Quantcast

Comments about ‘Editorial: The dreaded inversion has to be taken seriously’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Jan. 19 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Shaun
Sandy, UT

I'm all for people changing their ways to reduce pollution but it will never happen unless the government forces changes which many people are against. We are like a frog in a pot of water that slowly heats up until it finally boils and kills the frog when it comes to pollution.

higv
Dietrich, ID

Another way to control people. Were are the global warming fanatics now? People survived coal and people survive cars. I sure can't wait for the weather to warm up though. Too miserably cold for me.

iron&clay
RIVERTON, UT

Cough, hack, wheez, whoa... this inversion thing is back. I remember in 1983-4, right after I had integrated a passive solar greenhouse design on the south side of my new home, I was so amazed that the sun could not cut through the inversion that had created a thick fog making it unable to see more than a car length in front of you as you drove.

That was a miserable winter where I questioned the validity of the 'This is the place' statement from Brigham Young.

I have since learned that as far as the saints were concerned it was all about obedience and sacrifice and if you endure it well you may inherit an earth that has been renewed and received it's paradisiacal glory.

Of course, we are expected to be good stewards of our mountain valleys.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: " That does not mean, however, that Utahns can't do things to lessen the effects of this frequent winter condition."

What about all the things Utahns HAVE done?

The primary theme of every story, every rant, every demonstration regarding today's valley inversions is that it's worse than ever, and that if we don't flush some deranged sum of tax monies down one or another tree-hugger toilet, and/or go back to living in caves -- without fire, of course -- we'll all die next Thursday.

Sorry -- it's just not true.

Air quality during today's inversions is much better than it was 40-50 years ago. And, it's getting better, not worse.

Things ARE already getting better, without armed government intervention and without surrender of our standard of living. Eg. -- today's cars produce fewer pollutants at full throttle than '60s-era cars did sitting in the garage.

And, if anyone could actually prove the oft-repeated rant that they're suffering health effects because of any human contributor to today's inversion's, they and their lawyers would be rich.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@higv
"Were are the global warming fanatics now?"

We haven't even been within 7 degrees of a record low any individual day this month. We set/tied 14 record highs last year. Global warming does not stop weather patterns occurring. Cold days will still happen. They just don't seem to get as cold as they once did (hence our propensity for getting more record highs than record lows).

Emajor
Ogden, UT

procuradorfiscal,
As usual, your comments are hyperbolic and insulting. It must be fatiguing having to so bitterly attack everything & everyone you don't agree with.

Despite that, you make one good point: the air is cleaner now than during the coal-fired frenzy of decades past. But that is a really, really low bar to clear. And your position that no one is suffering from this air quality is based solely on the fact that YOU are not visibly suffering from it. Living in Tooele. Where the air rarely gets as bad as Salt Lake or Provo or Logan. Some people aren't as fortunate.

I'm sorry if the negative health effects of sucking down tailpipe emissions conflicts with your worldview, but sticking your head in the sand doesn't change reality. This conservative fixation with denying every manmade health & environmental problem simply because it is difficult to fix or you somehow conflicts with Christian take-over-the-Earth doctrine is ridiculous. There is definitely a problem here, you just don't think it's worth the costs, so you've given up and attack anyone that isn't willing to accept your low standards of air quality.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

Republican legislators have stated time and time again that limiting driving and industry is bad for business.
Bad air = good business for those people.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

To the premise of the headline...

The dreaded inversion will not be taken seriously.

Never has...never will be.

@Emajor

You wrote...

procuradorfiscal,
As usual, your comments are hyperbolic and insulting. It must be fatiguing having to so bitterly attack everything & everyone you don't agree with.

I agree her comments generally are hyperbolic and insulting.

However, I enjoy her hyperbolic, insulting comments bitterly attacking everything and everything she doesn't agree with...

I'm grateful the DN provides a forum where readers can write their opinions.

I would like to see less of mine... "feedback received" or "denied"...

However, I'm sure others would disagree.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "This conservative fixation with denying every manmade health & environmental problem simply because it is difficult to fix . . . ."

No one I know denies there's a problem. All you have to do is look up to see it.

What we deny is the all the liberal tree-hugger hyperbole, disingenuously dressed up as "science," that discounts every advance, insists things are rapidly getting worse, and attempts to blame the manufactured crisis on the very people solving it, so as to cynically exploit it and extend control over us.

Utah's air quality has improved dramatically and continues to do so. No thanks to counterproductive tree hugger hype. Often in spite of it.

Things are getting better because every year we learn a little more, every year we can devote a little more resources to the problem.

Above all, real Utahns love Utah. We desire to be good stewards of it. But we understand what tree huggers don't -- that destruction of our economy will HURT, not help Utah, the Utahns tree huggers claim to care about, and our environment.

higv
Dietrich, ID

Shaun the frog in pot is bunk. And the Governments job is to keep order not regulate everything. I would rather have warm temperatures than cold so come on global warming.

Emajor
Ogden, UT

procuradorfiscal,
"No one I know denies there's a problem"

You deny there's a problem. You just claimed in several comments that there are no health effects from current air pollution levels. You think science that gives uncomfortable answers is a liberal conspiracy. And you make all these claims without any supporting evidence.

"What we deny is the all the liberal tree-hugger hyperbole, disingenuously dressed up as "science,"

But you provide no supporting evidence! I asked you in another comment thread to give me any evidence that the science showing adverse health effects of current air pollution was flawed or part of a liberal conspiracy and you couldn't.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "I asked you in another comment thread to give me any evidence . . . ."

Liberal sophistry.

It's tree huggers that bear the burden of proof here. They love to try to turn it around and insist that unless we can somehow prove the negative, we have to give in to their lunacy, bankrupt our Nation, and return to the stone age.

But that's how things work only in Bizarro World.

Anyone that's been here longer than it takes for these activists to finish their academic internships and move on, knows there's no crisis. Anyone that understands the personal injury plaintiffs' bar knows there's no proof of harm to individuals. Anyone that's read an objective study about particulates knows the primary source, not just here, but worldwide, is harmless "sea salt" aerosols.

Show us something other than highly nuanced, unvalidated "consensus" bleating, by self-proclaimed "scientists," [any "science" that has to include the word "science" in it's name -- isn't] whose primary resume items refer to experience as yesterday's campus radicals, and maybe we'll listen.

'Til then, enjoy.

Emajor
Ogden, UT

procuradorfiscal,
That was your third chance to provide proof that the published research demonstrating the health effects of PM 2.5 are erroneous and you have again failed miserably. In a cloud of rhetoric, you dodge, you weave, you attack, you deflect, you throw up straw men and exhibit all kinds of poor logic, but you never directly answer the question.

This is a very simple question: what proof do you have that PM2.5 at the EPA defined threshold of is not harmful to health? Believe me, I'm open to it, I would love to think that this air isn't as unhealthy as they say. You didn't even have to explain the gory details of your source, just tell me the author & title and I can find it on my own. But you don't have a source, do you? Third strike, you're out.

The primary source of fine particulates during inversions along the Wasatch Front is not sea salt aerosols. And didn't you just tell me "No one I know denies there's a problem"? So there's a problem, but there isn't a problem? You're going in circles. That's sophistry.

Shadna
SLC, UT

I started a group based on this very topic! I'm interested in laws that help encourage public transit use. Does anyone know the name of the bill creator in this article? I'd really like to talk to them about it.

Here's the link to the group. The group is on FB and titled "Clean Air Solution Discussion". It's open so feel free to join!

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments