that stuff as a parts cleaning solvent for years‼ No gloves‼
(It was cheaper than anything else)

Hmmmmm....
Maybe it ain't the beer 'n' whiskey that makes me so ornery... maybe it's the lead.
*
 
naturelover

naturelover

Tree Freak
Joined
Nov 12, 2011
Messages
16,596
Location
The Sin Wagon
Well olyman , unlike the wood stove regulations, the regulations on leaded fuels were (for the most part) justified under the constitution. It was a known and proven fact that lead was a poisonous substance as early as the 1800's. As early as the 1920's people working in the fuel industry were dieing from lead poisoning. Around 1950 the effects of "tetraethyl lead" (the fuel additive) on the environment and (more importantly) humans was accidentally discovered. Only after some two decades of research and study (based on real numbers and sound science) did the phase-down of leaded fuel begin. In the beginning (1976), the regulations related to leaded fuel were, in fact, justified under more than one clause of the constitution. Leaded fuels were, in fact, adversely poisoning every single citizen in the United States. The plan, as I said, was a phase-down, not a phase-out... and it worked quite well. Moderate regulation, designed to have minimal affect on the economy, reduced lead levels in Americans (especially children) dramatically. It wasn't until 1996, when leaded fuel was less than 1% of the total sold, did the "ban" change the plan. During the late 1980's and into the 1990's some of the regulations and taxes are questionable under the constitution. And they were unneeded by that time... leaded fuel would have disappeared from the pump all on it's own.

But the regulations on wood-fired appliances are not based in "real numbers", they ain't supported by "sound science", and the appliances are not adversely poisoning every single citizen in the United States. As I said, "reminiscent"... not identical.
*

So all this boils down to is whether or not you agree with the regulation being imposed?


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk
 
Cerran

Cerran

Addicted to ArboristSite
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
5,364
Location
Hayden, ID
So all this boils down to is whether or not you agree with the regulation being imposed?


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk

That's not what he said at all. The regulation in this case was to protect people and property from actual damage (not just some misconceived perception) which is what all regulations (laws) should be about.
 
Chris-PA

Chris-PA

Where the Wild Things Are
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
10,090
Location
PA
From the youralaskalink article:

"The Fairbanks North Star Borough voters rejected a measure to continue banning borough government from regulating air pollution."


OK all you "conservatives", let's hear you cheer about local control! Is this not a great thing to see?
 
Whitespider
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
22,834
Location
On the Cedar in Northeast Iowa
slowp , I'll ask you one more time, one final time... what in-the-hell does anything to do with local laws, ordinances, regulations, or voters have to do with Federal actions? Read the damn Constitution, if specifically states in the tenth amendment...
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
By-the-way, that is the complete and total tenth amendment.
What you are totally unable to comprehend is the difference... and even more importantly, why it makes a difference.
I actually feel sorry for you...
*
 
zogger

zogger

Tree Freak
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Messages
16,456
Location
North Georgia
From the youralaskalink article:

"The Fairbanks North Star Borough voters rejected a measure to continue banning borough government from regulating air pollution."


OK all you "conservatives", let's hear you cheer about local control! Is this not a great thing to see?

I hope it is OK if I chime in, not a conservative, nor a liberal..

I think it is OK as long as their ordinances don't violate or infringe on anything in their state constitution. Not knowing a thing about Alaska state government..hard to say, don't feel like tens of hours (potential perhaps..) of research to find out.
 
pro94lt

pro94lt

Addicted to ArboristSite
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
1,701
Location
USA
My heart hearts for this country. Reading what others have posted and how little they value liberty. God bless you all.
 
slowp
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
16,215
Location
Warshington
slowp , I'll ask you one more time, one final time... what in-the-hell does anything to do with local laws, ordinances, regulations, or voters have to do with Federal actions? Read the damn Constitution, if specifically states in the tenth amendment...
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
By-the-way, that is the complete and total tenth amendment.
What you are totally unable to comprehend is the difference... and even more importantly, why it makes a difference.
I actually feel sorry for you...
*

Ummm, well, read the article. The locals were not allowing the air pollution laws to be enforced. They then voted, and voted in favor of local officials enforcing the federally figured out levels of pollution. Read the articles.

The constitution, like religious tomes, is open to different interpretations. That's why we have courts of law. Those folks are the final interpreters, until an amendment is passed. I find people who want to infringe upon basic rights--like the ability to breathe, by constantly claiming IT SAYS IN THE CONSTITUTION...to be incapable of even thinking that folks have a basic right to breath. End of discussion. The circle of BS continues.
 
olyman
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
26,895
Location
iowa
and all the bs is pouring out of your leftist mind,,,you refuse to believe any truth..only what you've been taught by the leftists of this country,who are destroying America as fast as they can....and certain dupes believe allllll their lies....blind leading the blind...that's why ovomit is doing his best to destroy the constitution,,as the filth said its a flawed document,,,he likes the communist manifesto..................................
 
Whitespider
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
22,834
Location
On the Cedar in Northeast Iowa
The locals were not allowing the air pollution laws to be enforced. They then voted, and voted in favor of local officials enforcing the federally figured out levels of pollution. Read the articles.

I did read the damn articles, and they flat do not say what you claim they do... period‼
The locals had prohibited (by a vote) local government from regulating heating appliances... nothing more‼
The latest vote rescinds that prohibition, which will allow local government to create local regulations on heating appliances that address local needs... nothing more‼

The articles say nothing about blocking the enforcement of "air pollution laws", and they certainly say nothing about now "enforcing the federally figured out levels of pollution". There is mention, by the authors of the articles (but they site no sources), that the area is often out of compliance with with federal air standards established in the "Clean Air Act" and/or exceeds health limits established by the EPA... neither of which are "laws", they are simply standards, or goals to aim for (many areas of the country are regularly out of compliance). I'll quote directly from one of your articles...
"...the community now has the ability to come to the table and work together to find solutions to our air pollution problems."

The "BS" is not in my words... it's in yours. I'm not the one overstating what those articles say, or trying to make them stand for more than they do. In fact, those articles are about nothing more than local citizens and government addressing local issues, it has no relevance to the Federal government or the EPA... and the only relevance to the Constitution is local citizens and government exercising their Tenth Amendment right without unconstitutional interference from federal government. And those articles certainly don't mention a "basic right to breath" :rolleyes:... those are your words.
*
 
olyman
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
26,895
Location
iowa
I did read the damn articles, and they flat do not say what you claim they do... period‼
The locals had prohibited (by a vote) local government from regulating heating appliances... nothing more‼
The latest vote rescinds that prohibition, which will allow local government to create local regulations on heating appliances that address local needs... nothing more‼

The articles say nothing about blocking the enforcement of "air pollution laws", and they certainly say nothing about now "enforcing the federally figured out levels of pollution". There is mention, by the authors of the articles (but they site no sources), that the area is often out of compliance with with federal air standards established in the "Clean Air Act" and/or exceeds health limits established by the EPA... neither of which are "laws", they are simply standards, or goals to aim for (many areas of the country are regularly out of compliance). I'll quote directly from one of your articles...
"...the community now has the ability to come to the table and work together to find solutions to our air pollution problems."

The "BS" is not in my words... it's in yours. I'm not the one overstating what those articles say, or trying to make them stand for more than they do. In fact, those articles are about nothing more than local citizens and government addressing local issues, it has no relevance to the Federal government or the EPA... and the only relevance to the Constitution is local citizens and government exercising their Tenth Amendment right without unconstitutional interference from federal government. And those articles certainly don't mention a "basic right to breath" :rolleyes:... those are your words.
*
slam dunk!!!! :clap::clap: you are very articulate,,and thourough.............
 
Whitespider
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
22,834
Location
On the Cedar in Northeast Iowa
The constitution, like religious tomes, is open to different interpretations.
That statement, as well as the comparison, is illogically absurd... and frankly, quite bizarre.
The Constitution is the rule book of play, the courts system is the referee system that enforces the rules... the ideology that the constitution is "open to different interpretations" is forwarded only by a minority of non-believers or those who don't like what it says and wish to circumvent it. The constitution, in fact, lays out a set of rules for its own change... the minority of non-believers and haters are unable to make those changes (because the rules don't allow a minority to change it) so they have attempted to advanced an ideology that the constitution is "open to different interpretations." When that ideology has been brought before the courts it has been struck down, and reprimanded, repeatedly.

Seriously, I actually feel sorry for you...
*
 
olyman
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
26,895
Location
iowa
That statement, as well as the comparison, is illogically absurd... and frankly, quite bizarre.
The Constitution is the rule book of play, the courts system is the referee system that enforces the rules... the ideology that the constitution is "open to different interpretations" is forwarded only by a minority of non-believers or those who don't like what it says and wish to circumvent it. The constitution, in fact, lays out a set of rules for its own change... the minority of non-believers and haters are unable to make those changes (because the rules don't allow a minority to change it) so they have attempted to advanced an ideology that the constitution is "open to different interpretations." When that ideology has been brought before the courts it has been struck down, and reprimanded, repeatedly.

Seriously, I actually feel sorry for you...
*
:rock:
 
brenndatomu

brenndatomu

Hey you woodchucks, quit chucking my wood!
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
2,510
Location
NE/Central Ohio
Top