Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (April 1997)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Thu, 3 Apr 1997 10:04:10 -0800 (PST)
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         "Christopher M. Smith" <csmith@sdsc.edu>
Subject:      Re: EPA Abuse -- It gets worse !

On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Todd Francis wrote:

> Frayed1003@aol.com wrote: > > Sorry to be > > so negative, but I have always questioned the EPA's motives and for some > > reason, it always seems that their priorities lie in padding their pocket > > book rather than saving the earth. > > Right on! The EPA is all about money. We have been attempting to help > air to the counties and states at car-owner expense. These are bad > people!

I can't speak for the EPA's motives or the fact that they are/are not run by "bad people". I do believe that when this bureacracy was formed their intentions were sincere ... that is the protection our environment. For example, the government regulations that really cleaned up our American landscape (especially our waterways) in the 60's and early 70's. If you think things were fine then and that things would have gotten better without government intervention, then read Rachel Carlson' (sp) book, "Silent Spring".

Unfortunately, with age all bureacracies succumb to a self-propagating mode ... do whatever needs to be done to preserve itself. The major problem with this is that the bureacracy also becomes cancerous ... that is to continue to exist it must grow. In this mode, when the EPA was done regulating coporate America, they turned their sights on Academia. Not that I think that Academia didn't need a little cleaning up, but the way in which the EPA changed gears is insidious. Apparently, they directly applied corporate (users of large amounts of chemicals) regulations to academia (users of small amounts of chemicals). Big deal you say!, well here's an extreme example of how asinine this approach can be.

They have applied the same rules for the disposal of 10,000 gallons of 100% ethanol (the "drinkable alcohol") to a pint of 100% ethanol (generally used in a research lab). Obviously, you can't just dump 10,000 gallons of alcohol down the drain without major environmental impact, but there is little, if any environmental impact when a research lab pours a pint of 100% ethanol down the sink with water mixed in to dilute it out. At least it hasn't been a problem til' a few years ago. No!, No! says the EPA. You can't dump any ethanol down the sink that is above 10%. It gets worse! Ok, we say, we'll just be sure to dilute it down to 5% first, then pour it down the sink with running water (further diluting it like we normally did). NO!, NO!, NO! says the EPA. You can't do that either. If the alcohol came in a bottle (original) at greater than 10% concentration, then no matter how you use it or dilute it!, whatever it touches or is mixed in with must be treated ... disposed of as "hazardous waste". In other words, I can legally pour a can of beer, wine, tequila down the sink, but I can't pour pharmaceutical grade (absolutely pure) ethanol diluted to 10% down the sink. So what?! you say, "just let the hazardous waste people deal with it". Well, the hazardous waste bill somebody for theior trouble. That pint of 100% ethanol that I purchased for about 25 cents, to do an experiment, is going to cost upwards of $20 to dispose of. Who do you think is going to pay for that ? Our funding comes from the National Science Foundation, a federal agency ... in other words YOUR TAX DOLLARS !! So for every tax dollar you give me to find the cure for cancer, I'm going to spend a majority of it on conforming to asinine regulatory/administrative regulations.

Go figure!

And you thought we had it bad at the smog inspection station. This isn't even the tip of the iceberg.

Chris San Diego (former biochemist, now computational biologist. The only thing I pour down the sink these days is day old coffee. Ops! next they'll regulate that as well ... all that caffeine, whoa!)

Mandatory VW content:

The smog standards being enforced are actually good for us. For those who are skimping by with emissions, it makes them come around to fixing the "problem". Sure it could be expensive to make the proper repair, but that's one of the responsibilities we take upon ourselves when we decide to drive our vehicles. Contrary to popular opinion, driving is not a right, but a privledge (at least in California ... read the inside cover of the DMV drivers manual).

A new cat converter can work wonders for reducing HC emissions.


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.