Trump Administration Is Reversing Nearly 100 Environmental Rules (Page 3): Yes, while the current clear air is caused by lower levels of particulate matter and less Smog due to less...

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

lindajoy wrote:

I support any measures for pollution, Air, clean water and land.. its the article I posted that says even seeing cleaner air, with limited travel, cars, airplanes, etc it has no true impact on c*****e c****e..Or changing our CO2 levels..

So I ask again, with all the Regulating, Regulatory enactments why we don’t see any progress? None?? In fact supposed increases...??
The actions we take may be good but they don’t achieve anything so they’re really not all that good.

Read this please..

We Can’t Count on Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Prevent Dangerous C*****e C****e
Although reducing emissions remains essential, it is time to focus on additional responses

Last month, representatives of all countries gathered for their annual meeting to prevent c*****e c****e. Despite the motto “Time for Action,” the New York Times described it as “one of the worst outcomes in a quarter-century of climate negotiations.” Should we be surprised? Disappointed? Despairing? I believe that insufficient cuts in greenhouse gas emissions — which is the consistent outcome of nearly three-decades of such climate negotiations — is to be expected and will continue. Yet in the face of the most important contemporary environmental problem, we are relying too much on this single approach at the expense of others. In other words, we have put too many eggs in one basket. Fortunately there are other options.
Last week’s climate summit yielded little in the way of action. Photo via UNFCCC.
Last month’s climate summit yielded little in the way of action. Photo via UNFCCC.
Human-caused c*****e c****e poses serious risks for people and biodiversity. Understandably, the leading response to date has been to reduce (“mitigate”) the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that cause it. In this regard, there is some good news. Industrialized countries have reduced their emissions by more than 17% since the problem was first identified, despite their growing populations and economies (see emissions data from PBL). Globally, emissions per dollar of economic activity has fallen by 1/3 in that time. Advances in technologies and governance will likely continue these trends. And recent commitments by a few countries and US states to get to net zero emissions imply that policy-makers are finally dedicated to the task.
However, mitigation alone will not prevent dangerous c*****e c****e. To be clear, the connection between our greenhouse gas emissions with c*****e c****e is well-established, and the risks are grave.
To understand why emissions cuts will not be enough, let’s look at what has been done and what would be needed. Regarding the former, here are a few relevant facts:
All countries agreed in 1992 to an objective of “stabiliz[ing] greenhouse gas concentrations” in the UN Framework Convention on C*****e C****e. Since then, emissions have increased 57%
All countries in 2015 agreed to “reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible… and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter… so as to achieve [net zero emissions] in the second half of this century” in the Paris Agreement. Since then, emissions have increased by 4%.
Germany is often touted as the model country in terms of mitigation. Since the 2010 beginning of its g***n e****y revolution, its emissions have declined by only 2%.
Now let’s turn to what would be needed. Perhaps the best metric is emissions per dollar of economic activity, the so-called the “carbon intensity” of the economy, as this removes confounding changes in population and economic growth. The latest annual Low Carbon Economy Index from the consultancy firm PwC reports that the global economy decarbonizing at an average annual rate of 1.6% since 2000. Yet a 7.5% rate would need to be sustained for decades to have a good chance of staying within the 2 degrees Celsius target, which all countries agreed upon in the Paris Agreement. As a reference point, the highest national decarbonization rate over a decade was France, which reached 4.5% as it rapidly converted to nuclear power from 1979 to 1988.

https://legal-planet.org/2020/01/07/we-cant-count-on-cutting-greenhouse-gas-emissions-to-prevent-dangerous-c*****e-c****e/

I support any measures for pollution, Air, clean w... (show quote)

Yes, while the current clear air is caused by lower levels of particulate matter and less Smog due to less vehicle travel.. it is temporary levels will in all likelihood return to 2019 levels when we are near normal once again..

However the belief that no progress has been made is wrong..

CO2 levels have been going down for a number of years even the first year of trumps administration.

ANother nice example is the hole in the Ozone over Antarctica, while it took about 30 years, the changing of the gas in air conditioners etc did its job and the ozone layer is near the original level.. the hole has closed..

The posted article was very interesting and I had not read it.. will hang on to the link and look into it some more..

Do the authors have a better or alternative idea other then renewable energy, wind, solar and Hydrogen?

American Vet

permafrost wrote:

Yes, while the current clear air is caused by lower levels of particulate matter and less Smog due to less vehicle travel.. it is temporary levels will in all likelihood return to 2019 levels when we are near normal once again.

And the normal was doing quite well:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may have taken a drastic change of direction under Scott Pruitt, but plenty of the agency’s staff is still dev**ed to facts and science. In fact, the EPA’s latest annual air quality report shows that environmental regulation and business growth are not mutually exclusive. The report also provides a case study for long-term sustainable development, as yes, growth and clean air can occur hand-in-hand.

After all, in the almost five decades since Richard Nixon established the EPA, as a nation we are collectively driving more, leaving the lights on more frequently, and flick our home and office switches on more often. But despite almost a 60 percent increase in population since 1970, the nation’s air is cleaner, and the ways in which we light our rooms and power our automobiles have become far more efficient.

https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2017/1970-air-pollution-down-73-economy-tripled/15991

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Zemirah wrote:

Obama's power grab was based on his personality. I... (show quote)

clean water and also clean air needs have to far outweigh the profits of any business.. the fact that cost to any business increases due to safety and health concerns is irrelevant..

Earthjustice
Non-profit
Image result for earthjustice
earthjustice.org
Description Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest organization based in the United States dedicated to litigating environmental issues. Wikipedia

https://earthjustice.org/blog/2019-october/what-the-trump-administration-is-doing-to-your-water

Latest News: On Apr. 21, 2020, as we prepare to celebrate Earth Day, Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency published the final rule for the rollback of key parts of the Clean Water Rule.

The announcement is part of a multi-rule rollback effort by the Trump administration that ignores science and law to ease regulations for polluters. Repealing the Clean Water Rule without any valid scientific or legal support moves this country away from a commonsense safeguard that helps state and federal agencies protect our rivers, streams, and wetlands under the Clean Water Act. It threatens drinking water sources for 117 million people in the United States.

Everyone is downstream from someone, and this move will ensure that we can no longer count on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to protect water flowing into our neighborhoods, communities, and states from polluters.

“President Trump’s administration wants to make our waters burn again,” said Janette Brimmer, attorney at Earthjustice who has litigated extensively on clean water issues. “Under the cover of C****-**, the Trump administration is giving extractive and polluting industries the power to dig up and destroy wetlands and to dump waste in streams, lakes, and wetlands all over the country. We will see them in court.”

Everyone and everything needs clean water. Without clean drinking water, humans get sick. Plants, animals, aquatic life, and the entire food web need clean water to survive. That’s why the Trump administration’s efforts to gut federal clean water protections are so disturbing.

The administration repealed the Clean Water Rule and is now attempting to undo the landmark 1972 Clean Water Act. Because water policy can start to feel like a whirlpool at times, read on for a breakdown of what’s being proposed and what will be lost.

OUR STORIES
What the Trump Administration Is Doing to Your Water
The administration is attempting to undo the landmark 1972 Clean Water Act. Read on to learn why you should be concerned.

By Rebecca Bowe | April 21, 2020
Waste floats on the Colorado River near Yuma, Arizona, in 1972. Congress passed the Clean Water Act that year, establishing federal protection for all water in the U.S.
Waste floats on the Colorado River near Yuma, Arizona, in 1972. Congress passed the Clean Water Act that year, establishing federal protection for all waters in the U.S.

CHARLES O'REAR / NATIONAL ARCHIVES
Latest News: On Apr. 21, 2020, as we prepare to celebrate Earth Day, Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency published the final rule for the rollback of key parts of the Clean Water Rule.

The announcement is part of a multi-rule rollback effort by the Trump administration that ignores science and law to ease regulations for polluters. Repealing the Clean Water Rule without any valid scientific or legal support moves this country away from a commonsense safeguard that helps state and federal agencies protect our rivers, streams, and wetlands under the Clean Water Act. It threatens drinking water sources for 117 million people in the United States.

Everyone is downstream from someone, and this move will ensure that we can no longer count on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to protect water flowing into our neighborhoods, communities, and states from polluters.

“President Trump’s administration wants to make our waters burn again,” said Janette Brimmer, attorney at Earthjustice who has litigated extensively on clean water issues. “Under the cover of C****-**, the Trump administration is giving extractive and polluting industries the power to dig up and destroy wetlands and to dump waste in streams, lakes, and wetlands all over the country. We will see them in court.”

Everyone and everything needs clean water. Without clean drinking water, humans get sick. Plants, animals, aquatic life, and the entire food web need clean water to survive. That’s why the Trump administration’s efforts to gut federal clean water protections are so disturbing.

The administration repealed the Clean Water Rule and is now attempting to undo the landmark 1972 Clean Water Act. Because water policy can start to feel like a whirlpool at times, read on for a breakdown of what’s being proposed and what will be lost.

How Is the System Supposed to Work, Anyway?
Let’s say a company wants to start mining for coal or heavy metals, or an energy company wants to drill for oil and gas, or a developer wants to pave over a bunch of wetlands for a shopping mall. First, the operator has to apply for and secure a federal permit. Because industrial and development activities pollute water and destroy wetlands, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are tasked with reviewing plans and deciding whether to give them a green light, setting down requirements along the way to minimize water pollution. The 1972 Clean Water Act guides this entire process. It spells out the minimum requirements to protect water quality for health and the environment and to protect waterbodies from destruction.

Why do we have a Clean Water Act and a Clean Water Rule, and what’s the difference?
Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972. Even though the 1972 Clean Water Act established that all “waters of the United States” would be federally protected, things haven’t exactly panned out that way.

The filthy state of Maine's Androscoggin River helped inspire the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972.
The filthiness of Maine's Androscoggin River helped inspire the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972.
CHARLES STEINHACKER / NATIONAL ARCHIVES
Instead, there have been a lot of attacks by industry and developers over which waters should really get the protections of the Act, because polluters would prefer to not be subjected to the Acts requirements and the permits that ensure those requirements are applied. Over time, a series of Supreme Court decisions arising from these fights sent mixed messages about which waters should be protected under the Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Rule — enacted by the Corps and EPA in 2015 under the Obama administration — sought to clear up this confusion and provide science-based guidance on how the Corps and EPA would decide which waters are protected under the Act. Obama’s EPA first completed a comprehensive study on watershed health and connectivity and checked its work with panels of the most significant experts in all fields related to water from biology to geology to hydrology. They then rolled out a new rule based on that science. Environmentalists generally received the Clean Water Rule as a step in the right direction.

What’s the administration’s next move?
The repeal of the Clean Water Rule effectively threw away those science-based definitions, so now decision-making about Clean Water Act permits will revert back to the old, convoluted system.

Even more worrisome, though, is that the Clean Water Rule repeal clears the path for another proposal — essentially a replacement rule, which environmentalists have dubbed the “Dirty Water Rule.” This is a completely new take on that all-important phrase from the Clean Water Act, “waters of the United States” (or WOTUS, if you want to get wonky) and it attempts to cut huge numbers of waterbodies across the nation out of the protections in the Clean Water Act.

How many people would this affect?
The Clean Water Rule protected drinking water sources for more than 117 million Americans — over a third of the nation. If headwaters of major rivers are no longer protected from industrial pollution, downstream water quality will also suffer.

What Is The Dirty Water Rule?
To understand the Dirty Water Rule, imagine you have a map of the United States charting all the rivers, lakes, bays, lagoons, wetlands, headwaters, etc. across the nation. Then, someone takes a Sharpie to it, marking X’s over a significant portion of them and declaring they no longer count as “waters of the United States.” For these excluded waterways, federal clean-water standards no longer apply, and nobody will step in to stop polluters from doing things like burying streams with mining debris, or flushing toxic byproducts into a river or a bay.

The Dirty Water Rule would negatively affect nearly one in every five streams; more than half of all wetlands; and many other lakes, ponds and other waters. Especially troubling is that it guts protections for wetlands, which naturally filter harmful industrial pollution, naturally store floodwaters, and act as buffers in coastal locations susceptible to hurricanes. Trump’s Dirty Water Rule is likely to be unveiled near the end of 2019. (Editor's Note: The Dirty Water Rule was finalized on Apr. 21, 2020.)

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Permafrost, my delight has just been increased one-hundredfold.

The complete disappearance of the woolly mammoths and other animals that thrived during the Ice Age has been a major mystery of paleontology, although not to Christians. Based on the carcasses and the state of preservation of the stomach food found beneath the thawing Siberian tundra, a quick freeze appears reasonable.

Many theorists have advocated a quick freeze to account for the frozen mammoths and other animals in Siberia, as well as the lowlands of Alaska and the Yukon. The quick-freeze hypothesis was developed by scientists in the late 19th century based on the flood that inundated the entire earth during the Genesis flood, releasing onto the earth the “waters above the firmament” (Genesis 1:7). A “vast blanket of invisible water vapor, t***slucent to the light of the stars but productive of a marvelous greenhouse effect which maintained mild temperatures from pole to pole, thus preventing any air-mass circulation or any resultant rainfall (Genesis 2:5).

The atmosphere surrounding the original earth was richer in oxygen and far thicker than it is today and "the exploding of the fountains of the great deep" (Genesis 7:11) described during the initial stages of the Genesis Flood stripped some of that original atmosphere away.

There is evidence that the atmosphere enveloping the early earth was very different than it is today. At one time the entire earth enjoyed a warm tropical environment and there was enhanced oxygen in the atmosphere. Organisms would have grown larger than their modern counterparts and also lived longer. For example, the massive fossilized trees, tropical plants and giant mammals found beneath the frozen tundra.

Birds Eye Frozen Foods Company ran an experiment based on heat conduction and the state of preservation of the stomach contents. They concluded that the atmospheric temperature had to quickly fall below -150°F (-100°C).

When frozen soil thaws, it does indeed become agricultural land, as it was originally.

Unless you are planning to occupy land previously frozen solid for centuries, your alarm is unfounded.

You neglected to provide the information that the picture you posted was a crater in a river bank, which was not and never will be agricultural land.

-- or that, as the article relates, "it is in the midst of Russia's richest natural gas reserves, in the vast Yurkharovskoye gas field, estimated to hold 55 trillion cubic meters of LNG."

- and explosions in such an environment should be neither completely unexpected, nor an event for which those occupying the environment are unprepared.

You would do well to adopt the attitude of the native inhabitants of the region, who are quoted as looking upon such events as "end-of-the-world" phenomena, perhaps with a wisdom which exceeds your own on Who controls the universe.

Below is the three year old article from which the photo and dire warning were copied for your post.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/environment/methane-blasts-holes-in-siberian-tundra-prompting-warnings/article/497002

Methane blasts holes in Siberian tundra, prompting warnings

DIGITAL JOURNAL By Karen Graham Jul 6, 2017 in Environment
Smoke, flames and a tremendous blast marked the most recent formation of a new crater in the thawing tundra of the Yamal Peninsula in Russia recently.

Reindeer herders in the village of Seyakha in Siberia's far north reported that on the morning of June 28, 2017, they saw and felt the eruption of fire and smoke, an event that was caught on seismic sensors, according to the Siberian Times. Scientists rushed to the scene of the blast to photograph the crater that had been blown into the bank of a river.

And this month, another new crater was discovered in the Tyumen region of Siberia. Some local herders told Aleksandr Sokolov, a researcher at the Institute of Ecology of Plants and Animals in Russia, they had heard the explosion and seen the fire in the region of the crater sometime earlier this year.

These events are known as "end-of-the-world" phenomena to locals, and scientists have now identified over 700 additional sites where large swellings in the ground formed by thawing methane gas have been observed- calling them ticking time-bombs, reports T***sitions Online.

Quote: What's behind the strange explosions?

University of Michigan postdoctoral researcher Ben Abbott explains that Permafrost is soil that stays frozen all year long.The Yamal Peninsula in Russia is an energy-rich region, inhabited by the indigenous Nenets people and workers in the oil and gas industry.
However, with c*****e c****e, the Arctic region is slowly warming, and the spring thaw is getting deeper every year. All the frozen organic matter, like dead grass and animal carcasses, thaw as the permafrost thaws, except that it happens, seemingly, all at once, releasing flammable gasses like methane.

Local residents/Siberian Times

Dr. Abbott points out that in some cases, the release of gasses is slow, but sometimes the event is dramatic and can actually reshape the landscape, creating craters called thermokarsts. The craters can look like landslides, huge holes or slumps. Some of the craters fill with water, forming lakes.

In June, over 100 ancient craters formed by exploding methane gas were found on the seafloor.
Related reading: Researchers have found that these ancient remains of hundreds of huge methane domes found on sea floor are more numerous than previously thought.

And in March, thousands of massive underground bubbles of methane were discovered in Siberia.

Reason to be concerned over growing number of craters:

Remember now, that the Yamal Peninsula is energy-rich, holding Russia's biggest natural gas reserves. The region is also home to the 572 kilometers (355 miles) long Obskaya–Bovanenkovo railway, completed in 2011, the northernmost railway in the world. Russian gas company, Gazprom operates the vast Yurkharovskoye gas field, estimated to hold 55 trillion cubic meters of LNG.

The crater that formed on June 28 is only 100 kilometers (60 miles) from Sabetta, a newly developed port on the Ob River that's used to t***sport liquefied natural gas from the Yuzhno-Tambeyskoye gas field. Additionally, there is growing concern about the impact of the methane gas explosions on any infrastructure that has been added to the landscape in the region. There is actually some danger.

"It is very important for us also to know what to do because such an eruption can occur anywhere," Alexander Mazharov, deputy governor of the Yamalo-Nenets autonomous region in Siberia, told The Siberian Times, according to Live Science. "It might hit a technical facility, a residential settlement or a linear object," he said, referring to a pipeline or railroad. End Quote

Pernafrost, Man cannot control heating and thawing, ever! If they choose to live and/or work in this region, better wear a hard hat!

permafrost wrote:

perhaps you would revise your delight if you looked into the actual physical actions which releases these methane domes.. it does not provide agricultural land..

Cuda2020

American Vet wrote:

Instead of inane comments, try refuting the facts:... (show quote)

My insane comments, tell me Einstein, how does the Navigable Protections Act protect our underground waters, our freshwater estuaries we use for drinking water, swimming, our livestock? What a bunch of crapola, protecting our navigable waters. Andrew Wheeler another corporate hack.

Anything the EPA states or abides by now is completely corrupted by Trump and his crooked, foul administration.

American Vet

Barracuda2020 wrote:

My insane comments, tell me Einstein, how does the Navigable Protections Act protect our underground waters, our freshwater estuaries we use for drinking water, swimming, our livestock? What a bunch of crapola, protecting our navigable waters. Andrew Wheeler another corporate hack.

Anything the EPA states or abides by now is completely corrupted by Trump and his crooked, foul administration.

I suggest you try reading the articles I posted. Have someone help you if you don't understand them.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Zemirah wrote:

Permafrost, my delight has just been increased one... (show quote)

interesting article, do not think I have read that particular one.. thank you..

While I am Christian, I do not accept the Bible as a literal book of history on world or mankind..
Nor the 1000s of related stories/theory so often seen trying to link Bible to natural events..

As the earth continues to warm, we will see more of these methane dome escape.. they also exist on the sea floor, in quantity they represent a real threat to us all..

Very clear and other then with a couple minorities, c*****e c****e is not even an event for discussion.. it is a fact..

I am however fascinated by the frozen animals, mammoths for instance recovered in siberia and I have no ready explanation for them.. but I can not accept the version your article seems to promote..

Most acceptable?, in a time of sever change, while these animals had vegetation to eat in the north, the wild weather which can be modeled for this sort of glacial nearness, would erupt a sudden very severe storm and trap these animals in place..

not completely able to accept this for all, but it fits for some of these events and I always keep an eye out for more information..

first picture was on a river, but many many more to choose from..

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Zemirah wrote:

Permafrost, my delight has just been increased one... (show quote)

I commend both you and perm in sharing some very interesting anomalies of the beauty of our Earth and its natural based findings to include methane escaping from some 12,000 years ago in the last ice age..
Something that is in fact natural occurring and well before man interjected..Occurring
in the Barents Sea, escaping even to this day..Perhaps playing a significant factor to today's methane levels.
You peaked my interest so more was needed.. Taken from another site contained in the article here~~

“She knew the research team would find some craters on the seafloor when they began the study in the Barents Sea, however, she didn't realize just how many craters the team would find or how massive many of them turned out to be.
They were giant,” she says, “And they were next to these huge mounds." But the mounds turned out to be the clue to the craters' origins, and it all goes back to the end of the last Ice Age some 12,000 years ago. During the last Ice Age, what we now call the Barents Sea was an area of solid ice.
Methane forms deep inside the Earth, where organic material is turned into methane by heat and pressure. Any methane that bubbled up through the bedrock would have hit the thick layer of ice that covered the region during the Ice Age. Naturally, having no place to go, the gas froze into what is called methane hydrate.
Stunning image shows methane seeping up from seafloor.

As the Earth began warming, the glaciers and ice sheet retreated forming the Barents Sea, and some of the methane hydrates began thawing, turning back into methane gas. The pressure of the warming gas lifted the seafloor, creating huge mounds called pingos, as they pushed up towards the surface.
The researchers used seismic data that revealed fractures in the seabed and identified deep sources of hydrocarbons that could feed the area. Acoustic surveys identified over 600 spots on the seabed where methane was still seeping.
Fascinating and obviously very logical~~

http://m.digitaljournal.com/news/environment/the-remains-of-hundreds-of-huge-methane-domes-found-on-sea-floor/article/494141

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

permafrost wrote:

interesting article, do not think I have read that... (show quote)

I’m addressing more of the theory of methane and its natural occurring eruptions along with the world wide impact of explosions etc.. With this taking place, what can man do to correct what the Earth is doing on its own??

“Dr Anton Sinitsky, director of the Arctic Research Centre, Salekhard, admitted to being startled by the force of the eruption.
'I am still slightly shocked,' he said.
It was 'beyond any doubt that there was an explosion because charred sand and charred grass are visible by the funnel'.
He expressed the fear that such funnels 'can pop up anywhere' in permafrost Yamal.

Professor Vasily Bogoyavlensky interrupted holiday and rushed to check the new crater. Pictures: Yamal Region

In other places it can seep through the surface, but here the unevenly frozen surface layers can mean pockets of methane collect with explosive force.

Such explosions can scatter a large tonnage of rocks hundreds of metres away from the blowhole, said one Yamal report.
'Actually (degassing) is happening in all countries of the world, onshore and offshore,' said Dr Bogoyavlensky. 'Strong degassing is occurring in the Arctic.
'But what we have just seen is a drop in the ocean of this global degassing of subsoil.'

Sooooooo, what is the answer??

https://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/warnings-of-new-arctic-explosions-at-some-700-plus-sites-in-yamal-due-to-thawing-permafrost/

Cuda2020

Capt-jack wrote:

You should ask some of the people that the EPA stu... (show quote)

The EPA doesn't build houses, get a grip. knowing bread companies it was probably exuding some kind of toxic chemical. I h**e to tell you but for your health stop heating American factory-made bread, ie.

Potassium bromate is an oxidizing agent used to "mature" bread flour, which helps strengthen the dough and improve rising, giving it more volume. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) -- part of the World Health Organization -- whose mission is to prevent cancer through researching the potential for human exposure to carcinogens, considers potassium bromate dangerous. The IARC reports that no data are available to assess the potential carcinogenicity of the compound in humans. However, food-additive-grade potassium bromate causes kidney and thyroid tumors when fed to rats. Although potassium bromate is on California's Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer, the FDA approves the additive for use. Bromate has essentially been banned worldwide except in the United States and Japan.

Potassium Bromate is an oxidizing agent used to "mature" bread flour, which helps strengthen the dough and improve rising, giving it more volume. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) -- part of the World Health Organization -- whose mission is to prevent cancer through researching the potential for human exposure to carcinogens, considers potassium bromate dangerous. The IARC reports that no data are available to assess the potential carcinogenicity of the compound in humans. However, food-additive-grade potassium bromate causes kidney and thyroid tumors when fed to rats. Although potassium bromate is on California's Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer, the FDA approves the additive for use. Bromate has essentially been banned worldwide except in the United States and Japan. Because of its utility in bread making, you can even buy "bromated flour" (made with potassium bromate) in the grocery store. The compound may be listed either way on an ingredient label. Avoid breads containing this additive.

Azodicarbonamide
This additive is used as a dough conditioner to improve the texture and strength of bread dough. The compound, abbreviated as ADA, received tremendous media attention when the sandwich chain Subway announced it would remove ADA from its bread dough due to its potential harmful health effects. Concerns center on semicarbazide (SEM), a chemical that forms when ADA is broken down during bread making. According to the FDA, "At high levels, SEM has been shown to increase the incident of tumors when fed to female mice, but not to male mice or either g****r of rat."

Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA) Unfortunately, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2011 Report on Carcinogens, BHA is "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen." The compound is also listed on California's list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer.

Think all those nice additive chemicals people are breathing in nearby everyday.

Cuda2020

permafrost wrote:

clean water and also clean air needs have to far o... (show quote)

Excellent post perm, thank you!

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

permafrost wrote:

Yes, while the current clear air is caused by lowe... (show quote)

An antacid for the Ocean which BTW I do not nor would I ever support such..Don’t mess with Mother Nature to sum it up..
Only in the thought process so far..

https://legal-planet.org/2020/01/27/antacids-for-the-sea-artificial-ocean-alkalinization/

Smedley_buzkill

Barracuda2020 wrote:

Your talking about something you obviously know nothing about and supporting a person who knows even less.

Liberals excel at that. Spouting slogans has little to do with knowledge. I suppose you have some sort of degree in some sort of environmentally related science?

Smedley_buzkill

American Vet wrote:

He was elected by what he promised he would do - and he's doing it.

And how many of the EPA rules are really needed? Remember the EPA rule that declared some intermittent streams are 'protected waterways'?

Bear in mind we already have the cleanest coal plants in the world. We use about 12% of the world's coal, but only produce about 5%-6% of the coal-caused pollution. Gee, I wonder who produces the other 94%? Can you say China, India, Russia, Turkey, et, al?
I seem to remember an EPA screwup under the Obama Administration in which enough poison was released into the Mancos River in Colorado to poison several thousand square miles of aquifer.
The Alaska pipeline that was supposed to have impacted the elk and caribou herds in such a negative way? It didn't.
California, with their empty-headed land management policies has caused most of their wildfires.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Smedley_buzk**l wrote:

Bear in mind we already have the cleanest coal pla... (show quote)

Absolutely right Smedley.. Animas River is a tributary of the San Juan River, which is part of the Colorado River System that stretches almost 1,450 miles through the southwest. A lot of major river ways connected too..It is also still bright orange; in 2015, a team of workers with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accidentally and ironically released 3 million gallons of wastewater from the Gold King Mine in Silverton, Colorado into the nearby tributary... After fighting clean up and denying liability they were about to lose their outright lies to a federal court that said hold on now, you dumped, accident or not ( and it was not accident! IMHO) you will clean it up.. Then it was years fighting over the level of contamination claiming it would not “ over time” injure or hurt people, wildlife etc.. Even tho it certainly did! Then it money talks in how much~ then it was EPA would cleanup parts, not all because altho they tested and knew arsenic etc was floating down streams and k*****g wildlife it was significant.~~And, people were not allowed to fish or swim in a good bit of the rivers becoming more at risk..

Here we are 2020 and the government, EPA, still slinging their lies, still fighting ,not working on ways to contain but claim water levels are better now.. Ha, tell that to the people who can no longer enjoy the rivers or wildlife found all along it..

A useless dept that needs to be disbanded, period! How about Flint, Michigan water and that debacle still on going ?? Yeah, their good alright!!