"The great thing about living in America is that you can live wherever you
want." That is flat out untrue. My late mother contracted severe asthma
while we were living downwind from the 8th South cement plant. My Dad had us
living there because we couldn't afford housing anywhere else reasonably
close to his work. The economically disadvantaged are often subject to
pollution - environmental justice is an important issue.As far as
Dr.Moench being a propagandist let me tell you he is a scientist. I attended
his presentation of the threats Stericycle poses to public health in North Salt
Lake - it was excellently done. I have a background in epidemiology so I know
quality in this area when I see it. The writer should read some of
Dr. Moench is a prince...period. He deals in facts. Utah doesn't have to
settle for mediocrity (or toxicity), but somehow Utah always settles. Who in
the world would argue that there is no solution? Maybe Tesoro has a
letter-writing bonus for their employees???
Serious question, why do so many Utahns cater to dirty industry? What would be
wrong with moving the refinery elsewhere? What is bad about having cleaner air
and water?I truly don't get it.
If you don't like living in a place with polluted air you should leave? This is the best argument you can come up with?The air was
so bad last week in Salt Lake City that our CAT has developed asthma!Salt Lake air quality is rapidly becoming an economic development issue.
It's hard to recruit high tech industries and professionals to a city that
has barely breathable air for parts of the winter months.
Ah yes, denialism[we don't have an air quality problem].coupled
with the Utah motto: "If you don't like it, leave!"BTW -- I this letter writer is willing to live by his own words, because that same motto applies to Gay marriage in Utah."If
you don't like it, leave!"
Ah, the "if you don't like it here, leave" rationale. Gotta love
Great air in Mesquite Nevada.
People frequently throw this "anti-business" criticism around. It defies
logic. Dr. Moench doesn't have an alternative business he is trying to push
in lieu of Stericycle or the refineries; he doesn't stand to profit.
Believe me when I say that as a parent, I want good employment opportunities for
my kids! I don't need them sleeping in my basement for the next 35 years!
But industry needs to follow the rules (recent fines indicate they often
don't); there needs to be rule enforcement (Stericycle is a prime example
that there is not); and the cleanest technologically available technology should
be used (to protect public health). This isn't anti-business, its
responsible business. Furthermore, let us point out that those refineries are
old, and were put in NSL back in the day when NSL was really far away. Even then
they knew refineries didn't belong in neighborhoods. Our city is changing.
It is a dynamic economy and moving those refineries to a different location
would be a smart move.
*'EPA inventory shows Utah's sources of greenhouse gas' - By Amy
Joi O'Donoghue - 02/05/13 - Published by the Deseret News
'WASHINGTON — The nation's power plants continue to be the
single largest stationary source of greenhouse gas emissions, according to new
information released Tuesday by the Environmental Protection Agency.' (sic) In Utah, 14 power plants are responsible for 75 percent of the
state's direct greenhouse gas emissions, releasing 33 million metric tons.
' Yes, the Deseret news is part of… social
media. What a joke. Now, anyone else getting sick of
this? *'Northern Utah's air is the worst in the
nation' - KSL - 01/11/10 *'Utah's air quality
Thursday among worst in the nation' – By Shara Park & Mary
Richards – KSL Utah – 01/02/14 'SALT LAKE CITY
— Parts of Utah currently have some of the worst air quality in the
country…' I guess if you don't like facts… just make up opinion! Many talk of the
'hospitality' of Utah, and then we are constantly presented with
examples like this…'If you don't like it,
leave!' 'why do so many Utahns cater to dirty
industry?' Cater to industry, at the EXPENSE of Utah's
"If you don't like it leave" that made me chuckle too.
Typical conservative. "If you don't like it, leave. If you don't
want to breathe, don't. Don't get sick. And if you do, die
I thought the "if you don't like it, leave" defense was the
exclusive domain of religious conservatism.
Another great thing about America is that we are supposed to have protections
for public health. And, polluting businesses “can live in other
places” that are not threatened by “weather-related
For a moment, let's just set aside the whole air pollution thing (which, by
the way, may not be as bad as it used to be, but is literally killing people),
and focus on your assertion that in America people can live wherever they
want.Roughly 12% of Utah's population live below the poverty
line. Have you tried to move somewhere else when you don't have money to
fill up a car with gas, or buy a car for that matter? Moreover, people
struggling to pay rent or a mortgage can hardly move anywhere. How many people
can afford to move above the thick haze of Utah's skies, or outside of
areas of inversion. People do not have this freedom. It is also worth mentioning
that it is often the people with the least amount of money who are the most
impacted by the bad air. The decisions we make regarding our air affects others.
Let's own it and do something about it.
The other great thing about America is that the voice of the people counts! and
the only reason our air quality has gotten better over the past twenty years is
because of people like Dr. Moench speaking out!
Re "environmental justice is an important issue" (Marxist). Can you define "Environmental Justice" for us?---Re "why do so many Utahns cater to dirty industry"... (Maverick)Maybe because they drive cars, and they need gas to drive their cars?Re "What would be wrong with moving the refinery elsewhere"? Do you know what it would cost to move the refineries elsewhere? Or
how much gas would cost if we had no refineries in the Great Basin?The locations refineries currently occupy were approved long ago. We
can't just tell them "get out" (when they have the legal right to
be where they are). Maybe it's us that needs to move. I mean it's
US... burning the gas they produce that contributes most to SLC's air
pollution on bad inversion days. At least that's what the EPA says.Re: "What is bad about having cleaner air and water"?I don't think anybody WANTS dirtier air and water. Pretending they do...
just shows how around-the-bend you have gone with your rhetoric.---Re: "last week our CAT has developed asthma"! (Lib
Larry)Really? That's the best you got?
'Really? That's the best you got?' Actually, no. *Studies link air pollution to increased risk of strokes and
dementia’ – by Amy Joi O’Donoghue – Deseret news –
02/15/12 We should support pollution because we drive cars? Do you breathe air? * 'Red air quality alert issued, limit
driving' - DSNews - 08/25/10 Line: 'A strong high
pressure area has resulted in a buildup of pollutants, forecasters said, making
it especially bad for those with health concerns and breathing
problems.' Do you live in a house? *'New study
compares indoor/outdoor pollution levels in Utah' – Salt Lake City
– Fox 13 – 12/29/13 'A Utah State University
research professor has spent nearly a decade measuring how much air pollution
can seep into homes on red air days.' If the only thing you
focus on is a cat… instead of 33 million metric tons of
pollution in the air, well, I have no words for that. How can we
have 'jobs'…? If we are dead?
*'Study says coal burning in Utah kills 202 a year' - AP - Published
by DSNews - 10/19/10
Dirty air...love it or leave it...The new conservative bumper
VSTBountiful, UTBut yet, a leader from the office of Utah’s
air quality really did say that our air today along the Wasatch front is cleaner
that it was 20 years ago. I heard him actually say that on a TV newscast.So which is it?11:27 a.m. Jan. 7, 2014=========
Ya, Only 211 people died this year from Utah's bad air
quailty instead of over 400.Are you still willing to dance in the
streets over those deaths?
I have a policy of not listening to anybody who claims one side just wants clean
air, puppy dogs, and world peace. And the other side WANTS dirty air, hates
dogs, and only wants war. These people are drunk on their political dogma and
are no longer making any sense.Nobody WANTS dirty air. Nobody
thinks, "the dirtier the air the better". When some people PRETEND that
some people actually think this it's amazing but just shows how out of
touch with reality they are.Some people can just deal with reality
and the world as it actually is... and realize that we actually NEED refineries.
That doesn't mean they want the dirtiest air possible. That's a
leap of logic that some make that makes no sense to me. I guess it makes sense
in the rhetoric obsessed mind.
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTSome people can just deal with reality
and the world as it actually is... and realize that we actually NEED refineries.
That doesn't mean they want the dirtiest air possible. ========
I actually agree with you, but -- Having what? 4-6
refineries, in an inversion prone, isolated, high mountain
valley, filled with 2 million people, mostly children, doesn't mean that businesses and SUVs can do what they, when they
want, and how they want.That is called "regulation" and some
"conservativs" are against any and all regulation regardless the impat
to humans or the enviroment -- business rules, and money is the ultimate God.
@2 bits - I agree with you, moving the plants is probably a no go from a cost
perspective. Granting them permission to expand on the condition of overall
reduction in emissions is a much more pragmatic solution.But the
rest of the rhetorical tung twisting is a bit silly. Why does driving cars
mean that you must settle for pollution. There is nothing scientifically that
requires this sort of bi-polar decision. And simply because something is done a
certain way now, does not mean it is the best way forward. These either or
discussion just creates false arguments.We can have cars, jobs, and
industry.... and clean air and water.
OMM,When you get into "Regulation"... the question I ask is...
where do you draw the line, and who get's to control whom?Do I
get to control you? Or do you just get to control me? Is it OK
to control people just because their environmental opinions aren't radical
enough? Who do we get to regulate? Anybody who's not as radical about
environmentalism as me? or as radical as you? Where is that line? Would you
be OK if we decided Conservatives could control/regulate you? Or is it only OK
if Liberals are doing the controlling/regulating?You can't say
"Liberals can regulate Conservatives" using environmentalism as their
tool... but freak if Conservatives try to control you with their morality as
their standard. Environmentalism IS a moral issue.That's the
main problem with regulation. There must be a line. I think that's the
only place we would disagree.Environmentalism is a moral issue.
Some appreciate being beat over the head with your morality and regulations as
much as you appreciate being hit over the head with their religious morality and
UtahBlueDevil,This is not make believe. How can you drive your car
without gas? How do you get gas without refineries? You can't just pick
them up and move them outside the valley. Even IF you could... that would just
cause MORE pollution (the same pollution from the refining process PLUS the
added pollution to truck the gas to the valley).The refineries would
still be creating the same amount of pollution... just somewhere else. And if
that location is still in the Great Basin... the air will eventually end up
trapped in the valley.---I think we would get a bigger
bang for our buck if we just outlawed driving (instead of moving all refineries
far enough that they won't pollute the Wasatch Front). Heck... Then the
refineries would close too (becasue there would be no demand for their
product).But neither is going to happen. We can't outlaw
driving. And we can't banish existing refineries. The reality
is... we can't drive without gas. And we can't have gas without
refineries. So including some restrictions on driving (not just banishing
refineries) seems like it would be a good thing to consider.
Excellent letter.We are dealing with the same people who've
tried to push the bogus "science" of global warming on the planet. Every
thing liberals do is agenda driven. They have never met an industry they've
not villified, and had as their mission, the desire to destroy it.Leftists always need an "evil" corporation, or other entitiy they
dislike in order to push yet more regulations on the American citizen. Just wait
until Dear Leader pushes cap & trade on this nation via the EPA. Energy
costs will go through the roof, and our nation will continue to decline
economically and technically. We are currently witnessing what
unbridled liberalism (socialism) brings upon a nation.
Air-polluting cars:Why drive them, when we could beRiding unicorns?
"If you don't want to live in weather-related inversions, there are
plenty of other places to live."True... you could move to cities
like Chicago where it's -70 wind chill... or in other Midwest states where
your house can be blown away in a wind storm.
@2bits......you said "The refineries would still be creating the same amount
of pollution... just somewhere else."Ummm.... not sure how many
turnarounds you have actually done, but I have done more than a few..... and
most of those facilities are OLD. I know it hard to imagine, but there are
actually newer and cleaner ways to do things. Part of any expansion is to bring
grandfathered assets up to current standards, and in the process, produce less
emissions. There are multiple was to improve technologies that can aide in
optimization of the operation in catalytic reforming process, optimize the
fluid catalytic cracking, or even reduce excess oxygen present in the flue gas,
reducing the amount of incomplete combustion. This is just a start.If you had read carefully, I agreed, moving the facilities is not economically
viable. But to say a net new facility would pollute the same just is false,
very false.And to your comment that we need gas for our cars...
today... yes - mostly. Tomorrow, not so true. To say the technology of 100
years ago is our only option and we are stuck it lacks just a little bit of
vision... to say the least.
Most of the writers in this blog fail to understand that climate is both global
and very local. Establishments such as the refineries, Rio Tinto, and
Stericycle affect the region, but they also affect much more acutely their
immediate neighborhoods. No one knows for sure what the full impact of these
establishments is on their nearby neighbors, and the establishments don't
want to know, and indeed don't care. This is the great dilemma of
environmental epidemiology - we don't know the full impact of the
pollutants because the science has not been done. As to the culpability of
these establishments, conservatives would say innocent until proven guilty -
leftists would be more inclined to be cautious and say guilty until proven
innocent. Or in other words we should error on the side of caution. The effects of pollution may be evident in the future when the casualties have
already occurred. I have directly experienced such.
The responses to my letter are pretty much what I expected. I must be an
uneducated, Mormon, gay hater who works for big dirty industry and loves dirty
air. I am surprised somebody didn't find a way to call me a racist.
Unfortunately, this just shows the stereotypical name calling that liberals
always use to denigrate anybody with a different view. I'm college
educated, self employed, parents were both Democratic, and have no religious
affiliation. So how about we deal with reality. Either the head of air quality
for Utah lied by stating inTV/newspaper interviews that the air has improved for
the last twenty years or he is correct and it has improved.If he lied then we
should be going after him for the coverup. If he is telling the truth, then Dr.
Moench isn't telling the truth. Simple question, who is telling the truth?
And unless you are not driving a car, heating your home, or using any lights,
then your use of fossil fuels is just as bad as mine. What makes your use
different from mine?
Marxist,"No one knows for sure what the full impact of these
establishments are on nearby neighborhoods". Kennecott and the refineries
have been here for 50+ years. How much longer do we need to wait to see if there
is a cause and effect? Has the medical/government been hiding the results?
Jeff BowlesSalt Lake, UTMarxist,"No one knows for sure
what the full impact of these establishments are on nearby neighborhoods".
Kennecott and the refineries have been here for 50+ years. How much longer do we
need to wait to see if there is a cause and effect? Has the medical/government
been hiding the results?8:22 a.m. Jan. 8, 2014=========
Utah [Salt Lake in particular] has an Autism rate 4 times the
national average.Autism has been linked to mercury,mercury has been
used by Kennecott, andis emmitted by burning fossil fuels.Cause v. Effect.But I guess it's not a problem or doesn't
happen if YOUR kid isn't the one ruined for life from it.