Scuse Me While I Kiss The Sky

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD



Sincerely,

The Truth Teller

That made me throw-up in my mouth a little bit! [xx(]

[cannon_fodder]

So is that a "No," you won't address the points you raised. Great having this discussion with you, it is clear you have no real desire and lack the ability to engage in the intelligent discussion you claimed you wanted.  

I don't know why I still bother to address you in a coherent manner when you ignore my attempts at worthwhile discussion. Please engage the issues at hand or don't bother to respond.

[Breadburner]

Did you guys know FOTD is really a dog.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixeX2k55zv4

Failure Of The Dog......

[FOTD]

http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9545

This is a repost.....sorry, but I need someone to clear the air for me on Tulsa's air quality. It's cars causing all these problems? I agree it's part of the problem. But it just seems to me there is an inconsistency, a disconnect, between Jim Inhofe's words and his actions. No global warming but plenty of politicizing of our lousy toxic air here.

I am disappointed non of the forum die hard Republicans mentioned anything about entitlements and Mr. Jimmy.

CONFUSED?

Breathe easier


By World's Editorial Writers
5/2/2008


Earmark will help Tulsa's air

The U.S. House has advanced a measure that would free $1.8 million to help Tulsa improve its air quality by updating traffic signals and reducing congestion.

It will likely mean the city will get coordinated signals at multiple, sequential intersections, replacing outdated lights.

So, we'll all be able to breathe easier and get home faster.

Credit goes to U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who shepherded the measure through Congress.

The action comes as an American Lung Association report gives Tulsa a failing grade for ozone pollution.

Ground-level ozone is dangerous for the young, the old and the sick. Tulsa has struggled with the pollutant for years, and vehicle fumes are a primary culprit.

Inhofe has been an advocate for the city in this struggle, working to make sure the federal government's air standards are fair and to get the city the resources to deal with the challenge.

Now, some demagogues want you to believe that Inhofe's sort of constituent-oriented efforts -- Earmark! Egad! -- are the ruin of our nation.

Whenever there's a bill that specifies how money should be spent in this fashion they squawk that Congress isn't doing it's job.

Wrong. In fact, they couldn't be more wrong.

The United States has a fiscal problem, and it needs to be dealt with, but the solution isn't to be found in eliminating earmarks. Do away with every earmark passed by Congress this year, and you wouldn't put a significant dent in the federal budget deficit.

You also would deprive communities of important funding for key projects, like cleaning Tulsa's air.





I certainly am having several issues with Senaturd Malarkey after reading today's news. Interesting timing by Malarkey in light of this expose:

Group claims Tulsa's air bad

Tulsa World
SOURCE: INCOG


http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080502_1_A1_hrpFo65584

By KIM ARCHER World Staff Writer
5/2/2008



The American Lung Association's grading hits harder than evaluations by the EPA.


As report card grades go, Tulsa County got the worst possible evaluation -- an "F" -- on Thursday for its air quality from the American Lung Association.

But by Environmental Protection Agency standards, the metro area is in compliance with its ozone and particle pollution guidelines, said Nancy Graham, air quality supervisor for the Indian Nations Council of Governments.

Still, dirty air is undesirable according to any standard.

"I think that it shows that we have some work ahead of us to clean up our air," she said.

The American Lung Association study gave both Tulsa and Oklahoma counties an "F" for unacceptable ozone levels in the air.

However, neither Tulsa nor Oklahoma City were among the top 25 worst smog-polluted cities.

Cleveland and Pittsburg counties in Oklahoma received "A" grades for ozone pollution.

Ozone in the upper atmosphere is a protective layer around the Earth. But at ground level, fossil-fuel emissions react with sunlight to create a harmful air pollutant.

"It's concerning, because childhood asthma continues to increase," Graham said.

According to the latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, Oklahoma has the third-highest percentage of children with asthma in the nation.

The American Lung Association study comes just as Tulsa's ozone alert system is about to get rolling.

High-ozone days typically occur on hot, cloudless days between May and September.

The alert system has been successful in reducing emissions, Graham said.

"It continues to be a strong and well-understood voluntary program," she said.

For more information on that program, go to www.tulsaworld.com/ozonealert.

Tulsa County also received a "C" grade for its particle pollution, which refers to fine solid and liquid particles from smoke, haze, soot or dust. Graham said increased awareness about this type of pollution is spreading throughout the Tulsa area.

"We have focused on ozone in Tulsa because it has been the predominant pollutant," she said.

Oklahoma County received a grade of "A" for particle pollution.

Graham noted that the American Lung Association uses stricter criteria than the EPA, which regulates the nation's air quality.

The EPA takes a three-year average of ozone levels and, if they are too high, the city is placed on the Dirty Air list.

Tulsa has not been on the federal Dirty Air list since 1990.

"But it's a struggle. We have been fighting this a long time," Graham said. "There have been plenty of years our numbers have barely met the standard."

Five ozone monitors in the area measure the amount of ozone emissions floating around in the Tulsa metropolitan area, she said.

Since 1996, Tulsa's ozone emissions levels have dropped significantly because of changes the community has made, Graham said.

Many towns in the Tulsa area have purchased clean-fuel vehicles; refineries have switched to reduced vapor gasoline; and people are more cognizant of changes that can improve air quality, she said.

In the Tulsa metro area, gasoline suppliers voluntarily offer a special gasoline blend each year from June 1 to Sept. 15. The special blend gasoline, which is different than reformulated gasoline, is designed to burn cleaner and produce fewer emissions.

"Overall, things are getting cleaner as people get wiser," Graham said.

On March 12, the EPA tightened its air quality regulations further, which may lead to Tulsa's placement on the Dirty Air list as early as March 2010, she said.

Once placed on the list, the federal government imposes expensive measures on cities to reduce pollution, such as adding high-occupancy vehicle lanes to area freeways like Texas did or reformulating gasoline like California has done, Graham said.

If the community can aggressively work to keep the air cleaner, Tulsa might avoid that list, she said.





And just yesterday, Malarkey turned his back on our GI's for political gain.

I'm starting to wonder if he is losing it...him, and TULSAWORLD!

[cannon_fodder]

Back to the point...

What does that have to do with the refinery work?

Your point was the refinery work would make things worse, not that the air was bad in general.  And, even if the point was the air is bad in general, the refinery work will still improve it - not what you indicate. This is yet another article spam that really has nothing to do with the topic of discussion.

Try again.  Try harder.

[FOTD]

I thinketh my posts are really taking dead aim on what the American Lung Association came out with.

I think we all agree that days like today make us spoiled over beauty and clean air. We all want a better quality of life in Tulsa. That big dark cloud during summer heat called haze is nothing to look forward to.

[cannon_fodder]

Great, I agree.

But how foes that lead to you announcing that the Sinclair project will make things worse, or any of the other accusations you levied?

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Great, I agree.

But how foes that lead to you announcing that the Sinclair project will make things worse, or any of the other accusations you levied?

Can't trust what they tell us. Sorry.

[cannon_fodder]

Back to "they are lying."  

So because they were caught polluting once, they are lying.  What about the perspective that because they were caught they are being watched more carefully now?  Or, for that matter, that fact that they were caught showing that it is not easy to get away with polluting?

Or, for that matter, the fact that you lied just to get on these message boards (per TOS, banned means you can not re-register)?  Does that mean that everything you say is a lie because I know for a fact you lied in the past?

Or your total breakdown in logic.  If I don't like what they say, it's a lie.  Proof be damned.

[custosnox]

You might as well stop trying to get him to give an actual answer.  For him to do so, he would either have to look up some sources (with a good chance of them being trumped up to show what he wants to see), or admit that he was wrong.  He can't get past the fact that sinclair did something that was wrong.  His entire argument is based apon this fact, and no others, and he will not look beyond this fact.  Classic case of tunnel vision.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Back to "they are lying."  

So because they were caught polluting once, they are lying.  What about the perspective that because they were caught they are being watched more carefully now?  Or, for that matter, that fact that they were caught showing that it is not easy to get away with polluting?

Or, for that matter, the fact that you lied just to get on these message boards (per TOS, banned means you can not re-register)?  Does that mean that everything you say is a lie because I know for a fact you lied in the past?

Or your total breakdown in logic.  If I don't like what they say, it's a lie.  Proof be damned.

How about this CF. They deceived the public before. Therefore, public trust is an issue. If you wish to corner me into saying they are liars....well, ok.

Custosnox? Sounds Turkish.

[cannon_fodder]

So because they lied before, they, the EPA, the FERC, their investors, and everyone else is lying about everything on this project?  Is that correct?  If so, that is ridiculous.

I'll do this one more time:

quote:I've said repeatedly
1. Emissions & Odor will go down.

2. How is they are not spending a billion?

3. The production of more diesel in Tulsa does not equal the use of more diesel in Tulsa.

4. Not good for economic development?

5. Good for construction companies over the short run. Yep. So what? Why is that bad?

The only thing having any relation to them lying about pollution is #1.  But they will be under a new set of guidelines and will have to pass EPA inspection before their new lines can begin production - so unless the EPA is in on it with them, your "they lie" argument fails to address any of the points you brought up for discussion.

Care to FINALLY address any of the issues you raised?

Seriously, please at least explain why you refuse to defend your position.  Are you too lazy, ignorant, or contemptuous to bother defending the accusations you hurled?  I really can't think of another reason, since you clearly have the time and have shown interest in the topic (since you started the discussion).

Guess what I'm saying, is put up or shut up.

[FOTD]

So because they lied before, they, the EPA, the FERC, their investors, and everyone else is lying about everything on this project?  Is that correct?  If so, that is ridiculous.

I'll do this one more time:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>I've said repeatedly</i>
1. Emissions & Odor will go down.

2. How is they are not spending a billion?

3. The production of more diesel in Tulsa does not equal the use of more diesel in Tulsa.

4. Not good for economic development?

5. Good for construction companies over the short run. Yep. So what? Why is that bad?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The only thing having any relation to them lying about pollution is #1.  But they will be under a new set of guidelines and will have to pass EPA inspection before their new lines can begin production - so unless the EPA is in on it with them, your "they lie" argument fails to address any of the points you brought up for discussion.

Care to FINALLY address any of the issues you raised?

Seriously, please at least explain why you refuse to defend your position.  Are you too lazy, ignorant, or contemptuous to bother defending the accusations you hurled?  I really can't think of another reason, since you clearly have the time and have shown interest in the topic (since you started the discussion).

Guess what I'm saying, is put up or shut up.

Let's all hope this sh!t company can't find a buyer and has to close down and clean up!

Told you so!

Always remember, if they lie once then their integrity is gone forever....

Sinclair may want to sell its refinery
The west Tulsa plant's $1 billion expansion is on hold, and industry reports suggest sale inquiries.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=49&articleid=20090723_49_E1_Geesew923563

Groove crusher, you're up to bat!

[cannon_fodder]

I'm confused.  After briefly reviewing the 2.5 month old topic it seems we were arguing about the FERC/EPA evaluation of the pollution of the refinery.   I argued that dumping $1bil into the refinery was a good thing - certainly better than shuttering unusable land or selling to someone who wouldn't upgrade it at all.

Now it appears they are not going to pump $1,000,000,000 into our economy and will try to sell it to someone who likely won't do any significant upgrades but clearly will want to utilize their asset.  So instead of $1bil improvement we will be stuck with the status quo.  And another step towards energy independence and value added energy in the US. . .

Congrats, you won.  Surely the people that work there, the suppliers, crews, and ancillary positions in Tulsa are thrilled that the $1bil investment is off and their jobs are all in question.  And, for the record, you STILL haven't addressed any of the points I made months ago.

[FOTD]

I'm confused.  After briefly reviewing the 2.5 month old topic it seems we were arguing about the FERC/EPA evaluation of the pollution of the refinery.   I argued that dumping $1bil into the refinery was a good thing - certainly better than shuttering unusable land or selling to someone who wouldn't upgrade it at all.

Now it appears they are not going to pump $1,000,000,000 into our economy and will try to sell it to someone who likely won't do any significant upgrades but clearly will want to utilize their asset.  So instead of $1bil improvement we will be stuck with the status quo.  And another step towards energy independence and value added energy in the US. . .

Congrats, you won.  Surely the people that work there, the suppliers, crews, and ancillary positions in Tulsa are thrilled that the $1bil investment is off and their jobs are all in question.  And, for the record, you STILL haven't addressed any of the points I made months ago.

That is because this community would be better off without these refineries. That has been my argument since day one. They are causing il health and injurious to economic development through lack of compatibility in clean air attainment set by the Feds.

Tulsa should find a way to lead the nation in natural gas car conversion. Instead, it's WNBA.

You can continue believing these liars at Holly and Sinkcleanair....you seem sold on their "honesty."