Texas: Open For Business! (but Hold Your Nose!)

[pineda]

Texas pollution control bill fails

Texas Chemical Council calls Houston Chronicle's coverage of the cancer-causing chemicals spewing forth from the plants "shrill and emotional"

[MidtownCoog]

smells like money to me

[LTAWACS]

smells like money to me

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Smells like republicans to me.

[kjb434]

^^^

LTAWACS you need to stop trying insight a political facet all of these issues. This is a forum where the forumers talk about issues and not make rash and unfounded statements.

Again, I view the articles above as an example of the Chronicles bias and lack of real reporting of all sides. The immediate disgust of anything industrial dealing with the chemical plants and refineries is what outrages me. People truly need to learn what these facilities do and their purpose before discrediting them. The assumption that any bit of release from these facilities is a harm to the environment shows the lack of understanding that is prevalent. Much of the white smoke you see spewing from these facilities is actually water vapor. If it is not that, then it'll be carbon dioxide which in amounts lower than the carbon dioxided released from the population of this city.

The problem is, to find any real data on the enivronment, you have to research in peer review journals and not the stories published in the new and press outlets. There is an active lobbying group that works to stop publication of articles that substantially contradict what has been thought about the environment for the past thirty years. The same thing goes for oil supplies too.

Most often the articles that contradict the mainstream environmental position are built around finding holes and inaccuracies in the studies that say there is a problem.

I'm glad the tide is turning and public opinion is starting to realize that environment is better than ever and us humans have much less impact than we think.

[TOMIKA!]

With all due respect, kjb434, you are wrong. I don't know where you've been, but to say the "environment is better than ever" is just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Where's the evidence? You must have been hangin' around too many darn Republicans!

[kjb434]

Ok,

How many peer review scientific studies have you read recently. Not the news reports and what environmental groups publish, but the unbiased scientific evidence.

The global mean temperature has increased within tolerances that have occured in the past. Did you know from 1920 to 1970 the global temperature has dropped. Scientist expect the current global temp to rise back to the 1920 levels and then drop back off again. 1920 was years after the industrial revolution produce hundreds of black smoke spewing factories. These factories produce more pollution than we see today. And industries continue to produce less because they see newer efficient technologies that have a monetary benefit and the environmental also occurs.

Scientific studies also have over and over again shown that the pollution from the current active volcanoes spew more greenhouse gases than the world vehicles would ever produce. Hawaii, the Philipines, Italy, and Iceland are some of the biggest greenhouse gas polluters in the world due to their volcanoes.

Many scientific studies the promote global warming and higher pollution are often critiqued heavily and shown to have many flaws that don't support their conclusions. These scientist often run through their models and analysis to produce a result they wanted to get recognition in the press and by world bodies and organizations that believe in the global warming hysteria.

At end of the day, the scientific evidence is not there to verify any of there claims. The mathematical model that is used to model all global warming studies that resulted in generally accepted "world is getting hot mentality" has been recenty shown to have flaws and results from it are not acceptable. This discounts the past 30 years of studies that showed global warming to be an alarming thing.

Many newer models based more than just recorded temperatures, but geolgical research and satelite infared data are showing that global warming and cooling are part of the earth natural cycle.

In Canada and Greenland, scientist are discovering that the polar ice caps regularly shrink and grow. The current shrinking is a normal climatalogical occurence. The performed this research and notice layers of frozen fresh water and salt water in the caps. Less salty frozen layers indicates years and years of warming. Higher salty frozen layers indicated years and years of cooling. They have evidence that dates back 10,000 years. Considering that the industrial lized world has only existed for about 200 years, I doubt we have the impact we think we have made.

[johncoby]

^^^

I'm glad the tide is turning and public opinion is starting to realize that environment is better than ever and us humans have much less impact than we think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I thought the pollution smelled.

[LTAWACS]

And I thought the pollution smelled.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope. It's the republicans.

[TOMIKA!]

kjb434, I appreciate the time you took to put forth your views, but your explanation just doesn't add up. Here's why:

Greenhouse Effect -

The concentration of the most important greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, has increased in the atmosphere from 290 ppm (parts per millions) in 1880 to 363 ppm in 1997, and is going to increase in the next future, because carbon dioxide, with water, is the final product of the combustion of fossil fuels (oil and derivatives, methane and hydrocarbons, coal), and of living and dead vegetation (biomass burning). The fossil fuels can be considered reservoirs of carbon, made ages ago; their combustion lets carbon return (as dioxide) into the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect.

Carbon dioxide is easily soluble in water: the oceans contain enormous amounts of it, but the temperature increase (due to the greenhouse effect) reduces its water solubility, releasing new gas into the atmosphere, and accelerating the greenhouse effect.

The overall amount of ozone is essentially stable in a natural cycle. This has been true for millions of years.

Now, according to atmospheric measurements, ozone layer is getting thinner , specially over Antarctica, where a seasonal ozone layer "hole" appears ( in the NASA image the blue color means lack of ozone).

Recently, in 1997, another "hole" has been detected over North Pole.

Ozone -

According to scientists, certain man-made chemicals are major contributors to the problem. These chemicals are called Ozone-Depleting Substancies (ODS) and include many gases containing chlorine and bromine, such as: chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, substances containing chlorine, fluorine and carbon) used in refrigerators and blowing agents for foams the "Halons", used for fire fighting, methyl bromide, used in agriculture.

Since WWII, CFCs have been widely employed, mainly because they are chemically inert and, as a consequence, non toxic and extremely stable.

CFCs do not dissolve in rain: after several years, carried by the winds, they reach the stratosphere without being modified. Here their molecules are broken down by the intense UV light, and free chlorine atoms are created by this degradation.

Each chlorine atom can destroy several thousands of ozone molecules before being removed from the atmosphere: chlorine is a catalyst for the ozone depletion. Bromine (e.g. from methyl bromide) is even more effective than chlorine.

Toxic Chemicals -

Often there is little scientific evidence of widespread ill health or ecosystem damage caused by manufactured chemicals, apart from special cases (ozone layer depletion, and acute impacts, such as from accidents or local spillages).

"No evidence" does not necessarily mean "no effects": damages due to toxic chemicals may be evident, often in an irreversible way, after long exposure time at low dosage.

A particularly famous case is the Minamata disease, in Japan, due to a diet rich in fish coming from water polluted by industrial wastes containing mercury.

As a consequence, it is now introduced, in many international agreements, the "precautionary principle": to introduce actions for reducing exposure without waiting for certain proof of harm, particularly in the case of substances that persist and bio-accumulate.

The problem of finding the best way to protect our environment is one of the most difficult to solve; unfortunately fighting against pollution or save endangered species is not enough: we need a global environmental strategy.

The developed nations, whose population is one fourth of the world total, consume 80% of world goods. The developing nations consume their environment and their renewable resources faster than one can rebuild them.

The concept of "sustainable development" can lead us towards a strategy that will consider the environmental problems, the hopes of the developing nations and the needs of future generations as well.

But, inaction due to a stance that many Right Wing politicians and strategists have taken regarding the environment could undermine any efforts to improve the environment. The Right Wing is a pernicious force that disclaims any scientific data which opposes its views. Therefore, a vast conspiracy has arisen from pseudo-scientific data that seeks to refute empirical evidence.

[westguy]

I thought Toyota choose San Antonio over Houston because of our air quality. So much for money.

[tamtagon]

I'm glad the tide is turning and public opinion is starting to realize that environment is better than ever and us humans have much less impact than we think.

Everyone else is jumping on this statement, so I will too.

It's true that we pollute the environment less than we used to, but that's only because such a fuss has been made about reducing pollution. Should public opinion be lulled to think we've done enough, then the successes of the past will be undone.

As long as the obvious conclusion is, "It's Bad" from these simple annectdotal measurements of the human impact: summertime air in sunbelt cities is dangerous to breath, or river water creates a dead zone in the ocean or some rivers are no longer an alluvion system, then, for me, we're still screwing it up.

[kjb434]

Have you see the recent study that showed up in many papers saying the atmosphere is cleaner now than is ever was? The are attributing a lot if due to the collapse of many of the Soviet easter block countries therefore making them produce much less particulate matter to fill the air.

Also, they referenced many industrialized nations environmental conscience including the US in lowering emmisions.

Of course, the environmental groups counter say that cleaner air will heat the earth because the pollution won't block the sun. WHAT? They want pollution. I thought cleaner air was good. I thought the pollution was heating us up. I guess it was actually cooling us off. If cleaner air heats the earth up, then what are we doing to it?

[LTAWACS]

Have you see the recent study that showed up in many papers saying the atmosphere is cleaner now than is ever was?  The are attributing a lot if due to the collapse of many of the Soviet easter block countries therefore making them produce much less particulate matter to fill the air.

Also, they referenced many industrialized nations environmental conscience including the US in lowering emmisions.

Of course, the environmental groups counter say that cleaner air will heat the earth because the pollution won't block the sun.  WHAT?  They want pollution.  I thought cleaner air was good.  I thought the pollution was heating us up.  I guess it was actually cooling us off.  If cleaner air heats the earth up, then what are we doing to it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It seems to me you're intent on polluting the air. Is this true?

[kjb434]

No, I'm intent on seeing the truth. Not some trumped up scare reports that when looked more closely tell us nothing new. The above report I mentioned is true.

I have a rule not to accept on face value and scientific study mentioned or talked about on TV, newspapers, and radio. For me to place creedence I have to read the actualy study.

Many of times the charts, tables and model outputs can reveal much more than the scientist reports. Most of the time the conclusion of the study is from relationships that any logical thinking person can raise good questions to invalidate the study. The biggest problems is that the releases for these reports to the public never vet them out. They just report the conclusion as a fact. Anyone in the scientific community would tell that a conclusion to a study just adds to the discussion. They are never truly conclusive.

[dp2]

It seems to me you're intent on polluting the air. Is this true?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Mr. 2nd person to use the forum name LTAWACS, why don't you clear the air on why you chose the name LTAWACS, since it appears that you are impersonating someone who previously had that name here and on other urban forums? I promise to quit asking if you'll finally answer.

[LTAWACS]

Hey Mr. 2nd person to use the forum name LTAWACS, why don't you clear the air on why you chose the name LTAWACS, since it appears that you are impersonating someone who previously had that name here and on other urban forums?  I promise to quit asking if you'll finally answer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just what are you talking about?

[kjb434]

Hey,

The below study is one study using EPA findings to show the improvement in Air Quality in the US since the 1970s. The link is to a PDF file and is open for publich review.

Clear Air Report

[dbigtex56]

Another way to look at it is that air quality has improved by select criteria.

Are the pollutants being released in 2005 the same as those in 1970? And are the pollutants we measure the only ones which affect our environment?

We are exposed to a bewildering array of substances on a daily basis. Sometimes it takes years to identify and confirm that some are harmful. In 1970, lead based paint and asbestos were commonly used in the construction of buildings. Since then, convincing evidence linking these substances to health issues has been discovered. The cost of eliminating or containing lead and asbestos has been considerable.

While we should take pride in that we've reduced some of the more obvious pollutants, that doesn't mean that others are not lurking. Why has the incidence of asthema in children increased so dramatically in the past few years?

On the other hand, there's a suspicion that some reports are unnecessarily alarmist. Some people value recognition over accuracy, and research funds tend to go to the squeakiest wheel.

Researchers, like Caeser's wife, must be above suspicion. The appearance of conflict of interest should be noted, and the context of data collection and evaluation examined. We cannot afford to become smug.

[kjb434]

As for the asthma (and allergies too) escalating. I have read studies that are saying many people in the US are too clean especially children. Parents are so concerned with children getting sick that they take measures to get them too clean. The childrens immune system has no way to build itself against common everyday germs. Also, the increase in antibiotic use has made people rely on outside means to defend themselves. Some asthmas and allergies are hereditary, but is seems like a lot is brought upon by ourselves. Compaired to other civilized nations, the US is the most hygenic and at the same time we are the ones that have the highest increase in asthma and allergies. With the air quality getting better, it tends to lead me to believe that other reasons are afoot to cause these escalating cases.

I've noticed that parents that or always taking there kids to doctors for minor illnesses that in the past would have been just treated at home is a problem. These kids seem to develop more and more problems I think that is from over concern. Doctors don't want to tell parents nothing is really wrong because the parents are already predetermined that something is wrong. I remember groing up that I had friends that if they get a cough they would stay home, but I would have to be on my deathbed or bleeding to death if I were to stay home. I was alway sent to school when I was sick. I think in the end it helps. From junior high on I don't remember ever really getting sick again. The ocasional sniffles in the fall and spring from some pollen but nothing serious. I may just be lucky, but my sister and brother or the same.

[dp2]

Just what are you talking about?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please don't play dumb. You've been asked about this several times.

For your ease, here it is again. Please simply answer.

It started here (post #17), in a reply by CaptAWACS, right after your post(#16):

http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...330entry21330

Question for LTAWACS, why are you using my old login name?

and (post #20)

http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...376entry21376

it seems someone ganked my old handle. But I was always Lt AWACS with the rank using a small "t" but that was over 15 months ago. Oh well, as the future mayor of Houston I have to represent

2 weeks later, after no reply but a post (#45) where you ranted against dishonesty and made lots of allegations of such, I asked you if impersonating someone is dishonest, and linked to and quoted these prior threads and requested a response(post #53):

http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...157entry23157

Questions for LTAWACS:

Isn't dishonesty the root of corruption?

Would impersonating someone else be dishonest?

On another thread you were asked a question which you haven't yet answered. Perhaps you missed it, so here's a link, the relevant posts are #16 and #20:

http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...330entry21330

and here's the actual question, by CaptAWACS, who for several years was a fairly well known poster under the moniker LtAWACS on other urban and planning forums, including this one, as well as his ties to Houston:

"It seems someone ganked my old handle. But I was always Lt AWACS with the rank using a small "t" but that was over 15 months ago."

"Question for LTAWACS, why are you using my old login name?"

Since many are quite curious as to your response, please reply rather than running away from the thread. Normally I'd say the reasons why someone chooses a forum name is none of my business. But given the uniqueness of the name, and that several have already posted that your name had confused them into thinking you were the previous namesake (but couldn't understand the completely different tone and logic of your posts), it would be best to clear this up. Surely you weren't intending to impersonate or mislead, right?

At least you did reply to that, sort of (post #58):

I dont get it...

To be perfectly clear, let me repeat why we are suspicious:

CaptAWACS for several years was a fairly well known poster under the moniker LtAWACS on other urban and planning forums, including this one, and is known on those boards for his ties to Houston. Normally I'd say the reasons why someone chooses a forum name is none of my business. But given the uniqueness of the name, and that several have already posted that your name had confused them into thinking you were the previous namesake (but couldn't understand the completely different tone and logic of your posts), it would be best to clear this up.

So on this thread you were asked for a 3rd time to clear the air. This will be the last time I bring it up, the whole thing is a bit silly. However I have pursued this because you frequently like to post willy nilly all kinds of accusations and slander against office holders, and particularly Republicans, with little to zero proof or substantiation, usually accusing them of corruption, dishonesty, and lacking ethics. If one is going to do so, it might be wise to make sure one isn't themselves appearing dishonest and unethical. Impersonating someone else certainly does appear to be both. But perhaps there is a simple explanation, why don't you remove the suspicion and clear the air? Did you also serve as a Lt on an AWACS plane?

Like I said, this is the last time I will bring this topic up. I am sending you a personal message alerting you to this post, so please don't pretend that you were not aware of it. That is the first and only time I will send something to you via personal message, and you have my permission to post it publicly if you so choose. I have no intention of stalking you about this or anything else. However please have the courtesy to respond to these questions here. If you scan the threads linked above, you'll see that others have also requested the same of you. Otherwise we can only assume that you are indeed dishonest and tried to fool the board that you were someone who used to post here. Please don't be coy, I'm not going to waste any more time and thread space going in circles with you. Either you answer or you don't, either one should make clear what is really the case. Why not clear the air?

[Gary]

Hey guys, stop it with the political BS. I happen to be a republican and could go off on many issues about the other side but I don't. I certainly don't agree with all the things conservitive politicians do, in fact I think most of them (both sides) are corrupt.

That being said let's face the facts about the political world in which we live in. They both suck if your honest about it. Let's just agree to dissagree certain times and leave it at that.

[pineda]

Yippee! Houston is tops again! Woo-hoo! : (

[LTAWACS]

Yippee! Houston is tops again! Woo-hoo! : (

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Argh. There goes another point for the quality of life here.

[LTAWACS]

[Subdude]

Things are getting way off-topic here.

[dbigtex56]

As for the asthma (and allergies too) escalating.  I have read studies that are saying many people in the US are too clean especially children.  Parents are so concerned with children getting sick that they take measures to get them too clean.  The childrens immune system has no way to build itself against common everyday germs.  Also, the increase in antibiotic use has made people rely on outside means to defend themselves.  Some asthmas and allergies are hereditary, but is seems like a lot is brought upon by ourselves.  Compaired to other civilized nations, the US is the most hygenic and at the same time we are the ones that have the highest increase in asthma and allergies.  With the air quality getting better, it tends to lead me to believe that other reasons are afoot to cause these escalating cases.

I've noticed that parents that or always taking there kids to doctors for minor illnesses that in the past would have been just treated at home is a problem.  These kids seem to develop more and more problems I think that is from over concern.  Doctors don't want to tell parents nothing is really wrong because the parents are already predetermined that something is wrong.  I remember groing up that I had friends that if they get a cough they would stay home, but I would have to be on my deathbed or bleeding to death if I were to stay home.  I was alway sent to school when I was sick.  I think in the end it helps.  From junior high on I don't remember ever really getting sick again.  The ocasional sniffles in the fall and spring from some pollen but nothing serious.  I may just be lucky, but my sister and brother or the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point, kjb434. It seems reasonable to me that humans - all living things - have adapted over eons to conditions here on Earth, and that our immune systems are especially sensitive and responsive in our earliest years. This artifical sterility to which children are subjected is relatively recent (within the past 100 years). A universal trait among children is to put things - however filthy or disgusting - in their mouths. Perhaps this early exposure 'kick-starts' the immune system into functioning correctly.

Another consideration: in our zeal for a germ-free home environment, people use products which may be more toxic than we realize. Strangely, there seems to be concern about exposure to chemicals in the world at large, yet we merrily spray all sorts of weird chemicals inside our houses to feel 'clean'.

Scoff if you will, I'm a great fan of the columnist Heloise, because she is such a strong advocate of cheap, non-toxic household cleansers. To a great degree, we choose our own environmental exposures. It's only when the exposure is imposed on us that I become concerned.

[westguy]

Get rid of the teflon cookware in your house. That stuff is taking over all the household products. Its now in ovens, household cleaners, electic lighting, and anything you can imagine. (Crock pot cooking has been resugent lately. My mom still uses her old one, though it has a ceramic cooker. All the new ones I've seen are covered in non-stick coating.) The problem with it, though, is that it releases fumes when heated that often kill peoples' pet birds. Just remember that you're breathing it too.

[Guest danax]

A universal trait among children is to put things - however filthy or disgusting - in their mouths. Perhaps this early exposure 'kick-starts' the immune system into functioning correctly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting possibility. Also, I've wondered why children almost universally hate vegetables during the ages when we would think they would most need them. And breast feeding is supposed to be a great thing (I'm still talking about infants) for one's future immunity.

[LTAWACS]

We all know that the less exposure you have to something, the weaker you become against it. Look at smallpox.

[kjb434]

Teflons harmfullness occurs when the material is superheated in the area above 500 degrees. Most uses for Teflon never reaches this temperature and it was deemed safe.

In general, I'm trying to move away Teflon for other reasons. I like to use some metal utensils which is a no-no for Teflon. The thought of scrapping some of the material and it being in my food is bad for me. I'm going to head over a restraunt supply store to get my new pots soon.