Do you support saving the environment but disagree with the growing trend of Eco authoritarianism? (solar, alternative energy)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you serious? Yeah it's real scientific to show some test scores on reading and math, call them IQ charts and then inform us that lead is safe because the black kids were probably exposed to lead and their IQ didn't drop? Maybe you should read up on the symptoms of lead poisoning? https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...s/syc-20354717
The problem with evaluating low level Pb poisoning is that any effects it may have are subtle and non-specific (with the exception of basophilic stippling in anemia). The incidence of the effects are low and lost as noise in the data. We just can't make a sound judgement on the "safe" level for an individual.
The problem with evaluating high level exposure is that events are rare and only one such event has been studied systematically- the episode of chemical weapon deployment in Iraq 2 decades ago. Hundreds of victims were treated after exposure and it was found that no acute symptoms occurred unless PB levels exceeded 50ug/ml-- hence the treatment schedule noted in the Wiki article above.
Here's a table of incidence of Pb levels in American school kids- https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/data/C...-Table-508.pdf Less than 1 in 1000 have levels in excess of 10ug/ml and only about 100 kids reach the treatable level every year....You should also be aware that virtually all cases of treatable Pb poisoning still has to do with Pb pica (eating paint) or eating veggies grown in contaminated soil, so removing it from fuel was probably not warranted and maybe even stupid, given the carcinogenic possibilities of its replacements.
In regards toxicity of DDT, if we use the same logic as the regulators, we'd have no more chemotherapeutic agents, given their great propensity for serious side effects. Letting ideology dominate science & sound judgement is never a good choice.
ps/ You're apparently not aware that reading & math test scores correlate very highly with IQ scores over the population, and that Pb exposures correlate highly with socioeconomic factors, hence my suggestion regarding interpretation of those graphs. Perhaps I was expecting too large a pool of common knowledge.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 04-04-2019 at 02:58 AM..
Interesting hearing all you guys responses,
Though in the past it was mostly in terms of finding a solution, and most environmental regulations targeted the big guys.
We didn't ban gasoline just banned lead from gasoline, which is mostly targeting the big oil rather than the users.
Same with paint and DDT pesticides.
Though it appears in the 21st century. They now choose to make life harder for the little guys just to make politicians feel warm and fuzzy about how they are making people save the environment by suffering either physically, financially, or both.
We upped energy efficiency standards of A/Cs to using a third of energy of ones built 2 decades ago yet eco control freaks think its not enough and that they must make sure people are not too comfortable by legislating min room temperatures. Apparently they want to ban A/Cs completely. While Cool Biz in Japan is not mandatory and no penalty for not complying, but there has been a good amount of social pressure to take part in it, i.e Kyoto Convention goals for governmental agencies and some corporate offices that want to look green. Its kind of like how Hotels and cruise ships are pressured taking away straws without finding a good compostable alternative that end users won't notice, apparently looking green is worth facing the wrath of customers, thus the customer is King no more.
Another trend I just don't understand about is the obsession on banning engine idling these days. These days advanced engine efficiency and emissions control standards makes vehicles practically emissions free, compared to two decades ago with most vehicles/buses/trucks on the road SULEVs or PZEVs, yet these groups who are just never happy think they must wage war on idling. Also with fuel prices so high these days most people only idol if they really have to i.e to maintain climate or to deice in extreme conditions, or charge up the airtank, like we want to take valuable police resources over non issues(some one trying to keep cool or warm in a PZEV)? Just so these eco Extremists who control politics can feel warm and fuzzy inside?
Last edited by citizensadvocate; 04-04-2019 at 04:10 AM..
It doesn't need saving. People were growing barley in Greenland about 500 years ago. Now they cry that glaciers are warming in Greenland. ...yeah, like it was before we had automobiles.
Now if you rather said, do I believe we should take care of nature, absolutely. We should most definitely be good stewards of our planet and each other. But it does not need "saving". That's just code for 'establishing Marxism under an umbrella of environmental religion'. Leveraging shame and some sort of twisted compassion in the process.
It doesn't need saving. People were growing barley in Greenland about 500 years ago. Now they cry that glaciers are warming in Greenland. ...yeah, like it was before we had automobiles.
Now if you rather said, do I believe we should take care of nature, absolutely. We should most definitely be good stewards of our planet and each other. But it does not need "saving". That's just code for 'establishing Marxism under an umbrella of environmental religion'. Leveraging shame and some sort of twisted compassion in the process.
It's just a cycle.
I'm all about taking care of the environment. I've planted (literally) thousands of trees over the past 40 years. My wife & I are extremely energy efficient in everything we do. We garden, walk, etc.
But to think that we're going to stop global climate change - something that has been happening since the beginning of our planet - is arrogant and silly.
The truth is this: These Climate Change Fear Mongers want control. They're not really interested in "saving the planet." They want control.
Radical environmentalism has been around since the publication of Silent Spring in 1962. Much of what it has accomplished has made the environment a better place to live.
This is true. It is also true that it could prevent tens of millions of people, if not hundreds of millions, from rising out of poverty. Unless you think that widespread, cheap energy in Africa wouldn't be a boon to the continent.
I'm all about taking care of the environment. I've planted (literally) thousands of trees over the past 40 years. My wife & I are extremely energy efficient in everything we do. We garden, walk, etc.
But to think that we're going to stop global climate change - something that has been happening since the beginning of our planet - is arrogant and silly.
The truth is this: These Climate Change Fear Mongers want control. They're not really interested in "saving the planet." They want control.
I be curious whether did the Dinosaurs, the Mammoth and Saber toothed tiger and Eskimos/Home Sapians back then wonder how they can stop climate change that is ruining their way of life and ultimately killing them all? I am not saying that humans should have free reign to do everything without consequence but on the other end of extremism going all the way to the point of literally outlawing “breathing” would not stop this natural life cycle of the planet.
I be curious whether did the Dinosaurs, the Mammoth and Saber toothed tiger and Eskimos/Home Sapians back then wonder how they can stop climate change that is ruining their way of life and ultimately killing them all? I am not saying that humans should have free reign to do everything without consequence but on the other end of extremism going all the way to the point of literally outlawing “breathing” would not stop this natural life cycle of the planet.
One of the things that amuses me is when AOC complains about how cow farts are destroying the planet, and that they should be illegal.
Does she think that the 30 million bison that used to roam the plains DIDN'T fart?
No silly, she is commenting on Cow farts. Bison do not make cow farts. Bison farts are not destroying the planet, cow farts are.
well, and frogs. Frog farts are a big contributor to the destruction of the planet, especially wetland areas.
Dangit! I guess she's right! And smart!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe you should read up on the symptoms of lead poisoning? 
