editor Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 The Washington-based advocacy group also released a list of the top 10 most polluting refineries in the country, based on an analysis of 2004 emissions data from the Environmental Protection Agency.Topping the list, with nearly 2.1 million pounds of carcinogens such as benzene and formaldehyde was BP PLC's refinery in Texas City, Texas, though the advocacy group said that number was skewed dramatically upward due to a one-time release of nearly 2 million pounds of formaldehyde in 2004.http://www.newsday.com/news/science/wire/s...ience-headlines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Texas refineries spewed more than double the amount of carcinogens per barrel of oil than California refineries in 2004, the study found. But hey, no problemo. For you see, there is a socially optimal number of deaths from pollution. Seriously, if we are concerned about Houston's image and perception, as being discussed in another topic, here's a good place to start. Cleaning up the neighborhood would certainly be more productive than trying to locate "cool" people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.A.S.O.N. Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 I can believe it. In high school I was a lifeguard at this public pool (Sanders Pool) in Texas City for three years, and three or four times a summer we'd close because of air quality issues. This is the park that sits adjacent to the pool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexAmerican_Moose Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 ^^lol...that doesn't look normal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 But hey, no problemo. For you see, there is a socially optimal number of deaths from pollution. It isn't that we shouldn't worry, just that we shouldn't go overboard. There is a pollution externality that needs to be addressed, but there is a middle ground and there is more than one way to reach it. I'd argue that California probably went a little overboard, but they could've gone even further, and many of their citizens would prefer it that way. Hell, the federal government *could* mandate such draconian regulations that domestic refining firms would relocate all production overseas...but they'd probably just go where regulations were the most lax, pollute more than ever, and in densely-populated third world countries where governments don't care or could be bought off, and on top of that, where healthcare services are crappy or nonexistant and cancer is too expensive to treat effectively. How many poor foreigners would have to die prematurely and how many of our own citizens would have to lose their jobs so that we could have clean air? Granted, this is an extreme, but I use it to illustrate my point about the necessity of a middle ground in a realistic and plausible way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo58 Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Pasadena has to be a close second for the title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfre81 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 I spent a good chunk of my formative years downwind from this thing...grew up mostly in TC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.