The EPA Accidentally Turned This River Toxic And Orange

DeathFromBelow said:
After working at/with a few aerospace companies I can say the same thing about them. You'll find under-performing workers in any organization.
Click to expand...

Yeah but was there a 20% shot at finding the good one? I worked with 5 epa people and only one had a brain.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
What I find funny is how the anti-EPA nuts can jump from the known facts (an accident happened at a contaminated mine cleanup site) to 'the EPA deliberately poisoned a river to make money!'
Click to expand...
Come on, everybody knows people join the EPA just so they can make the big bucks.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041792203 said:
.

To restate the analogy from earlier in the thread - blaming the EPA here is like blaming the bomb squad when a bomb goes off while they are heroically trying to defuse it.
Click to expand...

That analogy is really stupid for this situation. Bomb squads have very little time to do their job. EPA in a situation like this has months or years to correctly defuse the problem. With all the money this administration is pouring into the EPA and the power they are granting them they should have done a better job. Since tax dollars went into this shit job every American should get a refund. Like others have stated. If this had been a private company heads would roll and they would be fined up the ass and\or thrown in jail.
 
TIL profit motive and greed only affect humans in the private sector.

But not private sector workers contracting with the government.

They're immune.
 
Whether or not the EPA conspired to actually screw this up, who knows for sure. The fact remains they messed up big time. It's funny how if this was a private company the EPA would be all over their asses.

The EPA deep down wanted this to become a Superfund Site, and it will probably become just that. The EPA has a budget of roughly 8 billion dollars and big projects are away for them to put people to work and also complain about budget shortfalls for next years budget proposals.
 
VladDracule said:
Whats with all the EPA fanboyism? Why are the immune to taking shit when they screw up? Sure theyve accomplished some positive things, but that doesn make them fucking immune to screwing up. Its not like theyve done a thing to monsanto and the GMO's that have been banned in other countries which is probably the biggest health risk in the US to date
Click to expand...

GMOs would be under the FDA's jurisdiction, not the EPA.
 
magnetik said:
hmmm..

LINK


LINK to the letter
Click to expand...

What the letter writer predicted: that the EPA was going to plug a hole and make stuff spill over. Which is the exact opposite of what actually happened: the EPA accidentally opened a hole and let stuff spill out.

If you want interesting reading, try this article published two days before the spill, about Silverton's decades-long opposition to getting labelled a Superfund site.
 
JJ91284 said:
Whether or not the EPA conspired to actually screw this up, who knows for sure. The fact remains they messed up big time. It's funny how if this was a private company the EPA would be all over their asses.

The EPA deep down wanted this to become a Superfund Site, and it will probably become just that. The EPA has a budget of roughly 8 billion dollars and big projects are away for them to put people to work and also complain about budget shortfalls for next years budget proposals.
Click to expand...

Regardless, they will now be rewarded with an even larger budget and even more power.
Also the money they will pay to fix the site won't come from their main operating budget.

Nothing wrong with those incentive strictures at all......
 
I think the water will clear up =) Fish might all die but they can be replanted lead will sink anyway.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
Regardless, they will now be rewarded with an even larger budget and even more power.
Also the money they will pay to fix the site won't come from their main operating budget.

Nothing wrong with those incentive strictures at all......
Click to expand...
I'd like to hear what the alternative is, since funding them adequately in the first place apparently wasn't on the table. I mean they wanted the money precisely because they saw a problem and wanted to fix it. After only having stopgap solutions for 25 years, there was a mistake and now it's a bigger problem, like they predicted. So if giving them the money they asked for to begin with isn't the solution, and giving them the money they need AFTER the problem isn't the solution, what exactly IS?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top