[SeMissourian.com] Fair ~ 88°F  
Heat Advisory
Friday, Aug. 22, 2014

Scott City officials invited on field trip to central Missouri ethanol plant

Friday, May 11, 2007

The Cape Girardeau Area Magnet, Scott County government and a company interested in building a local ethanol plant are organizing a field trip to an ethanol plant in Malta Bend, Mo.

Next Wednesday the group of local government officials and economic development personnel will make the trip to a 40-million-gallon-per-year ethanol plant owned by Mid-Missouri Energy, said Magnet director Mitch Robinson. Invitations have been extended to public officials in Scott City and Scott County, Cape Girardeau and Cape Girardeau County, Robinson said.

Robinson said the scheduling of the trip is not really in response to the opposition that has surfaced in Scott City to the possibility of ethanol plants being constructed in the vicinity of the Southeast Missouri Port Authority, but more as a fact-gathering trip to acquaint local officials with ethanol production.

"It's more to familiarize local officials and citizens of the impact of an ethanol plant on the area, as well as what a plant looks like and how it operates," said Robinson.

In recent weeks Monty Keesee, who lives just outside Scott City near the SEMO Port, has been leading opposition to prevent the building of several ethanol operations that are rumored to be interested in building near Scott City. Keesee says opposition is growing in Scott City.

Two city council members, Ward 2 Councilwoman Leann Wilthong and Ward 4 Councilman Rob Henderson, have both expressed skepticism about the ethanol industry and its "green" reputation. Both say they aren't taking positions as a council members, but as concerned residents of the city.

At Monday night's meeting of the Scott City Council, Mayor Tim Porch encouraged all eight city council members to attend the trip if possible. Porch said that if council members visited the plant it might dispel Keesee's assertion that the plants could be hazards to the environment and the health of people living nearby.

Only one Scott City Council member, Henderson, had asked to be included as of Thursday afternoon. Henderson said he feels taking the trip is his responsibility to the people he represents, though he didn't think the Malta Bend plant would give a good comparison to some of the larger plants that might be constructed in the Scott City area.

A larger plant in Peoria, Ill., owned by Archer Daniels Midland, would be a shorter drive and a more accurate comparison, he said.

According to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, the only local operation with a valid air emissions permit is Bootheel Agri-Energy, which plans to build a 120-million-gallon-per-year plant in Sikeston. Renewable Power had a pending construction permit for operation in Cape Girardeau County. Kansas-based Ethanex Energy and SEMO Milling have a pending construction permit, but SEMO Milling has announced it will no longer partner with Ethanex, but will seek another partner to start an ethanol plant operation.

msanders@semissourian.com

335-6611, extension 182


Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Does ethanol policy increase oil profit and use?

-- Posted by Charlie Peters on Fri, May 11, 2007, at 3:26 AM

I do not think I am the only one that thinks it is odd that they would pick a smaller plant to visit instead of a one that would really compare to the ones they want to build in Scott City. Sounds like they don't want anyone to see what REALLY will happen to Scott City by seeing one that is big like what they want to put here. Just another cover up by Tim Porch.

-- Posted by tinkcat on Fri, May 11, 2007, at 7:24 AM

I refuse to take the side of a man that builds homes that cost over $100,000.00 in a flood prone area. The issue here is Ignorance versus intelligence. Do you realize the Ozone Mr Keesee is talking about is naturally in the air. Do you realize the Carbon Dioxide is necessary for plants (corn) to grow. Do you realized that Nitrogen enriched soil stimulates the growth of corn? Do you realize that this so called hazardous ozone has uses in the medical community to help those suffering from AIDS and cancer? It stimulates white blood cell production. How is this bad considering that you will have more income coming into the area and who knows maybe Mr Kessee could sell some more houses and make some more money by letting people live in a house that could double as a swimming pool. Why is money coming into a small town such a bad thing. As far as the smell goes apparently Mr Keesee has never been to Wickliffe, KY. I would rather smell a distillery than that nasty paper mill anyday of the week.

-- Posted by NickeyB63780 on Fri, May 11, 2007, at 8:49 AM

To NickeyLB, you need to do some research on the carcinogenic volitle organic compounds that Ethanol Plants put into the air. Talk to the American Lung Association, you might learn something. Sounds to me like the Ignorance is on your part. Mr. Keesee is the Intelligent one here.

-- Posted by Joan on Fri, May 11, 2007, at 11:29 AM

I will reply to the comments once and would ask any further discussion sent to my email address mkeesee944@aol.com. First off lets understand one thing I put money into Scott City to try and build a better community. I have had alot of people talk a good story about helping the community but when it comes down to it they are in it for the money. I have yet to see any personal gain from my subdivision other than the feeling I am bettering the community with nice affordable housing. The area you call a flood prone area i doubt it. The area you are calling flood prone is in fact higher than main street in Scott City. So i guess for you to understand simple elevations i will explain so a laymen can understand..If my houses are to flood then Scott City for the most part would be flooded from the ball park to Clover Dale Subdivision including the School.. I hope this helps with your issue with my subdivision. I can not however understand why we are not talking about the real issue you know EthanoL PLANT HAZARDS. Do your community a favor and do your own research don't take my word for it. I can only believe if your not a farmer or an investor in these plants you will see this is not a friendly industry to surrounding communities. Please, if you need to talk about the real issue educate yourself before spouting off about things that are not relative to Ethanol hazards.

-- Posted by m keesee on Fri, May 11, 2007, at 12:50 PM

One thing that everyone needs to consider is the amount of water an ethanol plant uses in its process. The existing water system in the Scott City area doesn't hardly keep up with human consumption. How will it keep up with huge industrial consumption as well????

-- Posted by Concerned citizen on Fri, May 11, 2007, at 12:54 PM

While I respect Mr. Keesee's right to petition the government I would point out a few things in this discussion. First off when we throw around these words like "volatile organic compounds" we need to understand what that means. Volatile (not persistent, won't remain in its current chemical state), Organic (made of carbon) Compound (made of more than one element. That's just a six-dollar term for many different two-bit substances. I'm sure there are "bad" volatile organic compounds but I'm also just as sure that any substance on the chemical chart will kill you in high enough doses. Don't be scared out of ignorance and spin put up to give off an ominous sounding name. I went to the EPA website to see exactly which "volatile organic compounds" or "VOC" that these ethanol plats were supposed to be dumping into the air. I couldn't find that specific information but the EPA does list a number of other VOC sources like "paints and lacquers, paint strippers, cleaning supplies, pesticides, building materials and furnishings" That is cut and pasted off the EPA site. Is anybody going to throw away your couch because of all these scary volatile organic compounds that are leaching into your home? Oh wait a minute the building materials in your home have VOC emanating off them too. I was eating a hamburger when I wrote this and I had to laugh when I realized that the methane gas that cows belch is also a "volatile organic compound". That is one thing I hate about going to the doctor. If the doctor doesn't know what is causing your skin rash you will receive a diagnosis of "non-specific dermatitis" Sounds really good but doesn't mean a thing. Non-specific (unknown) derma (skin) itis (inflammation of). Real people's term would be "unknown skin rash".

So in summation be careful when people try to talk over the heads of us common folks. It's usually smoke and mirrors designed to sound intimidating and scary. When these folks tell you how bad this thing is going to smell up Scott City take a moment and see for yourself which way the prevailing winds blows. I'm not going to tell you just look at it yourself. Don't listen to everything you hear, do the research for yourself and then make up your mind one way or the other about ethanol. Maybe Keesee is right, maybe we need to increase our reliance on Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil and forget ethanol. Or maybe we should be using our own natural resources and not be too scared to move ahead in that process.

I am sorry that this post was so long but the flat screen computer I am sitting at is a known polluter of volatile organic compounds and they must have gotten to me.

-- Posted by Donnie on Fri, May 11, 2007, at 1:24 PM

I work in South Bend Indiana and they have an Ethanol Plant near my work,I have watched this Story developing in So East Mo.with joy .Does anyone know the amount of truck traffic that is involved with these Plants ? The Smell is also quite disturbing,prevaling winds or not ,you will smell it .I am sure there are benefits with them but also alot of negatives .I wish everyone could visit near a plant and see for themselves ,come on up here and I will give you the nickel tour LOL

?

-- Posted by DaveB on Fri, May 11, 2007, at 3:18 PM

The Scott City Mayor continues to portray the ethanol industry as (green)! Perhaps in the future of things to come, some light will be shed on financial and political kickbacks involving the Mayor's office!

I reckon only a formal complaint to the Missouri Attorney General's office could ascertain any truth to this rumor.

Here is a quote from Tim Porch ie: The Scott City Mayor in the April 9, 2007 edition of the Southeast Missourian:

Scott City Mayor Tim Porch said he has an investment in the proposed Riverside Energy plant. Porch said he (isn't concerned) about proposed plant in the Scott City area reducing the quality of life for those living in the city.

"They're very clean operations," Porch said.

(HE IS NOT "CONCERNED" ABOUT THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THOSE LIVING IN THE CITY) WOW, what a statement!

It is of the opinion of this author that Tim Porch has forgotten the oath he took when he was elected Mayor of Scott City!

-- Posted by streams4future on Fri, May 11, 2007, at 4:47 PM

To All concerned,

First off lets discuss my objective in this Ethanol issue then we can discuss the issues you may have with my subdivision or who I am ect. The issue I have with the ethanol plants is the amount of Hazardous Air Pollutants that they emit. The EPA has guidelines for this as we all are aware, however they have seen to it that ethanol plants can now emit 250 tons of the stuff and create a toxic environment for all surrounding communities. I can not sleep at nite knowing my family is going to be exposed to this for reason we all know $$$$$. The local leadership we have are all connected to the $$$$ so let me ask you all, who is bias here. Do your research and you will understand the cause for my alarm. I don't expect you to take my word and as far as my under lying objective, it is one thing protect my family! The person trying to test my integrity, morals or my education I can only say I am your normal day to day father. I don't portray myself as the know everything guy on ethanol, however I refuse to be lied to or strong armed into allowing these plants to being built without regard to safety for my family. Now for the issue of my subdivision. I built this subdivision to try and bring a nice addition to Scott City, however it has been a struggle due to the slander and competitive competition in our town. We have powers in our local government that tends to dislike the competition so figure it out. I believe you can get the picture. The subdivision has sold every house that has been built in it. I was told by several leading individuals to put in another trailer park, however I took the other route and built houses. I can only imagine the folks that are saying this is flood prone don't know elevations. I will give you a lesson. All you need to understand if my subdivision floods the whole main street area including the school and Cloverdale subdivision will be under water. I have taken it upon my self utilizing my equipment and money to clear the grown up ditches and debris filled diches so the water can drain properly. I bet the people of Scott City would be amazed the City refused to foot any of the cost. Again, must not of been in the best interest of the community. I ask before you try and slam my reasoning on ethanol or my community ask yourself, who has everything to gain on these ethanol plants, it is not I. I am not in need of money for you that know me can sure account for that. I could have invested in ethanol and made my millions on the backs of our communities , however I chose my community over GREED! Now have a nice day and educate yourself on ETHANOL PRODUCTION. OH by the way the Malta Bend Trip is a sham. This company has stake in an Ethanol Plant that is to be built in your community, I think the number was 17 million, Smoke and Mirrors! Get the real picture! We should be visiting a 100 million gallon per year plant and not a 40 million gallon plant! You know apples to apples. Don't take me to a orange plant if you are selling me apples!

-- Posted by m keesee on Fri, May 11, 2007, at 4:54 PM

To All concerned,

First off lets discuss my objective in this Ethanol issue then we can discuss the issues you may have with my subdivision or who I am ect. The issue I have with the ethanol plants is the amount of Hazardous Air Pollutants that they emit. The EPA has guidelines for this as we all are aware, however they have seen to it that ethanol plants can now emit 250 tons of the stuff and create a toxic environment for all surrounding communities. I can not sleep at nite knowing my family is going to be exposed to this for reason we all know $$$$$. The local leadership we have are all connected to the $$$$ so let me ask you all, who is bias here. Do your research and you will understand the cause for my alarm. I don't expect you to take my word and as far as my under lying objective, it is one thing protect my family! The person trying to test my integrity, morals or my education I can only say I am your normal day to day father. I don't portray myself as the know everything guy on ethanol, however I refuse to be lied to or strong armed into allowing these plants to being built without regard to safety for my family. Now for the issue of my subdivision. I built this subdivision to try and bring a nice addition to Scott City, however it has been a struggle due to the slander and competitive competition in our town. We have powers in our local government that tends to dislike the competition so figure it out. I believe you can get the picture. The subdivision has sold every house that has been built in it. I was told by several leading individuals to put in another trailer park, however I took the other route and built houses. I can only imagine the folks that are saying this is flood prone don't know elevations. I will give you a lesson. All you need to understand if my subdivision floods the whole main street area including the school and Cloverdale subdivision will be under water. I have taken it upon my self utilizing my equipment and money to clear the grown up ditches and debris filled diches so the water can drain properly. I bet the people of Scott City would be amazed the City refused to foot any of the cost. Again, must not of been in the best interest of the community. I ask before you try and slam my reasoning on ethanol or my community ask yourself, who has everything to gain on these ethanol plants, it is not I. I am not in need of money for you that know me can sure account for that. I could have invested in ethanol and made my millions on the backs of our communities , however I chose my community over GREED! Now have a nice day and educate yourself on ETHANOL PRODUCTION. OH by the way the Malta Bend Trip is a sham. This company has stake in an Ethanol Plant that is to be built in your community, I think the number was 17 million, Smoke and Mirrors! Get the real picture! We should be visiting a 100 million gallon per year plant and not a 40 million gallon plant! You know apples to apples. Don't take me to a orange plant if you are selling me apples!

-- Posted by m keesee on Fri, May 11, 2007, at 4:59 PM

If the author NickeyLB) wants to talk about ignorance vs intelligence. Here goes and try to keep up.

First, where Mr Kessee decides to build houses and how much they cost really have no bearing on the issues of ethanol production.

Evidently he is providing a necessary service because his houses are selling. Main Street Floods in front of Miller Drywall, does that mean they shouldn't have their business there? The reason that Main Street flooded was that the drainage ditch going through his property was clogged with trees, trash and railroad ties from the railroad. HE ASKED THE CITY TO HELP PAY FOR THE FUEL AND WAS DENIED. He cleaned out the ditch, with his equipment, his fuel and his time. This was a CITY and RAILROAD problem that was neglected for years. This benefitted the residents of the city.

I think I would want to take a stand if my livelihood were going to be diminished due to a foul smell. I, for one, am glad that a concerned citizen is making the effort to inform the good citizens of Scott City about the harmful side of ethanol. The ethanol industry has marketed and spun this as the "clean" alternative. I urge you to look up "ethanol jacobson" and read what the Stanford professor says about ethanol in his 20 year study.

The issue of ozone problems has to do with molecules that interact with and destroy ozone, not ozone itself. Yes ozone is naturally occurring and we all should be glad we have it. It serves to reduce harmful rays from the sun. If ozone "production" were an issue then we wouldn't have a problem with green house gases, global warming, holes in our ozone layer, or for that matter the need for an alternative fuel source.

And yes CO2 (carbon dioxide) is needed for photosynthesis, plant life, oxygen production, and life as we know it. In fact enriched CO2 environments have been shown to increase plant growth, but that response

is short lived and there are no long term studies that indicate what would happen to plants after decades of excess CO2. Yes, nitrogen enriched soil can and does stimulate plant growth. However, studies

have shown that nitrogen levels can only be increased to plant specific levels before nutrient imbalance and toxicity occur resulting in reduced biomass production (less corn). Regarding health benefits of ozone, oxygen O2 (oxygen) stimulates white blood cell production, not ozone. If that were in fact the case all chemotherapy induced anemia would be cured by pumping ozone into a cancer victims lungs, which of course we know isn't the case, or new drugs for this condition would not be out on

the market; ozone is significantly cheaper to produce, market, and purchase than are chemotherapy anemia induced pharmaceuticals.

Money coming into a small town is not a bad thing. The bad thing is that there are NO studies that determine the benefit or risk of such large concentrations of ethanol production. In fact there are remarkably few studies that have looked at any long term

environmental hazards caused by ethanol production. There have been no studies on

adult health let alone children's health.

There have been no long term studies on water, air, soil, mammal, amphibian, invertebrate, plant,fish, or economic studies. I have for one been VERY close to an ethanol plant in NW Missouri and believe me it was a nasty smell. In fact,the

surrounding community was noticeably absent from the area. Lots of houses up for sale and evidently (according to a local) had been on the market for quite some time because no one wanted to live next to the

noxious smell. There were no signs of bikes or toys in the yards,no landscaping, and several of the smaller homes had boarded up windows. No one was sitting outside on their porch, no kids were playing in the

yard, and I couldn't wait to get the heck out of there. Please get an education on a topic before you speak out on something you are completely ignorant of the facts of.

-- Posted by Lucca Brazzi on Fri, May 11, 2007, at 5:01 PM

Let me guess all of your EPA facts came from the report published in April 2001 that they had realeased. Guess what its 2007 and they have had 6 long years to work on it. I'm not saying its the perfect solution but at the same time at least I know that when our soldiers are fighting in other countries that house the oil WE BUY then you're darn right I have a problem with it. We are Americans all the same here people. Why do we have to rely on other countries for things that we need and use? Brazil has been using ethanol since the Carter administration. Why don't we all take a field trip down to Brazil and see what its like there? Would the be good enough to suit you then? What if it were an oil refinery would you all be happier then? Don't look at the big scary words like volatile organic compounds you'll just end up with a headache at the end of the day. Consider what all of this construction equipment around us does. Look at all of the woodland areas we destroyed in the past to build houses and schools and hosptials. No matter what anyone wants to do there is always going to be a group of people for or against it and most people are scared to death of change. Its time that we leave the decisions to those that we chose capable of making them for us. And if you didn't vote than you can't gripe and complain about it. This whole thing is centered around money. Quite frankly if you care so much about your community then you would welcome a time of change for the better. If money comes in the there could be more that follows. You gripe about the teenage trouble makers that are everywhere. With increased revenue there would be much more for them to do and maybe just maybe more jobs for them to have and not be on the streets so much.

-- Posted by NickeyB63780 on Fri, May 11, 2007, at 5:18 PM

Here's something that you all can use to get some facts

www.naturozone.com/documen/shallenb.htm

Also if you want to really see both sides of the bigger issue here go to Google.com and type in Benefits of Ethanol Production and Benefits of Ozone and also Pros and Cons of Ethanol Production. I did do my research and I am quoting what I found in my research. I have a background in the medical field (5 years) 2 1/2 of which were spent in a very busy hospital in of all places oh my a LAB!!!!!! You can even go to ask.com and you will find many many research studies done in Brazil and other countries that show BOTH good and bad effects of Ethanol Production. Look in Wikipedia.com many things are there as well. Please before you go and insult my intelligence make sure you look at EVERYTHING you can I have the proof in my lap, well I guess blame it on my high school. I went to Scott City after all.....and if you're saying that this plant will harm our children then I guess that its too late for me since there wasn't anything like that around here when I was growing up.

As far as streams taking Mayor Porch's comment out of context well I just have to say look again and what you said

Scott City Mayor Tim Porch said he has an investment in the proposed Riverside Energy plant. Porch said he (isn't concerned) about proposed plant in the Scott City area reducing the quality of life for those living in the city.

"They're very clean operations," Porch said.

If you use your intelligence then maybe just maybe you can see it for what it really means. To me that says that he has every confidence that the plant WILL NOT reduce the quality of life in our fair community. I can't believe all you people who sit there and smile to that man's face and then stab him in the back when he turns away you all should be ASHAMED!!!!! We elected him to be our leader ALL THE TIME not whenever you feel like it. If he and the city council make this decision ultimatly it will be what is best for all of us.

-- Posted by NickeyB63780 on Fri, May 11, 2007, at 7:00 PM

Like I said before, educate yourself. There is not one plant, there are FOUR! Making this the largest concentration of ethanol in the US. By the way, if all you get is a headache after looking volatile organic compunds, you are lucky, as that is one of the more benign symptoms, Brain cancer is what you have to look forward to.

-- Posted by Lucca Brazzi on Fri, May 11, 2007, at 9:08 PM

Ok, what study are you pointing to and who funded it? I am willing to research the issue but I will not be spoon fed information from either side just so that one or the other can sway people. I have google searched and I went to my old college website and logged onto their science world blog where I posted a question in regards to the pros/cons of ethanol. Everybody is willing to point to "studies show this" but where are those studies? What control group are they using? What are the variable factors sited? WHO PAID FOR THE STUDY? Who did the study? And please don't give me that "volatile organic compounds" garbage, I can read and your not going to scare me with elaborate pros (big words). Usually people that do that really don't have anything to say so they go with that old adage of "if you can't dazzle em with diamonds then baffle em with bull***t. Now I'm not saying that the anti ethanol group here is the only ones doing that. After just a little study I will agree that ethanol isn't nearly as "green" as they attempt to come off. I do not however think that anything thats going to be coming out of those stacks is going to kill Scott City. There are a few of the methl group of chemicals that are concerning but the dilution rate and their volitility make them very low risk even at a chronic exposure scale. I would also submit that if we run off an ethanol plant or two over smell then BioKyowa needs to shut their doors too. I've lived down wind from it for years (not up wind like these ethanol plants would be to Scott City)

-- Posted by Donnie on Fri, May 11, 2007, at 10:04 PM

To the people of Scott City: those of you who are putting down Mr Porch should re-read his statement, you are taking it the wrong way. Do you really think that he would not care about the people in town, I mean get real he lives there also and so do his Children. I for one am open to all sides, I don't want anything that will harm our children or our future children, but if this will benefit us and not hurt anyone I am all for it. I encourage anyone who can and will to go to the plant and see and ask questions so we can all learn as much as possible. What about the trains that go through here, do you ignore the placards on them about the hazmats?? If there were to be a train derailment do you not know what that could do to the people here? Come on people don't close your minds to something until you know all the facts!!!!

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Sat, May 12, 2007, at 11:53 AM

This author has come to the forgone conclusion that it's comments about the mayor was taken out of context.

Question: Does an ethanol plant smell anything like the Budweiser plant in St. Louis? If so, that smell is tolerable in this authors opinion.

-- Posted by streams4future on Sat, May 12, 2007, at 12:59 PM

Mr. Keesee is right, the issue IS about the plant,period. So I will apologize for bringing up the issue with his subdivision. Peopole see that there is a railroad behind the homes, so if they want to purchase them and take the risks that go along , then go for it. My wife and I are in the market to buy, it wont be there.

Now, on the Ethenol Plant. Let me break it down.

First, people are worried about the smell. So am I. Where is this plant going to be built? At the port. Which if I'm not mistaken is Northeast of Scott City. I called the weather department at a local station and asked about wind directions in our area. During the winter months, our winds generally come from the North-Northwest. During the summer we get the gulf stream air,from the south.. That is why it is so humid. The only time we would have any odor from the plant would be when a revolving low would actually pass near us and change the wind direction to the city.

Second,Truck and Train traffic. As for the trucks, doesn't Nash Rd. lead to the port,not Main St. So where does the increase in truck traffic come in to play? I live near the tracks and watch the trains go by with my wife and at times with my grandkids. Does anyone realize how many of the rail cars are placard, hauling HAZ-MAT material.

Third, I'm very confidant that The EPA wil put very stringent regulations on this plant before it is built. No one wants something harmful built near them, but we cant go through life with a negative attitude.

For instance, not long ago we had a chance for a Casino brought in near here. It was voted down. Why? Because of the harmful gases it will produce? Truck traffic? No , I believe it was a moral vote. What if the state wanted to build a super-max prison near here. Would there still be a fuss as now? Think about the revenue and jobs LOST because of ignorance. That isn't intended to be insulting, even intelligent people are ignorant.

I called a citizen near a Ethenol plant and asked what he actually smelled from it. He compared it to fresh bread rising. This plant is actually a destillery. The Ethenol is 200 proof, then additives are combined to make the true form of Ethenol.

People, Scott City is hurting. We need businesses to come in. We have people that need jobs. I don't see a dangerous trade-off.

As for those slamming Mayor Porch, what reason do you have for that? You have taken his words and twisted them. Tim has done nothing but try to help this city grow. If you don't like the way he is doing his job then you run for mayor. I'm sure he'd trade, because of your foolish remarks. Mr. Porch, you have my vote of confidence.

Lastly, I'm new here to Scott City. Lived here for 5 years. I was born and raised in Baytown, Tx. Home to Exxon/Mobil Refinery. It was actually in my back yard. That plant itself was lager than Cape and Scott city combined. Think about the pollutants a oil refinery emits of that size. It didn't effect me. I'm healthy with all my limbs,toes,fingers,eyes and ears.And I was born with one head. No side affects. My late grandfather worked and retired from the same plant for 40 years and found time to fight fight in WW2 in between. He was 94 YEARS OLD.

So, lets be mature and use some intellegence before making an *** of yourself.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Sat, May 12, 2007, at 1:04 PM

So let me get this straight Lucca.....They want to build FOUR plants in Scott City?????? My dear this issue at hand is just one plant with the others going to different areas within Cape and Scott Counties.

To those of you that feel I am trying to spoon feed you information....

What is Keesee doing telling you all only the bad things that COULD NOT WILL happen. Did he travel into some fantasy future image of Scott City 30 years into the future? Hey while you were there did you get the cure for cancer so we can use that today and maybe help some of the people you are so concerned about???? All I am trying to do is get people to use their God given right of free thinking to look at some of the resources that I have found and to look at the resources that Mr Keesee has found and form YOUR OWN OPINION!!!!!!!!!! Please people if you do truly want to make a difference in your lives, your children's lives and the lives of your friends and neighbors then LOOK AT EVERYTHING!!!!! There are pros and cons for every issue out there today and in order to form an EDUCATED OPINION with MERIT you need to look at EVERY ASPECT not just one or two. I challange everyone who cares and is concerned about this issue to do what I did and look at the good the bad and the what if's and I don't knows. Then and only then can you truly form a non biased educated opinion on what could be.

-- Posted by NickeyB63780 on Sat, May 12, 2007, at 1:25 PM

By the way the person who brought up Brazil, they have actually been producing Ethenol since the 1920's. Which is long before the Carter Administration!

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Sat, May 12, 2007, at 1:31 PM

To everyone in Scott City, I really feel that if possible you should go to the Plant regardless of the size, it will give you an idea of what to expect.

As for Mr Porch I think those who are critising him should quit, since what he has said was taken out of context.

Also some on you really need to get your geography straightened out, the school is south west of the port, not south east.

I really think that everyone should be open to hear all the details, before making a decision, that's only logical.

-- Posted by Twiggy60 on Sat, May 12, 2007, at 5:30 PM

To all:

For the record, there are 4 plants to be built in Scott County. One at Tower Rock Quarry, another at the Port, next to the mill, another out towards BioKyowa, and a fourth in near Sikeston, close to the power plant. That is 3 plants along a few mile stretch of Nash Road. Go ahead and talk to MODNR, they will tell you that this is "the largest concentration of ethanol plants in the nation", with no long term effects of ethanol production, you have a question to ask yourself. Do I want my family to be the guinea pigs of this future study? I assure you that graduate students will be writing their thesis and disertations on our town, from all over the country.

Maybe Mr. Porch's comment was taken out of context, maybe he had a slip of the tongue, OK I'll give him slack on that. What I will not give him slack on is that he stands to PROFIT from having a plant built less than two miles from my house. He is Mayor and constantly belittles Mr. Keesee's valid concerns by saying that "If this was an environmental issue, it would be one thing, but this is a money issue, Give Monty $6 million for his property and hell be quiet" That comment may have a bit of truth, the only reason I say that is with $6mil, he can move his whole extended family far away from here while we get to watch our town decay, while others profit. Tim Porch is being crtiticized for having a conflict of interest, not for saying he wasn't concerned about the effects to the residents. He should divest or not use his office to support the issue.

-- Posted by Lucca Brazzi on Sun, May 13, 2007, at 7:50 AM

Fine you know what you're one of those people that no matter what you will always find something wrong with everyone and YOU are perfect so if you want the perfect town MOVE out of SCOTT CITY and go start your own town and then find something to gripe about when you suck at it. Being Mayor is not as easy as YOU think it may be and if you think you can do such a good job why don't you go ahead and run yourself and see what its like to live in a city full of backstabbers.

-- Posted by NickeyB63780 on Sun, May 13, 2007, at 2:58 PM

Nickey and Donnie,

Can you please debate the issue. Stay on topic. Nothing more.

-- Posted by Lucca Brazzi on Mon, May 14, 2007, at 10:41 AM

Lucca,

The mayor was brought up in more than one of the topics above please make sure u know what ur talking about before you go and try to punk someone out also the smell was an issue which is why BioKyowa was brought up so how again can I ask if this is off topic oh yea another thing I notice the fact that u like to call people out but when someone does it to u its not "on topic" sounds to me like u just can dish it all out and can't take anything. At least I can answer for myself and not make myself look like a COWARD!!

-- Posted by NickeyB63780 on Tue, May 15, 2007, at 7:35 PM

Nickey,

Your comments were getting way off topic. Telling me that I "should leave this town and start my own and that I would suck at it" only illustrates this point. I never "punked" Tim, as you put it. I stayed on topic and stated known facts. He has avested interest in seeing a plant, as does Presiding Commissioner Burger. I am not the only one who feels that using a public office to promote an investment is in the best interest of the public that you serve. Money always clouds judgement, always.

I told you to get educated on the issue, not to spout off on something you are ignorant of. Your assesment that ozone is a bad thing is 100% wrong and couldn't be farther from the truth. You took this as a personal attack. Being ignorant on an issue is different than being retarded. An ignorant person can educate themselves on a topic, a retarded one obviously can not.

To repute Michael D. For your information Ollie Amick did not want a basement, that was the reason why he moved. He was fearful of falling down the steps. Not all houses in the subdivision are without basements.

-- Posted by Lucca Brazzi on Thu, May 17, 2007, at 6:39 PM

I'm glad you can type better than you can read if you look down at my previous posts you will see if you're don't too blind that said that Ozone has good qualities not just all bad. I even put a link on here showing what good ozone can do for a person. If you remember correctly your hero Monty Keesee is the one who is telling all of us that ozone is bad so next time you want to refer to someone as retarded make sure that its not the pot calling the kettle black. I never ever said that Ozone was 100% bad. Matter of fact here is a recap just incase you didn't see it good enough:

I refuse to take the side of a man that builds homes that cost over $100,000.00 in a flood prone area. The issue here is Ignorance versus intelligence. Do you realize the Ozone Mr Keesee is talking about is naturally in the air. Do you realize the Carbon Dioxide is necessary for plants (corn) to grow. Do you realized that Nitrogen enriched soil stimulates the growth of corn? Do you realize that this so called hazardous ozone has uses in the medical community to help those suffering from AIDS and cancer? It stimulates white blood cell production. How is this bad considering that you will have more income coming into the area and who knows maybe Mr Kessee could sell some more houses and make some more money by letting people live in a house that could double as a swimming pool. Why is money coming into a small town such a bad thing. As far as the smell goes apparently Mr Keesee has never been to Wickliffe, KY. I would rather smell a distillery than that nasty paper mill anyday of the week.

-- Posted by NickeyLB on Fri, May 11, 2007, at 8:49 AM

Do with that what you will but I know what I said next time you want to put words in my mouth make sure that they are at least CLOSE to what I in fact did say.

-- Posted by NickeyB63780 on Fri, May 18, 2007, at 1:21 PM

I'll make it real real simple.

Ozone = GOOD

VOC = BAD

Greenhouse Gases = BAD

produce and burn ethanol = BAD

Somedays I just feel Like Dan Akroyd at the Weekend Update desk, and I'm surrounded by Jane Curtain.

-- Posted by Lucca Brazzi on Fri, May 18, 2007, at 5:30 PM

Sad how a pathetic little man like you has to resort to insulting a perfect stranger and you talk about staying on topic. I'm sorry if you don't like being called wrong but YOU WERE. You're not worth the AIR contaminated or otherwise that you breathe. Have fun and by the way the webmaster will have the last say.

-- Posted by NickeyB63780 on Fri, May 18, 2007, at 7:36 PM

What is the definition of libel?

The classic definition is:

a publication without justification or lawful excuse which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule."

Libel is written defamation.

When should you sue for libel?

When you or your company is attacked by the media, competitors, or (members of the public)

should you sue for libel?

Since these attacks are often unexpected and very damaging, there is often little time for considered reflection. Counsel must quickly answer some important questions when deciding whether or not you should sue for libel.

Why Sue?

If the answer is vengeance, money, or stopping the defamer from republishing the libel, a libel action probably is not warranted. (Usually, a libel action should only be instituted if the primary objective is to vindicate reputation.) In an action for libel one does not have to prove damages. They are presumed.

Does one have to prove damage in a libel action?

No. The law presumes that some damage will flow from the publication of a libel.

Does the Plaintiff have to prove the alleged libelous statements are true?

No. The law presumes in the plaintiff's favour that the statement is false, unless and until the defendant proves the contrary.

Can statements be protected by the use of the words "alleged", "it is rumoured" or by use of quotation marks?

This answer is no. One cannot escape liability for defamation by putting the libel behind a prefix such as "I have been told that ..." or "It is rumoured that ...", and then asserting that it was true that one had been told or that it was in fact being rumoured.... For the purpose of the law of libel, the hearsay statement is the same as a direct statement.

(Lord Devlin in Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd., [1963] 2 All E.R. 151 at 173)

-- Posted by legal_solutions on Sat, May 19, 2007, at 8:37 AM

I accept your appology. Your understanding of ozone, greenhouse gases, VOC's, and how they work and interact is totally wrong. I hope that you take the time to study how these compounds work and interact with each other. Look up the VOC acetaldehyde, this is what the EPA says about it. This will come out of the stacks of the plants 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. What a great thing to expose our kids to. Just 2 miles from the school. Luckily the wind blows to Cape, MOST of the time.

Humans exposed acutely to moderate concentrations of acetaldehyde

experience irritation of the eyes and respiratory tract and

altered respiratory function. Animals exposed to moderate to

high concentrations exhibit skin and eye irritation and notable

cellular alterations in the respiratory epithelium and hyper-

keratosis of the forestomach.

1. Humans - The acute irritation of acetaldehyde is characterized

by the following: eye irritation in sensitive individuals, at

25 ppm for 15 minutes; eye irritation, at 50 ppm for 15 minutes;

irritation of respiratory tract, at 134 ppm for 30 minutes

(2.15 mg/kg over 30 minutes) (see end note 1); irritation of nose

and throat, 200 ppm at 15 minutes (Verschueren 1983). Intravenous

infusion of human subjects with 5% acetaldehyde at a rate of

20.6-82.4 mg/min for up to 36 minutes (the lowest dose converts to

10.6 mg/kg over 36 minutes) resulted in an increased heart rate,

increased ventilation rates and respiratory dead space, and a

decreased alveolar carbon dioxide level (IARC 1985).

2. Animals - The oral LD50 value for the rat is 1.93 g/kg (Brabec

1981). The inhalation LC50 for rats exposed for 30 minutes

was 20,000 ppm (ACGIH 1991). Acetaldehyde elicited mild skin

irritation (open test) and severe eye irritation in rabbits

(ACGIH 1991). Intravenous doses of 1-40 mg/kg had a sympatho-

mimetic effect on the heart; doses of 20 mg/kg caused bradycardia and hypotension

(ACGIH 1991).

C. Subchronic/Chronic Effects

Prolonged dermal exposure to acetaldehyde can cause erythema and

burns in humans; repeat contact may result in dermatitis. Repeat

doses by inhalation, at high concentrations, causes adverse

respiratory tract effects in animals. EPA has derived an inhalation

reference concentration (RfC) (see end note 2) of 0.009 mg/m3 for

acetaldehyde, based on adverse effects, including degeneration of

olfactory epithelia, observed in animal studies.

1. Humans - Prolonged contact of acetaldehyde with the skin may

result in erythema and burns; repeated contact with the skin

may cause dermatitis, resulting from irritation or sensitization

(IARC 1985).

2. Animals - Two 4-week animal studies were the basis for the

derivation of the inhalation reference concentration (RfC) for

acetaldehyde (U.S. EPA 1994). In the first study, Wistar

rats were exposed to 0, 150, or 500 ppm acetaldehyde 6 h/day,

5 days/week for 4 weeks. At the end of the study, lavage

fluid was collected from the lung and the cells were evaluated;

cells from animals exposed to 500 ppm exhibited decreased

viability, decreased cell density, and decreased phagocytosis.

Microscopic examination revealed degeneration of the olfactory

epithelium. No compound-related effects were observed in rats

exposed to 150 ppm [identified as a no-observable-adverse-effect

level (NOAEL)]. In the second study, Wistar rats were exposed

to 0, 400, 1000, 2200, or 5000 ppm acetaldehyde 6 h/day,

5 days/week for 4 weeks. Effects observed included: death

(2200 and 5000 ppm); decreased percentage of lymphocytes;

increased number of neutrophilic leukocytes; and decreased organ

weights (5000 ppm); growth retardation (three highest concen-

trations); dose-related degeneration of the nasal olfactory

epithelium (all concentrations); and dose-related hyper- and

metaplastic changes of the olfactory, laryngeal, and tracheal

epithelium (1000, 2200 and 5000 ppm). The 400-ppm concentration,

the lowest dose tested, was identified as a lowest-observable-

adverse-effect level (LOAEL).

The above studies were selected for the determination of the

RfC because the same types of lesions appear at longer exposure

times and higher exposure levels in chronic studies, and they

were concentration (dose)-related. The 150 ppm value from the

first study was established as the NOAEL, and the 400 ppm value

from the second study was established as the LOAEL. The RfC

is 0.009 mg/m3 (U.S. EPA 1994).

Wistar rats inhaled acetaldehyde concentrations of 0, 750,

1500 and 3000/1000 ppm for 6 h/day, 5 days/week for up to 28

months (U.S. EPA 1994). Early mortality in the 3000-ppm

group prompted the reduction of the concentration to 1000 ppm.

All rats in this group were dead by 25 months, and all but a

few were dead in the 1500-ppm group; the cause of early death

or moribund condition was almost always partial or complete

occlusion of the nose by excessive amounts of keratin and

inflammatory exudate. The incidence of basal cell hyperplasia

of the olfactory epithelium, increased in low and mid-dose rats,

was lower in the high-dose group because of the increased

incidence of adenocarcinomas (see section IV.D). Hyperplasia

and squamous metaplasia, occasionally with keratinization,

developed in the larynx of rats exposed to 1500 and 3000/1000

ppm. A LOAEL of 750 ppm was identified for this study

(U.S. EPA 1994). In another study, rats exposed to the same

concentrations for 52 weeks were allowed to recover for 26 or

52 weeks. The study demonstrated incomplete recovery of the

olfactory and respiratory epithelium even after 52 weeks of

recovery (U.S. EPA 1994).

Hamsters exposed by inhalation to acetaldehyde concentrations

of 0, 390, 1340, or 4560 ppm for 6 h/day, 5 days/week for 90

days, exhibited decreased body weights; increased organ weights;

and effects on the respiratory epithelium that included necrosis,

inflammation, hyperplasia and metaplasia (at 4560 ppm); and

statistically significant increase in kidney weight in males

and small areas of stratified epithelium in the trachea

(at 1340 ppm). The authors identified 390 ppm as the NOAEL for

the study (U.S. EPA 1994).

Male and female rats received acetaldehyde in the drinking

water (25, 125, or 675 mg/kg/day for 4 weeks (HSDB 1994).

The only reported adverse effect, hyperkeratosis of the

forestomach, was observed at the high dose.

D. Carcinogenicity

There is inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity of

acetaldehyde for humans. Based on the carcinogenicity of

acetaldehyde in animals, EPA has concluded that acetaldehyde is a

probable human carcinogen.

1. Humans - Workers in an aldehyde factory in the German

Democratic Republic had a higher cancer rate than expected

in that section of Germany (IARC 1985). The plant's main

process was the dimerization of acetaldehyde. Of nine cases

of malignant neoplasm, 5 were bronchial tumors and two were

carcinomas of the oral cavity.

Does this sound like a good trade for 90 new jobs? Maybe we should try to get a uranium processing plant to build at our drinking water well site.

-- Posted by Lucca Brazzi on Sat, May 19, 2007, at 8:56 AM

Lucca I appreciate the informative yet WAY OUT DATED INFORMATION that you provided. Next time try finding something from oh I don't know say THE PAST TEN YEARS AT LEAST. Boy you sure did change my mind considering that technology and info was from I think the most recent date was 1994 when they were not widely using DNA yet either. Man oh man you sure showed me how to to my research. I'll look back to the 70's and see if I can find something to back up my argument next time. Oh yeah a little food for thought and what do you know its from 2006 and here's the link from Purdue:

http://purdueresearchpark.com/newsreleas...

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/envi...

Not sure about when the last one was posted but I'm sure it was WAY after 1994. LOL You are more and more entertaining as this goes on Lucca how bout you email me direct from now on

lilriverrat14@yahoo.com.

I'll be looking forward to hearing from you

-- Posted by NickeyB63780 on Sat, May 19, 2007, at 6:42 PM

lilriverrat14,

Lets discuss this issue further...email me at noethanolnsc@sbcglobal.net

-- Posted by noethanolnsc on Tue, May 22, 2007, at 10:51 AM

I guess Joan really doesn't want to talk bout ethanol n e more since all she did was threaten me. Kinda sad really I was looking forward to a chat.......

-- Posted by NickeyB63780 on Sun, May 27, 2007, at 9:13 PM

If anyone knows Joan Quillman have her respond to my emails would ya

-- Posted by NickeyB63780 on Sun, May 27, 2007, at 9:13 PM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on seMissourian.com or semoball.com, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.