EPA to Crack Down on Farm Dust

[Mabs2]

Now they apparently want to starve us.  Having lived and worked on a farm when I was young, I do not see how the EPA can regulate the dust except by shutting the farm down if they plow, harrow, plant, or numerous other jobs.  Strictly a proposal by somebody who has no experience outside of a city, except, maybe driving by a farm when the farmer is working.

EPA to Crack Down on Farm Dust
By Jacqueline Sit, NEWS 9
http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=12899662

Copywrited material removed.

Shouldn't the be more concerned with banning sand and dust storms in the midwest and in desert type areas?

[makattak]

The great evil invented by humanity is "for your own good".  The concept that another human believes they know better and has a legal right to impose their will on another person when it comes to entirely trivial personal decisions. 

People who want to outlaw fast food, riding without a helmet, mandatory health care purchases or other entirely personal decisions are more of a threat to this country than any terrorist or even nation state.  Would the world be better if there was only healthy good, mandatory PPE under all circumstances, healthcare at gunpoint?  I'm sure mortality statistics would improve.  But we would lose something that matters more than our lives.

It is the siren call of supreme evil, "Forbidden unless it is mandatory, for your protection."

For example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/7922407/Supermodel-Gisele-Bundchen-breastfeeding-should-be-made-law.html

Gisele Bundchen had a good experience with breastfeeding.

Therefore, she thinks breastfeeding should be required.

As I've read recently, "The stupid, it hurts."

[Monkeyleg]

The great evil invented by humanity is "for your own good".  The concept that another human believes they know better and has a legal right to impose their will on another person when it comes to entirely trivial personal decisions. 

People who want to outlaw fast food, riding without a helmet, mandatory health care purchases or other entirely personal decisions are more of a threat to this country than any terrorist or even nation state.  Would the world be better if there was only healthy good, mandatory PPE under all circumstances, healthcare at gunpoint?  I'm sure mortality statistics would improve.  But we would lose something that matters more than our lives.

It is the siren call of supreme evil, "Forbidden unless it is mandatory, for your protection."

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."--C.S. Lewis

[Desertdog]

I wish they would crack down on house dust 

Please do not give them any ideas.

[Ben]

I wish I could remember the exact quote, but I once read a book by Jeff Cooper in which he stated that the difference between a free and oppressive state was that, "...in a free state, anything that is not expressly forbidden is allowed. In an oppressive state, everything that is not expressly allowed is forbidden."

We are fast becoming the latter.

[seeker_two]

I wish they would crack down on house dust 

I wish they'd crack down on dust-brained Feds....

[De Selby]

Monkeyleg, that's the first place I lived. 

If only there were someone responsible for your safety and well-being from the time you are 0-18.

Such a cruel world we live in, forcing young ones to fend for themselves.

Yeah, as we've all noted on this thread, our parents' generation didn't necessarily take chemicals seriously, and in any event, the industrial operations all over where I grew up weren't interested in sending me and my family protective gear every time they sprayed/spread/whatever it was.  And if you go through today, you'll see lots of workers out there with the chemicals we know are dangerous and...no protective gear.

If only the free market  gave a reasonable incentive for protective measures, there'd be no calls for regulation (rightly or wrongly). 

[De Selby]

The great evil invented by humanity is "for your own good".  The concept that another human believes they know better and has a legal right to impose their will on another person when it comes to entirely trivial personal decisions. 

People who want to outlaw fast food, riding without a helmet, mandatory health care purchases or other entirely personal decisions are more of a threat to this country than any terrorist or even nation state.  Would the world be better if there was only healthy good, mandatory PPE under all circumstances, healthcare at gunpoint?  I'm sure mortality statistics would improve.  But we would lose something that matters more than our lives.

It is the siren call of supreme evil, "Forbidden unless it is mandatory, for your protection."

There's another force at play you need to consider: what happens when I can make money by spreading around chemicals on my place that harm you next door?  Unless you have some way of forcing me to protect you, what happens to you when I choose to make money instead of protecting myself and others from thsoe chemicals?

[RevDisk]

If only the free market  gave a reasonable incentive for protective measures, there'd be no calls for regulation (rightly or wrongly). 

It's called a liability lawsuit or arbitration.  And it is the traditional way of handling such affairs.  It's infringements of the free market (often, through regulation) that have largely changed that.  Laws breed more laws.  Your parents had every right to either demand that your neighbors either keep dangerous chemicals on their own property, compensate them accordingly for the risk, or provide PPE.  Maybe your parents didn't know any better, or didn't particularly care.  That's their right too.

[De Selby]

It's called a liability lawsuit or arbitration.  And it is the traditional way of handling such affairs.  It's infringements of the free market (often, through regulation) that have largely changed that.  Laws breed more laws.  Your parents had every right to either demand that your neighbors either keep dangerous chemicals on their own property, compensate them accordingly for the risk, or provide PPE.  Maybe your parents didn't know any better, or didn't particularly care.  That's their right too.

Yeah, you should review the history of this type of litigation in America - for pop readers, "A Civil Action" isn't that far off from what most people would encounter trying to sue over an industrial operation poisoning the environment.  

The tort system works very well for things that someone who grew up in the 1700's could make sense of.  It is not particularly well suited to statistical analyses that indicate damages from pollution.

Edit:   It's also important to note that the tort system does not give you an absolute right to stop other people from polluting your property, and never has.  So in terms of health protection, that's definitely not the answer - the best it can reliably do is get you payment for the damage, and (as explained above) it doesn't do that very well in these cases.

[Cliffh]

Imagine, if you will, how many farm workers will keel over while wearing a full set of Anti-C's during a Kansas summer.  And the attendant medical costs involved.

How many workers do you think will continue to work under those conditions? 

Wonder if the Farm Workers union will get involved?  Seems as if they'd want to look out for their members' welfare.

[Tallpine]

Farm dust is valuable topsoil.

Do you think that farmers deliberatly plow when the wind is blowing just to get rid of extra soil