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

[Nosmo King]

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?

How exactly does taking steps to abates cancer result in creating poverty? Have you examples of how once a place got cleaned up, the property values and economic opportunity disapeared?

Does environmental clean up really create poverty? Why are the poorest places on the planet also the dirtiest while all of the wealthiest the cleanest?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

How exactly does taking steps to abates cancer result in creating poverty? Have you examples of how once a place got cleaned up, the property values and economic opportunity disapeared?

Does environmental clean up really create poverty? Why are the poorest places on the planet also the dirtiest while all of the wealthiest the cleanest?

Driving up the cost of electricity and transportation in poor countries increases poverty.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Even that number is bogus since it's purely made up. You will never find a death certificate that says "cancer due to air pollution." The WHO simply attributes a certain percentage of all cancer deaths due to air pollution based on some arbitrary theory that if X% concentration will cause 100,000,000 million cancer deaths, than 0.0001 X% will cause 100,000 cancer deaths. That theory has been shown repeatedly to be utterly bogus. Trace amounts of most substances are absolutely harmless, even if they are toxic in greater concentrations.

 

[bripat9643]

How is creating more poverty going to help?

How exactly does taking steps to abates cancer result in creating poverty? Have you examples of how once a place got cleaned up, the property values and economic opportunity disapeared?

Does environmental clean up really create poverty? Why are the poorest places on the planet also the dirtiest while all of the wealthiest the cleanest?

Driving up the cost of electricity and transportation in poor countries increases poverty.

It does the same thing in rich countries. 200,000 homes had their power shut off in Germany because they couldn't afford to pay their power bills.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

In both cases people have to be exposed to heavy concentrations of the substance for long periods. In the case of air pollution, we are talking about concentrations many orders of magnitude less. No one has ever demonstrated a single case of cancer resulting from exposure at these levels. Organizations like the EPA and the WHO simply extrapolate from the results of exposures at much greater levels. This methodology is highly suspect because it is well know that exposure to most substances at very low levels is absolutely harmless even though that substance may be toxic at high levels of exposure.

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

Because going to wind and solar means we will all be shivering in the dark, just as we did in 1890.

 

[Abraham3]

...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.

What have been the environmental consequences of the 20 years of cleaning we've undergone?

 

[Abraham3]

The movement to a machine-based society was not preceded by the mass execution of the equine population.

Actually, it was. As the demand and value of horses dropped, the cost of maintaining them often exceeded their economic value and millions were "sent to the glue factory".

But what mass execution do you speak about in the present context?

 

[Abraham3]

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..

Where, exactly, do you see such a thesis presented?

Why, here, of course, where you have misrepresented the IARC's function and contention: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/pr221_E.pdf

The most widespread environmental carcinogen
“The air we breathe has become polluted with a mixture of cancer-causing substances,” says Dr Kurt
Straif, Head of the IARC Monographs Section. “We now know that outdoor air pollution is not only a major
risk to health in general, but also a leading environmental cause of cancer deaths.”

The IARC Monographs Programme, dubbed the “encyclopaedia of carcinogens”, provides an authoritative
source of scientific evidence on cancer-causing substances and exposures. In the past, the Programme
evaluated many individual chemicals and specific mixtures that occur in outdoor air pollution. These
included diesel engine exhaust, solvents, metals, and dusts. But this is the first time that experts have
classified outdoor air pollution as a cause of cancer.

“Our task was to evaluate the air everyone breathes rather than focus on specific air pollutants,” explains
Dr Dana Loomis, Deputy Head of the Monographs Section. “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.”

IARC Monographs evaluations
Volume 109 of the IARC Monographs is based on the independent review of more than 1000 scientific
papers from studies on five continents. The reviewed studies analyse the carcinogenicity of various
pollutants present in outdoor air pollution, especially particulate matter and transportation-related pollution.
The evaluation is driven by findings from large epidemiologic studies that included millions of people living
in Europe, North and South America, and Asia.
*************************************
More than a thousand papers from five continents analyzing the carcinogenicity of "various pollutants". The UN has not chosen to withold the identity of specific pollutants - there is a wealth of information available on them. The monograph is thr result of a metastudy finding that virtually ALL of them lead to increased rates of cancer.

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.

1) You need to present some evidence supporting your premise that it happens at all before you launch into the UN's motivation.

2) You have presented zero evidence to support either of your two items. Would you care to amend that lacking?

 

[Mr. H.]

The movement to a machine-based society was not preceded by the mass execution of the equine population.

Actually, it was. As the demand and value of horses dropped, the cost of maintaining them often exceeded their economic value and millions were "sent to the glue factory".

But what mass execution do you speak about in the present context?

It's a metaphorical analogy. Slaughtering one means of power in order to make way for another. I liken it to the slaughtering of the hydrocarbon industries as justification and validation of the "green" movement.

 

[Stephanie]

the Un says a lot of things none of them are qualified in

so Mat sell your house, car, etc and go live in a cave...don't want to add to pollution

 

[bripat9643]

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..

Where, exactly, do you see such a thesis presented?

Why, here, of course, where you have misrepresented the IARC's function and contention: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/pr221_E.pdf

The most widespread environmental carcinogen
“The air we breathe has become polluted with a mixture of cancer-causing substances,” says Dr Kurt
Straif, Head of the IARC Monographs Section. “We now know that outdoor air pollution is not only a major
risk to health in general, but also a leading environmental cause of cancer deaths.”

The IARC Monographs Programme, dubbed the “encyclopaedia of carcinogens”, provides an authoritative
source of scientific evidence on cancer-causing substances and exposures. In the past, the Programme
evaluated many individual chemicals and specific mixtures that occur in outdoor air pollution. These
included diesel engine exhaust, solvents, metals, and dusts. But this is the first time that experts have
classified outdoor air pollution as a cause of cancer.

“Our task was to evaluate the air everyone breathes rather than focus on specific air pollutants,” explains
Dr Dana Loomis, Deputy Head of the Monographs Section. “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.”

IARC Monographs evaluations
Volume 109 of the IARC Monographs is based on the independent review of more than 1000 scientific
papers from studies on five continents. The reviewed studies analyse the carcinogenicity of various
pollutants present in outdoor air pollution, especially particulate matter and transportation-related pollution.
The evaluation is driven by findings from large epidemiologic studies that included millions of people living
in Europe, North and South America, and Asia.
*************************************
More than a thousand papers from five continents analyzing the carcinogenicity of "various pollutants". The UN has not chosen to withold the identity of specific pollutants - there is a wealth of information available on them. The monograph is thr result of a metastudy finding that virtually ALL of them lead to increased rates of cancer.

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.

1) You need to present some evidence supporting your premise that it happens at all before you launch into the UN's motivation.

2) You have presented zero evidence to support either of your two items. Would you care to amend that lacking?

I've already explained why the WHO estimate of cancer deaths is pure horseshit. It's based on faulty science, like virtually everything else the U.N. publishes. It's simply another plank in the U.N. scam to impose $trillions of dollars in taxes on the developed democracies.

 

[Abraham3]

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..

Where, exactly, do you see such a thesis presented?

Why, here, of course, where you have misrepresented the IARC's function and contention: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/pr221_E.pdf

The most widespread environmental carcinogen
“The air we breathe has become polluted with a mixture of cancer-causing substances,” says Dr Kurt
Straif, Head of the IARC Monographs Section. “We now know that outdoor air pollution is not only a major
risk to health in general, but also a leading environmental cause of cancer deaths.”

The IARC Monographs Programme, dubbed the “encyclopaedia of carcinogens”, provides an authoritative
source of scientific evidence on cancer-causing substances and exposures. In the past, the Programme
evaluated many individual chemicals and specific mixtures that occur in outdoor air pollution. These
included diesel engine exhaust, solvents, metals, and dusts. But this is the first time that experts have
classified outdoor air pollution as a cause of cancer.

“Our task was to evaluate the air everyone breathes rather than focus on specific air pollutants,” explains
Dr Dana Loomis, Deputy Head of the Monographs Section. “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.”

IARC Monographs evaluations
Volume 109 of the IARC Monographs is based on the independent review of more than 1000 scientific
papers from studies on five continents. The reviewed studies analyse the carcinogenicity of various
pollutants present in outdoor air pollution, especially particulate matter and transportation-related pollution.
The evaluation is driven by findings from large epidemiologic studies that included millions of people living
in Europe, North and South America, and Asia.
*************************************
More than a thousand papers from five continents analyzing the carcinogenicity of "various pollutants". The UN has not chosen to withold the identity of specific pollutants - there is a wealth of information available on them. The monograph is thr result of a metastudy finding that virtually ALL of them lead to increased rates of cancer.

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.

1) You need to present some evidence supporting your premise that it happens at all before you launch into the UN's motivation.

2) You have presented zero evidence to support either of your two items. Would you care to amend that lacking?

I've already explained why the WHO estimate of cancer deaths is pure horseshit. It's based on faulty science, like virtually everything else the U.N. publishes. It's simply another plank in the U.N. scam to impose $trillions of dollars in taxes on the developed democracies.

It is based on over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers and we should take YOUR word that it's "horseshit". Pardon me, but no thanks.

Is this your explanation? Please tell us how you know how the WHO came up with the numbers it quoted? As far as I can see, everything you say below is sourced, 100%, from the imagination of poster Bripat9643.

Even that number is bogus since it's purely made up. You will never find a death certificate that says "cancer due to air pollution." The WHO simply attributes a certain percentage of all cancer deaths due to air pollution based on some arbitrary theory that if X% concentration will cause 100,000,000 million cancer deaths, than 0.0001 X% will cause 100,000 cancer deaths. That theory has been shown repeatedly to be utterly bogus. Trace amounts of most substances are absolutely harmless, even if they are toxic in greater concentrations.

 

[bripat9643]

Where, exactly, do you see such a thesis presented?

Why, here, of course, where you have misrepresented the IARC's function and contention: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/pr221_E.pdf

The most widespread environmental carcinogen
“The air we breathe has become polluted with a mixture of cancer-causing substances,” says Dr Kurt
Straif, Head of the IARC Monographs Section. “We now know that outdoor air pollution is not only a major
risk to health in general, but also a leading environmental cause of cancer deaths.”

The IARC Monographs Programme, dubbed the “encyclopaedia of carcinogens”, provides an authoritative
source of scientific evidence on cancer-causing substances and exposures. In the past, the Programme
evaluated many individual chemicals and specific mixtures that occur in outdoor air pollution. These
included diesel engine exhaust, solvents, metals, and dusts. But this is the first time that experts have
classified outdoor air pollution as a cause of cancer.

“Our task was to evaluate the air everyone breathes rather than focus on specific air pollutants,” explains
Dr Dana Loomis, Deputy Head of the Monographs Section. “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.”

IARC Monographs evaluations
Volume 109 of the IARC Monographs is based on the independent review of more than 1000 scientific
papers from studies on five continents. The reviewed studies analyse the carcinogenicity of various
pollutants present in outdoor air pollution, especially particulate matter and transportation-related pollution.
The evaluation is driven by findings from large epidemiologic studies that included millions of people living
in Europe, North and South America, and Asia.
*************************************
More than a thousand papers from five continents analyzing the carcinogenicity of "various pollutants". The UN has not chosen to withold the identity of specific pollutants - there is a wealth of information available on them. The monograph is thr result of a metastudy finding that virtually ALL of them lead to increased rates of cancer.



1) You need to present some evidence supporting your premise that it happens at all before you launch into the UN's motivation.

2) You have presented zero evidence to support either of your two items. Would you care to amend that lacking?

I've already explained why the WHO estimate of cancer deaths is pure horseshit. It's based on faulty science, like virtually everything else the U.N. publishes. It's simply another plank in the U.N. scam to impose $trillions of dollars in taxes on the developed democracies.

It is based on over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers and we should take YOUR word that it's "horseshit". Pardon me, but no thanks.

Based on? What does that mean? 5 different people can read all 1000 papers and come up with 5 different conclusions. The papers I've read say that the theory that you can extrapolate the medical effects of large doses of a toxin to minute doses is bullshit. It simply isn't justified in most cases.

Also, I recall you comparing the effects of pollution to the effects of second hand smoke. The fact is no scientist ever demonstrated a connection between second hand smoke and any negative medical effects. There isn't a single case of anyone in this country being diagnosed with "effect of second hand smoke."

Is this your explanation? Please tell us how you know how the WHO came up with the numbers it quoted? As far as I can see, everything you say below is sourced, 100%, from the imagination of poster Bripat9643.

I already explained to you how they came up with the numbers. They theorized that if a concentration 'X' % of a given substance will produce 1,000,000 cancers in a population of 300 million, then a concentration of (0.00001)'X' % will cause 100 cancers. Of course, that theory is bogus. It's been proven to be false in the case of most toxic substances. Researches have never been able to demonstrate that concentrations millions of time lower cause any ill effects.

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

Considerthe Chesapeake Bay and the problem of agricultural waste from the Susquehanna River valley. The bay was being poisoned by run off containing insecticides, herbicides and animal waste. It was the USEPA that spearheaded the cleanup. Because the USEPA is federal, the squabbles between Pennsylvania, Maryland, Deleware, Virginia and West Virginia were more easily mitigated.

Such a template, using the United Nations as a broker between various nations in abating pollution is certainly possible I fall polluting nations were receptive to the UN politically.

 

[Abraham3]

Based on? What does that mean? 5 different people can read all 1000 papers and come up with 5 different conclusions.

A hell of a lot more than anything you've brought to the table. This report is the culmination of a structured metastudy, not a bunch of college students flipping through old magazines.

The papers I've read say that the theory that you can extrapolate the medical effects of large doses of a toxin to minute doses is bullshit. It simply isn't justified in most cases.

1) What papers?

2) Show us that that is what more than 1,000 papers this paper is based on did such a thing.

Also, I recall you comparing the effects of pollution to the effects of second hand smoke.

If you have such a recollection, it is only evidence of the fallibility of your recall. I havve made no such comment, ever.

The fact is no scientist ever demonstrated a connection between second hand smoke and any negative medical effects. There isn't a single case of anyone in this country being diagnosed with "effect of second hand smoke."

Do you know the definition of the word "epidemiology"? I suspect you do not. Why don't you go look that up.

I already explained to you how they came up with the numbers. They theorized that if a concentration 'X' % of a given substance will produce 1,000,000 cancers in a population of 300 million, then a concentration of (0.00001)'X' % will cause 100 cancers. Of course, that theory is bogus. It's been proven to be false in the case of most toxic substances. Researches have never been able to demonstrate that concentrations millions of time lower cause any ill effects.

I want links to show that this is what all those studies did and more links to show that 1,000 peer reviewed studies all used a method known to be "bogus". As far as I can see, this is pulled directly from your anal orifice.

 

[flacaltenn]

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..

Where, exactly, do you see such a thesis presented?

Why, here, of course, where you have misrepresented the IARC's function and contention: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/pr221_E.pdf

The most widespread environmental carcinogen
“The air we breathe has become polluted with a mixture of cancer-causing substances,” says Dr Kurt
Straif, Head of the IARC Monographs Section. “We now know that outdoor air pollution is not only a major
risk to health in general, but also a leading environmental cause of cancer deaths.”

The IARC Monographs Programme, dubbed the “encyclopaedia of carcinogens”, provides an authoritative
source of scientific evidence on cancer-causing substances and exposures. In the past, the Programme
evaluated many individual chemicals and specific mixtures that occur in outdoor air pollution. These
included diesel engine exhaust, solvents, metals, and dusts. But this is the first time that experts have
classified outdoor air pollution as a cause of cancer.

“Our task was to evaluate the air everyone breathes rather than focus on specific air pollutants,” explains
Dr Dana Loomis, Deputy Head of the Monographs Section. “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.”

IARC Monographs evaluations
Volume 109 of the IARC Monographs is based on the independent review of more than 1000 scientific
papers from studies on five continents. The reviewed studies analyse the carcinogenicity of various
pollutants present in outdoor air pollution, especially particulate matter and transportation-related pollution.
The evaluation is driven by findings from large epidemiologic studies that included millions of people living
in Europe, North and South America, and Asia.
*************************************
More than a thousand papers from five continents analyzing the carcinogenicity of "various pollutants". The UN has not chosen to withold the identity of specific pollutants - there is a wealth of information available on them. The monograph is thr result of a metastudy finding that virtually ALL of them lead to increased rates of cancer.

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.

1) You need to present some evidence supporting your premise that it happens at all before you launch into the UN's motivation.

2) You have presented zero evidence to support either of your two items. Would you care to amend that lacking?

Cant fix your reading comp issues. The ENTIRE premise of that article is that air pollution IN GENERAL is a sufficient cause of cancer. If u dont gather that from the title and specifics quotes ---- youll just have to pass on this thread I guess.

 

[martybegan]

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.

But the risk is certainly worth the effort to abate the pollutants at the source. Ignorance of the problem does not provide cover and no one advocates retooling society. But there are effective means of capturing and sequestering dangerous pollutants. And those means don't involve reverse engineering of society. Quite the contrary. Making things safer always brings more benefits than ignoring the problem or rejecting solutions out of hand or in a fit of political pique.

Sequestration at this point is an energy intensive process, that more often than not eliminates the power generating benefit from a given fuel source. The only ignorance in this debate is the side that ignores not basic science, but basic engineering principles, things like baseload, net power provided, and feasibility of implementation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

But the risk is certainly worth the effort to abate the pollutants at the source. Ignorance of the problem does not provide cover and no one advocates retooling society. But there are effective means of capturing and sequestering dangerous pollutants. And those means don't involve reverse engineering of society. Quite the contrary. Making things safer always brings more benefits than ignoring the problem or rejecting solutions out of hand or in a fit of political pique.

Sequestration at this point is an energy intensive process, that more often than not eliminates the power generating benefit from a given fuel source. The only ignorance in this debate is the side that ignores not basic science, but basic engineering principles, things like baseload, net power provided, and feasibility of implementation.

It isn't that they ignore science, it is that they really don't understand basic economics. They think money is free, and that companies can spend $25 trillion to save one life because they are rich. They also think that this won't increase the prices for everyone on the planet, and that the resultant economic collapse will make the Great Depression look like the Roaring 20s.

 

[martybegan]

But the risk is certainly worth the effort to abate the pollutants at the source. Ignorance of the problem does not provide cover and no one advocates retooling society. But there are effective means of capturing and sequestering dangerous pollutants. And those means don't involve reverse engineering of society. Quite the contrary. Making things safer always brings more benefits than ignoring the problem or rejecting solutions out of hand or in a fit of political pique.

Sequestration at this point is an energy intensive process, that more often than not eliminates the power generating benefit from a given fuel source. The only ignorance in this debate is the side that ignores not basic science, but basic engineering principles, things like baseload, net power provided, and feasibility of implementation.

It isn't that they ignore science, it is that they really don't understand basic economics. They think money is free, and that companies can spend $25 trillion to save one life because they are rich. They also think that this won't increase the prices for everyone on the planet, and that the resultant economic collapse will make the Great Depression look like the Roaring 20s.

Engineering has always been the marriage of science with economics, taking something that takes high level expert labor and massive material and equipment input and converting it into something that is practical from an economic standpoint.

When dealing with progressives you have to remember that they are the same people that beleive in "free healthcare" even though nothing is free.

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

How exactly does taking steps to abates cancer result in creating poverty? Have you examples of how once a place got cleaned up, the property values and economic opportunity disapeared?

Does environmental clean up really create poverty? Why are the poorest places on the planet also the dirtiest while all of the wealthiest the cleanest?

Yeah. America -- 20th century.. Great example of creating poverty and loss of wealth and productivity.

See that box in my footer? THOUSANDS of small American Craft Shoppes put out of biz when the Feds slap costly testing requirements on handmade toy trains and Noah's Arks. A new design can cost $20K in testing fees. EVEN IF -- there is no toxic material in its construction.. The TOY GIANT THAT STARTED THIS WHOLE mess -- Mattel?? That off-shored the bulk of its work? Gets an exemption from the corrupt Federal/Corporate collusion network.

Silicon Valley.. I left it -- many of my clients left it. Because Cali couldn't keep the lights on.
Their so-called "deregulation" PROHIBITED electricity providers like PGE from owning generation. It got sold to greedy out of state owners.. The "deregulation" OUTLAWED long term contracts. So that the State of Cali had to wake up every morning WITHOUT POWER and beg and borrow the last scraps available on the market. No wonder Enron WARNED THEM not to do it..

Silicon Valley also lost its miraculous ability to innovate. Because it couldn't sustain the THOUSANDS of new companies being born under the regulatory load. By the time you got your start-up in compliance with the Feds and Cali --- you forgot what you set out to accomplish and had pissed away your venture capital on lawyers and compliance consultants.

Want more of the same? Want the giant CORPS to sleep well at night knowing that no matter HOW BADLY they behave or screw consumers that there will be no young innovators nipping at their heels because the cost to enter the market are too high?

Keep up insisting on braindead INCREASES in compliance and regulation..