• Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

What lies upstream

Status
Not open for further replies.

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Thread starter #1
Anyone seen the film what lies upstream? Its actually a kind of documentary, i watched it a week or so ago and have been looking into it, i think it should be mandatory viewing for people a real eye opener.

Its also interesting but overall i found it sickening for many reasons.
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
#2
Just the facts without the poltical and scaremongering - what if worst case scenario - spin. ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Elk_River_chemical_spill

https://www.wvencyclopedia.org/articles/2428

https://news.nationalgeographic.com...-spill-water-quality-regulations-environment/

http://wvpublic.org/post/7-things-we-know-about-chemical-spill-west-virginia#stream/0

https://blog.nationalgeographic.org...r-chemical-spill-and-how-we-measure-progress/

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...deal-with-another-major-crisis-300201022.html

Seems poor site location, management, maintenance and lack of proper active monitoring bit them in the backside just like almost all of these types of spills have had going against them when they have occured. :mad:
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Thread starter #3
Just the facts without the poltical and scaremongering - what if worst case scenario - spin. ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Elk_River_chemical_spill

https://www.wvencyclopedia.org/articles/2428

https://news.nationalgeographic.com...-spill-water-quality-regulations-environment/

http://wvpublic.org/post/7-things-we-know-about-chemical-spill-west-virginia#stream/0

https://blog.nationalgeographic.org...r-chemical-spill-and-how-we-measure-progress/

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...deal-with-another-major-crisis-300201022.html

Seems poor site location, management, maintenance and lack of proper active monitoring bit them in the backside just like almost all of these types of spills have had going against them when they have occured. :mad:
Have you actually watched it or just done i IMBD search and read the synopsis?

I doubt you have watched it or you might actually of grasped what i was getting at. Thingslike below minimum fines being handed out, no testing or inspections, relying on company info instead of doing independent tests.

And best of all telling people that although the water had a smell it was perfectly safe, yet not one of them would even take a sip ;). My favorite was the senator who didnt know his own bill number because the lobby group wrote it for him lol. So much corruption in that film it made a mockery of the system. Plus now you dont have an effective EPA as its been dismantled to a greater extent.

Go watch it instead of just reading a quick write up.

Your links are mostly about the river, had you actually of seen the film you would understand how they do it ;), they dont dump it in the water ;).

The bit that blew me away was the water test, they used a GC on its own!! thats why they couldnt ID nearly 1,200 chemicals in the water, you wouldnt expect a GC database to have that kind of info, the correct way is to connect the GC to a mass spectrometer then use the MS database.

Not sure when the film was made but the equipment used was third world compared to what most universities have and even half decent colleges , i dont have a particularly great MS as mine is pretty old. But i bet i could have run those samples and Identified at least 800-900 at the kind of concentrations shown.

Well depending on database access which costs a fortune these days.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JonSea

Well-Known Member
#4
The EPA is being dismantled by trump and his corrupt cronies. The damage he is doing to this country will take decades if not generations to undo, if it can be undone at all.

Too many people turn a blind eye to this devastation. I can't believe anyone with kids and grandkids would allow this to go on. The long term effects of tbese chemicals aren't known. There's too much rationalization that there are other chemicals and pollution in the water already, so this spill doesn't matter anyway. What a bunch of BS.
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Thread starter #5
The EPA is being dismantled by trump and his corrupt cronies. The damage he is doing to this country will take decades if not generations to undo, if it can be undone at all.

Too many people turn a blind eye to this devastation. I can't believe anyone with kids and grandkids would allow this to go on. The long term effects of tbese chemicals aren't known. There's too much rationalization that there are other chemicals and pollution in the water already, so this spill doesn't matter anyway. What a bunch of BS.
Where the law could and should be tightened is on the MSDS manufactures have to do, they should drop this recent introduction of 'secret' ingredient for a start. But the fact that the large companies are lying about the LD50 results is shocking.

Because no one scientist has to put there name to the doc they alter the results, when it was tested independently and found to be out by nearly 70%, to me that person should forfeit the right to hold scientific qualifications. I would go a step further and make the CEO liable for incorrect LD50 data, i would have 6 months prison time min for the CEO if a company was more than 10% out on the LD50.

Its a real kick in the doo dahs to think that a scientist is willing to lie for a living, to me its a serious offense and they should not be allowed to work as scientists and be stripped of PhD's etc. Same with that Doctor who said one thing while working for the families, then got given a government job and did a complete 180 on what he had said previously, even admitting he had changed his view because of his 'handlers'.

I think maybe Trump has made it worse, but it seems to have started with Bush or Clinton. Hard to tell when the most powerful people seem to be the lobby groups. What possible explanation can you have for allowing a lobby group to right there own laws for there industry? Its like a defendant in court being allowed to decide his own verdict.

I looked at the UK and we have one incident in particular that stands out, i think its from 20-25 years ago when aluminum Sulphate (a floculant) was put into the wrong water tank, the drinking water had very high levels of it, now all these years later there is a dementia cluster and cancer cluster that directly corresponds to the area affected. Early onset dementia in the 35+ age range is more than 150 times the national average in a 12 mile radius but the say no connection!!

Makes you laugh when we call other countries corrupt, most of them do it openly which is more than can be said for many others.
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
#6
I doubt you have watched it or you might actually of grasped what i was getting at. Thingslike below minimum fines being handed out, no testing or inspections, relying on company info instead of doing independent tests.
Rather way I give links to the other aspects not all tied to the failings of the bureaucracy and politics.;)

I doubt you have watched it or you might actually of grasped what i was getting at.
Poor and limited presentation on your part is not my problem. I simply gave some links to the incident (you didn't), nothing more. I thought that was obvious and rather the point. :rolleyes:

Your links are mostly about the river,
Yes, thank you for summarizing the obvious that I was not presenting what I expected you to be presenting. Side two of the same coin. :facepalm:

And best of all telling people that although the water had a smell it was perfectly safe, yet not one of them would even take a sip
Yes, ignorance and paranoia combined are not suitable for making good policies. (Rather what's actually being stripped out of our EPA now and for good reason.)
"
Threat to human health[edit]
The chemical released was "crude MCHM," which was intended for use as a foaming/wash agent to aid in the processing of coal.[13] Little is known about MCHM's potential effects on human health, nor about its effects on aquatic environments. While its manufacturer, Eastman Chemical Company, is required by law to produce a safety data sheet (SDS), much of the information in the data sheet is incomplete, according to a report by the Christian Science Monitor.[6] Contaminated water smelled sweet, resembling licorice.[4] According to the American Association of Poison Control Centers, if consumed the chemical may provoke the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, dizziness, headaches, diarrhea, reddened/burning skin and/or eyes, itching, and rashes.[13][33] The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists stated that MCHM caused headaches, eye and skin irritation, and difficulty breathing from prolonged exposures at high concentrations.[4]

Both health and company officials have stated the chemical consumption is not known to be fatal, even if consumed in its purest form. The chemical leaked was highly diluted due to the large amount of water involved; however, due to the potential health effects, authorities advised over 300,000 residents in surrounding communities to avoid utilizing the water for cooking, drinking, or bathing.[13] Because shipment of MCHM is not regulated by the United States Department of Transportation, it was not being considered "hazardous" by emergency response and environmental protection officials.[33] However, under the regulatory standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, MCHM is considered "hazardous."[33] The chemical's manufacturer, Eastman Chemical Company, identified it as a "skin irritant that could be potentially harmful if ingested."[6] The Eastman Chemical Company's material safety data sheet for crude MCHM identifies hazards, included skin and eye irritation, and at elevated temperatures, irritation of the eyes and of the respiratory tract.[34]

The median lethal dose of MCHM is 825 milligrams per kilogram of body mass, when tested in rats.[33]

Care to do the numbers on how much 'smelly water a~ 2 PPM) you have to drink to get to that potentially lethal dose? My guess is you will literally die of hyponatremia way before that. :facepalm:

Your views in this thread already rather make my point for the necessity of showing the second side to things you like bring up. You like to spin things a bit too far to the left while ignoring reality too often. :)
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
#7
The EPA is being dismantled by trump and his corrupt cronies. The damage he is doing to this country will take decades if not generations to undo, if it can be undone at all.
Yes, heaven forbid they do things like make the science and scientific process they base the laws on transparent so that all of the public can see what's actually being used to determine what on making new regulations.

"
EPA ISSUES CONTROVERSIAL RULE ON SCIENCE 'TRANSPARENCY'
April 24, 2018




Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt proposed a rule Tuesday that would only allow the agency to consider in its rule making scientific studies for which the underlying data are made available publicly. “The science that we use is going to be transparent. It’s going to be reproducible,” Pruitt told reporters.

Industry and conservative groups have called for this change for some time, while some environmental groups warn that it could reduce the EPA's ability to consider all the evidence available when making rules on tough questions like power plant emissions and the safety of everything from pesticides to consumer products.

In a letter, nearly 1,000 scientists (many of whom used to work at the EPA) asked Pruitt to abandon the proposal, which they said “would greatly weaken EPA's ability to comprehensively consider the scientific evidence.” Much of the data that would be excluded is based on reviews of personal health information, which is often not publicly available because of privacy laws or practical challenges.

“This proposal would mean throwing out the studies we rely on to protect the public, for no good reason,” said Betsy Southerland, a longtime EPA scientist, in a press release from the Union of Concerned Scientists. “This would have an enormous and negative impact on the EPA’s ability to enforce the law and protect people’s health. Administrator Pruitt can’t carry out the basic responsibilities of his job if he insists that his agency ignore the evidence.”

As for other things I don't agree with all of the things that are being undone but what is being rolled back is far from the world ending disaster BS too many like to scream about. Most are simply undoing bad rules that were made with poor data and questionable poltical influences to begin with that were likely driven by power and money grabbing greed than real valid proven and justified environmental protectionism. :(

It's not that we don't want the environment to be protected. We want it protected by realistic provable fact based reasoning that stands up to actual scientific process scrutiny before we start taking people right's to do something away from them. :mad:

I can't believe anyone with kids and grandkids would allow this to go on.
I take it you have no clue what your parents, grandparents and great grand parents did to the environment yet somehow you're still here, aren't you? Would like some DDT to spice up your coolaid? :troll:

BTW, you had better stay out of your house and stop eating cause it's gonna kill ya, and your kids and your grandkids too. :D:rolleyes:

https://www.prevention.com/life/g20...ne-disrupting-chemicals-in-your-home/?slide=1

But hey, you/they can all move to Venezuela! I hear they love to regulate everything (even the amount of food you can have now too) for every reason there and would likely love to have you help them find more things to regulate for the future betterment of your family too!! :p
 

JonSea

Well-Known Member
#8
So long term effects aren't known and the data available is limited, but the fact that the water supply for over half of the State of West Virgina's population was contaminated with this substance isn't a cause for concern?

TCM, you may well leave a toxic waste dump ("I know better than any scientist what level of (my crap) is safe to sump on the ground."), perhaps we as a nation can do better. People one throught that dumping raw sewage and garbage in rivers was ok ("it will be diluted") and even chemicals. Sick and dead people and rivers on fire seem to have convinced some people otherwise.
 

JonSea

Well-Known Member
#9
The "transparency" law in the EPA limits what sources scientists may use to make decisions. It's not about better law - it's about hamstringing them from using up-to-date information.

I refuse to engage with idiots any further.
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
#10

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
#11
but the fact that the water supply for over half of the State of West Virgina's population WAS contaminated with this substance isn't a cause for concern?
WAS, not still is. Spills and accidents are bad but a part of life, like cuts and scrapes which heal, and unless they don't get cleaned up a problem.

That's the issue I have with these sort of presentations. Too many want to scream bloody hell over - WAS - not still is, and then totally ignore what was done to clean it up and learn from it afterwards. I am all for realistically justified better regulation and monitoring of realistic problems along with finding better ways to fix things after they do happen.

Accidents of all kinds are a part of life we all will never escape and due to that fact of reality that why we have a ever improving systems of dealing with and remediating what does happen afterwards.

Life is not safe, pure, clean and static. Its highly dynamic and dangerous and ever changing so the best we can do is quantify and learn from what we experience and figure out how to deal with the after effects of bad things such as understand the simple things like -IS - Vs - WAS - and how much is acceptable and how much is not in the grand scheme of things while acknowledging what actually is done to fix the results of what went bad after the problem occurs. ;)
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
#12
The "transparency" law in the EPA limits what sources scientists may use to make decisions. It's not about better law - it's about hamstringing them from using up-to-date information.
If being publically transparent in your actions is a hindrance then I definitely do not want you incharge!

That's what this is about! We want to know exactly why new regulations are being put in place and if the science and politics behind them actually adds up. Something everyone should want more of, and universally applied, in all governing bodies actions, not less of! ;)

If those scientists can't do their research in public view and have it pass both academic and public peer review from start to finish then it's not science any laws should be based on. :)
 

JonSea

Well-Known Member
#13
Have you ever had a peer-reviewed technical paper published? Probably not. The vast majority of peer-reviewed papers are published in an organization's conference proceedings or other publications that aren't available to the public without paying a fee. The same thing applies in the medical world. Especially galling are research papers paid for with government funds that aren't freely available to the public.

These papers aren't hidden from the public; they are available to anyone willing to pay the fee. And often available to anybody willing to make a request at a public library. Large companies usually have subscriptions to relevant journals so the latest research papers are available to them.

By not allowing scientists to access these publications, they can't access the latest research, studies and data. This isn't done in the interest of transparency; it's done to restrict the information they have access to to out of date or industry-controlled information.
 
Last edited:

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Thread starter #14
Yes, thank you for summarizing the obvious that I was not presenting what I expected you to be presenting. Side two of the same coin. :facepalm:
Again you only see the obvious and dont understand what the point was. It has nothing to do with the chemical they named. My point was they tested the river, this isnt where they discharged the chemicals.
Had you actually have watched it you would have seen the point, they discharge on land!

That way the wash off goes into the river and the readings are much lower but the aquifers are poisoned. I also mentioned the fact they couldnt identify over 1000 chemicals that shouldnt have been there, plus they falsified the LD50 of the chemical, the CDC said it was safe but refused point blank to take a sip of water out of the tap.

You gave links that just gave the story that was publicly given, you didnt give any of the independent information. And to quote the EPA guy in the documentary.....

30,000 incidents of illegal spills in that one state isnt that many, he said that after admitting despite having being told of 30,000 illegal releases they had only gone and tested 4 of them!! So my point wasnt about the river spill, Jonsea was smart enough to get what i was saying, maybe he has seen the film i dont know. But you jump on the obvious and miss the important bits, maybe your happy with that kind of corruption but many others are not.

Like i said go watch the film, there is alot more to it than that one chemical. Its more about the system and how the EPA is almost completely neutered now. It is more about the fact that every day many spills go unreported and those that are reported are not investigated. They rely on the chemical companies information on what is spilled and how much. If they do go and test then they test the outflows into the rivers, but the point was most companies now discharge onto the land, so when a spill happens they test the water and naturally get a low level which they report. Weeks or months later is when a spike occurs in the water.

I didnt post any links as i simply asked who had seen it (so no idea why you posted since you havnt seen it), I wanted opinions on the system etc not on that particular spill. As for it being a detergent or whatever, again you havnt seen the film, if you had you would know that no one has any idea what effects the chemical has. The entire MSDS for it is almost completely blank!! It contains no useful information at all!! And the one figure it does contain about how lethal it is is out by 70%.

According to the sheet 750mg per Kg is the LD50, but when tested by a independent lab it was found to be lethal in levels much much lower. So dosnt matter if its hair shampoo or toothpaste, the levels released were dangerous. It showed a woman who was pregnant (her husband worked for the epa) there baby was born with problems.....

This is why i dont bother posting information for you, because you just dont understand the points raised, had someone else posted about it i would have supplied the scientific follow up reports on it, not news reports or national geographic stuff written at the time, but the information that came out after.
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Thread starter #15
BTW, before you start criticizing and complaining about what your neighbors did in their backyard how about you adress what you screwed up in your own backyard first. :eek:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/21/scottish-nuclear-leak-clean-up

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14791148.North_Sea_oil_spills_reach_record_high/

Seems the scots have a 'meh, close enough' view on nuclear leaks plus other things. :rolleyes:
Yeah the difference here is we try and deal with it and not cover it up. Like climate change etc we are at least trying to do something about it, at no point have i ever said we were better. I am every bit anti pollution here as i am anywhere.

You take the most bizarre sides, its almost like you think its right for a protection agency or government to lie, you seem to support a corrupt system. The only real conclusion is you just automatically pick the opposite so you can argue.

As i said before i dont expect much else, i even gave the likely response you would give for having a DUI.

Your dangerous because you actively support actions that are unsafe. You seem happy that the people charged with making sure your not exposed to harmful substances are being dismantled. This stance only makes sense if your real motive is to argue for the sake of it, i guess you still need cream after the last encounter you had with me.
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Thread starter #16
Have you ever had a peer-reviewed technical paper published? Probably not. The vast majority of peer-reviewed papers are published in an organization's conference proceedings or other publications that aren't available to the public without paying a fee. The same thing applies in the medical world. Especially galling are research papers paid for with government funds that aren't freely available to the public.

These papers aren't hidden from the public; they are available to anyone willing to pay the fee. And often available to anybody willing to make a request at a public library. Large companies usually have subscriptions to relevant journals so the latest research papers are available to them.

By not allowing scientists to access these publications, they can't access the latest research, studies and data. This isn't done in the interest of transparency; it's done to restrict the information they have access to to out of date or industry-controlled information.
There was a long thread that has now been heavily moderated while you were away, i gave a ton of scientific reports to prove my point, he didnt grasp a single bit of it and despite overwhelming evidence he was wrong he continued to stick to his version.

Then i think once the penny dropped he tried to make out he was agreeing all along. so no Jon i dont think he is that good with highly technical papers, after the last time i dont bother supplying them unless others are interested.

You missed a great one where it was declared he would be ok for oil, as 8miles under his feet a large oil field had been found, it never occurred to him that this is several miles below the deepest bore hole ever drilled, and that was only 9cm across and took the Russians something like 14 years to drill. I dont remember all the details now, but for someone supposedly been in the oil industry it dosnt look good does it.

This is one the few forums left he isnt banned from, a benefit of friends in high places, we get this every time we post something to do with alternative energy etc. Thats one reason we have started another site to discuss that kind of thing. We start the conversation here then when the trolling starts we move it to another place where we can discuss things without the trolling.

Dont worry a couple of hours and the mods will clean all this up ;).
 

large_ghostman

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
Thread starter #17
BTW, before you start criticizing and complaining about what your neighbors did in their backyard how about you adress what you screwed up in your own backyard first. :eek:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/21/scottish-nuclear-leak-clean-up

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14791148.North_Sea_oil_spills_reach_record_high/

Seems the scots have a 'meh, close enough' view on nuclear leaks plus other things. :rolleyes:
Are you forgetting the BP spill? You know the big one by a British company caused by American employees? Deep horizon? Now even by your standards that was one impressive feck up.

As for mentioning Nuclear incidents LMFAO

Of all the dumb things to pick!! you forgotten about this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

I would be careful about talking nuclear spills.

How many more times you got to be told not to bring a feather to a gun fight?
 

JonSea

Well-Known Member
#18
Many multi-page replies with many quotes in reply to a message or two says loads to me ;)

Like you say, not worth the effort to engage.
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
#19
Many multi-page replies with many quotes in reply to a message or two says loads to me ;)
Yes, He does that often and then contradicts himself while proclaiming its the other person who did it and almost always based on his imaginations of what he boldly imagines others are thinking and or believe in or actually happened well after it has been objectively proven that none of his claims are based on reality.

Still, I dont mind. Its a proud paranoid kid thing plus likely a side effect of aspergers. We all go through a stage in life like to some degree while were are learning about how reality actually works and where we as individuals fit into it. :)

In fact that the whole point of why we have laws and use objective scientific methods to determine the reality of things rather than go by raw unchecked emotion and who can manipulate/succumb to it best.

If we didn't we would be grid locked by people who read this,

If being publically transparent in your actions is a hindrance then I definitely do not want you incharge!

That's what this is about! We want to know exactly why new regulations are being put in place and if the science and politics behind them actually adds up. Something everyone should want more of, and universally applied, in all governing bodies actions, not less of! ;)

If those scientists can't do their research in public view and have it pass both academic and public peer review from start to finish then it's not science any laws should be based on. :)
And then some how imagine it to mean this,

its almost like you think its right for a protection agency or government to lie, you seem to support a corrupt system.

I want full transparency of our governing bodies and all regulation to be based on solid proveable scientific study and analysis therefore I am against it. What sort of closed minded indoctrination based mental gymnastics does it take to get to that assumption and correlation and not just once but repeatedly? :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

EE World Online Articles

Loading

 
Top