Thread: Regulating Dust? What is the World Coming to?

A pm10 standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meters is way to loose.

I read before that the USA had way stricter standards regarding dust than the EU. It was supposed to have a pm10 of 10 micrograms while the EU has a pm10 standard of 40 micrograms. But this article tells a different story.

Does the EPA maybe differentiate its standards between rural and urban areas?

And what's so stupid in regulating fine dust that endangers health?

Just another move to put small farmers out of business, don't be concerned citizen, move along...

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

Just another move to put small farmers out of business, don't be concerned citizen, move along...

pm10 can easily be reduced by injecting manure directly in the ground, by installing ammoniafilters in barns/the use of spraying systems and by adding certain fats and foods to the diet of the animals.

Especially the spraying system is very effective (reducement of 90 percent of pm10) and it's not expensive in any way.

This sort of thing is what prices us out of the markets thus out of business, if this goes the direction the EPA wants then it will be next to impossible for agriculture producers here to cost effective comply. Effect, severely harm our domestic farming abilities through regulation. At the same time this sort of nonsense will be irrelevant to agriculture products produced outside the US, or a continuation of outsourcing our food production for some other country (and the agriculture producers in) to profit at our expense. This is what happens when potential overregulation ends up harming our producing class as well as continue to transfer wealth right out of the nation.

Black lung & brown lung (coal & cotton) are caused by inhaling coal & cotton dust. It turns out that the Industrial Revolution exposed workers to lots of particulates - which are bad for lungs. (Sandblasting is nearly outlawed throughout the West, for much the same reasons.)

I say follow the science. I assume EPA is concerned mainly about human lungs, but they might also be considering the farm animals. There's only so much market for veal ...

Un freaking believable!
While ago I recall a pundit stating that the Obama administration would try to achieve ever tighter environmental regulation either through legislation (which failed) and barring that, through the EPA. Here is clearly demonstrated fact that such is the case.

Well, now I've seen and heard it all. The EPA trying to regulate dust in the air in farming communities.

Time to neuter this regulatory agenda, otherwise we won't be able to raise and grow our own food.
How many more on feed stamps will this cause? (due to price hikes)

Originally Posted by buck84

I saw this article, and felt it was too ridiculous to pass up. Check it out. Some stuff is too stupid to make up..

U.S. farmers oppose EPA's proposed dust regulation | Reuters

Have you even read this article?
For some simple minds, it may translate as "regulating dust," but it is far from that, and the article is very clear about it.

It is about regulating the amount of airborn chemical and pollution, especially the fine particles. It is about alllowing people to live in a relatively clean, chemical free environment, it is about allergies, asthma and cancer provoking chemicals.

Yes, 100 years ago, this sort of measure migh have been unnecessary. . .then again, the amount of chemical used in farming were was lower and less dangerous.

I see nothing wrong with this! And I bet the small, organic farmers don't see much wrong with it either. . .but obviously, the big, corporate farms would!

Why are left wing fuckwads ALWAYS cheerleaders for anything that can hurt the economy?

Originally Posted by Thanatos

pm10 can easily be reduced by injecting manure directly in the ground, by installing ammoniafilters in barns/the use of spraying systems and by adding certain fats and foods to the diet of the animals.

Especially the spraying system is very effective (reducement of 90 percent of pm10) and it's not expensive in any way.

I'm sure it's very affordable to large agribusiness.

Originally Posted by Sadanie

Yes, 100 years ago, this sort of measure migh have been unnecessary. . .then again, the amount of chemical used in farming were was lower and less dangerous.

Yeah, the arsenic based pesticides in common use in the early 1900's were but a benign perfume.:rolleyes:

Reducing PM10 has hardly anything to do with farmers. Farmers can easily reduce their PM10 output, and probably have already done so. I suggest they put their lassos back on their belt (at least this is the imagery i have of the farmers making a fuss about this).

This problem is mostly caused by burning of fossil fuels in combustion engines, and secondly by coal plants and industry.

The associated health problems are less severe in the US than in many other European and Asian countries, but there's no doubt scientifically that reducing the amount of particulates will reduce the amount of people with asthma and other conditions. Isn't this something we want? Spending money is probably even a net positive for the economy.

Originally Posted by erikvv

This problem is mostly caused by burning of fossil fuels in combustion engines, and secondly by coal plants and industry.

Afaik its agriculture that produces the most pm10 while industry/cars/fossils that mainly produce pm2,5.

And specifically, Its industrial poultry and pig barns which are the issue for pm10.

Originally Posted by Thanatos

Afaik its agriculture that produces the most pm10 while industry/cars/fossils that mainly produce pm2,5.

And specifically, Its industrial poultry and pig barns which are the issue for pm10.

You are right. Agriculture is a factor. But not in the way the article suggests.

"You know? It's dirt out here, and with dirt you've got dust."