Hi Asbestos Dumping: Is It the New 'Environmental Terrorism?'

Hi Asbestos Dumping: Is It the New 'Environmental Terrorism?'

- "There is an increasing number of asbestos dumping, which is occurring in public places."

About Asbestos:

Asbestos can cause cancer years down the line, without the person ever knowing that it's there and even if they did, there's no current cure that healthcare professionals are able to practice on patients. Mesthelioma is the known type of cancer that is a result of exposure to asbestos. There are further health complications that asbestos can cause to a person's health such as, lung problems and general health problems. Mesthelioma doesn't appear until 30-50 years down the line so although it does cause cancer and death, the only saving grace is that people are not affected straight away.

Recent Asbestos Dumping Case:

There has recently been a case of asbestos dumping in Holland-on-Sea, Ipswich road, Colchester, where a whole heap of asbestos was dumped partly in bags, the other parts scattered near public toilets. This has been rightly dubbed 'Environmental Terrorism' by the local paper; exposure to asbestos can cause cancer, the fact that asbestos has been dumped in a very public place could have made an impact on people's health, but this will be unknown until years down the line when its more than likely too late to prosecute the perpetrators for causing other people to contract cancer. No justice really; if those responsible were caught, there's no real way of prosecuting them for causing people cancer as it's an unknown fact and will remain that way for many years.

Is the person(s) who committed this shocking crime understand the implications of asbestos exposure can do or completely unaware. If unaware, does that indicate a lack of knowledge that people posses when it comes to asbestos and the dangers of being exposed to it? On the other hand, if the person(s) does understand the health risks to humans that asbestos causes, does this mean they are just pure evil; putting a person(s) health at risk to an extent where it's likely to give them cancer and a premature death is absolutely and undeniably shocking and should receive many years behind bars for doing so?

However, until years down the line, this cannot be proved or disproved, making dumping asbestos and being prosecuted for it, a complete grey area in the current justice system and to an extent understandable. People cannot be prosecuted for possibilities that something may happen, it must be factual and something must have occurred.

Asbestos Removal Regulations:

There are rules and regulations that have been put in place in order to help stop asbestos from causing unnecessary and painful deaths. However, these measures will not completely get rid of the asbestos fibres and with people now dumping asbestos where ever they like e.g. in public places, the problem may only get worse. Asbestos itself is not harmful if it isn't disturbed, but if it is accidentally or purposefully disturbed then this is when it becomes deadly and therefore, asbestos must be removed using correct methods, procedures and equipment.

There are strict laws when it comes to asbestos removal and this must be followed to the letter by any person or business whom is involved in the removal of asbestos. These laws were introduced in order to try minimise health risks due to the high proportion of buildings and materials contaminate by asbestos during removal.

How Easy is it to Disturb Asbestos?

Asbestos is extremely easy to disturb; a simple hole drilled into a wall that contains asbestos can be harmful for a person as the particles are tossed into the air and therefore, a chance of being breathed in by people in the vicinity.

Hi Court; "Upholds EPA Emission Standards."

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's first emission standards for mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired power plants.

In its ruling, the court rejected state and industry challenges to rules designed to clean up chromium, arsenic, acid gases, nickel, cadmium as well as mercury and other dangerous toxins.

The EPA's determination in 2000 that regulating emission standards is appropriate and necessary, and the agency's reaffirmation of that determination in 2012, 'are amply supported by EPA's findings regarding the health effects of mercury exposure,' said the court.

Congress did not specify what types or levels of public health risks should be deemed a hazard under federal law. 

By leaving this gap in the statute, Congress delegated to the EPA the authority to give reasonable meaning to the term 'hazard,' said the court.

In the majority were chief judge Merrick Garland and judge Judith Rogers, both appointees of President Bill Clinton. 

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, an appointee of President George W. Bush, joined most of the decision, but he parted company with his colleagues on the issue of cost - specifically, whether the EPA is obligated to consider industry costs in deciding whether regulation of hazardous air pollutants from power plants is appropriate.

'The problem here is that EPA did not even consider the costs,' Kavanaugh said. 'And the costs are huge, about $9.6 billion a year - that's billion with a b - by EPA's own calculation.'

In response, the majority said the EPA properly decided that the decision whether to regulate mercury should be based on health risks, not compliance costs. 

The majority added that the EPA had determined that benefits of the rule exceeded costs by a factor of at least 3 to 1. Some industry groups have said the EPA was overstating the benefits.

It is only in the first stage of rulemaking that the EPA doesn't industry costs, said the majority opinion. 

It added that the second stage leads to standards that are more restrictive and that, when setting those, the EPA does consider costs.

The new regulations are designed to remove toxins from the air that contribute to respiratory illnesses, birth defects and developmental problems in children.

Most companies operating power plants will have until March 2015 to meet the standards, but a state could grant an additional year and the EPA could extend the deadline until 2017 if the unit was critical for reliability.

- "The EPA proposed the rules in 2011."

Tuesday's ruling is 'a giant step forward on the road to cleaner, healthier air,' said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, which was a party in the case.

The EPA called the decision 'a victory for public health and the environment.'

'These practical and cost-effective standards will save thousands of lives each year, prevent heart and asthma attacks, while slashing emissions of the neurotoxin mercury, which can impair children's ability to learn,' the EPA said.

Laura Sheehan, senior vice president of communications for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said that due in part to regulations like the one in Tuesday's ruling, almost 300 coal-fueled generating units in 33 states have announced they will shut down, costing the electricity sector roughly $200 billion in compliance costs and destroying at least 544,000 jobs.

Sheehan said that impacts of EPA's rulemaking processes aimed at coal have already been seen this past winter, with coal power plant retirements leading to increased reliance on natural gas - a just-in-time fuel source subject to volatile price spikes that many consumers and small businesses bore the brunt of. 

She said such impacts will only increase as more coal units are retired, especially next spring, the deadline for complying with the mercury standard.

The coalition says industry has invested $130 billion to reduce major emissions from coal-fueled power plants by nearly 90 percent and that it plans to invest another $100 billion over the next decade on clean coal technology.

National Mining Association President and CEO Hal Quinn said the federal rule 'imposes enormous costs upon households and businesses but provides little additional environmental benefit. The court recognized the EPA has the authority to consider costs but upheld EPA's decision to ignore them.'

Hi Scope; - "OSHA schedules meeting of the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health."

Hi Scope; - "OSHA schedules meeting of the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health."

WASHINGTON -- The Occupational Safety  & Health Administration will hold a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health May 7-8, 2014, in Washington, D.C. Work groups will meet May 7 and the full committee will meet May 8.

ACCSH(Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health),established under the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the Occupational & Safety and Health Act of 1970, advises the secretary of labor and assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health on construction standards and policy matters.

Click Here Or Image Above For Further Information On ACCSH.

The full committee agenda includes remarks from Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health, updates on rulemaking projects from OSHA's Directorate of Construction, discussion on the proposed rule on Beryllium: Alternatives for Construction and on updates to OSHA's standard on eye and face protection in construction and proposed amendments and corrections to OSHA's Cranes & Derrick standards. 

In addition, the committee will discuss items from the proposed Standards Improvement Project IV and a presentation on 29 CFR 1926, Subpart V, Power Transmission and Distribution.

Work groups and the full committee will meet in Room N-3437 A-C, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20210.The following work groups will meet May 7: Health Hazards, Emerging Issues, and Prevention through Design from 10 a.m. - noon; Temporary Workers from 1-3 p.m.; and Training and Outreach from 3:15-5:15 p.m. 

The full committee meeting will be held from 9 a.m. – 4 p.m., May 8. All meetings are open to the public.

Comments and requests to speak may be submitted electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. 

Click Here Or The Image Above To Access the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. 

Comments may also be submitted via mail or facsimile. 

See the Federal register notice for details by clicking the link here.

Comments and requests to speak must be submitted by April 18, 2014.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. 

OSHA's role is to ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. 

For more information, visit www.osha.gov.

Click Here Or Image Above For Further OSHA Information By Visiting OSHA Website.

Hi Blog Topic of Our Times "Air pollution And Climate"

Hi Combat  Air pollution  And Climate Change Simultaneously

Current economic growth will intensify air quality problems in Asia unless current pollution control laws are significantly upgraded:

1. Population growth and  development will further boost the level of economic activities in Asia:

In asia, population growth combined with the envisaged increase in economic wealth will multiply current levels of energy use, traffic, industrial production and agricultural output in the coming decades. for instance, the Indian government foresees total energy consumption to increase by a factor of 4.5 between 2005 and 2030.

2. Current air pollution control strategies will not be sufficient to balance out the negative effects:

unless current emission control laws are tightened, this economic growth will lead to substantially higher emissions of harmful air pollutants. Increased coal consumption would multiply current emissions of sulfur dioxide in India by a factor of 5 by 2030. depending on the effectiveness of the implementation of current emission control regulations for vehicles, emissions of nitrogen oxides would grow by a factor of2.5 to 3 by 2030. and greenhouse gas emissions are expected to increase by a factor of 4 by 2030. 

3. Deteriorating air quality will cause serious impacts on human health and vegetation, including economically important crops:

This growth in emissions will deteriorate asian air quality further, and cause serious impacts on human health and vegetation. the gaIns model estimates that outdoor exposure to fine particulate matter will, by 2030, shorten statistical life expectancy in India by 57 (29-80) months, compared to 17 (8-23) months in 2005. higher ground-level ozone means crop losses of wheat, corn and rice will triple or more by 2030. In essence, GAINS is a scenario-generating device that helps users to understand the impacts of future actions – or inaction – and to design strategies to achieve long-term environmental goals at the lowest possible cost.The GAINS model analyses the multiple sources and multiple effects of five air pollutants and six greenhouse gases to identify their most cost-effective control. 

4. Advanced emission control technologies are available to maintain acceptable levels of air quality despite the pressure from growing economic activities.

There are two broad methods to cut air pollution; either reducing the levels of activities that emit the pollutants; or not changing production and consumption levels but controlling the waste they

produce. the latter method is known as end-of-pipe emission control technology and by fully applying existing technical measures asia can avoid serious deteriorations in air quality. however, such an undifferentiated across-the board approach would impose significant burdens on the economy.

5. A cost-effective strategy can reduce costs for air pollution control by up to 80% compared to conventional approaches:


an optimized emission control strategy, which selectively allocates specific reduction measures across economic sectors, pollutants and regions, could achieve equal air quality improvements at only 20% of the costs of a conventional across-the-board approach. the gaIns optimization tool allows a systematic search for those measures that ensure total emission control costs are minimized. for asia, an integral element of such an air pollution control strategy will be measures to eliminate indoor pollution from the

combustion of solid fuels.

6. Enhancing air quality in Asia improves the environment, human health, and agricultural productivity:


The gaIns model allows policymakers in china and India to analyse and design their own air pollution control strategy. the benefits of such a strategy are illustrated in the following example. air pollution lowers statistical life expectancy in china, these health impacts could be reduced by 43% by 2030 by using available technology to improve ambient air quality. this can be achieved at an additional expense of 0.63% of gdp with a conventional across-the-board approach to reducing air pollutants or at only an additional cost of 0.13% of gdp using the targeted approach of gaIns. The investment will also reduce crop losses by around 50% and have far ranging positive impacts on the environment.

Well-designed air pollution control strategies can also reduce emissions of greenhouse gases:

1. Measures exist that simultaneously reduce emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases:

In many cases emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases are emitted from the same sources. thus, controls directed at air pollutants frequently affect greenhouse gas emissions, and vice versa. the gaIns model provides an integrated perspective that can maximize synergies between air pollution 

control and greenhouse gas mitigation strategies. 

2. Strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can dramatically lower air pollution control costs:

for achieving given targets on ambient air quality, the cost of air pollution controls can be further reduced by adopting certain low carbon strategies. gaIns demonstrates that the additional controls of climate-friendly measures, e.g., energy efficiency improvements, co-generation of heat and power, fuel substitution, integrated coal gasification combined cycle (Igcc) plants, etc., are more than compensated for by savings in air pollution control equipment.

3. A smart mix of measures to simultaneously cut air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions will help combat climate change and air pollution more cheaply than tackling either issue separately.

GaIns demonstrates that low carbon strategies result in lower emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter at no additional costs. for china, India, and europe, gaIns estimates that each percent of co2 reduction will typically reduce health impacts from fine particulate (pm) air pollution by 1%. this is important information for judging the net benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation 

strategies. gaIns also shows by selecting a smart mix of measures to simultaneously cut air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, china can almost halve air pollution control costs as well as lower 

greenhouse gas emissions by 9 %.

A scientific tool to combat air pollution and climate change simultaneously