Balloon Warning For those that may not be aware.

[tirediron]

The problem is that they have to have some number, otherwise they'd essentially be banning balloons.

So? Ban them. If they're harmful, they're harmful. Legislation like this annoys me because it's another case of "See... we're doing something about this horrible problem (Not really) " without actually doing anything. It's precisely the same as so many of these other so-called environmental protection laws wherein they say, "This or that chemical is a hazard, but it's okay if you only let a little bit spill into the water supply".

 

[waday]

The problem is that they have to have some number, otherwise they'd essentially be banning balloons.

So? Ban them. If they're harmful, they're harmful. Legislation like this annoys me because it's another case of "See... we're doing something about this horrible problem (Not really) " without actually doing anything. It's precisely the same as so many of these other so-called environmental protection laws wherein they say, "This or that chemical is a hazard, but it's okay if you only let a little bit spill into the water supply".

I don't necessarily disagree with you.

It takes a long time to ban something, unfortunately. If you ban something, you're essentially shutting down a business or parts of a business. People cry that government is taking over and that people will lose jobs. One of the biggest ways to get your voice heard is to claim people will be jobless. We're a very self-centered species. We only seem to care what's good for us in the here and now. People cry that coal plants are getting shut down and people will lose their jobs. It's funny how they don't seem to comment or care about how those coal plants are causing degradation to the environment or causing negative health affects to people that live nearby or downstream/downwind.

Look how long it's taking to try to ban plastic bags... areas have resorted to charging per plastic bag, and people still use them.

Regarding chemicals, sometimes it really is chemical specific regarding additives to water/wastewater used by industries. That said, I don't think "spills" into a water supply should ever be taken lightly. Otherwise, discharge of chemicals (at "safe" levels) have been reviewed and approved by the state government here in the US.

If anyone has qualms with laws, regulations, or company permits, they should comment to their regulators and comment on draft permits that are publicly noticed. Unfortunately, many people that do all the complaining never actually force regulators to legally respond to their comments because they don't do it as part of the public participation process. If you write a letter to a regulator or send a tweet, they don't really have to respond to you, or if they do, it'll be some "oh, we care about our electorate" statement. But, if you write a letter during the public participation of a draft permit that's going to be approved and you have some really good scientific points that will counter what the state is going to approve, they have to respond to your comment in some meaningful way, lest they risk litigation.

 

[john.margetts]

The problem is that they have to have some number, otherwise they'd essentially be banning balloons.

So? Ban them. If they're harmful, they're harmful. Legislation like this annoys me because it's another case of "See... we're doing something about this horrible problem (Not really) " without actually doing anything. It's precisely the same as so many of these other so-called environmental protection laws wherein they say, "This or that chemical is a hazard, but it's okay if you only let a little bit spill into the water supply".

The thing is, for every chemical, there is a lower limit where harm is either not there or is negligible. There is no point is legislating against something that is not harmful and a great deal of point in legislating against something at a level that is harmful.

 

[KC1]

So, you could in theory release 9 helium balloons that are several hundred feet in diameter without any repercussions.

 

[Overread]

Jobs are also in short supply these days so anything that tries to shut them down is hard to go against. Plus balloons are seen as normal fun things - parties have balloons. Trying to ban them (they honestly serve no purpose other than decoration) would hit a huge barrier. The negative impacts are real; but at the same time typically have no effect on most people's daily lives.

Heck even when things do affect people they prefer the choice - smoking is a prime example.

Also one must be careful and look at the long term - banning something that cultural and historical presence within the population - like alcohol say - often just means it all goes black-market and underground. You spend a vast fortune policing something that most people don't consider harmful nor a problem. Better to marginalize it and then discredit it socially and slowly make it so that people don't WANT to have them.

If people don't WANT something they won't get it.
If people are told that they cannot have something they WANT it all the more.




10 is probably as low as they felt they could go whilst making an impact without affecting the majority of people. It's rather random like the "5 fruit a day" thing the UK government did (a number they felt was about as much as they could expect to encourage people to eat more than the science behind it)

 

[KC1]

Jobs are also in short supply these days so anything that tries to shut them down is hard to go against. Plus balloons are seen as normal fun things - parties have balloons. Trying to ban them (they honestly serve no purpose other than decoration) would hit a huge barrier. The negative impacts are real; but at the same time typically have no effect on most people's daily lives.

Heck even when things do affect people they prefer the choice - smoking is a prime example.

Also one must be careful and look at the long term - banning something that cultural and historical presence within the population - like alcohol say - often just means it all goes black-market and underground. You spend a vast fortune policing something that most people don't consider harmful nor a problem. Better to marginalize it and then discredit it socially and slowly make it so that people don't WANT to have them.

If people don't WANT something they won't get it.
If people are told that they cannot have something they WANT it all the more.




10 is probably as low as they felt they could go whilst making an impact without affecting the majority of people. It's rather random like the "5 fruit a day" thing the UK government did (a number they felt was about as much as they could expect to encourage people to eat more than the science behind it)

No purpose other than decoration??? Blasphemy, I used them to demonstrate static electricity to the girlscouts at a meeting we had once.

 

[waday]

The problem is that they have to have some number, otherwise they'd essentially be banning balloons.

So? Ban them. If they're harmful, they're harmful. Legislation like this annoys me because it's another case of "See... we're doing something about this horrible problem (Not really) " without actually doing anything. It's precisely the same as so many of these other so-called environmental protection laws wherein they say, "This or that chemical is a hazard, but it's okay if you only let a little bit spill into the water supply".

The thing is, for every chemical, there is a lower limit where harm is either not there or is negligible. There is no point is legislating against something that is not harmful and a great deal of point in legislating against something at a level that is harmful.

We should stop talking in general forms... There are chemicals that are flat out banned, such as PCBs. There are others that have such small effluent limits that discharges are essentially zero, such as Mercury. It really is chemical/pollutant specific.

 

[JacaRanda]

Often it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. Pretty much sums up our state of affairs.
Where do we start, does it ever end?
Some of the debate is that the law is poorly written or does not cover enough etc. Some think it's good to start somewhere. I wonder how much money would be wasted/spent on getting the exact number or verbiage correct to please every person and of course, every lawyer.

biodegradable balloons? Time to Google.

 

[DarkShadow]

To me its not a matter of law,its a matter of being mindful of things we do that can help wildlife stay healthier and live another day. I have seen opening ceremonies when maybe a hundred helium balloons are released intentionally and thats the problem. The lady Donna that that took the balloon picture is In a closed group on FB for CT Birds that I am also a member of so I can say with out a doubt that her intentions are to protect wildlife and report how many balloons she has been finding along the shoreline and many other areas.I have been seeing balloons as well stuck In trees all over the place.

 

[runnah]

In other news the singer Nena has been arrested for her pro balloon releasing leanings.

 

[KC1]

Often it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. Pretty much sums up our state of affairs.
Where do we start, does it ever end?
Some of the debate is that the law is poorly written or does not cover enough etc. Some think it's good to start somewhere. I wonder how much money would be wasted/spent on getting the exact number or verbiage correct to please every person and of course, every lawyer.

biodegradable balloons? Time to Google.

We buy the biodegradable ones for the kids to have waterballoon fights with, in case you miss a couple in the garden when you are cleaning up.

 

[b_twill]

Pennywise is disappointed with this law..
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net...alloons.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130817221329