Environmentalism That Kills!

[Foxfyre]

Subscribing. Interesting topic.

Would be more interesting if some would not see it necessary to declare those who have concerns about artificially alteration and other meddling in the food supply would not think that is the same thing as wanting a) no food b) no regulation c) no research or scientific studies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Subscribing. Interesting topic.

Would be more interesting if some would not see it necessary to declare those who have concerns about artificially alteration and other meddling in the food supply would not think that is the same thing as wanting a) no food b) no regulation c) no research or scientific studies.

Slate magazine blased the opponents and exposed a fake 'study.'

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/280536-disinformation-attempts-by-the-enviros.html

 

[SSDD]

More corpses can be heaped at the feet of the altar to environmentalism than have died in all the wars in history.

 

[Foxfyre]

The fact is that everything humans do to improve things are not bad things. Hybrid flowers are absolutely magnificent compared to the plants they were developed from. But then hybrid flowers are intended to be enjoyed for their beauty. But they also attract honey bees and hummingbirds and are they healthy for those creatures? On the possible downside, are there any adverse affects honey produced from hybrid plants? Does anybody know for absolute certain?

I'll admit I am not sufficiently concerned about that to worry about the regional honey I buy.

But we already know that forcing animal protein onto natural herbivores like cattle has produced a terrible and terrifying thing called 'mad cow disease.' We know that cloned animals are significantly weaker, shorter lived, and have all sorts of problems that their natural born counterparts do not. Would that also translate into problems if such cloned beasts made it into the food supply? How much, if any, effect do hormones injected into beef, pork, lamb, poultry etc. have on the human body? Do we really know?

Is the large, beautiful vegetable so sterile it cannot produce seeds to replicate itself as healthy to eat as the one our grandparents grew? Are we absolutely certain?

How do we trust without question the scientific opinion by scientists who may or may not have a vested interest in these products? The AGW religionists are not willing to trust scientists who are skeptical of AGW. The AGW skeptics are not willing to trust scientists pushing that particular doctrine.

Is the food we eat not worthy of equal scrutiny? I honestly don't have an opinion on this yet, but I am interested in the subject. And beginning to research it for the first time.

 

[Kevinthedog]

More corpses can be heaped at the feet of the altar to environmentalism than have died in all the wars in history.

Lol yeah buddy!!!

 

[Kevinthedog]

I usually just chuckle when the usual defend corporate America at every turn.
Rush hate enviros.... Voila!

 

[Kevinthedog]

And whatever you do...get your enviro news from disgruntled partisans on forums!
Scientists have all these greedy agendas and stuff. So compared to posters, are NOT to be trusted! Lol

 

[taichiliberal]

Well, then...let me update your education.

"As early as 1921, the journal Ecology reported that bald eagles were threatened with extinction – 22 years before DDT production even began. According to a report in the National Museum Bulletin, the bald eagle reportedly had vanished from New England by 1937 – 10 years before widespread use of the pesticide.

But by 1960 – 20 years after the Bald Eagle Protection Act and at the peak of DDT use – the Audubon Society reported counting 25 percent more eagles than in its pre-1941 census. U.S. Forest Service studies reported an increase in nesting bald eagle productivity from 51 in 1964 to 107 in 1970, according to the 1970 Annual Report on Bald Eagle Status.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attributed bald eagle population reductions to a “widespread loss of suitable habitat,” but noted that “illegal shooting continues to be the leading cause of direct mortality in both adult and immature bald eagles,” according to a 1978 report in the Endangered Species Tech Bulletin.
A 1984 National Wildlife Federation publication listed hunting, power line electrocution, collisions in flight and poisoning from eating ducks containing lead shot as the leading causes of eagle deaths."
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High | Fox News

Let us know when any of your sources record or mention the genetic defects that cause the eagle eggs to become increasingly brittle and non-viable for incubation....a little trait that showed up AFTER continued use of certain pesticides in the area. I'll wait.

"...Let US know..."


Don't be afraid to stand up on your own two feet, little fellla.


Say "Let ME know." It doesn't hurt...and makes you appear to be an adult.


Could you provide the study to which YOU allude?

Or is this an 'Libs around the water cooler' thing?

You're the one carrying on like you're a little expert, sweetpea...the burden of proof is on YOU.

DDT was linked to causing sub par eggs in bald eagles. Do the research, because I'm damned tired of doing it for willfully ignorant parrots like you. If you won't, then I'll embarass you further with the documented facts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let us know when any of your sources record or mention the genetic defects that cause the eagle eggs to become increasingly brittle and non-viable for incubation....a little trait that showed up AFTER continued use of certain pesticides in the area. I'll wait.

"...Let US know..."


Don't be afraid to stand up on your own two feet, little fellla.


Say "Let ME know." It doesn't hurt...and makes you appear to be an adult.


Could you provide the study to which YOU allude?

Or is this an 'Libs around the water cooler' thing?

You're the one carrying on like you're a little expert, sweetpea...the burden of proof is on YOU.

DDT was linked to causing sub par eggs in bald eagles. Do the research, because I'm damned tired of doing it for willfully ignorant parrots like you. If you won't, then I'll embarass you further with the documented facts.

If you are correct about bald eagles, but millions of Africans died of Malaria.....what should the course of action re: DDT be?


Try to answer without resort to "we" or "us."

 

[PoliticalChic]

And whatever you do...get your enviro news from disgruntled partisans on forums!
Scientists have all these greedy agendas and stuff. So compared to posters, are NOT to be trusted! Lol

Pithy.

 

[taichiliberal]

"...Let US know..."


Don't be afraid to stand up on your own two feet, little fellla.


Say "Let ME know." It doesn't hurt...and makes you appear to be an adult.


Could you provide the study to which YOU allude?

Or is this an 'Libs around the water cooler' thing?

You're the one carrying on like you're a little expert, sweetpea...the burden of proof is on YOU.

DDT was linked to causing sub par eggs in bald eagles. Do the research, because I'm damned tired of doing it for willfully ignorant parrots like you. If you won't, then I'll embarass you further with the documented facts.

If you are correct about bald eagles, but millions of Africans died of Malaria.....what should the course of action re: DDT be?


Try to answer without resort to "we" or "us."

No, and here's why for starters:

Should DDT Be Used to Combat Malaria?: Scientific American

DDT finally linked to human health problems - 13 July 2001 - New Scientist

DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're the one carrying on like you're a little expert, sweetpea...the burden of proof is on YOU.

DDT was linked to causing sub par eggs in bald eagles. Do the research, because I'm damned tired of doing it for willfully ignorant parrots like you. If you won't, then I'll embarass you further with the documented facts.

If you are correct about bald eagles, but millions of Africans died of Malaria.....what should the course of action re: DDT be?


Try to answer without resort to "we" or "us."

No, and here's why for starters:

Should DDT Be Used to Combat Malaria?: Scientific American

DDT finally linked to human health problems - 13 July 2001 - New Scientist

DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)

Nonsense.

Other chemicals are available, but they are generally less effective, shorter-acting and - most importantly for the Third World - more expensive. And DDT is extraordinarily safe for humans. Prof Kenneth Mellanby lectured on it for more than 40 years, and during each lecture he would eat a pinch.
DDT is safe: just ask the professor who ate it for 40 years - Telegraph



You might have missed this query:

If you are correct about bald eagles, but millions of Africans died of Malaria.....what should the course of action re: DDT be?

 

[Mr. H.]

And whatever you do...get your enviro news from disgruntled partisans on forums!
Scientists have all these greedy agendas and stuff. So compared to posters, are NOT to be trusted! Lol

Many of us disgruntled partisans own and operate businesses, often times expending large sums of cash and capital in order to comply with redundant and onerous EPA regulations. I hope your armchair is comfy.

 

[SSDD]

More corpses can be heaped at the feet of the altar to environmentalism than have died in all the wars in history.

Lol yeah buddy!!!

It has been estimated that more people died in WWI and WWII than in all conflicts in all of history. The total of the two was more than 68 million people. 50 million deaths can be attributed to the ban of DDT alone not to mention the hundreds of millions who have been disabled by malaria. How many million starvation deaths do you believe can be attributed to demonizing GM crops? How many tens of millions of deaths can be attributed to blocking hydroelectric dams in third world countries denying electricity and the lifesaving benefits that come with it?

Environmentalism kills on a scale that dwarfs war.

 

[SSDD]

DDT was linked to causing sub par eggs in bald eagles. Do the research, because I'm damned tired of doing it for willfully ignorant parrots like you. If you won't, then I'll embarass you further with the documented facts.

Egg shell thinning is not correlated with pesticide residues. [Krantz WC. 1970 (No correlation between shell-thinning and pesticide residues in eggs) Pesticide Monitoring J 4(3): 136-141; Postupalsky, S. 1971. Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971 (No correlation between shell-thinning and DDE in eggs of bald eagles and cormorants); Anon. 1970. Oregon State University Health Sciences Conference, Annual report, p. 94. (Lowest DDT residues associated with thinnest shells in Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk and goshawk); Claus G and K Bolander. 1977. Ecological Sanity, David McKay Co., N.Y., p. 461. (Feeding thyreprotein causes hens to lay lighter eggs, with heavier, thicker shells)

After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census. [Marvin, PH. 1964 Birds on the rise. Bull Entomol Soc Amer 10(3):184-186; Wurster, CF. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969; Anon. 1942. The 42nd Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Magazine 44:1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942; Cruickshank, AD (Editor). 1961. The 61st Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2):84-300; White-Stevens, R.. 1972. Statistical analyses of Audubon Christmas Bird censuses. Letter to New York Times, August 15, 1972]

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that “DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs.” [Stickel, L. 1966. Bald eagle-pesticide relationships. Trans 31st N Amer Wildlife Conference, pp.190-200]

Every bald eagle found dead in the U.S., between 1961-1977 (266 birds) was analyzed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists who reported no adverse effects caused by DDT or its residues. [Reichel, WL. 1969. (Pesticide residues in 45 bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1964-1965). Pesticides Monitoring J 3(3)142-144; Belisle, AA. 1972. (Pesticide residues and PCBs and mercury, in bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1969-1970). Pesticides Monitoring J 6(3): 133-138; Cromartie, E. 1974. (Organochlorine pesticides and PCBs in 37 bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1971-1972). Pesticides Monitoring J 9:11-14; Coon, NC. 1970. (Causes of bald eagle mortality in the US 1960-1065). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 6:72-76]

Many experiments on caged-birds demonstrate that DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) do not cause serious egg shell thinning, even at levels many hundreds of times greater than wild birds would ever accumulate. [Cecil, HC et al. 1971. Poultry Science 50: 656-659 (No effects of DDT or DDE, if adequate calcium is in diet); Chang, ES & ELR Stokstad. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 3-10 1975. (No effects of DDT on shells); Edwards, JG. 1971. Chem Eng News p. 6 & 59 (August 16, 1971) (Summary of egg shell- thinning and refutations presented revealing all data); Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974); Jeffries, DJ. 1969. J Wildlife Management 32: 441-456 (Shells 7 percent thicker after two years on DDT diet); Robson, WA et al. 1976. Poultry Science 55:2222- 2227; Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatchability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites); Spears, G & P. Waibel. 1972. Minn. Science 28(3):4-5; Tucker, RK & HA Haegele. 1970. Bull Environ Contam. Toxicol 5:191-194 (Neither egg weight nor shell thickness affected by 300 parts per million DDT in daily diet);Edwards, JG. 1973. Statement and affidavit, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, 24 pages, October 24, 1973; Poult Sci 1979 Nov;58(6):1432-49 ("There was no correlation between concentrations of pesticides and egg shell thinning.")]

Experiments associating DDT with egg shell thinning involve doses much higher than would ever be encountered in the wild. [J Toxicol Environ Health 1977 Nov;3(4):699-704 (50 ppm for 6 months); Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 1978;7(3):359-67 ("acute" doses); Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenh) 1982 Feb;50(2):121-9 (40 mg/kg/day for 45 days); Fed Proc 1977 May;36(6):1888-93 ("In well-controlled experiments using white leghorn chickens and Japanese quail, dietary PCBs, DDT and related compounds produced no detrimental effects on eggshell quality. ... no detrimental effects on eggshell quality, egg production or hatchability were found with ... DDT up to 100 ppm)]

Laboratory egg shell thinning required massive doses of DDE far in excess of anything expected in nature, and massive laboratory doses produce much less thinning than is seen in many of the thin-shelled eggs collected in the wild. [Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974)]

Years of carefully controlled feeding experiments involving levels of DDT as high as present in most wild birds resulted in no tremors, mortality, thinning of egg shells nor reproductive interference. [Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatch ability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites)]

Egg shell thinning is not correlated with pesticide residues. [Krantz WC. 1970 (No correlation between shell-thinning and pesticide residues in eggs) Pesticide Monitoring J 4(3): 136-141; Postupalsky, S. 1971. Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971 (No correlation between shell-thinning and DDE in eggs of bald eagles and cormorants); Anon. 1970. Oregon State University Health Sciences Conference, Annual report, p. 94. (Lowest DDT residues associated with thinnest shells in Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk and goshawk); Claus G and K Bolander. 1977. Ecological Sanity, David McKay Co., N.Y., p. 461. (Feeding thyreprotein causes hens to lay lighter eggs, with heavier, thicker shells)

DDT was blamed for egg shell thinning even though a known egg shell thinner (dieldrin) was also added to the diet. [Porter, RD and SN Wiemeyer. 1969. Science 165: 199-200]

No significant correlation between DDE and egg shell thinning in Canadian terns even though the eggs contained as much as 100 parts per million of DDE. [Switzer, BG et al. 1971. Can J Zool 49:69-73]

 

[PoliticalChic]

DDT was linked to causing sub par eggs in bald eagles. Do the research, because I'm damned tired of doing it for willfully ignorant parrots like you. If you won't, then I'll embarass you further with the documented facts.

Egg shell thinning is not correlated with pesticide residues. [Krantz WC. 1970 (No correlation between shell-thinning and pesticide residues in eggs) Pesticide Monitoring J 4(3): 136-141; Postupalsky, S. 1971. Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971 (No correlation between shell-thinning and DDE in eggs of bald eagles and cormorants); Anon. 1970. Oregon State University Health Sciences Conference, Annual report, p. 94. (Lowest DDT residues associated with thinnest shells in Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk and goshawk); Claus G and K Bolander. 1977. Ecological Sanity, David McKay Co., N.Y., p. 461. (Feeding thyreprotein causes hens to lay lighter eggs, with heavier, thicker shells)

After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census. [Marvin, PH. 1964 Birds on the rise. Bull Entomol Soc Amer 10(3):184-186; Wurster, CF. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969; Anon. 1942. The 42nd Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Magazine 44:1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942; Cruickshank, AD (Editor). 1961. The 61st Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2):84-300; White-Stevens, R.. 1972. Statistical analyses of Audubon Christmas Bird censuses. Letter to New York Times, August 15, 1972]

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that “DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs.” [Stickel, L. 1966. Bald eagle-pesticide relationships. Trans 31st N Amer Wildlife Conference, pp.190-200]

Every bald eagle found dead in the U.S., between 1961-1977 (266 birds) was analyzed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists who reported no adverse effects caused by DDT or its residues. [Reichel, WL. 1969. (Pesticide residues in 45 bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1964-1965). Pesticides Monitoring J 3(3)142-144; Belisle, AA. 1972. (Pesticide residues and PCBs and mercury, in bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1969-1970). Pesticides Monitoring J 6(3): 133-138; Cromartie, E. 1974. (Organochlorine pesticides and PCBs in 37 bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1971-1972). Pesticides Monitoring J 9:11-14; Coon, NC. 1970. (Causes of bald eagle mortality in the US 1960-1065). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 6:72-76]

Many experiments on caged-birds demonstrate that DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) do not cause serious egg shell thinning, even at levels many hundreds of times greater than wild birds would ever accumulate. [Cecil, HC et al. 1971. Poultry Science 50: 656-659 (No effects of DDT or DDE, if adequate calcium is in diet); Chang, ES & ELR Stokstad. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 3-10 1975. (No effects of DDT on shells); Edwards, JG. 1971. Chem Eng News p. 6 & 59 (August 16, 1971) (Summary of egg shell- thinning and refutations presented revealing all data); Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974); Jeffries, DJ. 1969. J Wildlife Management 32: 441-456 (Shells 7 percent thicker after two years on DDT diet); Robson, WA et al. 1976. Poultry Science 55:2222- 2227; Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatchability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites); Spears, G & P. Waibel. 1972. Minn. Science 28(3):4-5; Tucker, RK & HA Haegele. 1970. Bull Environ Contam. Toxicol 5:191-194 (Neither egg weight nor shell thickness affected by 300 parts per million DDT in daily diet);Edwards, JG. 1973. Statement and affidavit, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, 24 pages, October 24, 1973; Poult Sci 1979 Nov;58(6):1432-49 ("There was no correlation between concentrations of pesticides and egg shell thinning.")]

Experiments associating DDT with egg shell thinning involve doses much higher than would ever be encountered in the wild. [J Toxicol Environ Health 1977 Nov;3(4):699-704 (50 ppm for 6 months); Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 1978;7(3):359-67 ("acute" doses); Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenh) 1982 Feb;50(2):121-9 (40 mg/kg/day for 45 days); Fed Proc 1977 May;36(6):1888-93 ("In well-controlled experiments using white leghorn chickens and Japanese quail, dietary PCBs, DDT and related compounds produced no detrimental effects on eggshell quality. ... no detrimental effects on eggshell quality, egg production or hatchability were found with ... DDT up to 100 ppm)]

Laboratory egg shell thinning required massive doses of DDE far in excess of anything expected in nature, and massive laboratory doses produce much less thinning than is seen in many of the thin-shelled eggs collected in the wild. [Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974)]

Years of carefully controlled feeding experiments involving levels of DDT as high as present in most wild birds resulted in no tremors, mortality, thinning of egg shells nor reproductive interference. [Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatch ability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites)]

Egg shell thinning is not correlated with pesticide residues. [Krantz WC. 1970 (No correlation between shell-thinning and pesticide residues in eggs) Pesticide Monitoring J 4(3): 136-141; Postupalsky, S. 1971. Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971 (No correlation between shell-thinning and DDE in eggs of bald eagles and cormorants); Anon. 1970. Oregon State University Health Sciences Conference, Annual report, p. 94. (Lowest DDT residues associated with thinnest shells in Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk and goshawk); Claus G and K Bolander. 1977. Ecological Sanity, David McKay Co., N.Y., p. 461. (Feeding thyreprotein causes hens to lay lighter eggs, with heavier, thicker shells)

DDT was blamed for egg shell thinning even though a known egg shell thinner (dieldrin) was also added to the diet. [Porter, RD and SN Wiemeyer. 1969. Science 165: 199-200]

No significant correlation between DDE and egg shell thinning in Canadian terns even though the eggs contained as much as 100 parts per million of DDE. [Switzer, BG et al. 1971. Can J Zool 49:69-73]

I can only say "impressive" post!

 

[polarbear]

What you actually say, after wading through all the silly verbage, is that there should be no regulation. Well, in China there is no regulation, and in Russia, very little.

It was the environmentalists that kept this nation from going down that road. When we were on that road, and our rivers were becoming open sewers, our air a source of ill health, the environmentalists sounded the tocsins, and the people in this nation responded.

Now people like you wish to return us to the days when our rivers were sewers. No way. Not only that, we are going to increase the rules and regulations so that our air and water is even better than at present. And you can squeal all you want. The majority of the citizens in this nation prefer clean air, water, and land. And if some fat cat has to make a million less or so because of that, so be it.

Come on OldRocks you do know that "this country" has an EPA because Nixon wanted it and signed it into existence by exec order.
So was he an environmentalist?
What is your definition of an environmentalist?
It might not be the same what makes one an environmentalist after environment issues were politicized by special interest groups.
Every technical solution I know of that solved industrial pollution issues came from engineers that worked in the respective industry and not from people that chain themselves to trees or gas pumps.
May well be you know an exception, but I`m not pressing you to come up with one. Before I got involved with the military I worked in industrial R&D, then for the FDA and the Department of Environment, as an EG5 (= the top classification), got fed up with the hypocrisy on both sides of the border and decided to use my skills in military industrial research then went from there directly into the military because they were the only entity that could make my childhood dream come true...to stand one day smack dab on the geographic North pole and have a well paying job close to it...as far away as you could get from all the stuff that disgusted me all these years before..but then many of the same idiots I wanted to get away from started showing up even way up there...as "environmentalists"..:

Checking out what the "corrected" molar ppm CO2 is near the North Pole, right next to a Diesel Power Plant and Herc`s coming and going when it`s operation boxtop time to make sure they don`t run out of the kind of booze they like to drink


So I`ve seen a lot and know who does what, how and why and when they do it ...but also why they haven`t done it before even though they knew all along.
You are a Millwright and as such you would know what`s happening in the industry you work a lot better than any academic who knows your world only on paper.



Thank`s for staying with me so far and I`ll get to the point now.



Had you been a Millwright in the pulp and paper business then you would know that it was not the environmentalists who changed the pulp bleaching process from Chlorine bleaching to peroxide bleaching.
Environmentalists had no clue what was in a paper mill effluent and the EPA did not pay any attention to it either. That only happened after the way more expensive Kraft Process was patented...suddenly the EPA and Environment Canada was flooded with information what we should monitor downstream from a Chlorine pulp mill.

So far so good, but when the same Government agencies gags their Chemists what we found downstream from the Kraft pulp mills we get a gag order and a memo that we can face a prison sentence if we violate it....then there is something not quite right, don`t you think..?



The Freon and the Ozone layer became an environment issue only after the Freon patent expired . Tetra ethyl lead Lead in gasoline became an environment issue only after some refiners had patents for the far more expensive catalytic "hydro-fining". I could go on and on and on, herbicides, insecticides, just about any chemical manufacturing process you care to name...But I`m sure by now you smell a rat and see some sort of pattern emerge. It gets even worse in the pharmaceutical industry. Just as soon as a patent expires and the monopoly advantage is lost or someone has another patent for their tranquilizer or birth control pill the FDA gets flooded with information what was wrong with the old one or that of the ones that refuse to join the fold for the new process...and pay up with royalties.
Some day soon there will be another patent for low noise high speed current switching...and that`s when you will be informed how toxic the materials are in the PC you are using right now...
Some day soon the pulp & paper industry will replace peroxide bleaching...then and only then will the EPA worry about what Dioxane derivatives are ...and what all these DMSO fumes do to you, you know that rotten egg stink that hovers over the entire valley where a present state of the art paper mill is..
Once the patent for that Lignin extraction process expired but not before that the EPA will come down on it like a ton of bricks...but not before that, no matter if you as an "environmentalist" knows about it today. If people only knew to what degree they are being manipulated...but for that we would need true journalism and not what is passing itself off as such.
Had we then we would not be even talking about fossil fuel, CO2 and global warming as in "AGW" and freak out the public what a refinery looks kile at sub-zero temperatures:


http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/so...energiewende-a-885874.html#spCommentsBoxPager

Klimapolitik-Gutachten: Forscher fordern zentrale Steuerung der Energiewende

What you see is harmless non-toxic water vapor, plain old steam. The CO2 is not visible to the human eye
but it`s there 8 parts CO2 and 9 parts water vapor for every CnH(2*n)+2 they burn..in other words what comes out of these stacks or my car exhaust pipe is plant food.
The trees love it

Too bad we had a stiff wind from the North today when I snapped this picture of the Mc.Cain "French Fry" plant on my way into Portage to get groceries..
They supply McD`s all over North America...so they "cook up a storm", they really do !

That plant can look way more "scary" than any refinery...but they don`t burn a drop of fuel...the entire operation is hydro-electric but when they vent their potato-cookers..even though they use chimneys, when the wind dies down they fog in the Trans Canada Highway...it`s just water vapor, fog steam or whatever you like to call it that smells like cooked potatoes...but it would outdo any of the doomsday propaganda chimney pictures that enviro.org blogs are using and btw. water vapor is a much more powerful "greenhouse gas" than CO2...it`s just not "media sexy" enough...that`s all

Yet cubic foot for cubic foot this plant`s green house gas emissions are twice as potent (100% H2O) as the refinery`s (53 % H2O) in the other picture ...lets not forget how broad the H2O absorption spectrum is and how narrow the range is where CO2 absorbs..
So why demonize the refinery and not the French Fry cookers ?

 

[SSDD]

The Freon and the Ozone layer became an environment issue only after the Freon patent expired .

Well, that and the fact that one of algore's biggest campaign contributors developed a very expensive replacement for freon that had no market whatsoever.

 

[skookerasbil]

The Freon and the Ozone layer became an environment issue only after the Freon patent expired .

Well, that and the fact that one of algore's biggest campaign contributors developed a very expensive replacement for freon that had no market whatsoever.

Check out my new thread SSDD


They wont get the message because that is the nature of OCD stuff ( I'm in the field)......but the k00ks are losing big.

 

[polarbear]

The Freon and the Ozone layer became an environment issue only after the Freon patent expired .

Well, that and the fact that one of algore's biggest campaign contributors developed a very expensive replacement for freon that had no market whatsoever.

EXACTLY...that`s the way it`s been done and it will continue like that.
But I would not single out a specific politician like Al the Gorakle out...even though he is an ay es es hole...or a specific political party.
They all think, but Obama especially so, that they can control the government bureaucrats from the top down...but they can`t....and it`s these bureaucrats that play these games no matter who is in the White House.
The only way to get a handle on it is to reduce the size of Government then and only then can one get a handle on it and a clear oversight what all these non-elected career bureaucrats decide to do without any input from the public which is kept in the dark.
Works like that in private enterprise as well. Let me "ramble on" for a few more lines. One of my old friends who came over here from Sweden had his Chem PhD because he was an expert in Steroid Research. By the time he got the Okay to come here his expertise was obsolete and so were steroids...at that time. No sweat he knew how things really work and had a shitload of money even though he could not land a job here.
One day he showed me how he made all this money and offered me a cut if I join him. What he did was making out phoney invoices for repairs etc to the biggest companies in Quebec, Ontario, Michigan etc...
This foxy guy knew exactly what the threshold amount was when the accounting office did not bother checking if building XYZ had indeed a window replaced for say $ 150 last month...they just pay it within the billing period, no questions asked.
He did that for almost a year then went back to Sweden and bought himself a new house.
Why am I telling this story...because that`s exactly the same ****-ups that happen when Government gets too big...it does not matter who the CEO is and how sharp he is, there is no more effective oversight.
When I worked for the FDA and the dep.of Environment I was often told to blow a six figure amount of money at the end of the budget period just so that the finance minister does not trim the budget when he sees that we had money left over...THAT`S HOW IT`S DONE...no matter if you are in Germany, the U.S. or in Canada. These bureaucrats don`t really give a shit who got voted in as President or PM...they don`t answer to them...but they work hand in hand with clever Industrial lobbyists that were recruited from the same pool of Government bureaucrats who know best how things are really done.
That`s why the EPA or the FDA don`t give a rat`s ass if some Chemist in an EPA lab knows of a toxin that is in a specific effluent or any other discharge...
They will not act on it till the patent & monopoly situation has changed and they get a request to act from the lobby...Neither the FDA, the EPA etc bureaucrats in Europe, or North America give a shit about you, me or anyone else. ...or "climate change"...it`s all just window dressing.

I could have made a shit load of money too...my boss at the dep. of Environment took a lobby job and was going to promote me to the position that he had...all I had to do is continue to dance to his tune when he is a "consultant" for Dow.
That`s when I decided to get out of the civil service and why I decided to serve with the military in the arctic..and thought that was out of the range of these swindlers...boy was I wrong. Now the arctic is a major asset for the largest swindle ever perpetrated on the public

I`m a conservative at heart and by principle, but I won`t admire Nixon as an "environmentalist" because he created the EPA by exec. order.
I have that nagging doubt who and what REALLY motivated him to do so. Take a look around you...nobody can do anything any more unless it`s Okayed by FDA or EPA bureaucrats that hand down the promotions to the next best corruptible successor and move on to become "consultants" and "experts" in the industry they are supposed to police. No "Obama" or anyone else is able to change that unless we trim all this Government fat first.
I take any bet...just as soon as that happens you will hear no more about AGW, but the cancer rates, etc will drop DRAMATICALLY

But that`s not going to happen. What will continue to happen is that people like "Saigon" "Thunder" what`s his name and other assorted nut cases will call me a "retard" because I beg to differ what "Environment Experts" are selling to the public and to the Government bureaucracy.

That`s fine by me, because I know what`s a waste of money,...what not to eat & drink and how to run my air conditioner full bore while consuming 35% less power and a whole lot more...what they call me and what what they do is up to them.
I`m 67 years old now, never had any medical problems and still qualify for my class 1, air-brakes, glider, multi-engine and IFR medicals like any other man under the age of 30. I chose to live on an Indian Reserve because that affords me what I was looking for in the arctic. None of what these dickhead bureaucrats decide matters inside a First Nations Territory...so I do have the last laugh.
@OldRocks...
I just got a registered letter that my medical for my class 1 is due...after that I have to peel off ~ 50 000 miles and might just be trucking through Your neck of the woods. I used to truck in my 6 months off time after a tour of duty so I don`t get bored...now I`m retired and can devote more time to travel & get paid to do so. I`ll write You an e-mail when that happens and bring You some of the stuff I promised You and You can show me where I can get more of the kind of Oregon "road food" that I enjoyed so much: