Comments on: Washington is first to tackle toxic copper in brakes

By: rosetess

rosetess — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:20:56 +0000

No tax dollars spent. A cleaner, safer world, with salmon and healthier babies brought to you by the environmentalists! No charge to you! WA State is a safer place to raise a child b/c of this BPA bill (and the toxic toys bill before it, also compliments of righteous moms of WA, Enviros, and a dash of student activists in Olympia). Special interest groups have successfully lobbied to stop copper from eradicating salmon’s sense of smell. Cleaner water, cleaner baby bloodstreams. Both have long been victim to the capitalist machine that distributes the cheapest toxic they can use without killing or maiming the client straight away. Europe and Canada has banned BPA, the US has not! WA State has. Get with the program USA! Are their too many chemical/Monsanto/oil/plastics executives in the way? Throw the bums out of D.C.
Having said all that, what’s the deal with Copper River salmon then!?

By: BlueLight

BlueLight — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:16:42 +0000

“…it’s tax dollars well spent”

Since you’ve come to that conclusion, tell me: how many tax dollars is it?

By: pika

pika — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:36:14 +0000

I’ll comment. This is government doing its job and protecting citizens and the environment from harm. It’s very heartening to see, and it’s tax dollars well spent. It’s only rational to cheer this on.

By: clearvoicesue

clearvoicesue — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:52:06 +0000

I think this as well as the BPA ban for baby bottles and sports bottles are great victories for our state. Protecting health for all of us is a good thing.

By: cdunagan

cdunagan — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:31:16 +0000

Sorry if my blog post came across as cheering. I try to keep things on a fairly even tone. (Notice the lack of exclamation points.)

I do recognize, however, that environmental advocates are cheering the effort to rid the environment of toxic compounds, assuming it can be done at a reasonable cost.

Anyone else wish to comment on the cheering aspect of this and the cost to state government?

By: BlueLight

BlueLight — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:12:49 +0000

“Washington state has done it again, being the first state in the country to take a legal stand against a toxic chemical.”

Rather than cheer, you might want to take a look at what ever-increasing environmental regulations are doing to:

1. The cost of state government
2. The impacts to other governmental programs, like schools
3. The economy of our state

Or not.

We’re number one!!! (Actually California is number one but, hey, we’re gaining on ‘em!)