Among the Bush administration's final environmental legacies will be a decision to exempt perchlorate, a known neurotoxin found at unsafe levels in the drinking water of millions of Americans, from federal regulation.
The ruling, proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency in October, was supposed to be formalized on Monday. That deadline passed, but the agency expects to announce its decision by the year's end, before president-elect Barack Obama takes office. It could take years to reverse.
Critics accuse the EPA of ignoring expert advice and basing their decision on an abstract model of perchlorate exposure, rather than existing human data.
"We know that breast milk is widely contaminated with perchlorate, and we know that young children are especially vulnerable. We have really good human data. So why are they putting a model front-and-center?" said Anila Jacobs at the nonprofit Environmental Working Group. "And they used a model that hasn't yet gone through the peer-review process."
The ruling is one of dozens planned for the final days of the Bush administration. Others include a relaxing of air pollution standards for aging power plants, and a reduction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's traditional role in evaluating the impact of federal projects on endangered species.
These have received more attention than the status of perchlorate, a chemical found mostly in jet rocket fuel and detected in 35 states and 153 water public water systems. It is known to lower thyroid hormone levels in women; it poses a particular threat to pregnant women and breast-feeding children, whose long-term neurological development can be stunted by youthful hormone imbalances.
[...]
If the rulings go through, Congress may still take action. California congresswomen Barbara Boxer and Hilda Solis, both Democrats, have each drafted legislation that would force the EPA to regulate perchlorate, though it could take years to go into effect.
I just can't fathom what goes through the minds of these bastards. They seriously want to exempt a chemical that has negative side-effects on the hormones of children from regulation? WHY!?!? I can't understand it - can someone please help me to figure this one out?
12-05-2008, 14:21
Rhyfelwyr
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Wow. How can that man live with himself? :dizzy2:
Killing trees is one thing, but putting people in danger like this... :no:
12-05-2008, 14:36
Fragony
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Beats me
12-05-2008, 14:52
PBI
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Bush has fallen into the trap that many on the right seem to fall for; because many of those among the environmentalist movement are clearly barking mad or extreme lefties (or both), he assumes that all environmental issues are essentially leftist agitation and do not present a genuine threat.
To be fair I suppose I do something similar. If I hear the Daily Mail is outraged about something, I tend to be less worried about it.
12-05-2008, 15:03
Louis VI the Fat
Re : Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
I can't understand it - can someone please help me to figure this one out?
I suggest Americans bring their case before a Quebec court in ten years time. Bush may make it legal, but there might be a civil case nevertheless. :idea2:
I just can't fathom what goes through the minds of these bastards. They seriously want to exempt a chemical that has negative side-effects on the hormones of children from regulation? WHY!?!? I can't understand it - can someone please help me to figure this one out?
Your article is full of misinformation. This is a ruling by the EPA, not Bush, alright?
Perchlorates occur naturally, in addition to industrial sources, and it has been suggested that sunlight and lightning cause them, among other reasons.
(VANCOUVER, BC, Oct. 1, 2004)—A chemical, perchlorate, that is increasingly turning up in soil and water may not be as harmful as previously thought when people ingest it or are exposed to it, according to three new studies being presented on Sept. 30 and Oct. 1, 2004, at the 76th Annual Meeting of the American Thyroid Association in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
CR
12-05-2008, 17:27
Louis VI the Fat
Re : Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Your article is full of misinformation. This is a ruling by the EPA, not Bush, alright?
Perchlorates occur naturally, in addition to industrial sources, and it has been suggested that sunlight and lightning cause them, among other reasons.
This is one of those instances where even your pompous truly is reluctant to bluff his way into a conversation. I simply lack the medical and chemical insight to critically evaluate your studies.
What I do know, is that 'percholrate' is a highly controversial subject, with lots of law suits, looming lawsuits, and nervous companies and the military fearing lawsuits. Naturally, these business interests have formed a a powerful lobby. Sponsored 'medical research'. Tried to influence legislation.
According to http://www.acwanet.com/legislation/legis/99prior.html, theAssociation of California Water Agencies is asking the California legislature to protect perchlorate-impacted water utilities from personal injury suits. Specifically, this protection would apply to the water purveyors affected by the Aerojet perchlorate/tce/nitrosodimethylamine plumes in Rancho Cordova and the San Gabriel Valley. No California legislator offered to sponsor this resolution. Recently a California appellate court has held that the water utilites cannot be held liable for "unknown" contaminants as long as they followed the regulations of the state Public Utilities Commission. No word on whether the personal injury attorneys will appeal to the state supreme court.
One defendent, the Southern California Water Company, owned wells in Irwindale immediately downgradient from the Aerojet Azusa site, and then purchased Rancho Cordova's wells in 1964 when the state water board reported these wells contained 1000-2000 ppb perchlorate.
Seeking legal immunity at the state level won't be necessary anymore. Bush will pull a 'Bill Clinton' before leaving office and will pass a 'get out of jail free card' to all his political friends.
12-05-2008, 17:33
Louis VI the Fat
Re : Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Your article is full of misinformation. This is a ruling by the EPA, not Bush, alright?
It is a political agency. The Environmentla Protection Agency is led by administrator Stephen L. Johnson. He was appointed by Bush in 2005.
Edit: Marcus C. Peacock (born March 21, 1960) is the current Deputy Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He was sworn in to office August 8, 2005. Within a month of being sworn in, Mr. Peacock was appointed the lead for coordinating EPA’s response to Hurricane Katrina. :laugh4:
You couldn't trust these two guys to run a hotdog stand properly. They are there for one thing only: to see to it that environmental peotection does not interfere with the business interests of companies priviliged by the Bush administration.
Good old Ike, speaking way back in 1961:
(=Eisenhower)
Quote:
"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together...Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by the task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiousity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded."
12-05-2008, 17:39
Xiahou
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Your article is full of misinformation. This is a ruling by the EPA, not Bush, alright?
Perchlorates occur naturally, in addition to industrial sources, and it has been suggested that sunlight and lightning cause them, among other reasons.
Huh, and I had thought that BPA was the environmentalists chemical du jour... Regardless, they'll never let a lack of evidence stop them from trying to whip people into a frenzy. ~:handball:
Edit: I agree with DD.
12-05-2008, 18:17
CrossLOPER
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Looking at this, I can't say I'm surprised. Looks like gross mismanagement, if you could call it that.
12-05-2008, 20:28
Vladimir
Re: Re : Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
It is a political agency. The Environmentla Protection Agency is led by administrator Stephen L. Johnson. He was appointed by Bush in 2005.
Edit: Marcus C. Peacock (born March 21, 1960) is the current Deputy Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He was sworn in to office August 8, 2005. Within a month of being sworn in, Mr. Peacock was appointed the lead for coordinating EPA’s response to Hurricane Katrina. :laugh4:
You couldn't trust these two guys to run a hotdog stand properly. They are there for one thing only: to see to it that environmental peotection does not interfere with the business interests of companies priviliged by the Bush administration.
Good old Ike, speaking way back in 1961:
(=Eisenhower)
Poppycock!
That’s rather ignorant to assume that everyone appointed by a president is his puppet. Does everyone Sarkozy appoints go around squeezing breasts in public? Does everyone Putin appoints randomly kiss the stomachs of young boys? I think not! *harrumph*
I’d also like to know what you believe the function of the EPA is after a natural disaster. Not to mention the functions of the state and local governments. I’d also like to see how any branch of government runs a hotdog stand.
Hey, um. Can I have that Senior Membership when you're done with it? Just asking.
Hope and change my friend, pray to the One and it can be yours!!! yes you can!!!!:2thumbsup:
Sorry, I've been drinking to much of the poisonous George Bush water today....
12-05-2008, 21:52
Louis VI the Fat
Re : Re: Re : Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
1 That’s rather ignorant to assume that everyone appointed by a president is his puppet.
2 I’d also like to know what you believe the function of the EPA is after a natural disaster.
3 I’d also like to see how any branch of government runs a hotdog stand.
1 A judge is appointed, but independent. The administrator of the EPA is not independent. He is part of the...administration. It is a political position, at near cabinet level. 31st of January, 2001, the Democratic administrator of the EPA was replaced by a Republican.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrator_of_the_Environmental_Protection_AgencyThe Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is the head of the United States federal government's Environmental Protection Agency, and is thus responsible for enforcing the nation's Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, as well as numerous other environmental statutes. The Administrator is nominated by the President of the United States and must be confirmed by a vote of the Senate. The office of Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency was created in 1970 in legislation that created the Environmental Protection Agency.
The EPA Administrator is customarily accorded Cabinet rank by the President and sits with the President, Vice President, and the 15 Cabinet Secretaries. Since the late 1980s, there has been a movement to make the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency a Cabinet Secretary, thus making the EPA a 16th Cabinet department, dealing with environmental affairs. The Administrator of the EPA is equivalent to the position of Minister of the Environment in other countries.
2 The EPA assesses the environmental effects of a natural disaster. Which they pretty much botched up after both 9-11 and Katrina.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Quote:
Hurricane Katrina presented not only a human tragedy, but also one of the biggest environmental stories of the new millennium. Even after days of criticism that the federal government didn't do enough to help hurricane victims, federal agencies compounded the problem by failing to respond adequately to journalists' environmental questions.
The event gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a chance to show that it had learned lessons from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, when the agency was broadly criticized for withholding information and downplaying risks. Instead, EPA appears to have taken the same tight-lipped approach in responding to Katrina, denying the public crucial information collected with taxpayers' money on behalf of taxpayers in the first place.
3 In the case of the EPA under Bush, the hotdogs will be toxic, mock scientific reports will show that they are not, your child will get cancer from eating it, Bush will pardon the people responsible shortly before leaving office
Edit: What am I saying!? It is much worse than this. Bush will not pardon them, he goes one better. He will make it perfectly legal to sell toxic hotdogs, to prevent even civil lawsuits.
An extensive online questionnaire responded by 1600 EPA staff scientists who have worked in the agency for more than 10 years has determined that they have been pressured to skew their findings. The survey included chemists, toxicologists, engineers, geologists and experts in other fields of science. About 40% of the scientists have reported that the interference has been more prevalent in the last five years compared to previous years.
To quote DD: Bush! Bush! Bush! :smash:
12-05-2008, 23:01
Ice
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
I'm going to have to agree with the Bush opposition on this single case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis
What I do know, is that 'percholrate' is a highly controversial subject, with lots of law suits, looming lawsuits, and nervous companies and the military fearing lawsuits. Naturally, these business interests have formed a a powerful lobby. Sponsored 'medical research'. Tried to influence legislation.
I couldn't agree more. I'd like to see an independent commission, paid for by the government, give their findings on the issue. Until then, the feds should ban or regulate closely the substance in water.
12-06-2008, 04:33
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kush
I'm going to have to agree with the Bush opposition on this single case.
I couldn't agree more. I'd like to see an independent commission, paid for by the government,...
1. paid for by the government means by us, the taxpayers. Do NOT fall into the trap of thinking it all belongs to the government -- that way lies slavery.
2. Any study funded by the current executive branch (at least under the current administration) would be considered suspect by the very people who are angry with the current proposed ruling.
3. This, and other issues associated with Presidential leave-taking, are going to get more and more press. The goal is to minimize Bush's ability to do anthing aside from pack up his gear.
Extension on three: What really chaps the main-stream media and a lot of the US political left is that there is no constitutional way to get Bush to resign in favor of Obama and put Obama in office yesterday -- which is what they'd like to see. Their thinking runs thus: we repudiated everything you did and stand for, so why the :daisy: are you still here?
12-06-2008, 04:35
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
1. paid for by the government means by us, the taxpayers. Do NOT fall into the trap of thinking it all belongs to the government -- that way lies slavery.
2. Any study funded by the current executive branch (at least under the current administration) would be considered suspect by the very people who are angry with the current proposed ruling.
3. This, and other issues associated with Presidential leave-taking, are going to get more and more press. The goal is to minimize Bush's ability to do anthing aside from pack up his gear.
Extension on three: What really chaps the main-stream media and a lot of the US political left is that there is no constitutional way to get Bush to resign in favor of Obama and put Obama in office yesterday -- which is what they'd like to see. Their thinking runs thus: we repudiated everything you did and stand for, so why the :daisy: are you still here?
RE: As to the point in the OP, I favor clean drinking water. If there are legitimate questions as to the science behind the EPA's proposed ruling, then it should be reviewed. Until the ruling is made, we should err on the side of safety.
12-06-2008, 08:24
Xiahou
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kush
I couldn't agree more. I'd like to see an independent commission, paid for by the government, give their findings on the issue. Until then, the feds should ban or regulate closely the substance in water.
Right, so we should ban everything until a government committee and prove incontrovertibly that it isn't in any way harmful. :yes:
12-06-2008, 15:17
Husar
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Right, so we should ban everything until a government committee and prove incontrovertibly that it isn't in any way harmful. :yes:
Right, so we should allow anything that was considered harmful for years just because someone new comes and says it's not and his opinion hasn't even been peer-reviewed or critisized. Because everytime someone new comes and says something, that person has to be right, so where's gay marriage then? Or does that only apply to environmental laws that are stopping poor american companies from dumping raw oil and chemicals into the next river? :inquisitive:
12-06-2008, 20:14
Louis VI the Fat
Re : Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
2. Any study funded by the current executive branch (at least under the current administration) would be considered suspect by the very people who are angry with the current proposed ruling.
Well we would, wouldn't we, after the mockery the current administration has made of the EPA. Here's a fair and balanced account:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Quote:
WASHINGTON — Hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency scientists say they have been pressured by superiors to skew their findings, according to a survey released Wednesday by an advocacy group. The Union of Concerned Scientists said more than half of the nearly 1,600 EPA staff scientists who responded online to a detailed questionnaire reported they had experienced incidents of political interference in their work.
But Francesca Grifo, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program, said the survey results revealed "an agency in crisis" and "under siege from political pressures" especially among scientists involved in risk assessment and crafting regulations. "The investigation shows researchers are generally continuing to do their work, but their scientific findings are tossed aside when it comes time to write regulations," said Grifo.
The EPA has been under fire from members of Congress on a number of fronts including its delay in determining whether carbon dioxide should be regulated to combat global warming. Johnson also has been criticized for rejecting recommendations from science advisory boards on a number of air pollution issues including control of mercury from power plants and how much to reduce smog pollution.
In the survey, the EPA scientists described an agency suffering from low morale as senior managers and the White House Office of Management and Budget frequently second-guess scientific findings and change work conducted by EPA's scientists, the report said.
The survey covered employees at EPA headquarters, in each of the agency's 10 regions around the country and at more than a dozen research laboratories. The highest number of complaints about political interference came from scientists who are directly involved in writing regulations and those who conduct risk assessments such as determining a chemical cancer risk for humans.
Nearly 400 scientists said they had witnessed EPA officials misrepresenting scientific findings, 284 said they had seen the "selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome" and 224 scientists said they had been directed to "inappropriately exclude or alter technical information" in an EPA document. Nearly 200 of the respondents said they had been in situations where they or their colleagues actively objected to or resigned from projects "because of pressure to change scientific findings."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus
What really chaps the main-stream media and a lot of the US political left is that there is no constitutional way to get Bush to resign in favor of Obama and put Obama in office yesterday -- which is what they'd like to see. Their thinking runs thus: we repudiated everything you did and stand for, so why the ... are you still here?
Yes, you are absolutely right. But is this the position that you want to take Seamus? US politics has fallen prey to extreme partisanship and pressure groups. Shockingly, this has dragged US science down with it. Obama will move in, the EPA will for the next four years deliver 'scientific' reports that support the politics of leftists and environmental pressure groups, and then Obama will leave again, and new special interest groups move in. Etcetera.
So what does one do about it? Decide on one side and squeak about the meanness of the other side? Or be outraged that a core scientific government institute is the toy of whomever is in power?
Might as well be militant to encourage further debate: I, for one, put as much stock in US scientific findings as I do on former Soviet science. Sure, the directness, and goal-driven approach often yields phenomenal results.
Physics and engineering somewhat trancend politicised approach. But pharmaceutical, medical, environmental, sociological, historical research? Gah! Everywhere you look, there is either a politicised government agency involved, or covert funding by a lobby group, or direct corporate interference.
The US has both the best funded scientific institutions and the greatest minds of the world, and both the world's most hostile and unscientifc culture. From high schools to the best research intitutions, US science is in the grip of 'Intelligent Design' onslaughts. That is, science is under attack from, or simply the output of, politics, pressure groups, disinformation. With American scientific reports, one never needs to read the conclusion, only the origin. Show me the financer, and I'll show the scientific results.
12-07-2008, 07:03
Ice
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Right, so we should ban everything until a government committee and prove incontrovertibly that it isn't in any way harmful. :yes:
Yeah, that's exactly what I said.
12-07-2008, 07:05
Ice
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
1. paid for by the government means by us, the taxpayers. Do NOT fall into the trap of thinking it all belongs to the government -- that way lies slavery.
2. Any study funded by the current executive branch (at least under the current administration) would be considered suspect by the very people who are angry with the current proposed ruling.
3. This, and other issues associated with Presidential leave-taking, are going to get more and more press. The goal is to minimize Bush's ability to do anthing aside from pack up his gear.
Extension on three: What really chaps the main-stream media and a lot of the US political left is that there is no constitutional way to get Bush to resign in favor of Obama and put Obama in office yesterday -- which is what they'd like to see. Their thinking runs thus: we repudiated everything you did and stand for, so why the :daisy: are you still here?
So it keep it banned until a committee, under the new Obama administration, is created to deal with the problem.
Airing on the side of safety in this situation seems prudent.
12-07-2008, 09:30
Xiahou
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kush
Yeah, that's exactly what I said.
Not quiet, it was just the logical extension of what you said. Everything is poisonous- it's all a matter of dosage. Until we know what the proper levels are for anything, it should be banned. Or does it only apply in this case because environmental activists got a one-sided article run pushing their position?
What determines whether something should be banned until proven safe?
12-07-2008, 10:20
CountArach
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Xiahou - surely you can see that it is more important to keep anything remotely poisonous out of drinking water? Anything beyond that is debatable, but water must remain clear.
12-07-2008, 11:00
Husar
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Or does it only apply in this case because environmental activists got a one-sided article run pushing their position?
Or should we unban everything because industrial lobbyists got a one-sided study pushing their position?
12-07-2008, 12:59
Xiahou
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Xiahou - surely you can see that it is more important to keep anything remotely poisonous out of drinking water? Anything beyond that is debatable, but water must remain clear.
Water is poisonous. We should probably ban it until we can determine the what, if any, levels are safe. :yes:
Perchlorate could use some form of monitoring, sure- but it's also a naturally occurring substance that has uses in medicine. EWG throwing around labels like "neurotoxin", just makes me roll my eyes. And I'm certainly glad that the EPA's initial guidance of 1ppb never made it into any sort of binding regulation. Where on earth did they get that? It's like they pulled it out of the air. :dizzy2:
Quote:
A new report by the National Academies' National Research Council on the health effects of perchlorate, a chemical that in high doses can decrease thyroid function in humans and that is present in many public drinking-water supplies, says daily ingestion of up to 0.0007 milligrams per kilogram of body weight can occur without adversely affecting the health of even the most sensitive populations. That amount is more than 20 times the "reference dose" proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a recent draft risk assessment.
sure- but it's also a naturally occurring substance that has uses in medicine.
Kinda like Barium or opium then :idea2:
Oh dear it looks like Rabbits study isn't up to date , the very small sample group used for that study has been superseeded by a peer reviewed study published by the EPA with a much much larger group of subjects ...and oh dear oh dear oh dear they conclude that the negative effect on peoples health starts at much lower intake levels than was previously thought possible , especially among women ....and yes it is also a later study than that used by Xiahou and also again has a much much much larger group of test subjects .
12-07-2008, 16:34
Husar
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Oh dear oh dear, who woulda thunkathought something like that? Oh dear oh dear. :sweatdrop:
12-07-2008, 17:57
Ice
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Not quiet, it was just the logical extension of what you said. Everything is poisonous- it's all a matter of dosage. Until we know what the proper levels are for anything, it should be banned. Or does it only apply in this case because environmental activists got a one-sided article run pushing their position?
What determines whether something should be banned until proven safe?
This is a pretty one sided situation, X. Thoroughly and constantly proving our drinking water is still safe is a good idea imho.
12-08-2008, 01:17
Crazed Rabbit
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Xiahou - surely you can see that it is more important to keep anything remotely poisonous out of drinking water? Anything beyond that is debatable, but water must remain clear.
Do you know how many 'remotely poisonous' substances are in drinking water? If there is good science that a certain level of chemical is bad for humans, it should be regulated to a safe level.
Detection technology for chemicals in water is phenomenal; very, very small quantities, measure in parts per billion or trillion, can be detected. If you didn't drink any water that had the slightest bit of bad substances in them, you'd never drink any water.
CR
12-08-2008, 02:36
CountArach
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Do you know how many 'remotely poisonous' substances are in drinking water?
Yes. I also drink filtered water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
If there is good science that a certain level of chemical is bad for humans, it should be regulated to a safe level.
Two peer-reviewed articles isn't enough for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Detection technology for chemicals in water is phenomenal; very, very small quantities, measure in parts per billion or trillion, can be detected. If you didn't drink any water that had the slightest bit of bad substances in them, you'd never drink any water.
CR
If they were to get to the levels where they could put anyone's life in danger, then they should be removed from water and the water content should be regulated.
12-08-2008, 09:30
LittleGrizzly
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Private Industry is very important
The quality of the water (most of us) drink is far more important
By quality i mean lack of pollutants and poisons...
12-08-2008, 09:37
Xiahou
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Yes. I also drink filtered water.
Any idea how many substances aren't removed by a carbon filter? Perchlorate, for example. :wink:
12-08-2008, 09:42
CountArach
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Any idea how many substances aren't removed by a carbon filter? Perchlorate, for example. :wink:
Which is why the Government needs to step in.
12-08-2008, 10:17
Tribesman
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
If there is good science that a certain level of chemical is bad for humans, it should be regulated to a safe level.
Which is what this topic is about , the newer studies with more extensive research than those you and Xiahou posted have a strong suggestion that the safe levels are much lower than was previously thought and need new stronger regulation not an exemption from regulation .:idea2:
12-22-2008, 14:18
Louis VI the Fat
Re : Bush Trashing the Environment
*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---* Thread resurrection starts here *---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*
Quote:
Report: Politics corroded Bush decisions on endangered species
· Report says Bush administration official bullied scientists
· Committee critical of handling of endangered species act
· Politics played a role in 20 endangered species decisions
Politics corroded Bush administration decisions on protecting endangered species in regions nationwide, federal investigators have concluded in a sweeping new report. Former interior department official Julie MacDonald frequently bullied career scientists to reduce species protections, the interior department investigators found.
"The results of this investigation paint a picture of something akin to a secret society residing within the interior department that was colluding to undermine the protection of endangered wildlife and covering for one another's misdeeds,"
Endangered species protection or not is not the issue here. The issue is the style of the Bush administrations.
Its decisions are not based on sincere scientific reports. On the contrary, political decisions are imposed on scientific findings.
It is all remarkably similar to what happened during the run-up to the Iraq war: fake reports, invented 'facts', bullying of those with conflicting findings.
It borders on the obscene. For one, one can not trust the word of the US government for anything anymore. Not since the Soviets made perennial lying and deceit their trademark, has a government of a developed nation made such a mockery of politically independent scientific results.
12-22-2008, 14:24
Fragony
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
"The results of this investigation paint a picture of something akin to a secret society residing within the interior department that was colluding to undermine the protection of endangered wildlife and covering for one another's misdeeds,"
Now I know you are a frog Luigi but common this has PETA written all over it.
12-22-2008, 14:57
Louis VI the Fat
Re : Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Now I know you are a frog Luigi but common this has PETA written all over it.
Quod non.
This is about Julie MacDonald, former interior minister under Bush. She already resigned in 2007 after an internal investigation found that she had tampered with scientific findings and violated federal rules by giving government documents to oil industry and property rights lobbyists.
A full report about it has now been published. It is damning in the extreme.
What is so damning about it? The tampering with science is. Bush is quite open in his policies: a full War on the Environment. Fine. If the American electorate wishes to undo in eight years all the efforts their ancestors made in the previous hundred years to protect America's stunning National Parks, then fine.
But...at stake is the science and honesty of this War on the Environment. It is frought with lies, deceit, corruption. And deliberate anti-science. Nonsense non-science.
Special interest groups have bought America's government. This government, Bush, has next abused its power to silence independent science.
The result is that America's national treasures have been sold for a pittance to businesses closely associated with the Bush administration. Here's Wikipedia, for a brief synopsis:
Quote:
MacDonald is the deputy assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks in the Department of the Interior. That is, the one responsible for them.
On 30 October, 2006, the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit group that advocates scientific integrity, alleged that McDonald had "personally reversed scientific findings, changed scientific conclusions to prevent endangered species from receiving protection, removed relevant information from a scientific document, and ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to adopt her edits."
According to the Inspector General, "MacDonald has been heavily involved with editing, commenting on, and reshaping the Endangered Species Program's scientific reports from the field."
MacDonald resigned on 1 May, 2007, one week before a House congressional oversight committee was to hold a hearing on the Inspector General's findings.
In November 2007, a followup report by the Inspector General found that MacDonald could have benefited financially from a decision to remove the Sacramento splittail fish from the federal endangered species list.
The Washington Post called the events leading to MacDonald's resignation "the latest in a series of controversies in which government officials and outside scientists have accused the Bush administration of overriding or setting aside scientific findings that clashed with its political agenda."[9] In the aftermath of her departure, many endangered species designation denials which had been issued during her tenure were reversed.
The report. It is not a PETA or lobby group report. It is from the Inspector General Earl Devaney. It confirms the allegations, in no uncertain terms, that led to MacDonald's resignation last year.
12-22-2008, 15:22
Fragony
Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
a full War on the Environment.
Now I do understand that I kinda deserved that, but isn't that taking it little far?
12-22-2008, 17:58
Louis VI the Fat
Re : Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
a full War on the Environment.
Now I do understand that I kinda deserved that, but isn't that taking it little far?
Sorry, the harshness of my words wasn't meant for you, my dearest. ~:grouphug:
My choice for the phrase War on the Environment is quite deliberate. It and the War on Terror are both fought with the same means: misinformation, lies, deceit and intimidation. With the same disastrous result. The difference is, that Bush has been rather less succesful in weeding out terrorists than America's natural treasures.
Bush does not simply state that he will give preference to the industrial interests of befriended businesses over the American environment and the health and safety of the American people. It is far more devious and perverse than that.
The Bush administration doesn't simply pass environmentally unfriendly legislation. It simply orders a 'scientific' report that will state that species X is no longer endagered, or that mining in nature reserve Y has no detrimental effect on the environment. Next, with these 'scientific' results in hand, the administration grants mining concessions. Who needs new legislation? :idea2:
African dictators would be embarrassed about a scheme like this. This is how mining corporations operate in the Congo. You buy a president, you buy a scientific report, and presto. :no:
Bush' concessions and legislation have usually been based on 'proven and scientific fact' that they have no detrimental effect on health and nature. Alas, the full scale of the Bush administration's involvement with faked, political science is now becoming clear. It is a complete disgrace. A mockery of democracy and science alike.
12-22-2008, 18:06
Fragony
Re: Re : Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
edit huh what sorry drunk
12-22-2008, 19:51
CountArach
Re: Re : Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
If we can't trust the independence and validity of science, what can we trust?
12-23-2008, 05:49
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: Re : Re: Bush Trashing the Environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
If we can't trust the independence and validity of science, what can we trust?
