Kerry's Secret Iraq Plan

[Avatar4321]

Take ECO101.

Im thinking that might be alittle too complex for him. Maybe we should start him with high school econ.

 

[Merlin1047]

Exactly. I love it when liberals make these grand, sweeping statements. One in six - my God! Speaking VERY conservatively, we'd be talking about 10 or 12 million women, unable to give birth to healthy babies, due to a specifically identifiable cause. Does this guy imagine that information like that would go unnoticed???!!!

Now wait a minute guys, let's not dismiss this too hastily. Wade may in fact have a point here.


How else would you explain the large number of libs in the country today? It has to be something either in the air or in the water.

 

[CSM]

Now wait a minute guys, let's not dismiss this too hastily. Wade may in fact have a point here.


How else would you explain the large number of libs in the country today? It has to be something either in the air or in the water.

I rather suspect that it has more to do with all the alien abductions.

 

[manu1959]

Grrrr, I was saying those mining the coal do not have to support the unclean burning of that coal. The idea that the worker has to, by definition, support wrong practices of the industry in which he works, is what I was debunking.

Look at the article at the top of this thread and its discussion of Bush's coal industry policies. Then use the info there to do your own searches on the topic, and then tell me the Bush policies are reducing mercury being pumped into the air! NOT!

well grrr back big kitty ..... i never said that a worker has to work for or support something they think is wrong ... it is why i am not a dim ... i did ...i did, and they are working ... .mandate policies of the clinton era simply closed factories and lost jobs which you all blamed on bush

 

[wade]

So that means that 1 in six of every child born is unhealthy. I do not believe that. The US infant mortality rate is not that high nor are the other health indicators of children orn in the US.

Look at US infant health as compared to other 1st world nations. And, they don't consider being born stupid a negative health indicator so those stats are not meaningful. One in six women in the USA have children with an IQ 7-10 points lower than it would be except for the mercury in their systems.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Look at US infant health as compared to other 1st world nations. And, they don't consider being born stupid a negative health indicator so those stats are not meaningful. One in six women in the USA have children with an IQ 7-10 points lower than it would be except for the mercury in their systems.

maybe it's a genetic thing....maybe the women are breeding with mutants, or people with a genetic disease that decided to pop up with this child...until you can PROVE that this has something to do with mercury levels, you have no basis for your statement. Plus, I have yet to see the link that 2 people have asked for.

Also, do you have kids? Has your wife/girlfriend brought you with on pre-natal visits? Did they explain the blood tests they do? Do you know they check for irregularities -including mercury- in the mother's blood, so they can address any possible issues? Do you know that the basic questions the mother is asked are the levels of exposure to mercury by where she lives, her diet, and what she does for a job if she has one? If mercury exposure was something to be more worried about, you would have to do more than be aware of the water you drink, and avoid freshwater fish, and some types of saltwater fish. If there were any cause for concern, the dr. would bring it up in the pre-natal visits.

you're a moron.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

hey wade...we are still waiting on your links to back up your claims.

 

[CSM]

Look at US infant health as compared to other 1st world nations. And, they don't consider being born stupid a negative health indicator so those stats are not meaningful. One in six women in the USA have children with an IQ 7-10 points lower than it would be except for the mercury in their systems.

Alrighty then. Ever take an IQ test? I submit that an infant cannot be given an IQ test. The best a docotor can do is check for normal reaction to external stimulus, etc. Got any links to support this data?

 

[manu1959]

Alrighty then. Ever take an IQ test? I submit that an infant cannot be given an IQ test. The best a docotor can do is check for normal reaction to external stimulus, etc. Got any links to support this data?

these are all democratic babies...and my therory is this....most of these babies are born in metropolitan areas which are all blue based on the little maps....see vast right conspiracy handbook for details

 

[no1tovote4]

Alrighty then. Ever take an IQ test? I submit that an infant cannot be given an IQ test. The best a docotor can do is check for normal reaction to external stimulus, etc. Got any links to support this data?

Don't you know that THEY told him?!

Therefore it must be scientific and based only an realatable evidence and numerous studies, otherwise using statistics in this way could be construed as a ruse to add believability to an argument not based in facts.

Let's see if I can do one too.

1 in 3 cows are born with fetal alcohol syndrome. God! Save the cows! And it is all true, I read it in a magazine somewhere at some time!

 

[freeandfun1]

Don't you know that THEY told him?!

Therefore it must be scientific and based only an realatable evidence and numerous studies, otherwise using statistics in this way could be construed as a ruse to add believability to an argument not based in facts.

Let's see if I can do one too.

1 in 3 cows are born with fetal alcohol syndrome. God! Save the cows! And it is all true, I read it in a magazine somewhere at some time!

you forgot to add - "oh, I'm not a scientist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express"

 

[wade]

hey wade...we are still waiting on your links to back up your claims.

Sorry Kitten, I replied about 3 days ago but then the database for this msg board was somehow out of wack and it would not post.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-02-08-mercury-usat_x.htm
http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/index.asp
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1205-07.htm

IQ tests done at various ages clearly show that exposure to mercury, especially while in the womb, has a very obvious negative effect on children.

 

[musicman]

Sorry Kitten, I replied about 3 days ago but then the database for this msg board was somehow out of wack and it would not post.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-02-08-mercury-usat_x.htm
http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/index.asp
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1205-07.htm

IQ tests done at various ages clearly show that exposure to mercury, especially while in the womb, has a very obvious negative effect on children.

Well, I'm glad this msg. board finally got it's database straightened out for you. It would have been better for you if it hadn't, since your links expose you as a rank, intellectually dishonest charlatan.

I wholeheartedly invite any and all to compare your "scientific links" with your shamefully disingenuous statements, such as:

"One in every 6 women in the USA today have mercury levels so high that they cannot give birth to healthy babies because of coal burning plants", and

"One in six women in the USA today have children with an IQ 7-10 points lower than it would be except for the mercury in their systems."

My God, man! The only sentence in any of your links that appears to even come from the same GALAXY as your statements was spoken - not by any scientist, environmental expert, or health official, but by a representative of an environmentalist group with a political ax to grind:

"As many as one in six U.S. women...might have mercury levels in their blood that could put their babies at risk, says Gina Solomon of the Natural Resource Defense Fund".

You are a fraud, sir.

 

[wade]

Well, I'm glad this msg. board finally got it's database straightened out for you. It would have been better for you if it hadn't, since your links expose you as a rank, intellectually dishonest charlatan.

I wholeheartedly invite any and all to compare your "scientific links" with your shamefully disingenuous statements, such as:

"One in every 6 women in the USA today have mercury levels so high that they cannot give birth to healthy babies because of coal burning plants", and

"One in six women in the USA today have children with an IQ 7-10 points lower than it would be except for the mercury in their systems."

My God, man! The only sentence in any of your links that appears to even come from the same GALAXY as your statements was spoken - not by any scientist, environmental expert, or health official, but by a representative of an environmentalist group with a political ax to grind:

"As many as one in six U.S. women...might have mercury levels in their blood that could put their babies at risk, says Gina Solomon of the Natural Resource Defense Fund".

You are a fraud, sir.

Read the underlying sources. One in six is one figure that is presented as possible or as likely. One in twelve is considered solid fact.

Ummm, are you saying that Dr. Gina Solomon is "not even a Scientist"? LOL - you are out of your mind!

GINA M. SOLOMON, M.D., M.P.H.
Senior Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco
Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California at San Francisco
Gina Solomon is a specialist in adult internal medicine, preventive medicine, and occupational and environmental medicine. She is a Senior Scientist in the Health and Environment Program of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). NRDC is a national nonprofit organization with over 550,000 members dedicated to the protection of public health and the environment. Dr. Solomon is also an Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of California at San Francisco where she is an attending physician at the U.C. Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit. Her work has included research on asthma, diesel exhaust, breast cancer, pesticides, contaminants in breast milk, and threats to reproductive health and child development. Dr. Solomon attended medical school at Yale and did her residency and fellowship training at Harvard.

Dr. Solomon served on the U.S. EPA's Federal Advisory Committee on endocrine disrupting chemicals, on the EPA Science Advisory Board Panel on trichloroethylene, and on the California Expert Working Group on Environmental Health Tracking. She is a scientific advisor to numerous organizations including the California Department of Health Services Environmental Epidemiology Section, the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation and the San Francisco Foundation. She is also co-coordinator of the San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility's Environmental Health Project as well as a member of its Board of Directors. Dr. Solomon has authored numerous articles and reports, and is co-author of the book, Generations at Risk: Reproductive Health and the Environment, published by MIT Press in 1999. Dr. Solomon received The Breast Cancer Fund's Heroes Award in 2002.

 

[musicman]

wade:

So - the representative of an environmentalist group with a poltlcal ax to grind, whose statement convicts you of the worst kind of intellectual fraud, is, in fact, a scientist. Wow - you really burned my ass with that one, wade.

 

[wade]

wade:

So - the representative of an environmentalist group with a poltlcal ax to grind, whose statement convicts you of the worst kind of intellectual fraud, is, in fact, a scientist. Wow - you really burned my ass with that one, wade.

According to you, all enviromentalists have an axe to grind. Prove she's not a credible source. She is certainly more credible than you. I bet you dig go out and dig a hole somewhere when no one is looking in which to dump your used motor oil. :happy2:

Where is the "fraud". As I said, as many as 1 in 6 US children are being born with deficits due to mercury.

 

[musicman]

According to you, all enviromentalists have an axe to grind. Prove she's not a credible source. She is certainly more credible than you. I bet you dig go out and dig a hole somewhere when no one is looking in which to dump your used motor oil. :happy2:

Where is the "fraud". As I said, as many as 1 in 6 US children are being born with deficits due to mercury.

Re Gina Solomon: You're missing the point. The more you shore up her credibility, the more her statement damns you.

I neatly collected your allegations (presented by you as indisputable fact) in Post #53. Read them over, carefully. Now, check your links. Are you telling me there aren't any problems?

Admit it, wade - there are huge problems. In classic, half-cocked liberal fashion, you have thrown out absurd figures and insane assumptions as if they were scientific fact. Not only are you busted - you're convicted by your own hand! YOU provided the links that scream, "wade's full of shit"! What did you think - nobody was going to check them?

Just for future reference, may I offer what I think would be a great read for you? It's a little tome called, "See - I Told You So", by the great Rush Limbaugh. In it, he offers an admonition you might do well to study and understand:

"Words mean things".

 

[wade]

Re Gina Solomon: You're missing the point. The more you shore up her credibility, the more her statement damns you.

I neatly collected your allegations (presented by you as indisputable fact) in Post #53. Read them over, carefully. Now, check your links. Are you telling me there aren't any problems?

Admit it, wade - there are huge problems. In classic, half-cocked liberal fashion, you have thrown out absurd figures and insane assumptions as if they were scientific fact. Not only are you busted - you're convicted by your own hand! YOU provided the links that scream, "wade's full of shit"! What did you think - nobody was going to check them?

Just for future reference, may I offer what I think would be a great read for you? It's a little tome called, "See - I Told You So", by the great Rush Limbaugh. In it, he offers an admonition you might do well to study and understand:

"Words mean things".

I disagree. The main point I made was that a large number of US children are being born with defects caused by mercury. Where are you seeing anything that disputes this? The only ? is the numbers, 1 in 6 vs. 1 in 12.

 

[musicman]

I disagree. The main point I made was that a large number of US children are being born with defects caused by mercury. Where are you seeing anything that disputes this? The only ? is the numbers, 1 in 6 vs. 1 in 12.

Nothing in your links supports your statement thar a large number of US children are being born with defects caused by mercury. It was a half-baked, irresponsible thing for you to say.

 

[Merlin1047]

I disagree. The main point I made was that a large number of US children are being born with defects caused by mercury. Where are you seeing anything that disputes this? The only ? is the numbers, 1 in 6 vs. 1 in 12.

Wade you need to be more discriminating when assigning credibility to an article.

The NRDC article was completely worthless.

The USA Today article, while containing more factual data, was also a huge stretch in logic. They stated: "The findings come a week after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency doubled its estimates of how many U.S. infants are exposed to mercury in the womb. New data suggest that more than 600,000 infants are born each year with blood mercury levels higher than 5.8 parts per billion, the EPA level of concern."

Now when "journalists" start using the phrase "New data SUGGESTS", my bullshit detector starts squawking. And after reading a little further in the article, I found the reason for the alert:
====================================================
"The researchers studied more than 800 children born in 1986 and 1987 in Denmark's Faroe islands, where seafood makes up a large part of the diet. Their umbilical cord blood was tested at birth and hair samples tested for mercury exposure at ages 7 and 14. The average exposure levels were similar to the EPA's recommended limits. In addition to the blood standard, the EPA limit on mercury levels in hair is 1 microgram per gram.

The Faroe study is considered the best available, so much so that in 2000 the National Academy of Sciences concluded it should be used by the EPA as the "critical study" for deciding safety levels for the deadly pollutant."
=====================================================

So the study was done in Denmark on a group whose seafood consumption is far higher than the norm and then that data was somehow extrapolated to apply here is the US. Based on wishful thinking and fairy dust, they somehow arrived at this puzzling coclusion:

"While the Faroese children consume a lot more fish than U.S. children do, it's also a problem in this country. As many as one in six U.S. women of reproductive age might have mercury levels in their body that could put their babies at risk, says Gina Solomon of the Natural Resources Defense Council."

What a weasel-worded conclusion. "AS MANY AS one in six U.S. women of reproductive age MIGHT have mercury levels . . . " Well hell, why not just say that as many as one in six U.S. women might have been the victims of alien abductions? Both conclusions are equally valid.

But you know what? Despite the hyperbole presented in a couple of the articles you presented as proof, I agree with you. The article I found most compelling and objective was the one published on the Common Dreams site.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"One in 12 women of childbearing age have mercury levels in their blood that exceed levels that the EPA says is safe for fetuses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Mercury emissions, 40 percent of which come from coal burning power plants, have been linked to neurological problems. It can be ingested by nursing babies whose mothers eat contaminated fish."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Statitistics from the government's own source are hard to argue with. Especially when these statistics paint a critical picture of government policy.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"In 2002, 45 states issued mercury advisories, up from 27 states in 1993, according to Greer. She said 17 states have posted mercury advisories for every body of water inside their borders."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That was the most damning statement of all. If 45 states have issued advisories, 17 for every body of water, then there can be no doubt that mercury contamination is widespread and potentially dangerous.

Plus I give the author credit for balance by presenting the following:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"A utility industry spokesman said delaying the cap and trade program allows time for utilities to reduce emissions in a more practical, better way.

"Ninety percent reductions are not possible with today's technology, and they're (NRDC) out to lunch if they think that is a reality," said Frank Maisano, a spokesman for the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council.

He said that the delaying the program to 2018 program would allow 70 percent mercury emissions reductions and possibly more because past cap and trade systems have been successful."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So it appears that there is an ongoing effort to reduce and eventually eliminate mercury contaminants. It is just not being done by government regulation - which is apparently the method of choice for you.