In America, Millions Breathe Too Much Soot

EPA Adds 15 Cities To Sooty Air List, Brings Total To 46; Environmentalists Critical Of Lax Standards

(AP)  More than 100 million people living in 46 metropolitan areas of the United States are breathing air that has become fouled with too much soot on some days, and now those cities have to clean up their air, the federal Environmental Protection Agency said Monday.

The EPA added 15 cities to the sooty air list, mostly in states not usually thought of as pollution-prone, such as Alaska, Utah, Idaho and Wisconsin. That probably is because of the prevalence of wood stoves in western and northern regions, a top EPA official said.

But environmentalists said the EPA was doing only half its job on soot-laden areas, letting off the hook some southern cities with long-term soot problems, such as Houston, Texas.

The EPA notified elected officials in 211 counties in 25 states that their air violated newly tightened daily standards for fine particles of pollution from diesel-burning trucks, power plants, wood-burning stoves and other sources. Those particles, often called soot, can cause breathing and heart problems.

These lists of what EPA calls "nonattainment areas" are important because regions that have air that is too sooty must develop plans by 2012 to show they plan to clean it, and then do so by 2014. When old power plants and factories in these areas expand or do major refurbishing, they have to show EPA that it would not further pollute the air. It could mean also controls on vehicle emissions and regions having to take pollution into effect when they build new roads.

Fifty-four counties that didn't violate soot standards in 2004, the last time EPA put out a list, do now. They include areas around Fairbanks and Juneau, Alaska; Nogales, Arizona on the Mexican border; Logan and Pinehurst, Idaho; Davenport and Muscatine, Iowa; Klamath and Oakridge, Oregon; Provo and Salt Lake City, Utah; Seattle, Washington; and Green Bay, Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The air is getting cleaner, but the daily soot standards were made nearly 50 percent tougher in 2006, said Robert Meyers, the principal deputy assistant administrator for air and radiation at EPA.

Since 2006, EPA has had two sets of soot standards and this list looks only at one of them. There are daily air quality standards and long-term yearly standards. The Bush Administration tightened the daily standard, but not the long-term one, despite EPA's science advisers' recommendation to do so.

[lila356]

It''s difficult to clean up the air when our government is spraying chemtrails daily and denying it. This is going on ALL OVER THE WORLD.
EPA, when are you going to do something and tell the American people the truth? What is the miltary spraying on us?

[payasyougo]

"The EPA notified elected officials in 211 counties in 25 states that their air violated newly tightened daily standards for fine particles of pollution from diesel-burning trucks, power plants, wood-burning stoves and other sources."
----
I can see the order in which states will tackle this problem...

1. immediately ban the use of wood-burning stoves, enacting severe penalties.
2. spend years debating what should be restricted next.

[debinok1]

Excuse me but soot, what next? to much acid in our ****? enough already.

[troutfisher4]

Excuse me but soot, what next? to much acid in our ****? enough already.

Posted by DebinOK1


Dumb post.

[debinok1]

Dumb post.

Posted by troutfisher4
********************
Again, maybe someday you will get sarcasm.

[troutfisher4]

Again, maybe someday you will get sarcasm.

Posted by DebinOK1


I get it - it was still dumb.

[debinok1]

Troutfish,
Lets start by saying I am not big on all the enviromental bullying or the climate change bullying for that matter. When I get tired of hearing something repeated ad nauseum, I tend to get sarcastic. If you dont like it tough ****. Its a free country, I still have the right to disagree.

[troutfisher4]

Troutfish,
Lets start by saying I am not big on all the enviromental bullying or the climate change bullying for that matter. When I get tired of hearing something repeated ad nauseum, I tend to get sarcastic. If you dont like it tough ****. Its a free country, I still have the right to disagree.

Posted by DebinOK1


Yes, and the right to be stupid as well.

[troutfisher4]

PS

Go review what the American Medical Association says about the health dangers of soot, and get back to us. Denial is not good for your health :)

[troutfisher4]

EPA Decision on Air Quality Standards for Soot and Dust May Cause 24,000 Deaths Annually


As many as 24,000 Americans could lose their lives every year because of the EPA%u2019s refusal to follow the advice of medical professionals to tighten U.S. air quality standards that control soot, dust and other particulate matter, by allowing one less microgram per cubic meter of air annually, according to a cost-benefit analysis released Friday.

[debinok1]

This is nothing more than the government trying to push more people into electric and NG whether they want it or can afford it. No way those little wood stoves are belching more soot than the power plants are, but somehow they always get a pass.

[barbaram99]

Some heat their homes by wood stoves. Our great grandparents did. Soot. The cars are worse in that dept, what next? Smog is far worse. There are days it is so bad people can''t go out. Get a lot of the cars off the roads.

[yeswedid]

"Enviro Groups Sue Over EPA Mining Rule
Critics Charge Move By Bush Admin. Would Increase Pollution From Mountaintop Mining"

This is one of this side stories on the right side of this article. The truth of the matter is that our government (including our Environmental *PROTECTION* Agency) doesn''t give a roarin'' rip about how much pollution we are ingesting, digesting, etc. If there aren''t $$ signs involved this takes a backseat. How disgusting this is, that the safety/health of our own citizens is not TOP PRIORITY!

[troutfisher4]

dumbOK1:

You show no understanding of this topic. Just quit.

[yeswedid]

d7767w: So I''m believing you are one of those "wackos" then that does not believe in the fate of the ozone layer? GET A CLUE BUDDY. This stuff is REAL & we will see a LOT of crazy sh*t happen in our lifetimes on this planet!!

[debinok1]

Really, well how about this, if someone with one of those wood stoves puts the fire out, the soot stops being produced. If I go turn of my heater will the power plant down the road stop polluting? No, because it runs 24/7/365. So you tell me which one is producing more pollution.

[debinok1]

Climate change is bogus, the EPA has no real idea of where the level of anything should be, the hole in the ozone is man made but not by CFCs, by all the flames we keep shooting through it when we launch the satellites and shuttles.

[troutfisher4]

Climate change is bogus, the EPA has no real idea of where the level of anything should be, the hole in the ozone is man made but not by CFCs, by all the flames we keep shooting through it when we launch the satellites and shuttles.

Posted by DebinOK1



Just put on your tinfoil hat, it will be OK....

[debinok1]

Just put on your tinfoil hat, it will be OK....

Posted by troutfisher4
*********************
And greenland has always been covered in ice, right? The fact that it is melting is devastating.

[troutfisher4]

And greenland has always been covered in ice, right? The fact that it is melting is devastating.

Posted by DebinOK1


Make up your mind. If climate change is bogus like you said, why would it melt?

[debinok1]

Make up your mind. If climate change is bogus like you said, why would it melt?

Posted by troutfisher4
********************
More important is what they found when it did, it wasnt always ice, people used to LIVE there and GREW FOOD. So that "climate" shifted at least once in the recent past. So why wouldnt it do so again.

[debinok1]

Illinois used to be covered by a glacier, look at it now, the climate shifted, now its prarie land.

[troutfisher4]

More important is what they found when it did, it wasnt always ice, people used to LIVE there and GREW FOOD. So that "climate" shifted at least once in the recent past. So why wouldnt it do so again.

Posted by DebinOK1


WELL! That settles it, then.

[debinok1]

And if the EPA was really interested in protecting the whole enviroment, they would leave the wild fires alone, since they are interfering with the reproduction cycle of some plants that NEED to burn to go to seed.

[troutfisher4]

And if the EPA was really interested in protecting the whole enviroment, they would leave the wild fires alone, since they are interfering with the reproduction cycle of some plants that NEED to burn to go to seed.

Posted by DebinOK1


Ummm, the Forest Service is in charge of that program.

[debinok1]

You people dont get it and never will, fear rules your thinking. The planet changes all the time, it has been doing it for centuries, if it hadnt we wouldnt find sea fossils in the deserts or in the mountains. Climate change theory is an attempt to stop nature. They are trying to prevent the need to migrate. To maintain what has been built since we cant take it with us.

[troutfisher4]

You people dont get it and never will, fear rules your thinking. The planet changes all the time, it has been doing it for centuries, if it hadnt we wouldnt find sea fossils in the deserts or in the mountains. Climate change theory is an attempt to stop nature. They are trying to prevent the need to migrate. To maintain what has been built since we cant take it with us.

Posted by DebinOK1


How old is the Earth?

[debinok1]

Ummm, the Forest Service is in charge of that program.

Posted by troutfisher4
********************
And who do you think the Forest service answers to? The EPA.

[debinok1]

How old is the Earth?

Posted by troutfisher4
**********************
Best estimates say a little over a billion years, and during that time how many "climates" have existed?

[troutfisher4]

And who do you think the Forest service answers to? The EPA.

Posted by DebinOK1


Nope.

[troutfisher4]

How old is the Earth?

Posted by troutfisher4
**********************
Best estimates say a little over a billion years, and during that time how many "climates" have existed?

Posted by DebinOK1



Nope.

[debinok1]

The earth has never stood still, the climate has constantly changed and will continue to constantly change, there are signs of mass migrations through time without the people returning to their original sites, why? Most likely explanation is that the "climate" in their area became uninhabitable, by either intense heat or intense cold.

[debinok1]

The extreme view says 4.5 billion, the less extreme view says 1.2 billion, it all depends on the scientist. See scientists can infer what they will into their research in many different ways and have them all be valid with the statistics each uses.

[troutfisher4]

The extreme view says 4.5 billion, the less extreme view says 1.2 billion, it all depends on the scientist. See scientists can infer what they will into their research in many different ways and have them all be valid with the statistics each uses.

Posted by DebinOK1


The consensus is 4.5 billion years, no serious disagreement on that point.

[troutfisher4]

The earth has never stood still, the climate has constantly changed and will continue to constantly change, there are signs of mass migrations through time without the people returning to their original sites, why? Most likely explanation is that the "climate" in their area became uninhabitable, by either intense heat or intense cold.

Posted by DebinOK1


Yes, you are correct!

But what is difference between the past and the present? Why is it such a big deal now?

[troutfisher4]

Answer:

There are 6.7 billion people on the planet today.

There were only a tiny fraction of that number during the last major climatic change.

[debinok1]

Excerpt from the partner profile of the FS and the EPA:

New challenges confront us as climate change, growing population, and consumption impact the capacity of the Earth%u2019s ecosystems. The Forest Service, the first agency to join this valuable partnership with EPA has an important role to play in this conversation about consumption

[troutfisher4]

The Forest Service, the first agency to join this valuable partnership with EPA has an important role to play in this conversation about consumption

Posted by DebinOK1



Partnership.

The FS does not report to the EPA.

[debinok1]

Why is it such a big deal now?

Posted by troutfisher4
**********************
Because now its a cash cow, people are willing to pay billions in research grants, It also has massive finacial benefits on a global scale. This isnt about people, its about money.

[troutfisher4]

Because now its a cash cow, people are willing to pay billions in research grants, It also has massive finacial benefits on a global scale. This isnt about people, its about money.

Posted by DebinOK1



wrong answer

go back to human population

[troutfisher4]

Answer:

There are 6.7 billion people on the planet today.

There were only a tiny fraction of that number during the last major climatic change.

[debinok1]

go back to human population
Posted by troutfisher4
**************
Has nothing to do with what the planet does all by itself.

[troutfisher4]

Has nothing to do with what the planet does all by itself.

Posted by DebinOK1

So you say that the current climate change is natural?

If so, find a scientific agency or organization that agrees with your viewpoint.


tick tock

[troutfisher4]

HINT:

No scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.

[debinok1]

We cannot change the way the earth revolves or tilts these are major factors in climate. That and the sun and we have no more control over the sun than we do the earth. climate shifts are part of that. I am sorry your precious scientists choose to ignore the facts, just as some people choose to ignore the scientists.

[troutfisher4]

SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS THAT ACKNOWLEDGE THE REALITY OF GLOBAL WARMING:


INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF ACADEMIES OF ENGINEERING
EUROPEAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AND ARTS
NETWORK OF AFRICAN SCIENCE ACADEMIES
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (US)
EUROPEAN SCIENCE FOUNDATION
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE
FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS
WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION
AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
ROYAL METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY (UK)
AUSTRALIAN METEOROLOGICAL AND OCEANOGRAPHIC SOCIETY
CANADIAN METEOROLOGICAL AND OCEANOGRAPHIC SOCIETY
CANADIAN FOUNDATION FOR CLIMATE AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR QUATERNARY RESEARCH
AMERICAN QUATERNARY ASSOCIATION
STRATIGRAPHY COMMISSION OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF GEODESY AND GEOPHYSICS
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES
EUROPEAN GEOSCIENCES UNION
CANADIAN FEDERATION OF EARTH SCIENCES
GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION
AMERICAN ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS
AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY
AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MICROBIOLOGY
INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGY (UK)
WORLD FEDERATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATIONS
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA (THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA)
WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION
CHARTERED INSTITUTION OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
FEDERAL CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE PROGRAM (US)

[troutfisher4]

Additional,

All scientific agencies of the U.S. Govt acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

[debinok1]

No scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.


Posted by troutfisher4
*********************
Believe it or not there used to be many. But, threats of loss of tenure, loss of grants for research, have influenced many to join the growing ranks and support the current theory. Whether they really believe it or not, they will not risk their professional careers going against it.

[troutfisher4]

Believe it or not there used to be many. But, threats of loss of tenure, loss of grants for research, have influenced many to join the growing ranks and support the current theory. Whether they really believe it or not, they will not risk their professional careers going against it.

Posted by DebinOK1


Are you joking??? Under the Bush administration, those deniers would have received bonuses!!

[debinok1]

All scientific agencies of the U.S. Govt acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
Posted by troutfisher4
********************
Which is the BIGGEST reason I doubt. anything the government can be that united about has to be fishy.