MORE ON TREATING SEWERAGE RIGHT

What ARE you REALLY drinking? Yellow River Sweat Equity. Urban Development Zones. Five Acre Urban Lot Realty

The 9 March Post TREATING SEWERAGE RIGHT generated several very useful comments. Separating the wheat from the chaff:

What ARE you REALLY drinking? and what ARE you REALLY flushing into the ground water, the streams and the Bay?

Most of those who comment on this Blog are 12.5 Percenters. It is pretty clear from the comments that they made that those who drink well water have no idea WHAT they are drinking. Some know there are not dangerous levels of the most common pathogens like e coli – at least when they last sent a sample to VA Tech. But beyond that?

To find out what is really in that water will cost a lot more money than they are currently paying to tap into the Natural Capital that happens that flows under their property.

In contrast, those who live inside the Clear Edge of Greater Warrenton get a six page analysis every year of everything known to exist in the water after multiple state-of-the-art testings. The report also notes what the best science says about the impact of the trace contents.

That report is a good reason to evolve Agency structures and jurisdictions so that there is a Water and Sewer Agency for every Alpha Community. Those who get water from Fairfax County Water Authority have to rely on “professionals.” One of those “professionals” testified at a hearing on Occoquan water quality some years ago that he did not care what was in the run off into the water supply. The Authority would put chemicals in the treated water to “kill everything.”

The water tastes like it. Who knows the impact of these Agency added chemicals? Who has a say about what they are? The only beneficiaries are the Agency bureaucrats (they extended their pipes) and the bottlers of “spring” water. What ever “spring water” is. The residents of Menlough Cluster bought the DPW staff a buffet lunch in January to thank them for all the work they do on behalf of the citizens. That never happened in Fairfax County.

What is even more important than what comes out of 12.5 Percenters pumps is to make sure that all up-flow neighbors (the ones Groveton calls “certified wing nuts”) do not put REALLY bad stuff in the water (surface or ground) that impacts all their down-flow neighbors. The cost of effective systems for licences, inspections and testing is not being paid by anyone.

There is no assurance that those who live INSIDE the Clear Edge are protected from ALL potential harm but we are a whole lot safer than those who have no idea what they are drinking or what impact they have on those who drink what comes out of their clogged cesspool and saturated drain field. There are no bacteria to eliminate most pollutants and there are few on site systems that perform to spec without regular inspections.

Sure, the persistent chemicals may be measured in parts per million, or perhaps parts per billion (like the concentrations one tastes coming from a black hose or of BPAs) but do they accumulate in the human body? If they do, it may not impact adults until they are too old to care but what about young folks thinking about raising child? Have you carefully read the warnings on prescription drugs? There are a number of common drugs widely used by men that are known to induce birth defects at very low concentrations if ingested by women. And NMM thinks it is smart to have a big yard so one can raise kids, right?

What is the next microbe to jump to humans from cows, chickens, horses, crows or monkeys? Who would have predicted the spread of avian conjunctivitis when it jumped from chickens to the Eastern race of House Finches? You may have noticed an American Goldfinch that is blind in one eye last week. Next week it will be blind in both eyes. How about white nose among bats?

In the Santa Inez Valley, the Watkins man used to lick DDT from the end of his pencil to prove to his farmer-clients that it was safe to put on tomatoes. Humans live in an ever changing environment an it is not getting safer. Public systems with Community scale control and Community Laboratories at every Community College with in a Regional system subject to national oversight is the best bet at this time.

Those who say humans can never REALLY clean up the ground and surface water are afraid that they will have to pay their fair share of the cost of the clean-up. The same folks believe that creation of dysfunctional human settlement patterns INSIDE the Clear Edge over the past 80 years has created a property right (property value) OUTSIDE the Clear Edge to which they have an inalienable right protected by the Constitution.

Yellow River “Sweat” Equity

Larry Gross makes a very good point about coming to grips with the human waste issue: Buy an RV. This is the point EMR made in the original post. With extensive ‘participation’ the cost of treating sewerage – and other waste – can be lowered. However, not many relish carrying buckets of night soil. Most are queezy about taking stool samples to protect from colon cancer.

UDAs (Urban Development Areas)

Larry Gross asked about UDAs:

This is a simple question to address:

Until there is a state-wide Wright Plan then all the UDAs in the world will just be moving the deck chairs.

What will a Wright Plan do? It will identify the future need for Urban land and quantify that need. It will then analyze the amount of vacant and underutilized land and allocate – on a Regional basis – the amount of land NEEDED for future Urban needs. It will then authorize a Regional process to locate the areas for ‘growth.’ It would be prudent to designate twice the NEED on a rolling 20 year basis. Most of the NEED can be most efficiently met through REDEVELOPMENT and that will SHRINK the area within the logical location of the Clear Edge.

When this is done, there would be a basis for designating UDAs. Until then they are just a political fan dancing as Larry likes to call it.

Five Acre Lot Realty

Most important of all is a comment by Larry Gross on 9 March at 4:22 PM:

“also.. you’re gonna to have to reconcile the fact that most 5 acre lots do not have significant runoff problems – MUCH LESS have that runoff go into their sewage treatment facility – the septic tank/field.”

Nice try Larry but this statement is reflects belief in a Myth that supports dysfunctional human settlement patterns.

Consider the 83,000 acres in the Occquan drainage that was “down zoned” by Fairfax County to support the Five Acre Lifestyle:

Check out the pollution levels and flow levels at the monitoring stations before and after the massive explosion of five acre “estates” and “horse farms.”

Check out the before and after air photos of the cleared land for redundant septic fields and the two acre horse pastures where horses stand up to their fetlocks in mud.

Check out the pesticides, fertilizer and other components of Mown Grass Pollution.

Check out the flooded roads after every storm event and the eroded stream banks due to far higher rates of run off.

On the other hand if half the 83,000 acres were in permanent Open Land and the other half developed for Balanced Communities (J / H / S / R / A) – with 40 percent Open Space WITHIN the Communities – there would be capacity for a minimum of 415,000 citizens ALL within R – 20. That means not just Jobs in the Community but they are in the Core and closer to jobs in the Zentrum and with patterns that will support shared-vehicle systems.

415,000 plus is more than the total that have moved to Loudoun and Prince William since the 80s and they are scattered in the
R = 20 to R = 30 Radius Band.

Bottom line: There would be better water quality, better air quality, less driving, the land owners would have made far more money and the citizens would be living in the patterns that the market demonstrates have the highest value.

It would all have happened if there was a fair allocation of the location variable costs. More on that in response to Groveton.

EMR


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

52 responses to “MORE ON TREATING SEWERAGE RIGHT”

  1. Groveton Avatar

    “How about white nose among bats?”.

    I was just thinking that same thing!

  2. Groveton Avatar

    OK Ed –

    Maybe you should actually read that 6 page report (by the way – the EPA requires all water authorities to test the water and send a report to their customers – there is absolutely nothing unique about Warrenton. Looks like you wasted your money on that buffet lunch).

    Here’s the latest online report for the Town of Warrenton:

    http://www.townofwarrenton.com/Portals/0/Consumer_Confidence_Report_2006.pdf

    Here’s a bit of interesting reading from the report:

    72,000 gallons a day of Warrenton’s water comes from two wells. The water from these wells is not treated.

    The Virginia Department of Health did a source water assessment and determined that the two resevoirs that provide water to Warrenton had a “high susceptability to contamination”.

    The water was tested for total coliform bacteria, fecal coliform bacteria, lead, copper, turbidity, alpha emitters, combined radium, nitrate, flouride, total trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids, total organic carbon and chlorine. There are no tests listed for trace pharmaceuticals.

    Here’s the Fairfax Water test results:

    http://www.townofwarrenton.com/Portals/0/Consumer_Confidence_Report_2006.pdf

    Fairfax County’s water supply is also dteremined to have a high degree of suceptability to contamination.

    Both Fairfax County and the Town of Warrenton passed all tests.

    However, here is a bit of interesting reading from the Fairfax report:

    “To date, there are no approved methods for detecting personal care products and pharmaceuticals in drinking water because they appear in such minute quantities. Unfortunately, there is no “blanket” water test for pharmaceuticals in in drinking water.”.

    Sorry Ed but you don’t know any more about the level of pharmaceuticals in your tap water than I know in my well water.

    Also, the cost for a well water test that tests for everything that Warrenton apparently tests for (and more) is the FHA-Long Series. It costs $275. http://www.inspect-ny.com/water/AhsWtr.htm

    However, if you really want to make sure, there are many more tests you can buy. If you paid to run each and every test on the list it would cost about $1,400.

    http://www.inspect-ny.com/water/AhsWtrMisc.htm

    Maybe you should take a sample of your tap water and send it in for analysis.

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Most of those who comment on this Blog are 12.5 Percenters. “

    And of course everyone knows that 12.5 Percenters are effete snobs, inveterate liars, who know nothing about how the world works, and are interested only in their own further aggrandizement.

    Naturally, this makes any comments they make meaningless and moot in the face of the global collapse in mobility and access.

    RH

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “To find out what is really in that water will cost a lot more money than they are currently paying to tap into the Natural Capital that happens that flows under their property.”

    It is true that to find out all of what is really in your water will cost a lot of money. But the real question is whether it is worth it.

    If you knew, what could you do about it? If if there is something you might do about it, what would that cost? Once you know the real hazard and the real cost of eliminating it, is it worth worrying about?

    Those questions (and their answers) have nothing to do with whether you are on a well or where your natural capital gets tapped. City water supplies also tap the natural capital, and it is just as polluted, if that is the right word.

    As usual EMR is obfuscating the issue of how clean is clean and what-is-it-worth-compared-to everything-else-like-antibiotics. He does that by obliquely introducing the issue of who owns natural capital and how much should they be charging you to use it.

    And as usual he taps only one side of that issue. Groundwater falls from the sky where it presumably belongs to everyone, and becomes groudwater if it does not run off of someon’e land and percolates into the ground.

    So, from a systems viewpoint, if you are going to charge someone for tapping into the natural capital, then you need to be prepared to pay those who pay to support the land that supplies more than they use.

    That is likely to put people in aprtments and townhomes at a big disadvantage, by EMR’s incomplete reckoning.

    Notice that the very idea of charging for natural capital implies that someone owns it and has the ability and authority to sell it. It is a preemptive claim of ownership of property (water) and property rights (the authority to sell access).

    Granted, you have to get a permit to drill a well, same as you have to get a permit to release pollutants. But permits have to be granted on an equal opportunity basis, so there is no requirement that a homeowner on a small lot pay more for his permit than one on a large lot.

    Back to the guy in the apoartment. He has no well of his own but uses part of a large one owned by the water service. That well may be large enough to affect the water levels in the private wells of numerous surrounding landowners.

    Since the county pays nothing for its own well permit, and the guy in the apartment is tapping into natural capital that others are paying for and supporting, the question of who is paying enough for what, which is owned by whom pretty soon gets as muddy as the water.

    Is it our natural capital, or not?

    RH

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “In contrast, those who live inside the Clear Edge of Greater Warrenton get a six page analysis every year of everything known to exist in the water after multiple state-of-the-art testings. The report also notes what the best science says about the impact of the trace contents. “

    The report I’m looking at does no such thing.

    It has basically four pages of disclaimers and one page of analysis that covers bacteria,lead, copper, cloudiness, nitrate, fluoride, and radioactive materials.

    Of these, lead and copper ar blamed primarily on household systems, and the rest on natural causes.

    What it does say is that many other contaminants were tested but were not present or below the limits of detection for the equipment used.

    In othere words we did all these tests for nothing, so don’t worry about it, or else you are contaminated by natural causes, so don’t worry about it.

    I’d like to see th list of “many other contaminants” before I decided this was a state of the art operation.

    Warrenton gets much of their water from reservoirs, which have been declared as being highly subject to contamination, na dyet their water is declared as clean.

    That being the case, why should I worry excessively about my well water? Am I any more susceptible than Warrenton?

    RH

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “To date, there are no approved methods for detecting personal care products and pharmaceuticals in drinking water because they appear in such minute quantities.”

    That does not mean there are no methods, just that there are no “approved” methods.

    This is kind of like the building code, the approved methods of building are there primarily to protect the status quo. It has nothing to do withthe safety of methods that are not “approved”.

    The real issue is “such minute quantities”. That’s what they thought about PCB’s once upon a time, as Larry frequently reminds us.

    Either it isn’t worth worrying about, or we don’t know that it is, yet. Now, about those fish lesions…….

    Certainly if we don’t have a way to measure these things (thousands of them, incidentally) We sure don’t have a way to clean up after them, short of doing without.

    Doing without has its own costs. Are we going to claim that the entire pharmaceutical industry has “no right” to pollute?

    Not right now, we don’t know enough. We may have to wait for the next version of “Silent Spring” before we ban pharmaceuticals.

    RH

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Those who say humans can never REALLY clean up the ground and surface water are afraid that they will have to pay their fair share of the cost of the clean-up. “

    Not me. I know for a fact that it cannot be done. I also know for a fact that if we ever try, NO ONE will be able to pay their cost of the cleanup.

    That is why id cannot be done.

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Check out the flooded roads after every storm event and the eroded stream banks due to far higher rates of run off.”

    And then check out the amount of normal, natural erosion after the same events. 95% of the land area is undeveloped and subject mainly to natural erosion. Stream banks erode, get used to it.

    Yes, urban runoff is a problem that needs some attention.

    No, it isn’t our only problem or most important problem.

    But if you listen to some people, they would be happy to make it our most expensive problem.

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Consider the 83,000 acres in the Occquan drainage that was “down zoned” by Fairfax County to support the Five Acre Lifestyle:

    Check out the pollution levels and flow levels at the monitoring stations before and after the massive explosion of five acre “estates” and “horse farms.”

    What is your point?

    That there would be less pollution and runoff if the place had NOT been downzoned?

    That we could have put all those people on 5% of the land and had nearly 100% runoff on that portion and NO runoff on the remaining undeveloped portion?

    Since we do not know what the answers would have been under some other scenario, checking the runoff before and after downzoning is meaningless: you have no control to compare to.

    Anyway, what was there before? Forest, cattle farms? The mouth of the Occooquan is one giant mud flat, except for the “dredged” cannel. Some one got killed there recently, plowing onto that mud falt at high speed.

    That mud flat has been there for generations, where the river was once hundreds of feet deep. We can’t very well blame current Occoquan residents for that.

    RH

    RH

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “and the two acre horse pastures where horses stand up to their fetlocks in mud.”

    Yep, if they were developers they would be fined for that. But the paid county employees who inspect runoff only inpect construction sites, so far as I know.

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “On the other hand if half the 83,000 acres were in permanent Open Land and the other half developed for Balanced Communities…”

    “the land owners would have made far more money”

    Doesnt this really mean that HALF of the land owners would have made more money?

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The same folks believe that creation of dysfunctional human settlement patterns INSIDE the Clear Edge over the past 80 years has created a property right (property value) OUTSIDE the Clear Edge to which they have an inalienable right protected by the Constitution.”

    The Constitution says that whenever property is taken for public use,the owner is entitled to compensation.

    I believe that whenever the value of property is reduced for reasons that allegedly benefit the public, that something has been taken.

    The supreme court has recognized that property is a bundle of sticks, each with its own value. Whithout that, there could be no conservation easements.

    My constitutional rights are not inalienable: they can be changed by an amendment to the constitution.

    Only one of the four statements above is a belief. The rest are facts. I submit that the one belief as stated is pretty much self evident.

    This is another example of EMR obfuscationg the issues by putting two unrelated thoughts in the same sentence.

    The first part is either untrue or it is an unproven assertion. For myself, I don’t think very much about dysfunctional settlement patterns over the last 80 years. I mostly think about what I’m going to do NEXT.

    I don’t know who “these folks” are who think they have rights afforded by the constitution, but last I knew they were correct.

    What is incorrect is the inference that they do not have rights, based on whatever EMR presumes they think.

    RH

  13. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Groveton:

    You are right, I should read the fine print, but there is so much else take needs to be done…

    I tuned out on Fairfax Water Authority long before they were forced to put anything on line.

    However, that statement about “approved methods” sounds like what they have said for years.

    Who “approves” these standards? Professional organizations of water authority staff? Who have a vested interest in keeping the costs down. Or perhaps the EPA which is now reversing years of looking the other way?

    The reason the cost is high is that there is not yet a system of Community Labs.

    I will let others pick the nits and will focus on the big stuff — like human settlement patterns and location – variable costs.

    EMR

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Not so fast Professor Risse, how about the air — ozone in low levels burning out peoples lungs, noise causing hearing loss and increased blood pressure and what about the radio spectrum impacts?

    No one yet knows the long term effects of what has happened to human habitation over the past 60 years —

    except that everytime human find out more, it is bad, not good and those who made the most money making it bad are the ones who spend the most to cover their tracks

    tobacco, asbestus, DDT, …

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    While we are at it congrats on your large private vehicle choice!

    Warren Brown says you made a smart investment.

    He was talking quality and did not even mention that since your HSE and LR3 are priced in pounds they have lost little value since being purchaced.

    He also did not know that you have less than 10K total on both cars in almost 3 years and so the cost of fuel — Browns big problem with Range Rovers / Land Rovers — is not a big problem for you.

    Keep up the good work.

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Sure, the persistent chemicals may be measured in parts per million, or perhaps parts per billion “

    Not all persistent chemicals are also bioaccumulators. Not all bioaccumulators are dangersous.

    This comes down to how clean is clean. How much do you want to spend on the prospectus that something bad might happen? How much do you wnat to spend on the prospect that each one of several thousand bad things might happen?

    Particularly when no amount of money will remove ALL the risk, because it is physically impossible to do so.

    Particularly when the risk was CREATED in order to reduce some other risk.

    Twice as many men die form prostate cancer as women die from breast cancer, but we spend twice as much on breast cancer. Does this make any sense if one life is as valuable as another?

    Some might argue that it does, because prostate cancer kills mostly men that are old already. As larry pointed out recently, we have to discount the effect of future probabilities.

    We can;t spend an infinite amount of money fixing every problem to the nth degree. And, EMR’s proposed solution will do nothing to solve these problems, for the most part.

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The reason the cost is high is that there is not yet a system of Community Labs. “

    Wrong.

    The reason the cost is high is that you have to collect huge samples and then concentrate them until the instuments can detect. The process is painstaking, tedious, requires huge amounts of documentation.

    The intruments cost more than a luxury car and the ancillary equipment and supplies to run them are even more expensive.

    You make hundreds of runs with known amounts to verify the procedutre, as a result the analysis itself results in more trace level pollution. And when you are done you don’t get an answer, but a range of possible answers.

    It is expensive because it is complicated, takes expensive stuff to do, and it is difficult.

    Then you do that over agian for every known pollutant, or if youare lucky, for closely related compounds. But then you get a range of answers for a group of chemicals, which some lawyere willtear to shreds.

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Bottom line: There would be better water quality, better air quality, less driving, the land owners would have made far more money and the citizens would be living in the patterns that the market demonstrates have the highest value.”

    This is conjecture. If half the 83,000 acres were in permanent Open Land and the other half developed for Balanced Communities youould wind up concentrating much of the pollution, not eliminating it. The balanced communities would become like giant RV’s with no place to put their waste. The half reserved for open land would still be polluted and still have runoff (80% of runoff pollutants come fromthe air.)

    There might be somewhat less driving, maybe. Otherwise people will still eat the same number of jellybeans. Anonymous 11:57 is right. We can measure pollutants in the urban atmosphere that we cannot measure inthe countryside: like fine particles from rubber tires. We scrub a lot more of these off in the grid environment than on straightaways.

    RH

  19. Larry G Avatar

    well.. I’ve fallen behind here…due to a weekend trip but here’s a question –

    How many water sources for human consumption are NATURALLY contaminated?

    There are a few, but the vast, vast majority of water sources are healthy for critters (including humans).

    We need to understand the meaning of “contaminated” with respect to the EFFECTS of it on critters – including humans.

    Thankfully – there are known ways of assessing the “health” of waterways.

    Any search of Benthic Organisms with “water quality” will tell one why it’s important for these lower level critters to live and thrive (think food web).

    Here’s a start:

    http://www.baybenthos.versar.com/benthos.htm

    okay..so therefore – how do we end up with way more contaminated that is healthy.

    In this context, the addition of any old substance to water does not make it a “contaminate” if the meaning of “contaminate” in the context that we usually use it in – means – harmful or potentially harmful.

    For instance, we know that some water is “hard” or “soft” or “aggressive” and of course we know that some kinds of water have naturally occurring arsenic or radium …

    and that’s why we test water – not to come up with an exhaustive list of anything and everything that is in it that was not originally in it…but rather focus on those things that can hurt people (and that usually means critters also).

    And so ..the vast, vast majority of “contaminates” that we are concerned about – invariable are cause by – guess who?

    yes… by us… usually by discharging those substances through a pipe from an activity that produces it.

    That’s why we issue permits for pipes – and (not yet) for what is known as non-point sources (such as stormwater runoff).

    But if you think about this – it’s all the same thing…

    it’s contaminates that can harm people that are not naturally found in most water supplies but rather is the result of pipes or non-point impervious surfaces…

    Okay – back to settlement patterns –

    there is no question – that density brings issues with clean water…

    both providing clean water to dense settlement patterns – not normally doeable with wells for most major urban areas…

    and then NOT polluting the downstream waterways with runoff from the dense settlement patterns.

    The functional settlement pattern folks – I’ll call them the 2 1/2 percenters…

    if they want to hold the high ground on virtuous lifestyles then they need to ALSO accept the responsibility for the water issues associated with “functional” settlement patterns…. not only the good – but the bad and the ugly.

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “it’s contaminates that can harm people that are not naturally found in most water supplies but rather is the result of pipes or non-point impervious surfaces…”

    You mean like Love canal?

    Nice try though, and you are getting close.

    1/3 of all waterborne pollution comes from the air. Most of that falls on places that are not impervious. So how does it get in the water?

    You think that “natural: areas can clean up cheicals that we don’t know how to clean up? Allthose same chemicals that are persistent and bioaccumulators?

    It is true that most of these things we think re harmful are made by us. And they are made by us for a reason, which is often to prevent some OTHER risk.

    Think of the Swine flu. We inoculated millions of people to prevent a few people from dying from that, only to find we had killed a number of people with Guillane-Barr syndrome. Most probably the number killed was higher than the number that would have died from the flu.

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    EMR will rejoice when he see this weeks Time article titles “Recycling the Suburbs”

    It stasrts off saying that “The American Suburb as we know it is dying.”……

    Thanks to changing Demographics, including a steady decline in the percentage of households with kids and a growing preference for urban amenities…..”

    “Environmentalists will celebrate the demise of sprawling suburbs which left the nation addicted to cars.” (Yeah, well, just try to imagine the alternative in any significant detail.)

    until we et to this part

    “We cant just toss out all the steel, concrete, and asphalt that went into making the suburbs, even if it is in favor of something perfectly green. That would be worse.”

    Which I have said before. EMR has no vision for re-making the suburbs other than to convert them to non-use.

    The article goes on to describe how former shopping malls are being converted, with an eye to creating new downtowns. Mixed use and all that.

    Otherwise known as “More Places”.

    Surprisingly, Tysons is projected to be a winner because of mass transit and increased density. Sorry TMT.

    But

    “Many Americans will still prefer the space of the suburbs – including the parking spaces.”

    ——————————-

    And the article concludes with the near obligatory “But the result will be a U.S. that is more sustainable – environmentally and economically”

    I don’t see how you have an economy that is sustainable without kids, let alone social seurity, or an Army.

    I suspect those kid-friendly homes will be filled up with new immigrants and second generation catholic immigrants with large families.

    I also suspect that when you move a bunch of people to urban areas, you move their pollution with them. It is going to get shipped back to the countryside to be disposed of and the net environmental gain will be near zero. We can get some, but it is no panacea as the history of cities well proves.

    RH

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “http://www.baybenthos.versar.com/benthos.htm”

    How about that? Larry quoting one of my former clients.

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You can’t trust the well water and you can’t trust the professionals that run city water.

    I guess that leaves Ed Risse and bottled water.

    RH

  24. Larry G Avatar

    With both well water and city water – you need to take the Ronald Regan approach – trust but verify.

    Before the Feds came along and required municipal water systems to report the presence of certain contaminants (and carcinogens) there was much more trusting than verifying.

    we still need to more clearly understand the difference between substances and chemicals that are known to be harmful and which ones are not – and in what concentrations.

    To give an example ..not that many years ago – measuring something in parts per billion at a water plant (as opposed to most water system plants) was considered not cost effective…

    until we also learned that some substances – while not desirable at a parts per billion level – they are acceptable – while at a parts per million level – they are not because as most everyone knows some substances can be deadly even if the concentration is on the order of the head of a pin….

    the point of the regulation is not to outlaw all pollution – but instead to establish safe levels – “safe” meaning that it will not cause immediate nor, hopefully, longer-term harm to people’s health.

    Most municipal water systems in this country and most other industrialized countries provide water that is safe to drink – most of the time.

    But new threats are identified all the time.

    and this all goes back to exactly what a municipal must report (and what they don’t have to).

    For instance, do they need to report the presence of recycled prescription drugs including power animal hormones and antibiotics get into our water supply?

    Well.. they get into our water supplies the same way virtually everything else that threatens our health – we dump it ourselves.

    we constantly are re-learning the lesson that whatever we dump in the rivers – not only harms “critters” but it can harm the human type “critters” also.

    And back to EMR –

    EMR – forget about what’s not good about dysfunctional settlement patterns including “autonobility” until you can tell me how functional settlement patterns are not just subsidized by pollution… in the rivers …and in the smokestacks from electricity generation?

    Otherwise, are we not playing , pot, kettle, black.. and you like your idea of settlement patterns but others like different ones… ???

    Justify your Functional Settlement Pattern on a pollution basis.

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “we still need to more clearly understand the difference between substances and chemicals that are known to be harmful and which ones are not – and in what concentrations.”

    I hope you have a lot of money and a lot of time. The linkd between ixistence, concentration, causality and harm are tenuous at best.

    WE are the benthic creatures in this experiment. There is almost nothing meaningful we can do untilwe know where the dangers lie. My suggestion is to look someplace else: there are plenty or real dangers out there without imagining them at the part per trillion level.

    RH

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Suppose I analyzed your well and told you it had a half part per trisllion PCB and one part per trillion Kepone.

    What would you do?

    RH

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Not that many years ago – measuring something in parts per billion wasn’t even possible. Advances in electronics made it possible, and that allowed us to identify new “threats”.

    “…the point of the regulation is not to outlaw all pollution….”

    Good thing too, because it is impossible. Can’t be done.

    The pont of regulation is to balance the risk of one thing with the risk of another, and the way you do that (unfortunately) is you evelauate the costs in dollars and morbidity and mortality.

    If you decide that the value of lives saved by antidepressants is worth more than the costs of having antidepressants in the water supply, then you have a decision.

    If you are a sane person who drinks water you might object to drinking antidepressants previously consumed by nut cases. But you would have to be crazy to think you have more rights than they do, and they have no rights to damage “your” water.

    RH

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’m afraid that for the most part, when it comes to chemistry the way we identify “new threats” is by focussing closer and closer on ones that are smaller and smaller.

    RH

  29. Larry G Avatar

    re: “WE are the benthic creatures in this experiment. There is almost nothing meaningful we can do untilwe know where the dangers lie.”

    Luckily for the rest of us – when people start dying from bad stuff …like bad water or bad peanut butter – we figure out why and then deal with it.

    We’re not looking into every nook and cranny for a bogeyman… we are responding to things that we cannot ignore.

  30. Larry G Avatar

    re: “If you decide that the value of lives saved by antidepressants is worth more than the costs of having antidepressants in the water supply, then you have a decision. “

    we know that the majority of people do not benefit from taking daily doses of antidepressants.

    But in most cases – we are talking about very small amounts … but we’re not sure when “too much” happens nor are we able to keep up with newer classes of drugs…

    When we define a level for what is “safe” and thus we define what is “unsafe” – then we’ll decide what to do about it – like we have with virtually all substances in the past.

    But you don’t need to be no stinkin rocket scientist to know that newborn kids should not be taking drugs unless proscribed.

    We also know that people taking other drugs should not be taking them in combination with depressants – either.

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How many kids do you think will be killed by lunatics who haven’t had their antidepressants?

    The point here is not to make fun of anyone with mental illness, or to blame them for some hypothetical damage to yet unborn children.

    The point is that we have these things in the water for a reason. We probably can’t get them out of the water because it costs too much. It costs more than there is money.

    We can prohibit their manufacture, but that has very large costs as well.

    And we are going to balance that cost against what? Conjecture? Fear Of Biphenyls? something that might happen but we don’t know what it is or when?

    “When we define a level for what is “safe” and thus we define what is “unsafe” – then we’ll decide what to do about it – like we have with virtually all substances in the past.”

    Bingo. When you have the information. And when that happens someone will be wailing about allthe mistakes we made wit Kepone and DDT and sugar substitutes. We should have had more regulation sooner.

    RH

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    So now you are telling me that my neighbors cannot simply gang up on me because they think what I’m doing is bad for them, and ban me by force of mob.

    They might actually need some proof of damage?

    RH

  33. Larry G Avatar

    re: “The point is that we have these things in the water for a reason. We probably can’t get them out of the water because it costs too much. It costs more than there is money.

    We can prohibit their manufacture, but that has very large costs as well.”

    You think way too small RH.

    We don’t start off saying that we cannot do something.

    We find answers that work.

    If could be well that we develop drugs that have a more shorter efficacy period.. like some pesticides that work for a few hours and then break down into something that does not have longer-term impacts.

    but the point is – we don’t start off saying that we cannot because it is too expensive or we cannot afford to outlaw something.

  34. Larry G Avatar

    re: “So now you are telling me that my neighbors cannot simply gang up on me because they think what I’m doing is bad for them, and ban me by force of mob.

    They might actually need some proof of damage?”

    Proof that they agree on – even if you don’t.

    right?

    that’s the problem with your approach to this.

    You don’t agree with the commonly-accepted approaches that we as a society have developed …

    you have your own views.. which is fine.. but you can’t stand being outvoted… which is fine also…

    but if there are 10 folks and 9 of them think a substance is harmful and cannot be allowed in the water supply and you are the one who does not agree – you lose.

    right?

    So you’ve got this cockamamie idea about the “right to pollute” except …it does not align very well with the way these things really work…

    but you plug away at it anyhow…

    it’s as much a character flaw as it is a virtue… I guess

    much change often starts with one person and he gains agreement …

    but methinks on the pollution issue – your approach – lost – a long time ago.. about the time Rachel Carson came along… and then subsequently the Clean Water and Clean Air act.

    I don’t see those laws going backward anytime soon .. they had their best chance to do that in the Bush years and it never happened…

    right?

    so… when we say that “we” decide.. the “we” is significant in terms of process.

    right?

    all voices are welcomed – indeed required – for any useful debate – but at the end of the day- we have to have a way to decide…

    right?

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Proof that they agree on – even if you don’t.

    right?”

    Nope. There is no more requirement that they agree than there is that I agree.

    How can there be without giving them more power, including the power to steal?

    The government can and has imposed regulations the majority did not agree with.

    The way you get around this is to have proof that is measurable, or that has been effectively agreed to in another case. We can’t claim that one policy is worth $50,000 per asthma case and another is worth $100,000 per asthma case.

    I reject the idea that the majority “knows better”. I reject there is no way to come to a standard of proof that reasonable persons can accept.

    Finally there is a simple check: the usual case is that the majority makes a claim for some net public benefit. If that is the case then they should be willing to pay off the losers in the bargain. If they are unwilling to pay, then that is a sufficient negative proof.

    That still leaves you with the problem of defining the costs sufficiently, and people will disagree on the level of proof for THAT.

    That doesn’t mean it cannot be done, it means we need a better, more defined process. Right now, no one wants the process because they fear “their side” will lose.

    But this is just another negative proof: if they are afraid to lose it implies they are looking for an unfair gain. The best process to resolve this is a free market, but that would mean we have to define ownership of things that are now undefined.

    RH

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “”right to pollute” except …it does not align very well with the way these things really work…”

    No one has a zero right to pollute and no one has an infinite right to pollute, but pollute we must: it is “our” environment we are polluting, so we must all have an equal right to pollute.

    How can it be any other way?

    That is the way the law, in fact, says it must be.

    If it is not working that way, as you claim, then we are breaking the law: stealing from each other.

    I know that the idea of “optimum level of pollution” is an anathema, but there it is. we cannot do without it, and we cannot do with too much of any part of it, so there MUST be one answer that works best.

    We either don’t know what that answer is, are unwilling to admit it exists, or wish to ignore it for persanl advantage, or we claim the answer is unknowable because of social or ethical considerations. ANY of these boil down to evading the issue: even if we don’t know what it is, or refuse to cooperate in looking, there will still be only one best answer.

    We can elect a new government, and evenetually replace the supreme court, write all new laws and run all things environmental by majority rule.

    There is a reason our government is carefully set up to prevent that.

    Even then, it isn’t prevented entirely. Environmental regulations are so closely tied to the economy, that they become a whipping boy for competing parties with different economic priorities. This is not good for the environment and not good for the economy: once again it is an example of competing entities working for individual advantage instead of the best possible answer, of which there is exactly one.

    RH

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “your approach – lost – a long time ago.. “

    Actually, my approach was written into law well after the Clean Water act TSCA, RECRA, CERCLA etc.

    The concept of environmental justic is relatively new.

    In the early 1990s, coalitions of civil rights and environmental activists transformed environmental equity concerns into the environmental justice movement, seemingly because of concerns about the placement of toxic waste facilities in low-income and minority communities. The First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit was held in 1991. These efforts in tandem with a study commissioned by the U.S. EPA in 1990, culminated in the establishment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of Environmental Equity in 1992. In 1994, environmental justice was institutionalized within the federal government through Executive Order 12898 (EPA 1995a), which focused federal attention on human-health and environmental conditions in minority and low-income communities.

    While the focus of the executive order was originally on minority and low income populations, each federal agency was required to devlop an environmental justice strategy, which for the EPA boiled down to not only communities, but entities and indivisual protection as well as minority and low income groups.

    RH

  38. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “they had their best chance to do that in the Bush years and it never happened…”

    These things have been politically kicked back and forth at the margins. some people (on both sides) have even gone to jail because of it.

    That is part of the problem.

    RH

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “We don’t start off saying that we cannot do something.”

    You cannot do anything that violates physics. That is not thinking small that is real. You had BETTER start off with that if you expect to get anywhere: F still equals MA.

    It is physically impossible to make something without creating some pollution. It violates physics, it cannot be done, has never been done.

    I want compound AB because it has certain features A and B. I create AB by Making ABC and then stripping off the C and throwing it away. All of this takes energy which causes pollution.

    Some of AB gets loose in the environment and someone else finds it floating around out there, and they think it is dangerous.

    They say “Why not make it AD so it will brak down into something less dnagerous, like A and D?”

    Because then it wouldn’t be AB, maybe? If AB breaks down into A and B you cannot make it break down into A and D.

    It violates physics.

    RH

  40. Larry G Avatar

    re: “It is physically impossible to make something without creating some pollution. It violates physics, it cannot be done, has never been done.”

    are you equating any/all byproducts to be pollution?

    Do you consider the shavings from a wood carving to be pollution?

    How about the steam coming from a tea kettle?

    tannin in the swamps from tree bark?

    I think you are completely wrong here unless your definition of pollution whacko to start with.

    The law of physics RH – does not guarantee nor pre-ordain pollution – as the only inevitable result.

    Do you consider cutting wool off of a sheep to make clothing to stay warm – pollution?

    you are way off the deep end here.

    Even for things that do pollute – it’s not a black and white issue.

    It’s about how much pollution in what quantities is harmful – or not.

    and your idea of figuring out ahead of time the “calculation” is downright ludicrous…

    Would you require that every substance be tested against anything and everything it might affect because it could be approved?

    Or are you saying.. let any amount of pollution be released in any concentration desired until someone provides proof that it causes harm?

    and then of course.. since it was grandfathered you can’t stop it without compensation?

    RH – the law does not work this way.

    Instead of admitting it – you keep saying that for the law to operate this way it is “stealing” and “unethical”.

    RH – you are saying that a whole bunch of people who ALSO believe that they want to do the correct thing for the environment – the fair and ethical thing..

    you are claiming that they are unethical .. thief’s – in essence because they disagree with you.

    why not fess up here.

    why not admit that..

    there is MORE than ONE – honest and ethical approach to regulating pollution.. that takes into account other things of value besides money and that we have a system that does that to the satisfaction of a majority of people who if not satisfied would change it.

    geeze guy.. you sound just like EMR – except for your agenda…

    We live in a Democracy guy.

    If you want change – you have to convince a majority of people to your point of view.

    That means instead of calling them unethical thieves – you have to show them how they are being unethical thieves..

    and if you make your argument and lose – then going back to calling them unethical thieves is … ahem.. a tad counter-productive…

  41. Larry G Avatar

    re: “re: “It is physically impossible to make something without creating some pollution. It violates physics, it cannot be done, has never been done.”

    doesn’t it depend what it is and what you do with it as to whether or not it is – “pollution”.

    If you poot on your property and you cover it up with soil – you might call it “pollution” but it’s relatively benign unless you decide to go do the act in your neighbors freshwater spring – and then – yes – it is “pollution”.

    but you won’t die if you can’t poot in your neighbors spring and that’s where you seem to be coming from.

    That you must be allowed to pollute – other people’s property – in order for you to “live” and that is just not true and in fact, demonstrably false.

    In fact, the laws requiring septic fields came about because we ended up with raw sewage running off of one persons property onto other people’s property…

    and a majority of people decided that from then on – you’d have to use a drain field and no .. it won’t kill you either…

    these are simple examples but I think they clearly demonstrate the fallacy of saying that we MUST pollute or we die.

    There are a whole lot of diverse paths between “must pollute” and “die” and virtually none of them connect to the two … at least none I’ve heard of in Va or the USA.

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Do you consider the shavings from a wood carving to be pollution?

    Yes. Don’t throw them away for a few years and see how much carving you get done. Then you need a knife, which cannot be made without pollution. What you are pointing out here is that quantity matters. We are not talking about the amounts, we are talking about the products, and after all it is the environmetalists that keep saying it’s the little things that count. We can do without a little bit and it won’t cost us anything.

    OK try doing without the woodchips and still get a carving. (I do my carving with a chainsaw blade mounted on a 4 in grinder. I culd bury your house ith woodhips in a couple of days, if yo udon;t think it is pollution.

    How about the steam coming from a tea kettle?

    Steam is a greenhouse gas, and then there is the pollution from whatever you used to heat the kettle. You have no right to pollute,remember?

    tannin in the swamps from tree bark?

    Well, I didn’t make anything here, did I? But it goes to prove the point, nobody or anything can produce something without producing some waste, which may have undesirable consequences.

    There are a whole lot of diverse paths between “must pollute” and “die”

    You remember your camper analogy? How long can you stay in that thing without pumping it out?
    No right to pollute means no right to pollute, and that can only lead to death. If you have a right ot life, you must have a right to pollute – at some level.

    Now we are arguing about the level, not the right.

    Man asked his secretary if she would sleep with him for $100,000, an she said, “sure”.

    “How about $50?”

    “What do you think am?”

    “We have already established that, now we are haggling over the price.

    RH

  43. Larry G Avatar

    re: “Do you consider the shavings from a wood carving to be pollution?

    Yes.”

    Rh – you don’t need a knife to make wood shavings…

    Mother nature makes them all the time… but so do cultures that did not have knives.

    re: “I culd bury your house ith woodhips in a couple of days, if yo udon;t think it is pollution. “

    whether you could or not – does not make them pollution RH.

    As far as I know -you do not need a permit to make wood shavings on your own property.

    You would, however, have no right to put them on my property – whether they be considered pollution or not.

    Many, many by-products are not considered pollution and don’t need permits but you still cannot dump them on property you do not own.

    The camper analogy RH – it works just fine on your own property if you have a pipe to a septic tank…

    and that is the point…

    You are required -by law whether you are in a camper or in a fixed residence to use proper sanitary facilities – either what you own or what others own and give you permission to use or sell the service to you.

    But.. just because your camper is full of sewage does NOT give you the right to dump it anywhere you want.

    and no.. you will not “die” if you camper is full of sewage either… you might wish you had.. if you don’t properly get rid of it though.

  44. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    As usual you are missing th epoint, changing the subject and changing the rules.

    The question is what happens if you have NO right to pollute. With NO right, you fill up the camper fills up, and you die.

    What you did was say you can empty the camper if you can buy the right to pollute somewhere.

    Whee did they get rights to pollute?

    Who gave them the right to sell the rights?

    What do they do with it?

    The choices are

    1] The camper fills up and You die

    2) You pay someone else so you dont’t die.

    3)You payu the government to get the same permit they have.

    4)You own your on property and you still have to get a government permit.

    No matter wich of those four things happen, the pollution winds up in the environment: river, groundwater, or air.

    And we all hae equal rights to that, because it is “Our” environment, right?

    RH

  45. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Mother nature makes them all the time… but so do cultures that did not have knives.”

    I don’t suppose you actually live that way.

    The idea is to get the optimal level of pollution. The one that gets you the bet enviornment at the lowest cost.

    What you just said is that we can have a pristine environment at the cost of everything we now own.

    Somehow, I don’t think that is the lowest cost.

    RH

  46. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “As far as I know -you do not need a permit to make wood shavings on your own property.”

    Depends on where you live and how many you make.

    In Fauquier county a woodchip mulch manufacturor was put out of business after his woodchips caught on fire. That was the excuse, the real reason ws some people did not like him or his woodchips.

    I have a small 8HP portable sawmill on my property that makes woodchips and boards. Under Fauquier zoning, that is against the law, too.

    Eventually, I will tick somebody off and they will come after me.

    RH

  47. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Many, many by-products are not considered pollution and don’t need permits…”

    Not really. Have you read TSCA?

    Basically, it says that anything that is acidic, basic, or flammable is classified as a toxic substance. Virtually anything but pure water is a toxic substance and requires a permit.

    RH

  48. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…you still cannot dump them on property you do not own.”

    You cannot even dump them on property you own, as the mulch guy found out. You cannot even store a dead car on property you own.

    I could bury my own garbage here for ten thousand years, and avoid a lot of VMT tot the dump, but that is against the law, too.

    And you are the one trying to tell me how the law actually works?

    RH

  49. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You don’t pump that camper out, the tank gets full. Pretty soon you are in over your head, and you die.

    That assumes youhave some kind of urbansupport region that keeps sending you food.

    For free.

    You have no way to earn a living and buy your food because you are prohibited from polluting.

    You see how it really works?

    RH

  50. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Another example of how it works:

    Buyer, Beware: China Says Importing Countries Responsible for Its Emissions
    Posted by Keith Johnson

    China’s latest climate-change gambit is to make countries that import its stuff responsible for a share of its emissions. It might not be such a crazy idea.

    Chinese climate negotiators, in Washington laying the groundwork for international climate talks later this year, floated the idea yesterday. Chinese factories churning out stuff for the developed world account for between 15% and 25% of China’s total greenhouse-gas emissions, top climate negotiator Li Gao said. Which means the developed world should take responsibility for them:

    “We produce products and these products are consumed by other countries, especially the developed countries. This share of emissions should be taken by the consumers but not the producers,”

    So much for polluter pays. it looks like we will ALL pay.

    RH

  51. Larry G Avatar

    I think the Chinese have a point.

    it DOES matter who the buyer and user is because it is he that causes the pollution if he is demanding the product.

  52. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yet you are perfectly willing to bankrupt “the polluters, because they have “no rights”.

    WE are the plluters and if WE want a cleaner environment then WE had better be willing to pay for it.

    We might THINK we can get someone else to pay, but it doesn;t work that way, in the end.

    RH

Leave a Reply