Milk is now Oil.

JLawson · Post by **JLawson** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 1:48 pm

Or so says the EPA.

EPA classifies milk as oil, forcing costly rules on farmers

GRAND RAPIDS -- Having watched the oil gushing in the Gulf of Mexico, dairy farmer Frank Konkel has a hard time seeing how spilled milk can be labeled the same kind of environmental hazard.

But the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is classifying milk as oil because it contains a percentage of animal fat, which is a non-petroleum oil.

The Hesperia farmer and others would be required to develop and implement spill prevention plans for milk storage tanks. The rules are set to take effect in November, though that date might be pushed back.

"That could get expensive quickly," Konkel said. "We have a serious problem in the Gulf. Milk is a wholesome product that does not equate to spilling oil."

The problem with a bureaucracy is that there is no incentive to NOT increase the amount of regulation applied, or to cut back on the number of items regulated. More regulation = more personnel = higher status in the bureaucratic food chain.

But another problem applies - because the greater the weight of regulation and the wider the scope of said regulation, the larger the bureaucratic mass becomes until it eventually sucks in all available personnel and funding. At which point... a governmental implosion happens, with unpredictable (and unexpected) consequences.

I think we're perilously close to such an implosion. The proposed classification of 'milk' as 'oil', turning it into a hazardous substance that must be regulated, should have been enough to set off alarms within the EPA bureaucracy... but I think what they saw was that they'd need more people, and thus more funding - so what was bad about it?

Are we perilously close? Or past the point of no return?

BenTC · Post by **BenTC** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:06 pm

Unfortunately, the role of government is to make laws and regulations, so thats what they do.
If they didn't make new laws and regulations, then what would be the purpose of government?

Perhaps they should think harder about regulating the more dangerous Dihydrogen Monoxide, which kills many more people each year than milk.
http://www.netreach.net/~rjones/no_dhmo.html
http://www.dhmo.org/

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:25 pm

If they didn't make new laws and regulations, then what would be the purpose of government?

Enforce current laws?

JLawson · Post by **JLawson** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:45 pm

MSimon wrote:
If they didn't make new laws and regulations, then what would be the purpose of government?
Enforce current laws?

Radical idea, highly unorthodox, but it just might work. We certainly have no lack of laws at present to enforce...

Tom Ligon · Post by **Tom Ligon** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 4:13 pm

Sheesh! The wrong government agency is being called in.

Actually an NGO might be the best for a milk cleanup. The ASPCA could bring in a bunch of stray cats.

It is not out of the question for a large liquid food product spill to be a problem. There was a massive molassas spill almost a century ago that actually killed 21 people and demolished buildings.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/histor ... _flood.htm

I can see having a generic requirement to berm tank areas to contain spills. Said dairy farmer could comply using a tractor with a front-end loader in an afternoon. Treating milk as a hazmat is nuts.

I am not familiar with the particular standards, but there are several industry-standards associations, including ASTM, ANSI, etc, who write the standards for a number of products. These are not government standards, but governments often require compliance with them. This is actually the "Libertarian" way of dealing with things, in a way. Failure to follow the standards will get you sued in case of an accident. Compliance usually greatly reduces liability. The standards typically grow out of accidents such as the molassas spill. There is probably one in place regarding inspection of big tanks, proper footers, and containment berms. Screw government ... your insurance agent will probably require compliance.

Some years back I ordered strain gage prep materials which included a bottle with three ounces of highly dilute phosphoric acid. This shipped wrapped in an absorbent sheet, in a plastic bag, in more absorbent, in another bag, in a box labeled with a hazardous material sticker. The concentration of the acid was less than the phosphoric acid concentration in a Coke.

The UPS truck had to display a hazmat placard when transporting the box. I could picture it having a flat, and the local hazmat team would evacuate everyone within half a mile.

So, are there hazmat requirements on Coca-Cola? Better get cracking on that regulation!

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 4:41 pm

Tom Ligon wrote:Sheesh! The wrong government agency is being called in.

Actually an NGO might be the best for a milk cleanup. The ASPCA could bring in a bunch of stray cats.

Dang, ya beat me to it!

zapkitty · Post by **zapkitty** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:21 pm

Reality:

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/arti ... 37/0/ogd01

kunkmiester · Post by **kunkmiester** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:44 pm

Most soda syrup like used in restaurant machines is hazmat until diluted.

DeltaV · Post by **DeltaV** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:59 pm

Tom Ligon wrote:So, are there hazmat requirements on Coca-Cola? Better get cracking on that regulation!

Corvette and fiberglass boat owners will support it.

93143 · Post by **93143** » Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:28 pm

BenTC wrote:Perhaps they should think harder about regulating the more dangerous Dihydrogen Monoxide, which kills many more people each year than milk.

Milk actually contains a frighteningly high concentration of DHMO. Even in milk contaminated from the Three Mile Island accident, the toxicity of the DHMO was (by my calculations, based on how much you'd have to drink in one sitting for it to kill you) close to 100 million times larger than the ionizing radiation dose from the contamination.

BenTC · Post by **BenTC** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:31 pm

Also, you gotta what out for the natural enrichment of an extra neutron in that hydrogen . It's a nuclear material in fission reactors! Di Deuterium Mono Oxide is even more dangerous. It was used in a nuclear weapon once!
eek!
:}

That must be what happened here... (fast forward to 1:00)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfHWKkct23o

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:40 pm

BenTC wrote:Also, you gotta what out for the natural enrichment of an extra neutron in that hydrogen . It's a nuclear material in fission reactors! Di Deuterium Mono Oxide is even more dangerous. It was used in a nuclear weapon once!
eek!
:}

That must be what happened here... (fast forward to 1:00)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfHWKkct23o[/quote]

The milk put out the fire. Maybe it should be mandated.