New cases of lung cancer, birth defects -> How many is "OK" and good for the economy?

[rdean]

The Republican presidential nominees keep going on about EPA regulations hurting business. About all the new Obama regulations. We know that Obama actually has 5% FEWER regulations than Bush did after three years. We also know that the majority of regulations either come from congress or are a result of "court orders".

Michelle Bachmann want's to get rid of the EPA altogether. Many Republicans share that view. I'm guessing they assume companies will protect the environment the same way BP did the Gulf.

They say that things won't get "that bad".

What I'm wondering is how many new cases of birth defects and lung cancer tdo Republicans find "acceptable"? Taking care of these people will create new jobs, we know that. Is that part of their plan?

5%
10%
1,000 new cases?
100,000?

How much do they find acceptable? And the people that do have children with birth defects. Should they be "paid"?

-----------------------------------------------

Appalachian residents who live near mountaintop removal mine sites face an increased risk of birth defects.

House Republicans scheduled last week's hearing on the heels of a vote by the full House to pass legislation pushed by Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., to strip EPA of much of its authority to ensure state regulatory agencies properly enforce water pollution standards and permit limits. The bill is part of an effort by the GOP and by coal-state Democrats to block the Obama administration's crackdown on mountaintop removal.

EPA concerned about MTR link to birth defects* - News - The Charleston Gazette - West Virginia News and Sports -

 

[uscitizen]

That pesky EPA if it were not for the costs associated with keeping America unpolluted the corporations could make more money.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Republican presidential nominees keep going on about EPA regulations hurting business. About all the new Obama regulations. We know that Obama actually has 5% FEWER regulations than Bush did after three years. We also know that the majority of regulations either come from congress or are a result of "court orders".

Michelle Bachmann want's to get rid of the EPA altogether. Many Republicans share that view. I'm guessing they assume companies will protect the environment the same way BP did the Gulf.

They say that things won't get "that bad".

What I'm wondering is how many new cases of birth defects and lung cancer tdo Republicans find "acceptable"? Taking care of these people will create new jobs, we know that. Is that part of their plan?

5%
10%
1,000 new cases?
100,000?

How much do they find acceptable? And the people that do have children with birth defects. Should they be "paid"?

-----------------------------------------------

Appalachian residents who live near mountaintop removal mine sites face an increased risk of birth defects.

House Republicans scheduled last week's hearing on the heels of a vote by the full House to pass legislation pushed by Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., to strip EPA of much of its authority to ensure state regulatory agencies properly enforce water pollution standards and permit limits. The bill is part of an effort by the GOP and by coal-state Democrats to block the Obama administration's crackdown on mountaintop removal.

EPA concerned about MTR link to birth defects* - News - The Charleston Gazette - West Virginia News and Sports -

I thought Obama didn't need Congress?

Why doesn't he just pass a law outlawing death?

Dean, you are very mentally disturbed

 

[Baruch Menachem]

That is a very good question.... But you need to turn it around. In order to reduce cancers and birth defects, what level of unemployment and what level of decay in your living standard are you willing to accept?

The assumption is that profits are increased or decreased by these regulations. That is not the case. Profit is determined by risk and the going rate of return on assets for any enterprise. You never increase or decrease rates of profit except by increasing or decreasing risk. The rate of profit will remain constant.

What you do change is wage income. What level or lower wages are you willing to accept a more pristine environment. Some occupations have totally vanished under environmental control. Lead used to be a major industry. No all the jobs associate with it have gone as no one uses it. Same with Asbestos. It used to be a major industry. Now it is totally banned. All those who worked in those industries are unemployed. But profits have not changed much except to rise a little, as risks of doing buisnes have increased some.

 

[rdean]

That is a very good question.... But you need to turn it around. In order to reduce cancers and birth defects, what level of unemployment and what level of decay in your living standard are you willing to accept?

The assumption is that profits are increased or decreased by these regulations. That is not the case. Profit is determined by risk and the going rate of return on assets for any enterprise. You never increase or decrease rates of profit except by increasing or decreasing risk. The rate of profit will remain constant.

What you do change is wage income. What level or lower wages are you willing to accept a more pristine environment. Some occupations have totally vanished under environmental control. Lead used to be a major industry. No all the jobs associate with it have gone as no one uses it. Same with Asbestos. It used to be a major industry. Now it is totally banned. All those who worked in those industries are unemployed. But profits have not changed much except to rise a little, as risks of doing buisnes have increased some.

I asked first. Obviously, you are OK with increased birth defects. The question is how many is OK? Should we slip the parents a "few bucks"? Or should they just "buck up" and know they are doing something "good" for the country?

 

[bripat9643]

What I'm wondering is how many new cases of birth defects and lung cancer tdo Republicans find "acceptable"? Taking care of these people will create new jobs, we know that. Is that part of their plan?

5%
10%
1,000 new cases?
100,000?

What regulation that Republicans want to repeal will increase cancer? Can you name even one?

How much do they find acceptable? And the people that do have children with birth defects. Should they be "paid"?

-----------------------------------------------

Appalachian residents who live near mountaintop removal mine sites face an increased risk of birth defects.

House Republicans scheduled last week's hearing on the heels of a vote by the full House to pass legislation pushed by Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., to strip EPA of much of its authority to ensure state regulatory agencies properly enforce water pollution standards and permit limits. The bill is part of an effort by the GOP and by coal-state Democrats to block the Obama administration's crackdown on mountaintop removal.

EPA concerned about MTR link to birth defects* - News - The Charleston Gazette - West Virginia News and Sports -

What is the evidence that mountain top removal for coal mining causes cancer?

We all know this isn't the real reason for the regulations. Environmental wackos like you and the toadies at the EPA simply oppose the use of fossil fuels and will use any means to put a stop to it.

 

[bripat9643]

That pesky EPA if it were not for the costs associated with keeping America unpolluted the corporations could make more money.

What turds like you don't understand is that concept of trade-offs and the fact that cleaning up the last 0.00001% of a pollutant can cost 100 million times more than cleaning up the first 99%. Yet, you insist an 0.0% pollution.

You're a bunch of numskulls who will destroy this economy and have us all living like feudal serfs for the sake of your impossible schemes to save the planet.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Republican presidential nominees keep going on about EPA regulations hurting business. About all the new Obama regulations. We know that Obama actually has 5% FEWER regulations than Bush did after three years. We also know that the majority of regulations either come from congress or are a result of "court orders".

Michelle Bachmann want's to get rid of the EPA altogether. Many Republicans share that view. I'm guessing they assume companies will protect the environment the same way BP did the Gulf.

They say that things won't get "that bad".

What I'm wondering is how many new cases of birth defects and lung cancer tdo Republicans find "acceptable"? Taking care of these people will create new jobs, we know that. Is that part of their plan?

5%
10%
1,000 new cases?
100,000?

How much do they find acceptable? And the people that do have children with birth defects. Should they be "paid"?

-----------------------------------------------

Appalachian residents who live near mountaintop removal mine sites face an increased risk of birth defects.

House Republicans scheduled last week's hearing on the heels of a vote by the full House to pass legislation pushed by Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., to strip EPA of much of its authority to ensure state regulatory agencies properly enforce water pollution standards and permit limits. The bill is part of an effort by the GOP and by coal-state Democrats to block the Obama administration's crackdown on mountaintop removal.

EPA concerned about MTR link to birth defects* - News - The Charleston Gazette - West Virginia News and Sports -

I know that you worry about Americans, deanie...

The Democrat executive rammed through a healthcare plan complete with a panel that keeps suggesting that those pesky diagnostic tests aren't really necessary....

How many deaths would be OK as long as eveyone is on ObamaCare???
What's the plan of the Obama administration?


1. ObamaCare itself is still just a nightmare, but already questions are being raised--by Reuters, no less--about the possibility of patients' being denied care for political reasons:
Cancer experts fear new U.S. breast imaging guidelines that recommend against routine screening mammograms for women in their 40s may have their roots in the current drive in Washington to reform healthcare.
Critics of the guidelines, issued on Monday by the U.S. Services Task Force, an independent panel sponsored by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Quality, say the new guidelines are a step backward and will lead to more cancer deaths.
Len Lichtenfeld of the American Cancer society says his group still recommends mammograms for 40-something women:....
Experts question motives of mammogram guidelines | Reuters

2. ...slipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age.” The CER would identify (this is language from the draft report on the legislation) medical "items, procedures, and interventions" that it deems insufficiently effective or excessively expensive. They "will no longer be prescribed" by federal health programs.” Are you thinking ‘seniors’? George F. Will - How the GOP Should Measure the Stimulus

3. The recently released Annual Report of the Medicare Board of Trustees reveals that the Medicare payment rates for the doctors and hospitals serving seniors will be cut by 30% over the next 3 years.
The American Spectator : The Obamacare Disaster

4. Avastin, the world’s best selling cancer drug, is primarily used to treat colon cancer and was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2008 for use on women with breast cancer that has spread. ...The FDA advisory panel has now voted 12-1 to drop the endorsement for breast cancer treatment. The panel unusually cited "effectiveness" grounds for the decision. But it has been claimed that "cost effectiveness" was the real reason ahead of reforms in which the government will extend health insurance to the poorest. US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels' - Telegraph

5. (Reuters) - Doctors criticized proposals by a government-backed panel recommending against prostate cancer screening in healthy men -- saying they went too far and may put some men at risk of the deadly cancer.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which advises the government on health prevention measures, ....
PSA test for prostate cancer not recommended: panel | Reuters

 

[uscitizen]

What regulation that Republicans want to repeal will increase cancer? Can you name even one?

Umm all of them.

 

[bripat9643]

I asked first. Obviously, you are OK with increased birth defects. The question is how many is OK? Should we slip the parents a "few bucks"? Or should they just "buck up" and know they are doing something "good" for the country?

As of yet, no one has proven that birth defects will increase. We certainly can't trust the EPA to give us the straight poop on such subjects.

 

[bripat9643]

What regulation that Republicans want to repeal will increase cancer? Can you name even one?

Umm all of them.

You didn't name one.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

That is a very good question.... But you need to turn it around. In order to reduce cancers and birth defects, what level of unemployment and what level of decay in your living standard are you willing to accept?

The assumption is that profits are increased or decreased by these regulations. That is not the case. Profit is determined by risk and the going rate of return on assets for any enterprise. You never increase or decrease rates of profit except by increasing or decreasing risk. The rate of profit will remain constant.

What you do change is wage income. What level or lower wages are you willing to accept a more pristine environment. Some occupations have totally vanished under environmental control. Lead used to be a major industry. No all the jobs associate with it have gone as no one uses it. Same with Asbestos. It used to be a major industry. Now it is totally banned. All those who worked in those industries are unemployed. But profits have not changed much except to rise a little, as risks of doing buisnes have increased some.

I asked first. Obviously, you are OK with increased birth defects. The question is how many is OK? Should we slip the parents a "few bucks"? Or should they just "buck up" and know they are doing something "good" for the country?

I never said "Hey, lests have some birth defects!" This is a national debate that moves back and forth on a regular basis. We had this discussion a week or so ago. I have not changed my views, which is this is something we will determine by consensus.

Your position is that the current level of pollution caused health problems is wrong and indefensible. That is a perfectly rational point of departure. To paraphrase the good book, to save a single life is like saving the whole world. Since the current level is unacceptable to you, that means that you wish to increase unemployment and reduce living standards to get to a level you consider better. So what are you willing to give up to achieve your goal of lower pollution induced illness. We have made huge strides in public heath, and we have given up entire industries. What more do you want, and how much are you willing to pay to get there.

Right now I don't have a good answer about what should be given up, because the way things are now works out pretty well for me. So the trade off works for me very well. But you have a bug up your ass that the current way is wrong. So you need to demonstrate what trade you personally are willing to make, and make the rest of us take as well.

 

[rdean]

That is a very good question.... But you need to turn it around. In order to reduce cancers and birth defects, what level of unemployment and what level of decay in your living standard are you willing to accept?

The assumption is that profits are increased or decreased by these regulations. That is not the case. Profit is determined by risk and the going rate of return on assets for any enterprise. You never increase or decrease rates of profit except by increasing or decreasing risk. The rate of profit will remain constant.

What you do change is wage income. What level or lower wages are you willing to accept a more pristine environment. Some occupations have totally vanished under environmental control. Lead used to be a major industry. No all the jobs associate with it have gone as no one uses it. Same with Asbestos. It used to be a major industry. Now it is totally banned. All those who worked in those industries are unemployed. But profits have not changed much except to rise a little, as risks of doing buisnes have increased some.

I asked first. Obviously, you are OK with increased birth defects. The question is how many is OK? Should we slip the parents a "few bucks"? Or should they just "buck up" and know they are doing something "good" for the country?

I never said "Hey, lests have some birth defects!" This is a national debate that moves back and forth on a regular basis. We had this discussion a week or so ago. I have not changed my views, which is this is something we will determine by consensus.

Your position is that the current level of pollution caused health problems is wrong and indefensible. That is a perfectly rational point of departure. To paraphrase the good book, to save a single life is like saving the whole world. Since the current level is unacceptable to you, that means that you wish to increase unemployment and reduce living standards to get to a level you consider better. So what are you willing to give up to achieve your goal of lower pollution induced illness. We have made huge strides in public heath, and we have given up entire industries. What more do you want, and how much are you willing to pay to get there.

Right now I don't have a good answer about what should be given up, because the way things are now works out pretty well for me. So the trade off works for me very well. But you have a bug up your ass that the current way is wrong. So you need to demonstrate what trade you personally are willing to make, and make the rest of us take as well.

If you destroy the environment, then you reduce the standard of living. I thought that went without saying.

 

[rdean]

What regulation that Republicans want to repeal will increase cancer? Can you name even one?

Umm all of them.

Notice how they scream prove it.

If they don't believe in evolution after all the decades of study and data and enormous amounts of evidence.

If they don't believe in climate change even though it's something you can look right at.

Why would they ever believe that pollution causes birth defects? As if a dirty country makes us more attractive to business.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I asked first. Obviously, you are OK with increased birth defects. The question is how many is OK? Should we slip the parents a "few bucks"? Or should they just "buck up" and know they are doing something "good" for the country?

I never said "Hey, lests have some birth defects!" This is a national debate that moves back and forth on a regular basis. We had this discussion a week or so ago. I have not changed my views, which is this is something we will determine by consensus.

Your position is that the current level of pollution caused health problems is wrong and indefensible. That is a perfectly rational point of departure. To paraphrase the good book, to save a single life is like saving the whole world. Since the current level is unacceptable to you, that means that you wish to increase unemployment and reduce living standards to get to a level you consider better. So what are you willing to give up to achieve your goal of lower pollution induced illness. We have made huge strides in public heath, and we have given up entire industries. What more do you want, and how much are you willing to pay to get there.

Right now I don't have a good answer about what should be given up, because the way things are now works out pretty well for me. So the trade off works for me very well. But you have a bug up your ass that the current way is wrong. So you need to demonstrate what trade you personally are willing to make, and make the rest of us take as well.

If you destroy the environment, then you reduce the standard of living. I thought that went without saying.

We change the environment just by our being here. We build structures that enclose environments to make life comfortable for us. to do so we damn rivers, burn coal, smash atoms, dig out one set of rocks, purify them and then combine them with other rocks to make new toys for ourselves. This is just the way of civilization. We slash down forests to print books about how it is pity all the trees are gone.

Civilization is just a major machine for altering the environment in such a way as we get more benefit from it. Everything around your is created by smashing the environment and making it anew. This keyboard you are typing on is formerly petroleum that was under Iraq or someplace. Your pencils are made from thousand year old redwoods. Your shoes are the skins of cows that gone on to a new world of contentment.

If you don't do some destruction to the environment, then there is no standard of living. We have to go back to living in trees. The question is not whether the environment is going to take a hit, but how much damage is to be done for how much benefit and for who.

 

[bripat9643]

If you destroy the environment, then you reduce the standard of living. I thought that went without saying.

If you double the price of everything and destroy millions of jobs, you reduce the standard of living. Furthermore, you cause many people to die and have serious impacts on their health. Wealth buys better health. It pays for things like life saving drugs, MRI machines and new medical procedures. It pays for better food, better living conditions, safer cars, safer highways, and other life saving improvements too numerous to mention.

 

[treesprite]

I'm thinking of 2 issues, 1. whether or not having less regulation will mean more health-damaging pollution, and 2. the money debate.

IMO, if industries were responsible and could guarantee us that they would be, and then are for a fact responsible, then we would not need any regulations. However, if the regulating organization, i.e., EPA, was done away with and there was no one to make sure industries lived up to their claims, there would be a state of anarchy and little to no accountability, meaning they will be faultless no matter who they hurt for not living up to their promises.

No one has mentioned the fact that a large percentage of people with birth defects, regardless of cause, end up receiving SSI benefits their entire lives, nor that many of these people are not able to work, nor that as the percentage of the population with birth defects goes up, the lower the percentage gets of people who are actually contributing to the economy rather than creating a need for greater tax revenue. Want your taxes to go up? If so, let industries be operating in a state of anarchy with no regulating body so that they can throw whatever they want into the environment, because among all that pollution, there will always be something that will damage someone's health to cause more expense to the tax payers. Oh wait, Dean made a point of that there would be more jobs available in the healthcare field... maybe at the welfare office too.

 

[skookerasbil]

Take a shuttle ride s0n..............move to Mars!!

 

[waltky]

Women catch up to men - in lung cancer risk...

Women have caught up to men on lung cancer risk
Jan 23,`13 - Smoke like a man, die like a man.

U.S. women who smoke today have a much greater risk of dying from lung cancer than they did decades ago, partly because they are starting younger and smoking more - that is, they are lighting up like men, new research shows. Women also have caught up with men in their risk of dying from smoking-related illnesses. Lung cancer risk leveled off in the 1980s for men but is still rising for women. "It's a massive failure in prevention," said one study leader, Dr. Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society. And it's likely to repeat itself in places like China and Indonesia where smoking is growing, he said. About 1.3 billion people worldwide smoke.

The research is in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine. It is one of the most comprehensive looks ever at long-term trends in the effects of smoking and includes the first generation of U.S. women who started early in life and continued for decades, long enough for health effects to show up. The U.S. has more than 35 million smokers - about 20 percent of men and 18 percent of women. The percentage of people who smoke is far lower than it used to be; rates peaked around 1960 in men and two decades later in women. Researchers wanted to know if smoking is still as deadly as it was in the 1980s, given that cigarettes have changed (less tar), many smokers have quit, and treatments for many smoking-related diseases have improved.

They also wanted to know more about smoking and women. The famous surgeon general's report in 1964 said smoking could cause lung cancer in men, but evidence was lacking in women at the time since relatively few of them had smoked long enough. One study, led by Dr. Prabhat Jha of the Center for Global Health Research in Toronto, looked at about 217,000 Americans in federal health surveys between 1997 and 2004. A second study, led by Thun, tracked smoking-related deaths through three periods - 1959-65, 1982-88 and 2000-10 - using seven large population health surveys covering more than 2.2 million people.

Among the findings:

 

[waltky]

In-vitro cancer stem cells can help find cure...

Team’s in vitro cancer stem cells can help find cure
Thu, Mar 27, 2014 - A research team from National Taiwan University (NTU) said it has successfully developed a model to cultivate cancer stem cells outside the human body (in vitro) through a “paracrine” mechanism, which may be further developed into medicine for increasing cancer survival rates.

The team — led by NTU president Yang Pan-chyr, NTU Graduate Institute of Toxicology associate professor Chen Huei-Wen and NTU Graduate Institute of Oncology graduate student Chen Wan-chun — spent six years to establish the first model of lung cancer stem cell in vitro cultivation.

Yang said through the replication and differentiation of stem cells people can remain active and feel young, but cancer stem cells contribute to the recurrence, metastasis and resistance to drugs of cancers, making it difficult to completely cure cancers. Chen said through experiments with in vitro cultivation of stem cells, they found that cancer stem cells cannot survive on their own and need carcinoma-associated fibroblasts (CAF) to support their survival.

Successfully creating the in vitro cultivation environment for cancer stem cells to grow had allowed them to better understand the growth pattern of cancer stem cells, she said. Chen said they discovered that once the links between the CAF and cancer stem cells are blocked, the growth of the cancer stem cell is also blocked, thus the model may be able to contribute to the development of medicine against cancers in the future.

“The result of this model can be applied in various ways. By killing the cancer stem cell, we gain a chance for patients to live longer and reduce the cancer reoccurrence rate,” Yang said, adding that their research result may benefit cancer treatments, or even help the development of vaccines to prevent cancer stem cells from growing. The team’s discovery is due to be published in Nature Communications, an international academic journal, on Tuesday.

Team?s in vitro cancer stem cells can help find cure - Taipei Times