What was the clean air act?
463758
Plain English Guide to The Clean Air Act\n\nhttp://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/peg_caa/pegcaain.html
844801
There has been a mind-control program regarding second-hand smoke instigated by the controllers of the medical industry.\nThey are struggling to hide the fact that vaccinations are killing people, and they put it down to second hand smoke and sun bathing.\nSecond hand smoke has far less effect that the pollution from a passing car
1104012
The big one is the Fair Labor Standards Act
56237
The Fair Labor Standards Act (or FLSA) of 1938 is United States federal law. The FLSA established a national minimum wage, guaranteed time and a half for overtime, and prohibited most employment of minors. The law originally contained a large number of special industry exemptions, many of which were designed to protect traditional pay practices in small, rural businesses. The bulk of these exemptions have been repealed. Currently, the most important issues relate to the so-called "white collar" exemptions applicable to professional, administrative and executive employees.\n\nThe FLSA is administered by the Wage & Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor, which conducts audits and workplace inspections. The Administrator of the Wage & Hour Division has no unilateral enforcement authority, but may bring a lawsuit in federal court. As a practical matter, this is relatively rare. The FLSA provides for direct federal actions by employees, and offers substantial financial incentives for private litigants and their counsel.\n\nThe most contentious issues in recent years relate to technical employees, such as computer programmers, who have a significant degree of specialized knowledge without formal academic credentials. Such employees often exercise no direct management or even administrative authority, and so are arguably ineligible for any of the FLSA white collar exemptions. By legislative amendment, some employees of this sort are now exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA, but many unsettled issues remain.\n\nOn August 23, 2004, controversial changes to the FLSA's overtime laws went into effect, making substantial modifications to the definition of an "exempt" employee. These changes were sought by business interests and the Bush administration, which claimed that the laws needed clarification and that few workers would be affected. But other organizations, such as the AFL-CIO, claimed the changes would make millions of additional workers ineligible for overtime.
875096
Nixon signed the Occupational Safety and Health Act into law.
875307
save our earth by pollution!!---\n\nPollution began to draw major public attention in the United States between the mid-1950s and early 1970s, when Congress passed the Noise Control Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.\n\nBad bouts of local pollution helped increase consciousness. PCB dumping in the Hudson River resulted in a ban by the EPA on consumption of its fish in 1974. Long-term dioxin contamination at Love Canal starting in 1947 became a national news story in 1978 and led to the Superfund legislation of 1980. Legal proceedings in the 1990s helped bring to light Chromium-6 releases in California--the champions of whose victims, such as Erin Brockovich, became famous. The pollution of industrial land gave rise to the name brownfield, a term now common in city planning. DDT was banned in most of the developed world after the publication of "Silent Spring".\n\nThe development of nuclear science introduced radioactive contamination, which can remain lethally radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. Lake Karachay, named by the Worldwatch Institute as the "most polluted spot" on earth, served as a disposal site for the Soviet Union thoroughout the 1950s and 1960s. Nuclear weapons continued to be tested in the Cold War, sometimes near inhabited areas, especially in the earlier stages of their development. The toll on the worst-affected populations and the growth since then in understanding about the critical threat to human health posed by radioactivity has also been a prohibitive complication associated with nuclear power. Though extreme care is practiced in that industry, the potential for disaster suggested by incidents such as those at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl pose a lingering specter of public mistrust. One legacy of nuclear testing before most forms were banned has been significantly raised levels of background radiation.\n\nInternational catastrophes such as the wreck of the Amoco Cadiz oil tanker off the coast of Brittany in 1978 and the Bhopal industrial disaster in 1984 have demonstrated the universality of such events and the scale on which efforts to address them needed to engage. The borderless nature of the atmosphere and oceans inevitably resulted in the implication of pollution on a planetary level with the issue of global warming. Most recently the term persistent organic pollutant (POP) has come to describe a group of chemicals such as PBDEs and PFCs among others. Though their effects remain somewhat less well understood owing to a lack of experimental data, have been detected in various ecological habitats far removed from industrial activity such as the arctic, demonstrating bioaccumulation after only a relatively brief period of widespread use.\n\nGrowing evidence of local and global pollution and an increasingly informed public over time have given rise to environmentalism and the environmental movement, which generally seek to limit human impact on the environment.
700760
The cigarette manufacturers took their commercials off the air voluntarily.  The reason they did that was that congress past a law requiring TV stations to give free time for public service announcements against smoking.  The more the the TV industry advertised the more exposure the PSA's would get and the more free commercial time the stations would have to give a way.  It was decided that it was no longer economical to do television advertising on TV.
398984
what is the coroners act?
236596
Mandatory Reporting Facts  \n\nAll 50 states have passed some form of a mandatory child abuse and neglect reporting law in order to qualify for funding under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment  Act (CAPTA)(Jan. 1996 version), 42 U.S.C. 5101, et seq.. The Act was originally passed in 1974, has been amended several times and was most recently amended and reauthorized on October 3, 1996, by the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Act Amendments of 1996 (P.L. 104-235).\n\nCAPTA mandates  "minimum definitions" for child abuse and sexual abuse. Child abuse or neglect is any recent act or failure to act:
736475
actually the law was passed in 2001, it is illegal to use it in high schools, as is the use of jet engines in our country.\n\ni had a teacher in high school who wouldn't let any one use it, she thought it made too much of a mess. kidding about the first part though.
703883
Definition:\nThe United States Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to ensure that work environments are safe and free of dangerous hazards for both employees and their employers.\n\nDescription:\nWhen the Act was signed into law by President Richard M. Nixon on December 29, 1970, it called for the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the regulating governmental body that inspects workplaces for unsafe and unhealthy conditions. The first standards were adopted by OSHA in 1971. The Act also created the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), a federal agency under the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that researches work-related injuries and workplace hazards. NIOSH also is charged with making recommendations on how to prevent accidents in the workplace and, at the request of business owners or its employees, investigates businesses where hazards may exist.
778995
Yes!\n\nI'll assume by oxygen you mean breathable air (witch contains nitrogen, oxygen, co2, helium, and other gases).  Your teacher is trying to show you that everything is scarce under certain conditions.  The variable in this example is pollution.  \n\nThere is a certain demand for fresh air in large cities.  There is a limited supply.  Personal property (cars, trucks, factories) create negative externalities (pollution).  This pollution makes fresh air scarcer.  The more cars, the more pollution.  Assuming there is NO government intervention pollution would be so bad nobody could go outside.  Even Mexico City has certain limitations on pollution because it is getting so bad.  This externality is offset by the government imposing taxes to gas.  Regulations for emitions on cars, pollution licenses for businesses.  \n\nThe concept is very economic
174723
Try This:\n\nhttp://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/kids/history.html
986364
The US EPA has stricter regulations concerning emissions, runoff, cleanup, and disposal than the majority of other countries.Some countries have no environmental laws whatsoever. To say the USA is the world's biggest polluter is very, very far from the truth.
674316
smog, overcrowing, health, water treatment, waste management, second hand smoke, drugs.
479986
Carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrogen oxides produced by industry and motor vehicles are common air pollutants.
368045
This was a particularly mind-numbing investigation, but what I turned up was this--  In the CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 889, COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2006 (House of Representatives - April 06, 2006) under Title IV (Miscellaneous) of page H1660, section 414, 'Opinions regarding whether certain facilities create obstructions to navigation,' it says:\n\n"Section 419 of the House bill requires the Coast Guard to  provide an opinion in writing that states whether a proposed wind energy facility would create an obstruction to navigation in any case in which a person requests the Secretary of the Army to take action to permit a wind energy facility under the authority of section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403)."\n\n"The Senate bill does not contain a comparable provision." \n \n"The Conference substitute adopts a provision that prohibits the construction of an offshore wind energy facility in Nantucket Sound unless approved by the Commandant of the Coast Guard."\n\n-------\n\nWhat made this tricky, other than the obtuse legalese everything is written in, is that there are five versions of H.R.889, Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005, and even though I had read through the entire bill, I never found the above mentioned section 419.  This was because I had read one of the versions that doesn't have a section 419 listed under miscellaneous!\n\nThe Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House version of H.R.889 (Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005) states in section 419, 'Opinions regarding whether certain facilities create obstructions to navigation':\n\n"In any case in which a person requests the Secretary of the Army to take action to permit a wind energy facility under the authority of section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall provide an opinion in writing that states whether the proposed facility would create an obstruction to navigation."\n\nOf the eleven officially documented amendments to the bill (7 passed, 1 failed, 3 withdrawn), I found nothing to indicate Section 419, Cape Wind, or offshore wind energy facilities, meaning that it must have only been adopted through a conference proposal as sited in the April 6th report. \n\nAs best I can understand it, all that remains now of Young's efforts to change the bill is the authorization of the Coast Guard Commandant to issue the final ruling on the safe proximity of a wind structure to the shipping lanes, not the originally proposed 1.5 mile restriction. This is the standard procedure that most countries that have these off shore windmills follow, allowing their coast guard equivalent to rule on their placement on a case by case basis.  So, I'm not sure what's so upsetting about this, unless they suspect that the US Coast Guard is in somebody's pocket and will rule unfairly.\n\nAs an aside, Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), in conjunction with Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), has proposed new legislation that would give the govenor of Massachusetts the power to halt the Cape Wind project.