https://weather.com/news/news/mosaic-sin...fertilizer
A massive sinkhole has opened up beneath a waste water retention pond used by a fertilizer company, sending millions of gallons of contaminated waste water into the Florida Aquifer. That's where we get all our drinking water.
Now, all of you who say we are over-regulated, tell me if you think we need more or less regulation on these guys.
So are you saying that we need to regulate where sink holes open?
Quote:I asked you first.
What regulation do you propose to prevent future sink holes?
Quote:What regulation do you propose to prevent future sink holes?
A regulation requiring manufacturing plants that deal in large quantities of contaminated water cycling to use steel or reinforced concrete holding tanks rather than large ponds. Multiple tanks rather than one large one would like mitigate the potential of a massive failure due to a large sinkhole if they were spaced enough apart. One example off the top of my head.
Should this be a regulation? Not my call but I have spent over 15 years in the construction design field and deal with a lot of what seem like silly regulations but in the end they are all in place to lower the human or environmental cost should a myriad of different failures occur. I know that's not important to some people because money but that is the reason for most regulations.
the free market will reward companies that take precautions for this happening again {sarcasm}
Quote:A regulation requiring manufacturing plants that deal in large quantities of contaminated water cycling to use steel or reinforced concrete holding tanks rather than large ponds. Multiple tanks rather than one large one would like mitigate the potential of a massive failure due to a large sinkhole if they were spaced enough apart. One example off the top of my head.
Should this be a regulation? Not my call but I have spent over 15 years in the construction design field and deal with a lot of what seem like silly regulations but in the end they are all in place to lower the human or environmental cost should a myriad of different failures occur. I know that's not important to some people because money but that is the reason for most regulations.
You could have saved yourself a lot of typing and just say close the business. That's what your plan would ultimately do. The cost of oversight and infrastructure alone would price the product out of the market.
But I'm sure things like fertilizer aren't really important to you liberals. You can just go to the grocery stores where they make the food there, right?
Quote:You could have saved yourself a lot of typing and just say close the business. That's what your plan would ultimately do. The cost of oversight and infrastructure alone would price the product out of the market.
But I'm sure things like fertilizer aren't really important to you liberals. You can just go to the grocery stores where they make the food there, right?
You could have saved yourself a lot of typing and just you don't care human lives or adverse health effects because money is more important. Maybe you want to live and work in buildings that could collapse due to inspections and safe building practices just being to darn expensive. Or perhaps you don't care if you eat tainted food because again, it's just too expensive to make sure all the food sold in batch this week isn't going to kill everyone that eats. That's what deregulation would lead to.
Quote:You could have saved yourself a lot of typing and just you don't care human lives or adverse health effects because money is more important. Maybe you want to live and work in buildings that could collapse due to inspections and safe building practices just being to darn expensive. Or perhaps you don't care if you eat tainted food because again, it's just too expensive to make sure all the food sold in batch this week isn't going to kill everyone that eats. That's what deregulation would lead to.
This is a strawman argument. There are boatloads of regulations that don't deal with health and safety.
There are plenty of phosphate mines in other states and countries, so Dakota's argument is a strawman from the other side of the argument. There will be fertilizer for crops in any case.
There are valid uses of environmental laws, the problem is that they go way too far. As far as this particular industry is concerned, my opinion is that it is a valid concern and Florida should ban phosphate mining.
It should have been shut down long ago, and it should be done by the state, not the federal government. I remember that Occidental petroleum used to mine phosphate in the '70s and trade it to the Soviet Union for ammonia (basically urine). They were digging up state resources and giving them to our enemy.
Quote:This is a strawman argument. There are boatloads of regulations that don't deal with health and safety.
There are plenty of phosphate mines in other states and countries, so Dakota's argument is a strawman from the other side of the argument. There will be fertilizer for crops in any case.
There are valid uses of environmental laws, the problem is that they go way too far. As far as this particular industry is concerned, my opinion is that it is a valid concern and Florida should ban phosphate mining.
It should have been shut down long ago, and it should be done by the state, not the federal government. I remember that Occidental petroleum used to mine phosphate in the '70s and trade it to the Soviet Union for ammonia (basically urine). They were digging up state resources and giving them to our enemy.
My response was intended to be a sarcastic reply to an over the top statement.