Stricter pollution regulations would be a breath of fresh air

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • dustmagnet heber city, UT
    Dec. 4, 2012 7:55 a.m.

    It is not about loosing jobs or industry, it is about loosing lives - it is about industry using the techniques that have been developed and that are required to be in place, in many States, to curb the pollution, something that the State of Utah's DEQ is not willing to insist on. Yes their profits would be lower for the short term as the necessary equipment is bought and put in place but they would still be able to operate and curb the pollution.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 8, 2012 11:27 a.m.

    Re: Tom Gillilan LONG BEACH, CA

    Instead of blubbering about the current price for a gallon of gasoline in California the good folks in that state should be proud that they have limited the number of refineries producing that product.

    It is unfortunate that Utah is downwind of California and all their air pollution. Keep sending us your jobs, not your bad air.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 10:29 a.m.

    I thought the free market could regulate itself?

    ha ha

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 10:18 a.m.

    Dr.Moench monthly letters are great for raising hackles. But why does he turn on the lights in the morning when he awakes. He hasn't stopped his use of copper, oil, and transportation. If he truely has a medical practice, it is full of equipment requiring the items he deems should not be produced. No one wants dirty air, but get real, what are you willing to do without. The food you eat, the cloths you wear, the street you walk on, the car you drive, are all based on copper, oil, coal and other mined metals. So if you are going to support Dr. Moench's letter, tell us what you have done to eliminate all uses. Remember just a little use is demand for the products.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Oct. 8, 2012 8:44 a.m.

    Tell that to the legislature. Last time anyone tried to clean up the air, repub legislators shot it down. Evidently they believe bad air = good for business.

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 7, 2012 6:33 p.m.

    This op-ed is "what we've come to expect" from Dr. Moench. The doctor is an environmental activist who is opposed to mining, fossil fuels, and nuclear power. But his opposition is not based on science, it's based on ideology, emotion, and manufactured fear.

    The serious threats that Dr. Moench warns us about are minimal or non-existent. The "endocrine disruptors" issue is a false health scare that was debunked years ago.

    If we follow his recommendations, this would further damage our economy and kill jobs, while providing little or no provable health benefit.

  • Tom Gillilan LONG BEACH, CA
    Oct. 7, 2012 10:20 a.m.

    Great article Mr. Moench. Well reasoned and properly documented except to those who want to sweep human health under the rug and give the pollution pigs a blank check.

    Trusting the DAQ in matters like this is a BIG MISTAKE. DAQ is unwilling to recognize our personal need for our own safe and healthy breathing air. They are not willing to provide quality air for us as individuals. We as individuals count for nothing in their grand scheme of things. They are masters of deceit and professional liars to boot. They provide WINDOW DRESSING ONLY

    Wood burning, in any form, is the most intense and concentrated form of toxic air pollution the average citizen is exposed to.

  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 7, 2012 6:09 a.m.

    Mr. Moench"s article is well intended, but his use of this summer's air pollution as an introduction to a need for stricter regulations on the oil refinery expansion demonstrates the author's extreme bias in these matters. He knows that this summer's extensive air pollution problems were caused in the main by raging fires throughout the state and intermountain region. No amount of increased state regulation, unless it were to control for non-man made fires, and reduce population along the Wasatch Front would have much if any impact on the level of the region's air pollution this summer. Further, the contention that less exposure is more harmful than greater exposure to the harmful elements, seems to contradict his thesis. These types of articles and fear mongering do little to provide real help to improving the quality of our air or encouraging state regulators and legislators to hold industry to higher standards. A more reasoned, and better documented opinion would do much better in this regard.