[AT] EPA to require farmers be half as dusty

Ralph Goff alfg at sasktel.net
Wed Sep 22 08:17:03 PDT 2010


Dust, what is that? You could not make any dust here in the grain fields 
lately .
Grain elevators have been dust free for years. Dust collectors make the 
modern elevators pretty much dust free in most areas. Even unloading at the 
back of the truck, the dust is sucked down the grate and collected to be 
stored and disposed of later (not sure how that part works).
How about adding water injection to the back of the combine? A series of 
spray nozzles at the back end of the combine soaking down the area where the 
dust comes out. It would take a lot of water, extra weight to haul around 
our already soaked fields. Extra time spent re-filling the water tank. On 
the plus side it would be no problem finding a slough to re-fill the water 
tanks.
Just thinking out loud. This endless damp weather and harvest delay must be 
affecting my mind :-)

Ralph in Sask.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "john hall" <jtchall at nc.rr.com>
To: "Antique tractor email discussion group" <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: [AT] EPA to require farmers be half as dusty


> This has been in the works for a while. What is interesting to note is how
> clean the new diesels are going to be in about 3-4 years. Deere was 
> running
> a big add in Successful farming . There was also an article about the new,
> cleaner diesels. Cat says new engines will have (I think) a 12% price
> increase. Supposedly the new engines will be more fuel efficient as well.
>
> The drawback to making  the farmer produce less dust is the mere fact that
> farms probably use more older equipment than any other industry. I can't 
> see
> retrofitting a bunch of old equipment. Now if the regulation were passed 
> on
> to new machinery, such as emissions standards with cars, some progress 
> might
> be made. But how the heck you could even remove 5% of the dust a combine 
> in
> soybeans makes is beyond me. As for chemical drift, that burden will fall 
> in
> the lap of the chemical companies. After all, the farmer has to comply 
> with
> EPA regulations for each pesticide.
>
> Maybe once the rules are proposed some wise bean-counter will add up how
> much food will go up in price and then let the public decide if these laws
> are really needed.
>
> John Hall
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Rob Wilson" <ro.wilson at att.net>
> To: "'Antique tractor email discussion group'"
> <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 7:29 PM
> Subject: [AT] EPA to require farmers be half as dusty
>
>
>> Check this out from the communist administration.
>>
>> http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100920/NEWS02/309200078/1003/BUSINE
>> SS/Farmers+fear+dust+rules+won+t+reflect+rural+life
>>
>> sample quote
>>
>> The EPA's scientific advisers told the agency this summer that the agency
>> could better protect public health by replacing the existing standard of
>> 150
>> micrograms of coarse particles per cubic meter with a standard between 65
>> and 85 micrograms per cubic meter.
>> The agency is expected to release a final document next month spelling 
>> out
>> its options for revising the standards. The EPA plans to announce any
>> proposed changes in February, and will likely approve a final updated 
>> rule
>> by October 2011.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AT mailing list
>> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 270.12.30/2115 - Release Date: 05/14/09 
17:54:00




More information about the AT mailing list