The Anatomy Of The Senate Vote Is interesting

221

Elections say a lot about to whom you give your vote. One of the biggest elections which could literally decide which way the Senate moved, was the North Carolina senator’s race between Thom Tillis(R) and Kay Hagan(D).

Of all the differences, the biggest is that Tillis is very “pro-life,” and Hagan very pro-abortion. In fact, Hagan and Obama, are finely connected with Planned Parenthood, “PP,” the largest abortion provider in the United States.

For those candidates backing “PP,” who directly are for committing abortions, most churches claim the killing of that unborn is a serious sin, indeed. The correct vote for churchgoers should be a “no-brainer.”

Among numerous other topics, it’s known that Hagan missed at least 50 percent of all National Security meetings. What exactly does that tell us about her priorities?

Another major election topic involves irrational fear of chemicals, or “chemophobia.” This occurs even when low doses of specified chemicals pose no risk to human health.

We have seen hundreds of TV ads skewering a number of state representatives (including the NC governor) on coal ash disposal.

Even Dartmouth College researchers warned people to avoid natural bacteria, fungi and pathogens. Most pesticides and dioxins are innocuous at their very low levels of existing concentrations.

Democrats have gotten the “chemophobes” out in force. They have scared almost half the populace with scary ads on TV about existing “sludge ponds” from coal ash residue. Just in NC this includes companies like Duke and Progress Energy.

Public drinking water intakes are purple dots, and power plants with coal ash impoundment sites have red dots. The map is drawn by the Southern Environmental Law Center.

organic chemist
The report, by Dartmouth College in the U.S. argues low doses of chemicals in modern meals are ‘typically harmless and highly beneficial.’ It also says the word ‘chemical’ has unfairly negative connotations.

More than a year after 1 billion gallons of water containing ash spilled from a coal-burning power plant in Tennessee, the Obama administration is still trying to decide whether to declare such waste “hazardous.”

In 2008 alone, about 60 million tons – 45 percent of the 136 million tons of ash generated – were used to fill abandoned mines, make concrete and shore up eroding highway embankments, per the American Coal Ash Association.

Being called “hazardous” would cause disposal costs to skyrocket. Ken Ladwig, EPRI Senior Program Manager, said a “hazardous” designation could raise costs from $10 to $150 per ton, costing $10 to $15 billion every year. This cost will balloon, Ladwig adds, if the “hazardous” designation suffocates recycling programs.

Evidently there are new mandates for Duke Energy to clean up its 33 sludge ponds at 14 sites across NC [in that link]. They require coal ash be permanently separated from the ground water. Forget about existing containment areas separating a coal ash pit from potable water.

“Beneficial use” was cited in a letter signed by 25 Senators and more than 70 House members last month asking to eliminate any “hazardous” designation.

The argument was repeated at two House hearings on ash regulations. “How could coal ash be hazardous in a landfill and not hazardous in recycling?” asked Rep. Bill Shuster (R/Pa). “It’s frightening that we come up with that sort of illogical ruling.” Rep. Jim Matheson (D/Utah) echoed that notion at an Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing.

Ceramatec chemist Chett Boxley said a hazardous designation would cripple its recycling programs.

This entire election, and more importantly the entire Senate outcome rode on voters’ views of killing the unborn, or whether voters were “chemophobic” and didn’t know it at the time.