Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Are you considering Environmental Hazards?  (Read 3959 times)

skypod

  • Friend of FSP
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 152
  • BADNARIK for President!
    • Skypod.DeadBangGuns.com
Logged
Melissa Seaman - Skypod.DeadBangGuns.com
When the extraordinary becomes commonplace, that is a revolution.

BobW

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 453
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Are you considering Environmental Hazards?
« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2003, 05:21:57 am »

Hi Sky,

I read one of the links you posted.  Under the sites "Featured Topics" it carried "Summary of and EPA's Response to the National Mining Association (NMA) Lawsuit.

The letter from EPA to the Mining Association's attorney is a near-perfect example of why the Peoples' Republic of China is the world's largest marketplace.

BobW
Logged

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Are you considering Environmental Hazards?
« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2003, 10:00:47 am »

I don't think we have, much. Do you have some reasons why we should? Are you aware that one state might be a lot worse than the rest, for example - enough to actually cause widespread health hazards?
Logged

skypod

  • Friend of FSP
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 152
  • BADNARIK for President!
    • Skypod.DeadBangGuns.com
Re:Are you considering Environmental Hazards?
« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2003, 02:48:58 pm »

Quote
Do you have some reasons why we should? Are you aware that one state might be a lot worse than the rest, for example - enough to actually cause widespread health hazards?

I don't have any knowledge of the states in question, but when choosing my place to live, I checked the weather patterns for the last 30 years to make sure there were no tornados, hurricanes, etc., and made sure there were no toxic sites or HUD housing units nearby.
Logged
Melissa Seaman - Skypod.DeadBangGuns.com
When the extraordinary becomes commonplace, that is a revolution.

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Are you considering Environmental Hazards?
« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2003, 05:14:15 pm »

Well, I wouldn't worry about a little old hurricane or tornado, but I can see staying away from HUD housing.  ;)
Logged

mactruk

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 85
  • PEACE AND FREEDOM
Re:Are you considering Environmental Hazards?
« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2003, 05:56:57 pm »

  The fed is a toxic waste site, everything they touch turns to poison.    
Logged

skypod

  • Friend of FSP
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 152
  • BADNARIK for President!
    • Skypod.DeadBangGuns.com
Re:Are you considering Environmental Hazards?
« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2003, 06:56:26 pm »

Speaking of which, also in those links I posted is a link to check how much federal funding any city accepts. That's another thing I checked. ;)
Logged
Melissa Seaman - Skypod.DeadBangGuns.com
When the extraordinary becomes commonplace, that is a revolution.

Porcupineapple

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
  • Legalize Freedom!
Environmental Hazards, real and imagined
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2003, 10:19:54 am »

Thanks for the links, skypod!  Looks like someone I know  already looked at one :

The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to implement the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in all 50 states and U.S. territories. Superfund site identification, monitoring, and response activities are coordinated through state environmental departments.

The National Priorities List (NPL), which is a part of CERCLA is a list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites, identified as candidates for long-term action using money from the Superfund trust fund Sites that contain the worst toxic waste problems are included on the NPL for oversight and clean-up.

If a site does not make it on the NPL, no money from the federal Superfund can be used to help clean it up, although EPA may still be involved in a shorter-term clean-up action.  Public participation in remedial clean-up plans is an integral part of CERCLA. Remedial plans are long term strategies to clean-up the contaminated site. Before a plan can be approved by the government, it must be published, at a minimum, in a major local newspaper. After notice there must be a reasonable opportunity for public comment and an opportunity for a public meeting at or near the facility at issue.

Since public participation is an important step in adopting a remedial action as stated above, and the EPA coordinates its activities with state agencies and state law helps to determine some of the decisions made by the EPA and political maneuvering may dictate whether questionable sites are given priority or not, there is just a little bit more to this list than just pointing out the existence of waste sites in the several candidate states, but it would take a lot of research to determine the extent to this claim.  The following is a list that ranks the states in order by number of actual NPL Superfund sites, it does not take into account how much those sites may actually be affecting the communities surrounding them on any comparison basis except that they were determined bad enough to make it on the NPL.

NH   proposed=1, Final=18, deleted=0

DE   proposed=0, Final=16, deleted=4

MT   proposed=1, Final=14, deleted=0

ME   proposed=0, Final=12, deleted=0

VT   proposed=0, Final=9, deleted=2

ID   proposed=4, Final=6, deleted=3

AK   proposed=0, Final=6, deleted=2

SD   proposed=0, Final=2, deleted=2

WY   proposed=0, Final=2, deleted=1

ND   proposed=0, Final=0, deleted=2
Pages: [1]   Go Up