Thanks Dickie, but does it not strike you to be Odd how they come up with these figures?
Considering that it is virtually a un measurable commodity.
And have you ever viewed a report that compounds the CO2 and toxins that are expelled when our Bush lands are on fire? then how about Geophysical events? No, but they can conger up some fictional numbers to fill a gap or two.
Can you give me the name of the Author of this report you posted and how much the Tax payer was looted out of?
There is technology in existence that alters the emissions; that is simple, it is used in construction whilst vehicles are operated in restricted areas, a simple catalytic converter; Well until some bumbling clown figures out it is a good idea to implement biochemistry and alternative fuels; As I do , I produce my own Fuel through titration. But even then the looters can’t keep their fingers out of my pockets.
There is no reason why CO 2 can not be captured and then to alter its anatomical structure and used for other purposes; this has also been achieved.
There are a great many things available to achieve these goals, but looting the Public accounts and stirring up dooms day reports is the way of Witch doctors these days.
Rob 51 has a very good point in regards to our own house hold energy, it would be advisable to learn new ways and methods to break away from dependency on the Looter factions and start thinking for our selves. That would be the best environmental policy for anyone and everyone.

ALL-

The figures I gave you in my last post are from the "National Pollutant Inventory". This is a website of the Department of Environment and Heritage and companies exceeding a certain limit with regards to productivity are required to annually report to the NPI.

I am unsure what you are referring to when you ask "how much the taxpayer was looted out of?" The point I am making is that these figures must certainly be guesstimates.

The industry is self-regulated and I have found that EPA's and DEC's will only audit when there is a community complaint and enforcement is rare! Given that most communities are apathetic and ignorant of the hazards of excessive emissions, the very few who speak out are generally described as "nutters". Though perhaps not for long!

The emissions' reports I have are quarterly, therefore companies employ an accredited laboratory every 12 weeks to assess stack emissions using the USEPA method or AS (Australian Standards).

My objection is that heavy polluters should be obliged to implement continuous monitoring of hazardous stack emissions which should be capped! In addition, most companies don't even test for dioxins and furans and if so, one annual test may be submitted on a voluntary basis.

How the NPI deduces annual figures from one single 6 to 8 hour monitoring period is beyond me, particularly when many companies have availed themselves of the federal government's product stewardship to burn waste oil as fuel in their furnaces. This is a particularly nasty and very hazardous waste, especially when combustion is poor and apart from the degradation to the environment, it is extremely dangerous to humans.

The lack of regulation or reporting by companies using this compound is appalling to say the least. And the government couldn't care less since it's a cheap way to get rid of waste oil and companies are given incentives to burn this hazard over communities.

Contd............

Contd.......

All-

Then you have just one single smelter emitting 36,000,000 kgs of SO2 and one single oil refinery emitting the grand total of 1,800,000 kgs of VOC's into the stratosphere!

And you say that the Stern Report is "witchcraft" - a "Doomsday" account of this planet's dire situation?.

Perhaps you will be interested to access Dr Ray Kearney's excellent article on "Fossil Fuels - the new asbestos." OL Article 3861, 23/11/05. A very informative account of more abuse of public gullibility on the real hazards of unleaded fuels and where he expresses deep concerns over traffic related air pollution, particularly in NSW and the seemingly lack of insight by John Howard.

You give the impression you have read the Stern Report since you have described this paper as "fraudulant (sic) and pseudo scientific garbage". Which parts don't you like ALL-?

That is a unique way of stating your case;
In the first instance you agree that the study Is not Scientific, but Guestimations and without any scientific significance what so ever, it is only a blind shot in the wilderness.
There is no Model to de construct because the Guestimations are only a Philosophical hypothesis and based on fabricated and false assumptions, based on Pseudo science or better described as Science fiction; Sounds like witch doctors work to me; it is very rubbery, Elasticized and over inflated, designed to push an Emotional point; As you so described when you say you Believe, even armed with the knowledge that it is not Science and constitutes nothing other than a compilation of steaming dung, you still worship it?
You seem to have turned operational science into some sort of Erotica that works off emotions. How Odd.
Ps Dickie, please if some one close to you asks you to be a witness in a defense case, please for his sake decline. He may do better with just the prosecution on his case.

Yes, Speak to Professor Carney, learn how the N S W Government looters alter reports so they can loot more money and get away with killing you at the same time. You think I am joking; sorry No I am not.
“Infectious diseases” Now there is a man who knows his science.

All-

I'm reluctant to take a remedial class on Melbourne Cup day, however, I have concluded that your comprehension of the written word is elementary, therefore I have endeavoured to maintain a degree of patience and reiterate a few scientific facts to prevent you banging your gums further, which results in a disgorging of rant and piffle!

Conditions of licences vary, however, when monitoring is regulated, an instruction to the licensee may be to adopt a specific method of scientifically measuring flue gases.

For instance with the USEPA method where the licensee is required to measure for particulate matter then the NATA accredited and registered laboratory would implement USEPA 5. CO would require compliance with USEPA 10 while VOC's from memory is USEPA 18 and so forth. Volumes and flow rates of stack emissions are also important in obtaining an efficient scientific,analytical conclusion. I am quite confident of this method of measuring hazardous emissions.

Perhaps you also dispute scientific analyses of testing for anaemia, cholestrol, an overload of iron - or a scientific analysis of dioxins or PCB's in the human body?

I shall now attempt to reiterate my argument in the previous post.

If a company is only required to submit an emissions' report 4 times per year, or once a year, then the NPI can only estimate the total emissions for one year - catch on ALL-?

Operating conditions, efficient combustion and fuel quality all contribute to the measurements of hazardous wastes in flue gases and stack emissions, therefore, they can be drastically altered with poor combustion or shutdowns and startups. As a result, the NPI's reports as I have stated must have a certain degree of inaccuracy. However, it is better than nothing!

I suspect that your rants are referring to "computer modelling". I have no confidence in this method particularly when DEC's will drastically reduce a HAP to an ambient air level measurement! This reveals a total disregard for the upper troposphere and the stratosphere!

End of posts due to ALL-'s inane bleatings!

I did have my suspicions that you were an Employee of the State, Dickie, it is that obvious.