What are your thoughts about the EPA using drones? (Page 4): Lavender Room: Slowtwitch Forums

Bike Shops Coaches Fitters Race Calendar Running Stores Store Stack & Reach Training Log Triathlon Clubs We Noticed
		MAIN INDEX	RULES & LEGEND	LOG IN

Slowtwitch Forums: Lavender Room:
What are your thoughts about the EPA using drones?

1 2 3 4

View All

MJuric

Jun 7, 12 14:52

Post #76 of 88 (476 views)

Re: What are your thoughts about the EPA using drones? [duffman] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

From the Wiki you posted

Nonpoint source water pollution affects a water body from sources such as polluted runoff from agricultural areas draining into a river, or wind-borne debris blowing out to sea. Nonpoint source air pollution affects air quality from sources such as smokestacks or car tailpipes. Although these pollutants have originated from a point source, the long-range transport ability and multiple sources of the pollutant make it a nonpoint source of pollution.

If you don't know the source and you find nitrates or E-Coli in the water you can't simply say "Hey this must come from that farm". If you monitor the run off from a farm and it contains nitrates and E-Coli from the run off then it's no longer an "Unknown source".

According to this it is not the idea that the source can't be identified that make a pollutant classified as a non-source, it's the fact that simply finding it does not dictate what the source was. If I stick a monitor at the top of a smoke stack I'm pretty darn sure all the CO2 I'm measuring is coming from that smoke stack. If I move 10 miles away I can't say "All this CO2 is coming from that smoke stack".

It's just not that easy to identify where this stuff comes from (hence non point source).

So what you're saying is that I hook up a tube to my tailpipe and measure CO and CO2 that I can't tell you how much my car is generating because "Hey we just can't tell where this stuff is coming from". Call me crazy but that sound nonsensical. If you had no idea where it was coming from how do we even know cows create nitrates or E-Coli at all? What's the point of even needing a drone to measure cattle movement? I mean all that water running off that farm filled with cow crap, nitrates and E-Coli is absolutely no indication that it's coming from the cows.

~Matt

duffman

Jun 7, 12 15:09

Post #77 of 88 (472 views)

Re: What are your thoughts about the EPA using drones? [MJuric] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

So what you're saying is that I hook up a tube to my tailpipe and measure CO and CO2 that I can't tell you how much my car is generating because "Hey we just can't tell where this stuff is coming from"

the whole point that you continue to miss is that you can't just measure the runoff concentration coming off every farm. you can't just stick a nitrate probe into the runoff that occurs over a huge area and get a measurement like the tailpipe analogy. what you can do is measure the concentration of nitrates etc. at a gauge station in a stream or in a lake. if the concentration is high it could be due to many upstream sources. when the nitrate levels are high you have to figure out where they are coming from using watershed models based on mass balances, rainfall data, flow, etc, etc.

enough already

__________________________

Oh yeah!

MJuric

Jun 8, 12 7:34

Post #78 of 88 (457 views)

Re: What are your thoughts about the EPA using drones? [duffman] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

the whole point that you continue to miss is that you can't just measure the runoff concentration coming off every farm. you can't just stick a nitrate probe into the runoff that occurs over a huge area and get a measurement like the tailpipe analogy. what you can do is measure the concentration of nitrates etc. at a gauge station in a stream or in a lake. if the concentration is high it could be due to many upstream sources. when the nitrate levels are high you have to figure out where they are coming from using watershed models based on mass balances, rainfall data, flow, etc, etc.

enough already

Nope, not missing that all. In fact it's part of my point. You can't "Just fly over a farm, look at cattle movement and expect to know what the nitrate readings are off that farm". Furthermore my point is that taking readings of the nitrates in the run off is a better indicator of what is actually coming off the farm than simply monitoring cattle movements. In short you're agreeing with me. If it makes no sense to monitor nitrates in run off and ground readings then it makes no sense to monitor cattle movements. If you can "Figure out where the nitrates are coming from" by viewing cattle movements then you can figure out where the nitrates are coming from by identifying and monitoring run off and nitrate levels in the soil.

It's simply impossible to say "Hey look at the cows that's where the nitrates are coming from". You have to know the path that the nitrates are following from the cows to the water source...which means measuring run off, ground levels etc etc. Why monitor the cows at all, why not just do the latter? Yes you do have to know rainfall, flow etc...but you need to know all that when you see a herd of cows as well.

~Matt

duffman

Jun 8, 12 7:53

Post #79 of 88 (456 views)

Re: What are your thoughts about the EPA using drones? [MJuric] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

MJuric wrote:

Why monitor the cows at all, why not just do the latter?

very hesitant to reply since i don't want to discuss this any more, but here goes and then i'm done. when the water quality folks assessed this watershed, they determined that cattle (all the cattle not just this one guy's) were the issue using some sort of methodology like I described. and thus the best solution they could come up with was to make sure the cattle stayed away. i'm sure that meant all the cattle throughout the watershed. and so they wanted to see if there was some compliance. as i have mentioned many times now, there is no easy way to estimate the nitrate loadings to the watershed from each individual farm. a farm does not have a "point-source" tailpipe where you can easily measure flow and concentration.

i did my phd dissertation on containment of contaminated sediments. we routinely monitored our caps to make sure they were physically intact in addition to chemical measurements of contaminant levels. no cap, no containment. in this instance, no control of cattle, no containment.
__________________________

Oh yeah!

MJuric

Jun 8, 12 11:26

Post #80 of 88 (446 views)

Re: What are your thoughts about the EPA using drones? [duffman] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

and thus the best solution they could come up with was to make sure the cattle stayed away.

as i have mentioned many times now, there is no easy way to estimate the nitrate loadings to the watershed from each individual farm.

The "Best solution" in one sense is not the "Best solution" in another. It all depends on where you put the weight. Furthermore "The cows staying away" does not necessarily equate to "Fixing the problem" and this is particularly true if the case is as you describe it, very little idea of how the nitrates get their in the first place. If you DO know how the pollutant gets from point A to Point B you know where to check for them.

I'm sure you're far more knowledgeable than I in this field but that does not change simple logic. The only way to determine the source is to trace it from the point of pollution back to the source...before that it's a non point source. Once you HAVE traced it you know the path in which it is most likely to follow the next time.

I'm not saying ANY of this is simple, I'm saying there HAVE to be other ways otherwise we could just simply fly drones all over the country and identify sources of pollution.

Drones may be "Easier" and "Less expensive", but if you truly value certain ideologies it may not be "Better".

~Matt

duffman

Jun 8, 12 12:04

Post #81 of 88 (441 views)

Re: What are your thoughts about the EPA using drones? [MJuric] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I said I wouldn't but you still don't seem to get it. The drones are monitoring the SOLUTION not the PROBLEM. The pollution comes from EVERYWHERE not from one guilty party as you seem to think. The question is how to keep it out of the surface water.

This discussion is like saying you don't contribute CO2 to the atmosphere when you drive because you go below the speed limit. It just makes me think less of you when I read this. The EPA is pure evil, it's out to get you. Now, go ahead, get in the last word I've said enough.

edit: EVERYWHERE here being all the farms/cattle
__________________________

Oh yeah!

(This post was edited by duffman on Jun 8, 12 12:11)

jriosa

Jun 8, 12 12:08

Post #82 of 88 (435 views)

Re: What are your thoughts about the EPA using drones? [duffman] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Well - the retractions are out - there are no drones. There are however, 4 person Cessna's- as there have been for the past 10 years. The flyovers are also checking CAFOs - so no one is out there monitoring individual cow movements or flying over farmer's homes.
Jim
http://www.wwofva.com -custom wood turned gifts
"In dog beers, I've only had one"

Miguelon

Jun 8, 12 12:17

Post #83 of 88 (428 views)

Re: What are your thoughts about the EPA using drones? [rick_pcfl] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

If anything goes wrong with this adventure Obama can blame the republicans. Nixon (R) created the EPA back in 1970 so it has to be the Republicans fault.

MJuric

Jun 8, 12 12:20

Post #84 of 88 (428 views)

Re: What are your thoughts about the EPA using drones? [duffman] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

The drones are monitoring the SOLUTION not the PROBLEM.

And you don't seem to get it either, in order to come up with the solution they had to determine that the cows were part of the problem. Only one way to do that, connect A to B.

The pollution comes from EVERYWHERE not from one guilty party as you seem to think. This discussion is like saying you don't contribute CO2 to the atmosphere when you drive because you go below the speed limit.

Yes and just like CO2 we aren't monitoring or trying to control how much people breath. We are monitoring and attempting to control the MAJOR SOURCE. The assumption here is that cows have been determined to be major sources and thus must be monitored. Again, that was determined in some manner, likely by tracing the trail back to the source.

It just makes me think less of you when I read this. The EPA is pure evil, it's out to get you. Now, go ahead, get in the last word I've said enough.

Rather than getting stuck on what you think I'm thinking it might help to actually try and understand what I'm actually thinking. As I've stated several times I have no problem with the EPA, I have a problem with proactive systems that inherently infringe on individuals rights.

"Can't be done", at least in this case, appears to be more like "We don't want to do it the hard way we'd rather infringe on people's rights".

edit: EVERYWHERE here being all the farms/cattle

And how was it originally determined the cattle farms were the source? Did someone fly a drone over and say "Yep look at all those nitrates going right into the water". No, not likely. More than likely run off from various area was measured, ground concentrations, water flow etc etc...all of which can still be done as it was done originally.

~Matt

~Matt

duffman

Jun 8, 12 12:47

Post #85 of 88 (421 views)

Re: What are your thoughts about the EPA using drones? [MJuric] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Alright, I think you now finally understand what I've been saying. Hopefully you learned something from all this.

Here's the deal: there is no more reason to monitor nitrate concentrations coming off farms than CO2 coming off cars. It's already established that's where the stuff is coming from.

"Major Sources": there aren't any for nitrate in this case. A "major source" would be is easy to control. And you should know it's not practical to try to trace the sources again; I'm sure that was done in the first place. That would be way more expensive than just checking to see that the cattle aren't shitting directly into the water.
__________________________

Oh yeah!

MJuric

Jun 8, 12 12:57

Post #86 of 88 (416 views)

Re: What are your thoughts about the EPA using drones? [duffman] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Here's the deal: there is no more reason to monitor nitrate concentrations coming off farms than CO2 coming off cars. It's already established that's where the stuff is coming from.

Then why send a drone over? I'll answer, to monitor to see if the nitrates are still coming from there. My point, no need to send the drones over when you can monitor the same way you originally did.

You've not said anything here I have not understood all along, you seem to completely be missing my point however. You can "Fly over", invading the owners privcy, to make sure he's "Following regulations" that are supposed to make sure the nitrates don't get into the water or you can monitor the way originally figured out that the cows were the source of the nitrates and make sure the nitrates aren't reaching the water WITHOUT invading the farmers privacy.

"Major Sources": there aren't any for nitrate in this case. A "major source" would be is easy to control.

Again, then why fly the drones over? If they aren't a major significant factor than controlling them as a source will not have a major impact. Clearly the drone is monitoring particular sources and will penalize them if they are not complying.

And you should know it's not practical to try to trace the sources again

No I don't know that. Sending a drone over is attempting to do the same thing in a different form, which is exactly my point. Flying a drone over may be "Cheaper" and if you don't value privacy and property rights etc in ones opinion it would be "Better". However if you place a high value on privacy and property rights then no, it's not "Better" even if other methods are "Not as practical" and "More expensive".

As you said "You're sure it was done in the first place", so indeed it can be done again.

~Matt

AnthonyS

Jun 10, 12 21:36

Post #87 of 88 (385 views)

Re: What are your thoughts about the EPA using drones? [Old Hickory] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Old Hickory wrote:

rick_pcfl wrote:

If it is saving taxpayer money and is doing something that they would normally do with human resources - what is the issue?

Well, don't you just love the government using the "saving the tax payer money" reasoning when we are increasing the debt my millions of dollars every second?

Old Hickory, you just don't understand the financial logic of the retarded masses.... I'll explain to you and everyone else the same way I did to my ex wife.

Her: "Hey I saved $300 dollars at the store today because everything was on sale."

Me: "No, you spent $300 and saved nothing."

Her: "But it was originally $600 so I saved $300."

Me: "No, you spent $300."

Her: "I saved $300!"

Me: "Is it in our bank account? Can I have the $300 you saved?"

Her: "..... silence"

Now take this same false logic and apply it on a much larger scale, and you have government. Now they were planning on spending a trillion dollars they never had... but now they are only going to spend 990 billion so they "saved" the taxpayers 10 billion.

I wish the government would stop saving me money all the damn time.....
--------------------------------------------------------

You will remain the same person, before, during and after the race. So the result, no matter how important, will not define you. The journey is what matters. ~ Chrissie W.

CGTRIGUY

Jun 11, 12 15:01

Post #88 of 88 (355 views)

Re: What are your thoughts about the EPA using drones? [duffman] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I'm not a scientist or enviro engineer but I do prosecute federal water pollution crimes (and co-authored a chapter for a book regarding the use of aerial surveillance in environmental law enforcement). The Supreme Court has made clear that, so long as law enforcement is in a place where they can legally be (on the ground or in the air), then an industrial complex does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy against the law enforcement officers taking a look around. This is true for the use of cameras and even binoculars. I expect that, as we use more sophisticated tools, the Court's comfort level with this "warrantless search" may diminish. But, for now, EPA flying over a farm and taking pictures of open space is entirely reasonable and legal. (FWIW, the leading case on this issue was decided in 1986, during a Republican admin and when the Supreme Court was made up of seven Justices appointed by Republican Presidents).

Second, for anyone interested in AFOs or CAFOs, take a look here. http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/anafocom.html. Lots of background to support Duffman's science.

1 2 3 4

View All