 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Asthma / October 2006Murder By Pollution Going on in US
not maybe, absolutely. The companies who pump this stuff know it, the govt knows it, the only people who don't want you to know it is the news media , the polluters, the President, and Supreme Court and Congress who ignore all obvious links to the damage. You figure this out, I say the links to pollution and ill health or worse for families that are close to the pollution are provable without one iota of doubt. If the studies don't conclusively prove it now, it can be proved. Anyone want to see my accumulated soot and black soot accumulated via a furnance filter from only 25 days of living in moderate amounts of particulates/.I dare anyone to compare our peoples overall health to those in clean areas who ate the same things.Its like living in two different centuries, one with more health and optimism and the other mean, dependent on medications and hospitals, crime cyniscim and ill health. But its the condition of health between the two different peoples, that would show that polluters and govt policy is allowing the murdering of families or cutting short their lives or health and nothing is being done to protect them equally! I can think of ten more tests to prove it.,\ Please send my following opinion and links to real facts to your Congressman and ask how the greatest country in the world can get away with poisoning inner city youth and millions of people without a thing done to protect them. Is it possible? Mr. Bush get a clue, side with safety , not poisoning people. Coming back from , Boston or New York I am often taken back and my lungs constrict as I head to Philly yet no one cares. This is totally involuntary reflex due the poisons. Can you imagine families having to put up with this for decades and it affects another area of their body , one not so obvious? Ok? Now you or anyone tell me why this isn't the most important things in people lives right now... MASS MURDER by oil , coal and car companies and who will ever compensate those that will lose their health and lives and fiances to it? There are many many ways to prove all this beyond the few studies on web and epa findings and American Lung Associations ratings of F. Where are the attorneys? Why isn't more being done. What I do hear is its not as bad as it once was, and its a beautiful day , and 23 different medications to treat sleep disorders and asthma and allergy after they poison you .We get commercials for inhalers and oxygen and not a worry in the world why people age and die faster in these polluted hell holes .. <info@economicdemocracy.org> wrote in message news:1158681407.782351.246170@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... The denial industry For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story Tuesday September 19, 2006 The Guardian Exxon station in California 'The impacts of the climate-change deniers sponsored by Exxon have been felt all over the world.' Photograph: AP ExxonMobil is the world's most profitable corporation. Its sales now amount to more than $1bn a day. It makes most of this money from oil, and has more to lose than any other company from efforts to tackle climate change. To safeguard its profits, ExxonMobil needs to sow doubt about whether serious action needs to be taken on climate change. But there are difficulties: it must confront a scientific consensus as strong as that which maintains that smoking causes lung cancer or that HIV causes Aids. So what's its strategy? Article continues The website Exxonsecrets.org, using data found in the company's official documents, lists 124 organisations that have taken money from the company or work closely with those that have. These organisations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are labelled "junk science". The findings they welcome are labelled "sound science". Among the organisations that have been funded by Exxon are such well-known websites and lobby groups as TechCentralStation, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Some of those on the list have names that make them look like grassroots citizens' organisations or academic bodies: the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, for example. One or two of them, such as the Congress of Racial Equality, are citizens' organisations or academic bodies, but the line they take on climate change is very much like that of the other sponsored groups. While all these groups are based in America, their publications are read and cited, and their staff are interviewed and quoted, all over the world. By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. For those who do not understand that scientific findings cannot be trusted if they have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals, the names of these institutes help to suggest that serious researchers are challenging the consensus. This is not to claim that all the science these groups champion is bogus. On the whole, they use selection, not invention. They will find one contradictory study - such as the discovery of tropospheric cooling, which, in a garbled form, has been used by Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday - and promote it relentlessly. They will continue to do so long after it has been disproved by further work. So, for example, John Christy, the author of the troposphere paper, admitted in August 2005 that his figures were incorrect, yet his initial findings are still being circulated and championed by many of these groups, as a quick internet search will show you. But they do not stop there. The chairman of a group called the Science and Environmental Policy Project is Frederick Seitz. Seitz is a physicist who in the 1960s was president of the US National Academy of Sciences. In 1998, he wrote a document, known as the Oregon Petition, which has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth. > Mass poisoning of people makes 9/11 look like a picnic and Bush is cause > of > it. We can do moe now, we don't have to pretend we don't know of the > damage.Its the point that we know all this, can do more and still don't > that really gets to me on top of the physical discomfort of being choked > with asthma only on these days and those days are numerous. > I live it every year in this helll hole. Where over 100 days so far with > air > out of the good zone. Where my lungs constrict,. where peoples atttiudes > are > rotten, where drinking and drugging might be appropriate response to being > poisoned, many are jobless and mean spirited then they tell you about our > crime rate that keeps increasing, but no links to pollution! We > are being poisoned. If your not affected and many aren't , please realize > many others are. So many things are affected negatively and the best and > brightest in news and politicians ignore it. They rather talk about Iraq. > Let me tell you something this poisoning makes Iraq and 9/11 look like a > picnic and its because of the oil, and energy lobby and car companies. > They > all are going about telling you of changes but chances are for too many > people it will be too late.... > >>>>>Of course they are. Pollution is by definition poison. That's the >>>>>problem >> with pollution, it poisons people. DUH! >> >> Yes but how many people think pollution might have caused their relatives >> death? Affected their life span ? Chances are not many and chances are , >> at least in my town, they should assume that. So many days the air is >> horrific here and not a thing said or done. I have been in other places >> with clean air and its like living in two different centuries almost. >> Attitudes, crime, health and total costs for health are or might be >> different.But most important the actual lives of peoples health are >> different and many ways to prove it. SSssssssssssoooo many people are >> losing their life and age and health to pollution and built up of gasses >> compared to others its almost unbelievable. > > We have a street around here called Street Road and come rush hour this is > life a ten mile polluted town akin probably to most polluted places in > Asia. > All one might have to do is see how the people who work on this street has > been affected compared to those in clean air to know what kind of poison > people are getting. Not all poisons are equally venomous. >> > Maybe you or your friends are old looking and your friend didn't die from > old age, they died > earlier because of wrongrace, or where you lived and died because Bush > didn't > care one iota for your health , and in fact can be argued is contributing > to > you and your families ill health and death...I can argue the democrats > didn't care either but we know more now, anyone can add up the objective > data. Anyone can add up the number of prescription for asthma meds and > compare the stats by area. Anyone can compare the state of health between > people who live in polluted areas and those that don't. The studies so far > are dim for the people in the NE being poisoned. Everyone should be on > some kind of disability if I am any example of how this toxic air affects > one over time , the head of the EPA thinks is acceptable but practically > ever other expert from his own agency doesn't. How can I give this jerk > the same choking that he allows me to get? Where people are being poisoned > and made to die decades earlier because of Bushs policies? > >>>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20060921/hl_hsn/pollutedairmightincreasestrokerisk >>> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/us/22soot.html >>> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/21/AR2006092101616.html > >> EPA Reports 6 out of every 10 homes are sick. >> a.. Strong new evidence suggests that air pollution emitted by power >> plants and vehicles >> across the US raises the risk of lung disease, according to a study in >> the >> Journal of >> the American Medical Association. >> b.. The air inside your home may be 5 times more polluted than the air >> outside, according >> to the EPA. >> c.. More than 1/2 of the US population is breathing unhealthy amounts of >> air pollution >> according to the American Lung Association's State of the Air, 2002. >> d.. 40-50 million Americans suffer from allergies and 17 million battle >> asthma. >> e.. Virus, fungus, bacteria and hundreds of other germs are carried in >> the >> air at all times. >> While inhaled into the lungs, germs can cause cold, flu, pneumonia and >> other respiratory infections. When these germs lodge in your lungs, your >> breathing can be disrupted >> and you can become ill. American Lung Association >> >> there are a few associations between politics and asthma which yout wo >> seem >> to take issue about the most when I associate the idea. even thoughyou >> don't >> read my posts. Here are a few other ideas: Pollution is one of the most >> important but often overlooked causes of ill health. If you were to ask >> people what werethe causes of your relatives death few would say >> pollution >> but yet that isexactly what might have been a major contributor. I think >> people have toldme they came away thinking differently about asthma and >> pollution and illhealth after reading my posts. People might know of >> pollutions consequencesbut most people don't know their cities air >> ratings >> or how it pertains tooverall health. If I can promote people to be >> educated >> about one of the mostimportant factors in their health in life, then I >> can >> take the criticismsfrom people like you who obviously feel a bit >> threatened >> by information thatyou can't contribute. . I may post allot and its >> because >> the news media willnot go over the issue of pollution and the >> consequences >> and this will keeppeople a, uneducated about political changes, and b, >> uneducated aboutchoices where to live and how to find better conditions >> of >> air for theirfamily."mcs" <mcs@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:fAXRg.2620$422.457@trnddc03...> yes, but do you realize one in five >> kids in NE states has asthma in some> places? They didn't have anything >> wrong with em.... the trees are dying> here, in droves, I automatically >> can't breath in moderate particulates,and> our news says polluted days >> are >> beautiful and their commericals are paidfor> by 34 different companies >> that >> tout drugs to treat you after they poison> you. If you think the goal for >> people to have jobs at poisoning the planet> and expense is business as >> it >> should be, better guess again or volunteerto> take our place while we >> live >> in Hawaii or at the ranch far away from> motorists and crime...> The >> stats >> say pollution kills and I say its underreported of the dangers.> When I >> first started people said I was crazy , global warming isn't true.> Guess >> what , if people knew that the biggest single reason for illnesswhen> >> everything else like diet and addictions were the same is >> pollution,people> >> might be singing a different >> tune.>>>>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20060921/hl_hsn/pollutedairmightincreasestrokerisk>>> >> some people think more people are being murdered by polluters then>>> >> murder, 9/11 and Iraq combined. Not only do longevity studies prove >> when>>> >> every thing else is the same , like diet and addiction levels, >> pollution>>> >> levels and amount of days an areas t=that gets moderate or >> worseparticulates is>>> the defining factor in contributing to lower >> longevity,>>> but many studies have showed cause and effect.When >> everything >> is similar>>> such as>>> diet and addiction, the defining factor for >> longevity seems to be how>>> close>>> people live to pollutants and how >> often. The associations between>>> pollution>>> and ill health are out >> there, but our news and politicians don't care>>> except>>> for Arnold >> and >> NY. mayor. More studies can be done and I could volunteermany types and >> how >> they can be done but I know what the result would show,the oil and energy >> crew don't want to know the truth . I am being charged upto 59 dollars a >> month for the right to use gas even if I don't use it. Canyou imagine >> what >> the conservatives would be screaming if someone chargedthem 59 dollars a >> month for something they don't use? Only in America canenergy get special >> treatment, poison you, made to pay more for it thenanything else combined >> and after they poison you, they cover it up and youcan't sue em... Oil >> and >> old energy people and Johnson from EPA>>> and Republicans are in power >> with >> a>>> mandate knowing people cant seem to sue them and those people >> say>>> pollution and>>> its negative effects is not proven to prop up >> their >> energy supporterswho>>> gain billions, at your healths and families >> expense >> and this ispatronage and favoritism and wait, its at your>>> healths >> expense. This is MURDER . Where is expectation of protectionfrom the epa >> who>>> disagrees with Johnson on this issue , or isn't govt is here to >> protectcitizens>>> equally/ Not in Bushs or Johnsons or Republicans >> MURDER >> the people who>>> don't know world.This is domestic terrorism. Don't >> think >> so trybreathing this for fifty years. look at my filters for one month, >> get >> intothis area of moderate pollution for 100 plus days a year and see how >> ittakes its tolls . Do a study. see how those closest to the pollution >> diesalmost 15 years sooner and those that don't have they tested their >> overallhealth compared to places with little or no pollution? I will tell >> you theresults. there are huge differences in attitudes, in health , in >> optimismand even crime sometimes. all because of pollution levels. If >> republicansare poisoning people and not doing anything about it, this is >> murder...>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/us/22soot.html>>> >> There >> are many other studies to show cause and effect and morecould>>> be had >> but >> you can't sue the bastards so don't expect to see thestudies..>>> This is >> a >> democracy? Poor being>>> poisoned, rich many living 14 years longer then >> others cause they arerich>>> and not near the pollution, the rest near >> polluters deal with it. Payfor>>> your lost health and medication so >> polluters make billions.Its not likewe>>> can't do more and we will leave >> ourselves vulnerable. All we are asking>>> for>>> is making changes that >> are >> available today faster!>>>>>> Just moderate amounts of this poison >> is >> killing and hurtingamericans>>> and your families.... right now and this >> much I promise is true. The>>> latest longevity study shows that some >> people >> are living up to 14 years>>> longer and often the best longevity is in >> rich >> places in clean air.Clean>>> and dirty air in the longevity study >> recently >> >>forget about record number of asthma, forget illness we are talking death >>> by >>> pollution >>> in addition to all the links I gave before and are available on the net >>>> with the associationg of death and ill health to pollution, the new >>>> longevity study by state >>>> shows that pollution is a factor in determning old age too in some if >>>> not >>>> all places although the study authors didn't directly mention >>>> pollution.. >>>> (how convenient) >>>> The study conveniently left out pollution as a factor .This is such a >>>> giant conspiracy to not tell people i think its absolutely criminal . I >>>> think >>>> lawyers can add this study to the ammunition they already could get to >>>> show >>>> pollution is associated to added risk of death and ill health. There is >>>> not >>>> a place that has high amount of particle pollution with people who live >>>> on >>>> average the longest. In fact your more likely to not live longest and >>>> live >>>> shorter lives when you get high particulates and or ozone and >>>> everything >>>> else in polluted and non polluted areas are >>>> the same like diet and rates of addiction (thats my theory), so now >>>> what? >>>> If someone were to tell you or your family were going to loseup to >>>> five >>>> years of life or a decade or more for something you had no control >>>> of, >>>> or because of >>>> where you lived would you or should you >>>> be concerned? Should you be warned? Should we have politicians or gov >>>> policy >>>> to >>>> protect you or families equally with expectations to live without undue >>>> risks? should people in the US expect with their tax dollars, that >>>> they >>>> be warned of risks of bodily harm, or probabe cause of imminent >>>> dangers Well >>>> that is exactly what is not happening and no one is warning you. Its >>>> ok >>>> to murder >>>> people so it seems as long as you can't sue the people who are >>>> murdering >>>> you. and or your too poor to care or know your being poisoned .When >>>> cigarette companies and people who make errant products can be >>>> sued even though the people often had a choice its one thing. With >>>> energy >>>> companies or car companies, and govt, that often sets amount of >>>> pollution, people down wind >>>> have no choices. people and companies profitting at someones health >>>> expense should not be allowed until provisions are made so companies >>>> have to reduce the factors that increase the risks of pollution and ill >>>> health ... everyone should be protected equally > > Not only that, how long you live by state is often >>>> diffused by not showing how long you might live in the most polluted >>>> cities in that state. Often the difference of only 40 miles could be >>>> the >>>> difference between living years longer or not. ( for instance NJ is a >>>> polluted state but there are areas in NJ that get overall good air near >>>> the sea and asian women with good families and no bad habits living >>>> long >>>> time show that) By and large if you live in >>>> polluted city like Camden Washington dc and you do or don't have other >>>> risk factors, do you know which one is more likely to kill you faster? >>>> for >>>> oil , coal and energy ., THE DEFINING FACTOR IS POLLUTION in poisoning >>>> people and shortening their life and your not told. The sad facts are >>>> more can be done NOW but isn't. >>>> Tens of thousands are losing up to decade of life but news would rather >>>> tell you about Britney Spears or a way in Iraq where one tenth as many >>>> people are dying, except here no one has a choice in accepting these >>>> toxins. >>>> .Of course the issue of condition of health is not even factored in >>>> either >>>> like the rate of cancer or asthma. If the studies were made that >>>> compared >>>> the health of people who ate the same rather healthy diet but one lived >>>> in >>>> polluted city and one didn't that difference would show cause and >>>> effect. >>>> People are being poisoned in many cities in NE and SE and these >>>> longevity >>>> studies adds to the proof. >>>> This longevity study should add fuel to the fire that first poor people >>>> in the cities offer suffer significantly more dealth and illness ( >>>> addictions aside) then rich people in clean areas . Up to ten years >>>> more. >> Any people rich or poor living downwind from pollution are decreasing >> their average life span ... how much so still needs to be determining >> according to particulate and ozone level. In fact of all risk factors >> pollution might be the most important or as important as the other major >> risk factors like smoking and poor diet. If we are poisoning people , why >> should we complain when they rob and shoot you when they couldn't be well >> enough to make the right choices? >> I saw a show on Britney Spears and we see the importance of wars in Iraq, >> we are told of recalls of errant car seat >> yet this issue is affecting tens of millions of little boys and girls >> and >> families and the press is silent.. That little girl with cancer might >> have >> gotten cancer simply because her little body could not have absorbed the >> toxins around her. >>>> >>>We talk about black people in poverty and our young getting fat but the >>>incredible thing is even if they wanted to do better they might not be >>>able! becayse we are dosing them with black lungs and polluted bodies. >>>You try living in this poison for 39 years. Anyone can see what kind >>>of dirt is coming into my filter every 20 days, just mulitply that by >>>years..... > not maybe, absolutely. The companies who pump this stuff know it, the govt > knows it, the only people who don't want you to know it is the news media , > the polluters, the President, > and Supreme Court and Congress who ignore all obvious links to the damage. They haven't ignored it. The problem is finding a solution with costs that can be achieved without shutting down these companies. Most industries already have phased in plans to cut emissions over time. Do you have any workable solutions in mind? >> not maybe, absolutely. The companies who pump this stuff know it, the >> govt [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > industries already have phased in plans to cut emissions over time. Do > you have any workable solutions in mind? They haven't ignored it? Come now, miles, do you realize most onset adult asthma has some linkage to where people live? But how many people are told its just the bodys way to deal with illness and what is going on in our world.? I bet all they tell people is take your asthma meds not that the freakin air could be the difference between life and death. Yes they know but they certainly are not telling people how to escape it. Your asking me what can be done so companies don't go out of business? Well if we can spend the money we spend in Iraq or to fix roads or on art projects for a few years to fix our air we might have a chance to better answer that question but as it is the same companies that supported Bush don't want to have to do anything that will lower their profits. We are suppose to change the composition of gas from summer mix to winter mix? Why? Is too much ehanol better then more carbon dioxides or particulates? Face it the President can mandate, that the scrubbers be put in effect sooner that these companies do more sooner and if need be let gov pay for loans to help them if they think this will put too much undue pressure on them. The poor energy companies are not about to go bankrupt. Car companies can put out cleaner burning cars now if we as a society decided our people were more important then what is happening. The main problem Miles is MOST people don't and I repeat that don't know of the dangers. No one is ever going to compensate the millions who will die decades sooner from this mess because they were too away or poor to get the information they needed to protect themselves and the govt didn't do a thing to protect them either. > Well if we can spend > the money we spend in Iraq Your reply was a very predictable one! Gov. should pay private industry? The rest of your rhetoric seemed to imply the issue is new since Bush took office. Why do you make it a Dem. Vs. Rep issue? Phased in plans to cut emissions at factories are already in place. You want it done instantly which is absurd to expect. >> Well if we can spend the money we spend in Iraq > > Your reply was a very predictable one! Gov. should pay private industry? Ok gov should protect the people ok? Pick one. The rest of your rhetoric seemed to imply the issue is new > since Bush took office. Why do you make it a Dem. Vs. Rep issue? Phased > in plans to cut emissions at factories are already in place. You want it > done instantly which is absurd to expect. Its not abusb when or if you knew the extent of the damage. There are more small changes that can be made now. There are more larger changes that can be made now. First I think we should own up to the real dangers and so far you say what I want is absurd. Its no more absurd than what scientists say will have happen if we don't make the changes. Now thats the absurdity!!!!! LIKE DEATH shorter lives, less productivity, and not caring if oour most vulnerable are going to suffer even more. The point is the evidence to me seems overwhelming and at that point more needs to be done, not less. We have not even begun to accept the damage or measure it in any concrete way but somehow when the epas own experts ( which tend to be a bit more conservative at times) says more needs to be done, then you don't have to listen to my version. > Its not abusb when or if you knew the extent of the damage. There are more > small changes that can be made now. There are more larger changes that can > be made now. Lots of rhetoric and little of substance. I again ask, what small or large changes specifically can be made now and who will pay for them now. Don't include changes that are already mandated unless you are suggesting their implementation deadline be moved up. If thats the case again, who pays for them now? >> Its not abusb when or if you knew the extent of the damage. There are >> more small changes that can be made now. There are more larger changes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > their implementation deadline be moved up. If thats the case again, who > pays for them now? What changes can be made? If you don't like any changes mandated by govt then your not going to like my answers. Since your argument is cost outweighs changes especially if it comes from govt,then what other ways are going to dictate our desire for faster change. Our govt sets allot of the rules in place to foster less pollution. They can mandate better fuel effecincy, better mix of corn or ethanol, faster clean up of smoke stack pollution standards, after all if not for that, these companies wouldn't do anything. Your supposition that changes take place all the time from private sector isn't justified when govt set standards and often is the that sets the standards and ground rules for changes. Our adminstration has very few incentives to really make the changes necessary and its because the same energy companies that elected Bush put someone like Johnson in office and necessitated someone like Whitman to quit. > They can mandate better fuel effecincy They have done this on a phased in basis. The only way to make huge gains in technology is if the consumer funds it by buying it. No other way can generate the cash needed for significant large scale improvements. > better mix of corn or > ethanol New cars are already mandated to be compatible with such fuels. However, very few gas stations carry it. Again, it has to be consumer driven to get stations to want to install it. If its mandated and consumers won't pay it guess what happens? >, faster clean up of smoke stack pollution standards Already mandated in a phased in plan. So I assume you want that phasing sped up. How much does your plan cost? How fast do you want it implemented? Who pays for it? Otherwise all your doing is touting 'feel-good' measures with little plans on how to accomplish any of it. >> They can mandate better fuel effecincy > > They have done this on a phased in basis. The only way to make huge gains > in technology is if the consumer funds it by buying it. No other way can > generate the cash needed for significant large scale improvements. No other way? The hope ws that the gov would increase the mandatory miles per gallon all future cars needed to have I think . >> better mix of corn or ethanol > > New cars are already mandated to be compatible with such fuels. However, > very few gas stations carry it. Again, it has to be consumer driven to > get stations to want to install it. If its mandated and consumers won't > pay it guess what happens? . Its mixed in already? Whats the problem? What consumers have objected? Now its possible the costs might rise since this alternative has become available and gas prices has fallen but perhaps this is why gas prices have fallen. Two good reasons to keep adding this to the fuel.: Cleaner and promotes lower prices, a no brainer. They just need to mix more of it.. >>, faster clean up of smoke stack pollution standards > > Already mandated in a phased in plan. So I assume you want that phasing > sped up. How much does your plan cost? Do you know how much pollution costs in lost productivity and peoples lives? Seriously, if we are not being told of the consequences or the levels, I don't think you know of the true costs pollution has on people in lost health and productivity . This is where progressive governments differ then ours and its because the people in charge often has a mindset of oil paying for campaigns over lives of its people. Just because it may not affect you now or yet don't mean its not affecting others big time like me or others. . Global warming is a huge issue around the world and again the people in this administration don't want to do its part in even accepting part of Kyoto treaty . As the true costs of this one sided reliance on oil and production companies take its toll, people will die and other countries will make changes faster. . T he cost in cleaning up our environment now, is minimal compared to lost productivity but to be honest if we are fighting to stop terror, trying to protect our people from lost longevity and illness when experts say its possible should at least be just as important..Like I said the overall effects from this toxic poisoning is clearly not evident to the public and many people don't have the time to wait for ever increasing lethal associations. , but from the way all the damages are not neatly put together and packaged like our concerns with someone in office having sex or bad spinanch or even now smoking, one wonders why and what are they hiding. I can tell you what they are hiding, our dependence on this is without any doubt causing tens of thousands of deaths and illness that would make all terror look like a picnic. . Almost whatever costs to clean up pollution now and in the future is a win win scenario down the line. The problem is you don't want to promote the tests to find out how much is being lost do you now? . The potential or real loss in productivity and value for years of life is huge compared to the / value energy companies save in doing it piece meal slowly . I thought the govt was here to protect its citizens not poison them and protect the people who paid for their campaigns! In my mind this is one reason why the poor can't make the proper choices, why people do the wrong things, because we don't have a govt that sponsers the right values. ....the money now to clean the smoke stacks.faster is money used for the right things. . The problem is they are hiding the damages, the studies have not been made to show why cleaning up the stacks are important, and govt incredibly enough knows about it but does not want to do more. For many govts around the world theydon't have the impetus or money to sponser alternatives faster but we do. Some of the smartest people in the world has said we are killing the planet. If the studies were made to show the true consequences and people were told they were dying years if not decades sooner because of this poison there would be more emphasis in trying to eradicate the causes faster because afterall we are the richest or one of the richest nations on earth. We can send people in billion dollar space stations but allow the slaughter of its people because energy companies fuel the people in powers campaign .. A crime of mass proportion and like Terrorism , they will have to answer to this someday...because when we do the wrong things it connects to doing the wrong things in other ways. Finally I am not an expert in indentifying how we are suppose to deal with global warming but it doesn't take a brain scientists if you had to breathe this air everyday ) to know someone should immediately do more to stop the poisoning of its people that these toxics are most assuredly doing.To do otherwise is allowing holocausts to go on thats how sure I am of the damages and consequences... How fast do you want it > implemented? Who pays for it? Otherwise all your doing is touting > 'feel-good' measures with little plans on how to accomplish any of it. >> No other way? The hope ws that the gov would increase the mandatory miles > per gallon all future cars needed to have I think . Which has already been done. The OP wanted something done much faster. It has to keep pace with the consumers desire to spend money on new technology. Raise the price of gas and people are willing to spend more for economic cars. > . Its mixed in already? Whats the problem? What consumers have objected? Yes its available. Very few gas stations have spent the money to install pumps and tanks for it because the publics demand for it is weak. Changes have to be consumer driven. > Now its possible the costs might rise since this alternative has become > available and gas prices has fallen but perhaps this is why gas prices have > fallen. Two good reasons to keep adding this to the fuel.: Cleaner and > promotes lower prices, a no brainer. > They just need to mix more of it.. Not so. Industry would mix more of it and carry it at more stations of the public demanded it. So far they do not. Consumers have to drive changes. > How fast do you want it >> implemented? Who pays for it? Otherwise all your doing is touting >> 'feel-good' measures with little plans on how to accomplish any of it. No answer? >> Well if we can spend the money we spend in Iraq > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > emissions at factories are already in place. You want it done instantly > which is absurd to expect. S/He has an agenda that extends beyond pollution, and attacking Bush is one of the elements of the agenda. S/He is prone to very simplistic points of view. Adult-onset asthma incidence has been steadily increasing, and it is not clear why this is the case, mcs' political diatribes notwithstanding. I had the onset of asthma during the Clinton administration, so I guess that Bush is off the hook in my case. Roberts I thought you had me blocked or advising others to do the same? Seems like your actions are not exactly inline with your rants. But I think its obvious, at some point I do overreact and name call because thats my emotional response to ineffective action on behalf of pollution.I like to see the good in people but when your being poisoned and know why its not easy to let go and accept the consequences especially when I think there is better answers and solutions . I also do though provide links to the damages from pollution and constantly ask why these links are not as important as all the time and energy spent on other issues by press and politicians when you might realize so many people are being harmed and effected. >>> Well if we can spend the money we spend in Iraq >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > diatribes notwithstanding. I had the onset of asthma during the Clinton > administration, so I guess that Bush is off the hook in my case. >>> Well if we can spend the money we spend in Iraq >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > onset of asthma during the Clinton administration, so I guess > that Bush is off the hook in my case. Hahaa!! You mean the dolt is posting that pollution (caused by the Bush administration) is the cause of adult onset asthma AGAIN? Some things never change. Where are the links to back up this drivel that we've been asking for? another hypocrite who ignores the pollution ill health connection and bush putting in Johnson who doesn't accept the findings from his own agency (epa) and 22 experts and Christie Whitman quitting her own agency because she thought the epa was stymied from doing its job.form above. Or as the 60 minutes piece pointed out, when people complained about global warming to the white house, they were referred to lawyers who represented the Oil interests in his reelection campaign Yepp No links Ceo lol . Take your meds instead.. >>>> Well if we can spend the money we spend in Iraq >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > never change. Where are the links to back up this drivel that we've been > asking for? > > Hahaa!! You mean the dolt is posting that pollution (caused by the Bush > > administration) is the cause of adult onset asthma AGAIN? Some things > > never change. Where are the links to back up this drivel that we've been > > asking for? There have been several recent statements by what I at least consider to be experts to the same effect that mcs has been saying - that lowering the standards is not going in the right direction. I read one by the Lung Association and one by the Thoracic Society. Here are the short versions. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=52451 http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=52184 thanks but some people don't want to admit to this damage even if I gave links and true information. They would rather attack me because my grammer and voc is not good but I think any effect that is based on truth is better then no affect . I have heard it all trust me from attacking my religion to all sorts of stuff. Its weird I have to defend myself when people and kids are getting sick based on how much pollution they are getting. Sure there are people with asthma that is affected by other things but thats not to deny that more people can honestly be helped if they were just aware of their cities air rating and trying to affect changes from their politicians. >> > Hahaa!! You mean the dolt is posting that pollution (caused by the >> > Bush [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=52184 > thanks but some people don't want to admit to this damage even if I gave > links and true information. They would rather attack me because my grammer [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > deny that more people can honestly be helped if they were just aware of > their cities air rating and trying to affect changes from their politicians. Absolutely. Everyone should be paying attention. I will admit, I did vote for this "politician", who is my Congressman. I will not be making the same mistake this year. I hate it he makes us look so stupid, even if I wasn't raised here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veIU0Jwu54w |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.