Air pollution a leading cause of cancer - U.N. agency

[Abraham3]

The UN hasn't made a difference in anything except to add to problems for over 30 years.
China does not care about their population as individuals. Our western culture greatly values individual life, China instead highly values the "health" of the nation as a whole and of course the government sees themselves of greater importance than the populations as well....and we support this insane attitude and governance more than we support our own country.

We have no way of knowing definitively, but I disagree. I think the UN has provided a forum in which a number of potential conflicts have been resolved without resort to force. It has also provided a legal framework and defining restrictions for several military alliances over the years. They almost never make everyone happy, but that's the sign of good compromise. And that's just what a body such as the UN should be producing. They have also been the basis of a number of agencies that have done enormous good over the years: UNESCO, WHO, UNICEF, International Court of Justice, UNHCR, UNEP and the World Food Programme. There are hundreds of thousands of people alive right now who would NOT be did the UN not exist.

What insane attitude do you believe we support? Your syntax does not make it clear.

 

[Abraham3]

Granted. And there are those trying to abate poverty. But creating more wealth through pollution is not an option anyone could support, right?

Every time you buy a product made in China you increase pollution.

Granted. Not only the manufacture, but the shipping of that product pumps carcinogens into the air.

And the Chinese are acutely feeling the effects of that pollution. I wonder if it will take a disaster like the Cuyahoga River burning or a Love Canal crisis to awaken the Chinese policy makers to their problem. Or, could an organization like the United Nations make a real difference?

Just to play devil's advocate: the pollution is part and parcel of the increasing capitalistic industrialization that China is undergoing. That process is rapidly and greatly relieving their former abject poverty, which you have agreed is the true leading cause of death (besides mortality).

 

[whitehall]

Where was the UN while Syrians were breathing poison? The UN has become a joke and an extortion ring.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What insane attitude do you believe we support? Your syntax does not make it clear.

What we do as consumers has a more profound effect on not only our country, but indeed globally than any other act we can do as individuals. Voting pales in comparison to the combined effect of how Americans consume products/services.
By constantly choosing the cheapest price, as a nation we have encouraged, no, demanded that manufacturers lower unit costs. And the most effective way to lower this is to lower labor expense.
We consume Chinese products by the cartload because they basically use slave labor to make the products. People work between 12-16 hours per day in many factories at extraordinary low wages and pitiful benefits. (currently, China's youth are growing up to resent this and labor is just beginning to organize...and when that happens - manufacturers will move elsewhere)
So buy choosing Chinese products, we support the Chinese abuse of its citizenry as well as their total lack of concern for the environment.

 

[flacaltenn]

The UN hasn't made a difference in anything except to add to problems for over 30 years.
China does not care about their population as individuals. Our western culture greatly values individual life, China instead highly values the "health" of the nation as a whole and of course the government sees themselves of greater importance than the populations as well....and we support this insane attitude and governance more than we support our own country.

We have no way of knowing definitively, but I disagree. I think the UN has provided a forum in which a number of potential conflicts have been resolved without resort to force. It has also provided a legal framework and defining restrictions for several military alliances over the years. They almost never make everyone happy, but that's the sign of good compromise. And that's just what a body such as the UN should be producing. They have also been the basis of a number of agencies that have done enormous good over the years: UNESCO, WHO, UNICEF, International Court of Justice, UNHCR, UNEP and the World Food Programme. There are hundreds of thousands of people alive right now who would NOT be did the UN not exist.

What insane attitude do you believe we support? Your syntax does not make it clear.

The UN Oil for Food program RAPED and PILLAGED the encarcerated citizens of Iraq for years. Graft in that program was legendary.. They are neutered in terms of solving 80% of the crisis that they get brought to them.

But MOST OF ALL -- they don't represent the American ideals of Individual Sovereignty and Freedom. To Wit regarding their phoney ass Declaration of Human Rights ------

From a book by Neil Boortz -- I think.. But I've verified the actual document..

The document says that it represents "a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations." Does the UN Declaration of Human Rights protect free speech? Freedom of the press? Well ... in a word, yes it does. Article 19 says that everyone has a right to freedom of opinion and expression. So far so good. The declaration also says that everyone has a right to rest and leisure and a right to a standard of living. Interesting. It also says that all mothers and children are entitled to "special care and assistance."

Problematic, to say the least. But, let's cut to the chase. Let's go to Article 29 Paragraph 3. "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

Go to hell......

 

[Mr. H.]

I'm curious about the contribution of agriculture to air pollution, and what measures are being taken to rein in that industry.

Why stop at agricultural air pollution? Freshwater aquifers poisoned, land polluted beyond recovery, the Gulf of Mexico with tens of millions of dead acres?

Where's the EPA? Where's the UN?

 

[flacaltenn]

What insane attitude do you believe we support? Your syntax does not make it clear.

What we do as consumers has a more profound effect on not only our country, but indeed globally than any other act we can do as individuals. Voting pales in comparison to the combined effect of how Americans consume products/services.
By constantly choosing the cheapest price, as a nation we have encouraged, no, demanded that manufacturers lower unit costs. And the most effective way to lower this is to lower labor expense.
We consume Chinese products by the cartload because they basically use slave labor to make the products. People work between 12-16 hours per day in many factories at extraordinary low wages and pitiful benefits. (currently, China's youth are growing up to resent this and labor is just beginning to organize...and when that happens - manufacturers will move elsewhere)
So buy choosing Chinese products, we support the Chinese abuse of its citizenry as well as their total lack of concern for the environment.

They work 12-16 hours per day because they are 400 hundred miles from their home and family and want time off to go back and visit.. NOT slave labor. I've been there. I get 10 emails a day from Chinese factories of my clients.

Not for the International business clients of China to become Economic judges.. And determining a wage and rules structure for any foreign country would be Economic Imperialism.

 

[Abraham3]

Where was the UN while Syrians were breathing poison? The UN has become a joke and an extortion ring.

Where was anyone? The UN is simply a large body with a tremendous amount of inertia.

 

[Abraham3]

What insane attitude do you believe we support? Your syntax does not make it clear.

What we do as consumers has a more profound effect on not only our country, but indeed globally than any other act we can do as individuals. Voting pales in comparison to the combined effect of how Americans consume products/services.
By constantly choosing the cheapest price, as a nation we have encouraged, no, demanded that manufacturers lower unit costs. And the most effective way to lower this is to lower labor expense.
We consume Chinese products by the cartload because they basically use slave labor to make the products. People work between 12-16 hours per day in many factories at extraordinary low wages and pitiful benefits. (currently, China's youth are growing up to resent this and labor is just beginning to organize...and when that happens - manufacturers will move elsewhere)
So buy choosing Chinese products, we support the Chinese abuse of its citizenry as well as their total lack of concern for the environment.

As you have already noted several times, we don't really buy Chinese products. We buy the cheapest ones we can find, wherEVER they are made. In that way we abuse whoever produces our goods. And it's entirely possible that the cost of labor in China can increase significantly without losing their status as the cheapest producer. You say manufacturers will move elsewhere... where would that be? Who's going to top China for the number of available workers?

 

[flacaltenn]

What insane attitude do you believe we support? Your syntax does not make it clear.

What we do as consumers has a more profound effect on not only our country, but indeed globally than any other act we can do as individuals. Voting pales in comparison to the combined effect of how Americans consume products/services.
By constantly choosing the cheapest price, as a nation we have encouraged, no, demanded that manufacturers lower unit costs. And the most effective way to lower this is to lower labor expense.
We consume Chinese products by the cartload because they basically use slave labor to make the products. People work between 12-16 hours per day in many factories at extraordinary low wages and pitiful benefits. (currently, China's youth are growing up to resent this and labor is just beginning to organize...and when that happens - manufacturers will move elsewhere)
So buy choosing Chinese products, we support the Chinese abuse of its citizenry as well as their total lack of concern for the environment.

[MENTION][/MENTION]
As you have already noted several times, we don't really buy Chinese products. We buy the cheapest ones we can find, wherEVER they are made. In that way we abuse whoever produces our goods. And it's entirely possible that the cost of labor in China can increase significantly without losing their status as the cheapest producer. You say manufacturers will move elsewhere... where would that be? Who's going to top China for the number of available workers?

The whole argument about cheap labor will fade this decade.. while we continue to sit on our asses whining, FoxConn the china company for Apple products is replacing 1 Mill workers with robotic assembly tech more advanced then anywhere on the planet. Those guys dont want to build worker dorms anymore and deal with bad publicity that they didnt deserve.

WE could be manufacturing again if WE were building 21st century plants here. But if we dont get a whack at a better biz enviro and attitude.we will have even less oof a middle class future.

 

[whitehall]

Where was the UN while Syrians were breathing poison? The UN has become a joke and an extortion ring.

Where was anyone? The UN is simply a large body with a tremendous amount of inertia.

Rush had it right when he compared the UN to the bar scene from Star Wars.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Air pollution a leading cause of cancer - U.N. agency

(Reuters) - The air we breathe is laced with cancer-causing substances and is being officially classified as carcinogenic to humans, the World Health Organization's cancer agency said on Thursday.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) cited data indicating that in 2010, 223,000 deaths from lung cancer worldwide resulted from air pollution, and said there was also convincing evidence it increases the risk of bladder cancer.

Depending on the level of exposure in different parts of the world, the risk was found to be similar to that of breathing in second-hand tobacco smoke, Kurt Straif, head of the agency's section that ranks carcinogens, told reporters in Geneva.

"Our task was to evaluate the air everyone breathes rather than focus on specific air pollutants," deputy head Dana Loomis said in a statement. "The results from the reviewed studies point in the same direction: the risk of developing lung cancer is significantly increased in people exposed to air pollution."

Air pollution a leading cause of cancer - U.N. agency | Reuters

This is probably the number one reason to go over to wind, solar, fusion, etc....

Damn, some people can't help lying. 223,000 deaths out of 6.2 million is not a major cause of anything.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...more like ammunition to kill and bury hydrocarbons. And jobs. And commerce. And GDP. And balance of payments. U.S. emissions are near a 20-year low thanks primarily to the increased use of natural gas. "Green" technologies are not without environmental consequences and you know it.

So cancer is merely the cost of doing business? People should accept getting sick and dying because profits are more important?

The US already has laws that restrict air pollution emissions. Unless you want us to take over the whole planet, what do you expect me to do?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...more like ammunition to kill and bury hydrocarbons. And jobs. And commerce. And GDP. And balance of payments. U.S. emissions are near a 20-year low thanks primarily to the increased use of natural gas. "Green" technologies are not without environmental consequences and you know it.

When mankind first domesticated horses, he began a path that led to the present civilization. When we started using the immense energy stored in hydrocarbons, we further freed mankind to develop the technological society of today. But both the uses of horses and fossil fuels have limitatations and costs.

At present, we are moving from a fossil fuel based economy to one far less damaging to the environment and our own health. Just as there were many that mourned the move to a machine based society from that of a horse based society, there are those that are going to mourn and oppose the move to renewables from a fossil fuel based society. For about one generation.

After that, when reviewing the history, people will wonder about the resistance to the change, just as we veiw the resistance to the change from horse power to machine power.
The environmental damage from 'green' power is many orders of magnitude less than that from fossil fuels. And the profits and benefits will be far greater to the individual as that power becomes increasingly less costly. Even at present, for about what the average person makes in one year, one can become completely self sufficient for power. In a decade, the cost will be less than a quarter, and the cost of EV's will be more than competative with ICE's. No tears for the manufactures of buggy whips.

At present, we are doing no such thing. The only viable energy source to replace oil is nuclear power, and you cry whenever someone mentions it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is another prime example of deconstructions of science from the UN..

The thesis is that we don't need to assess WHICH COMPONENTS of air pollution cause cancer. Or even talk about the relevent levels. But we simply assert that "air pollution" is bad..

This happens for a couple reasons..

1) Because the facts that tie various kinds of cancer to SPECIFIC pollutants with a carbon source are weak or have already been reduced below meaningful toxicology evidence.

OR

2) They want to remove the entire discussion of specific toxic components from the discussion to avoid JUSTIFYING further heinous reductions in levels.

There LITERALLY is nothing new here except an attempt to substitute fluff for numbers..

Don't confuse progressives with science and math, it makes them crazy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Things we know:

BTEX compounds (benzene, toluene, xylene, ethyl-benzene) are carcinogens.

BTEX compounds are carbon based chemicals and are produced through the refinement and combustion of oil.

More oil is refined and burned today than ever before.

Particulates such as lead, asbestos, coal ash, electric arc furnace dust cause diseases and serious health conditions. Such particulates are easily captured at stacks and other point sources. But that capture involves a capital outlay on the part of the producer.

The question is: should we try to abate the rate of air pollution in order to save the exposed population from death and disease, or should we simply throw up our hands and let polluters pollute because their profits are more important than public health.

The things we know.

Life causes cancer.

Progressives hate science.

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So cancer is merely the cost of doing business? People should accept getting sick and dying because profits are more important?

The RISK of getting cancer is part of 1) being alive and 2)part of being in a modern technological society. Consdering that all this technology has reduced alot of the other things that used to kill us, infectious diseases, infected wounds, large predatory mammals, cancer risk is the result of longer lives and less other ways of becoming dead.

So, by your logic, as we no longer have to worry about tiger attacks, we should let polluters pump carcinogens into the atmosphere because abating those carcinogens at the source is too expensive?

When were tiger attacks a major cause of death?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...more like ammunition to kill and bury hydrocarbons. And jobs. And commerce. And GDP. And balance of payments. U.S. emissions are near a 20-year low thanks primarily to the increased use of natural gas. "Green" technologies are not without environmental consequences and you know it.

So cancer is merely the cost of doing business? People should accept getting sick and dying because profits are more important?

Poverty is the number one cause of death - direct and indirect,

The number one cause of death is birth. If we eliminated birth death would disappear in less than a century.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So cancer is merely the cost of doing business? People should accept getting sick and dying because profits are more important?

Poverty is the number one cause of death - direct and indirect,

Granted. And there are those trying to abate poverty. But creating more wealth through pollution is not an option anyone could support, right?

How is creating more poverty going to help?

 

[Old Rocks]

The RISK of getting cancer is part of 1) being alive and 2)part of being in a modern technological society. Consdering that all this technology has reduced alot of the other things that used to kill us, infectious diseases, infected wounds, large predatory mammals, cancer risk is the result of longer lives and less other ways of becoming dead.

So, by your logic, as we no longer have to worry about tiger attacks, we should let polluters pump carcinogens into the atmosphere because abating those carcinogens at the source is too expensive?

No, what I'm saying is that pollution does not automatically equal cancer, it may increase the risk, but the increased risk is probably not worth completely retooling our society to allow the other old reasons a chance to come back.

Exposure to asbestos doesn't kill all esposed to it. However, a significant number do die from cancers related to that exposure. Not all smokers get lung cancer, but a significant number do.

And your nonsense is just that. Why should changing the way we get energy equate to going back to 1890?