Many environmental groups profit from false alarms and hysteria, either financially or by
gaining free publicity ("face time" on television). This increases the groups'
political leverage and influence, and the cycle repeats. As a result, there are
people called "activists" (i.e., troublemakers and enviro-busybodies) who would have you
believe that almost everything is unsafe. For every product on the market,
you can probably find someone who thinks it's dangerous, particularly if it is produced
by a very large company. That's because the most prominent environmental activists
are actually socialists who can't stand to see capitalism succeed.
This page has been compiled as a public service to dispel some of the myths and challenge the
conventional wisdom about a number of issues, especially chemicals which have been called
unsafe, but may not be unsafe at all, or may provide benefits well worth the
risks. After researching several of these topics, I've come to the conclusion
that environmentalists are wrong about almost everything!
Remember, risks cannot be completely eliminated. There is a certain amount of
risk involved with the use of any chemical including water!
Some of this material came from the
Lies, propaganda and distortion page,
which you may find interesting as well. This page has grown rather rapidly, simply
because it is easy to find examples of dishonest alarmism in environmental "news" these
days. Many of these hoaxes gain momentum only because the people who call themselves
journalists do not differentiate
facts from baseless speculation. Of course the biggest exaggeration of them all is the
one about global warming.
Specific environmental "threats" debunked, or at least challenged:
Most of the bad news about the environment is wrong. If any of the following things
were as hazardous as the environmental alarmists claim, none of us would have survived the
20th century. Keep in mind that risks cannot be completely eliminated, and there are a
lot of environmental groups that profit from
false alarms.* Safety
bureaucracies and consumer activist groups routinely invent or exaggerate dangers to maintain their budgets
and inflate their apparent worth.*
You may also notice that newspapers and television news outlets thrive on alarming and sensational "news", whether
it's valid or not.* One interesting
thing about television is that today you may hear, for example, that chocolate is dangerous;
but last week you heard the same people say — with equal certainty — that chocolate
is essential to your diet. In many of these cases, the TV news "personality" was just
reading whatever came up on the teleprompter, and the writer was just repeating the text of
a "press release" without checking the facts. Listen carefully and you will notice that
you almost never hear the whole truth about anything on television! Newspapers give you
more detail, but stories may be arranged and phrased to emphasize the viewpoints of
Read the following articles, and you'll get the idea that almost all the environmental "news"
on television (and in your local newspaper) is misleading or simply incorrect.
The Great Apple Scare: Alar 20 Years Later. A cancer scare in early 1989 caused millions of
consumers throughout the country to stop buying and eating apples and apple products. The fear was that apples were being sprayed with a cancer-causing
chemical. Children, in particular, were thought to be at especially high risk. [...] Now, on the twentieth anniversary of "The Great Apple Scare," the
American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) means to recall the events that led up to the mass hysteria over apples and explore some of its many
ramifications in hopes of preventing another fabricated crisis from fooling a too-gullible public in the future.
The Media Is Obsessed With Bad News.
Years ago, the Natural Resources Defense Council claimed the chemical Alar, which helps keep apples from rotting, killed kids.
When "60 Minutes" ran the story, I believed it. So did lots of people. Schools across America banned apples.
Moms poured out apple juice. Apple growers lost billions. But the scare was bunk. Apples, even apples with Alar, are
good for you. Since banning Alar meant apples decay more quickly, apples become slightly more expensive, and that meant some
kids ate less healthy food.
The Dirty Little Secret of "Income Inequality".
As with so many other statistics, numbers that "prove" income inequality can be made to dance on the head of a pin.
It's especially easy when not even the word "income" has a clearly understood meaning anymore. The more
compensation is routed through the government, the less aware of it an employee becomes. That's the whole
idea behind paycheck withholding: grab those taxes before people even realize the money is gone.
Alar: The Great Apple Scare. Apple
juice and apple sauce were thrown away. Apples were taken out of school lunches, and parents on the border
of hysteria called the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about risks of cancer to their children.
The publicity campaign was so effective that sales and prices of all apples declined sharply, and 20,000 apple
growers in the U.S. suffered substantial financial harm — even the large number who never used Alar.
The Alar Scare Ten Years Later:
1989 was the year in which something of a kangaroo court pronounced Alar, a powder used to prevent the pre-harvest
rotting of apples, "the most potent cancer-causing agent in our food supply." It was the year in which the
Natural Resources Defense Council, the TV newsmagazine 60 Minutes, then-talk-show host Phil Donahue,
and film star Meryl Streep made "Alar" an almost dirty household word.
The Editor asks...
Why is an actress's opinion more valuable than anyone else's?
Apples and Crossbones: In 1989,
costuming oneself as an apple on Halloween would have befitted the times. That was the year of mass
hysteria over Alar, a chemical product not otherwise noteworthy except for its usefulness to apple growers
and apple consumers.
Starbucks protestors spread false fears about safe
foods: Anti-biotechnology activists engaged in a week of "direct action" at Starbucks Coffee shops
in February  with false and misleading information about food safety, nutrition, and the environment.
The same people who brought you a long list of other false health and environmental scares — including
the infamous Alar-in-apples scare, the Dow-Corning breast implant campaign, and dozens of other debunked
fears — are at it again.
Worst Business Stories of the Last 50 Years — [#2] Alar-ming Apples. It was another left-wing
campaign that started one of the biggest food scares in U.S. history. Spurred by a study from the
leftist Natural Resources Defense Council, CBS's Ed Bradley reported a Feb. 26, 1989, "60 Minutes"
segment on daminozide, a pesticide used to keep apples attractive that Bradley dubbed "the most
cancer-causing agent in the food supply."
found in bottled water sold at Whole Foods, Walmart, Target. When you pay premium prices, you expect a premium
product — but that's not necessarily the case with bottled water. California nonprofit Center for
Environmental Health has revealed that water bottle brands Peñafiel, owned by Keurig Dr. Pepper, and Starkey, owned
by Whole Foods, contain levels of highly toxic arsenic that are above the legal limit. [...] Other symptoms of arsenic
poisoning include stomach pain and nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, numbness, even paralysis or blindness.
The Editor says...
This is nothing but alarmism, brought to you by an environmental activist group and gladly passed along by the New York Post.
There's not enough arsenic in bottled water to give anyone arsenic poisoning. The "legal limit" for arsenic content
in bottled water is probably so low that it's easy to exceed that limit.
Why Rice Contains Detectable Levels of
Arsenic. Rice appears to be a concentrator of arsenic for two distinct reasons. First, something about rice just seems to attract
arsenic into the grain, particularly into the husk that gives brown rice its brown color. Ironically, brown rice, always considered healthier, has a
decidedly higher level of arsenic than the white, or unhusked, version. Second, rice grows differently from other grains. A field of wheat
swaying across the American Plains is a favorite of Sunday painters, but unlike wheat, rice likes it wet. It thrives in marshes, referred to more
familiarly as rice paddies, and the water has plenty of arsenic. The source of all this arsenic is the subject of disagreement.
a Lot like Clinton, Naturally. Since Bush took office, environmentalist groups
have blasted him with wild claims that sound toxic: Bush increased the amount of dangerous
mercury that power plants can put out, eased rules on arsenic in drinking water and, according
to Robert Kennedy Jr., is "America's worst environmental president." They decry any
regulatory reform as "weakening" environmental protections and begin anew their Chicken Little
chant. In reality, these charges are no more than Orwellian double-speak; scare tactics
designed to destroy the administration.
Why the arsenic standard should not be
changed: A strange thing happened in the last days of the Clinton administration: The
Environmental Protection Agency rushed to set a new arsenic drinking water standard. For the previous
eight years of the Clinton administration, and the 30 years of the EPA era, the existing arsenic standard
was not deemed in need of change. Suddenly, EPA calculates cancer risks from arsenic as high as
1 in 100. If the risks were real, more Americans would still die from arsenic than from all
other regulation chemicals combined.
EPA Arsenic Standard May Be Unconstitutional.
"The demands of the new standard are absurd," said Sam Kazman, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's general
counsel. "The science has failed to find any adverse impacts of arsenic in U.S. drinking water at the
50 parts per billion level, a standard that has been in place more than 50 years."
Local Budgets Reel Under Arsenic Mandates.
The citizens of Middlefield, Ohio are being hammered by a staggering cost of $7,400 per household after water
testing showed the community is very slightly above new, stringent federal standards regarding arsenic in
water. With arsenic measuring 12 parts per billion in community water supplies — just two parts per
billion over the new federal standards — Middlefield's 1,000 households must foot the bill for a
new $7.4 million water treatment plant.
dumping arsenic in Antarctica. Penguin guano isn't usually considered an environmental hazard.
Yet, according to new research, it is the main source of arsenic accumulation in Antarctic soil. The droppings
of the gentoo penguin contained far more than those of the other species — nearly twice as much as the
droppings of the southern giant petrel and up to three times more than the local seals.
Newsline scores big win for asbestos transparency. Garlock Sealing Technologies,
founded in 1887, originally produced seals for rods in locomotive steam engines. Over the years, it
used asbestos in gaskets and valves. When the age of asbestos lawsuits began, it was deluged with
nearly a million claims. Although Garlock defended such cases for years — at times
successfully — the company succumbed in 2010 and entered bankruptcy with 100,000 asbestos
and 4,000 mesothelioma claims pending.
finds pervasive fraud by trial lawyers in asbestos litigation. Fresh evidence of the
efficacy of transparency in public affairs recently came from an unexpected source — class-action
litigation on behalf of people who claim to have developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to
asbestos. An estimated $37 billion has been set aside to compensate such victims since the
litigation became common in state and federal courts in the 1980s. Among the 100 or so companies
that have been shut down at least in part by mesothelioma litigation is the Chapter 11 bankruptcy
case of Garlock Sealing Technologies. Multiple trial lawyer firms have filed claims with the trust
established to compensate Garlock victims.
Politician with cancer smoked for 40 years,
sues over asbestos. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's law firm has filed a class-action suit on behalf of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy,
accusing more than 70 companies of potentially causing the Long Island congresswoman to develop lung cancer from asbestos. But the
bizarre Weitz & Luxenberg suit fails to mention that the 69-year-old Democrat smoked heavily for 40 years — and that she never
actually worked with the cancer-causing substance.
EPA: The Worst Of Many Rogue Federal Agencies. The EPA has ignored epidemiological evidence to foment false alarms
about the dangers of ozone, radon, Alar (used in apple orchards), dioxins, and asbestos. The asbestos story is illustrative.
Not only did the EPA, in 1989, decree an eight-year phase-out of asbestos despite studies from Oxford, Harvard, the Canadian Royal
commission, New Jersey, etc. that the health risks posed by asbestos-lined buildings were miniscule, EPA's administrators even
ignored the EPA's own scientific panel, which denounced the study used to justify the ban on asbestos as "unconvincing,"
"scientifically unappealing," and "absurd."
Asbestos of All Possible Worlds?
Asbestos litigation has gone on for decades, costing billions of dollars and driving a dozen companies into
bankruptcy. Some 60% of all monies have been consumed by the lawyers and assorted parasites. A
signal moment was the leakage of a memo from the Texas law firm of Baron & Budd, complete with photos, used by
the firm to, ahem, freshen memories of claimants about which products and brands they were exposed to.
Asbestos lawsuits have become a mass-production enterprise, with hundreds of thousands of claimants, nobody
knowing or caring which ones are really sick.
Taming the Asbestos Monster: The
nation's courts are being flooded with lawsuits alleging health effects or the possibility of health effects
from exposure to asbestos. Real victims of asbestosis (a scarring of the lung similar to "Black Lung"
from coal dust), mesotheliona and other asbestos-related cancers are being denied compensation while people who
are unlikely to ever experience an asbestos-related disease receive million-dollar awards from confused and
Asbestos Litigation Is Bankrupting
America. What does Bubble-Wrap™, the popular packing material that many kids (and more than
a few adults) love to "pop," have to do with asbestos? If you answered "nothing," you are right. If
you said the company that produces Bubble-Wrap™ should be liable for up to a billion dollars for alleged
injuries caused by a product it never manufactured or used, then you are probably a plaintiffs' lawyer who
stands to earn millions of dollars if your lawsuit, implausible though it may seem, is successful.
" the Most Massive Abuse of Science I Have
Seen." "My own experience is with asbestos and acid rain and how they relate to human health, both
of which subjects I worked on as a U.S. government scientist. We have spent nearly $100 billion to
remove asbestos from schools and other buildings, despite warnings by many of us that there was no risk to the
health of the building occupants. In 1990, EPA finally agreed with our risk estimate, but the damage
had already been done, most of it by EPA."
testing organizations such as the National Fire Protection Association have consistently given asbestos
materials a zero flame-spread rating, which means it has no ability to spread flame under any circumstances.
Before asbestos was widely used, it was not uncommon for a fire in a school or theater to kill, dozens, and
sometimes hundreds of people.
alarmists follow acid rain scare playbook. There is nothing coincidental about common déjà vu
features of a CO2 climate crisis-premised war on fossil fuels and a hysterically-hyped sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission acid rain
environmental calamity a half-century ago. Both scams have claimed to be based upon dire computer model-based predictions
calling for costly interventions. Both also involved the same sorts of crony constituencies: alarmist "scientific
authorities," deep-pocket NGO promoters, and headline-hungry politicians eagerly rewarded by swarms of credulous media reporters.
Change: The Poetry of Dreams and the Prose of Reality. In the mid-1970s, the majority supported global
cooling with the same vigor and urgency as they support global warming today. [...] There was also the "scientific" theory of
"acid rain" propagated during the 1970s and 1980s that was supposed to be destroying the forests and poisoning our lakes and
rivers unless we closed down coal-fired power plants. Acid rain was also blamed on CO2. [...] However, what "the majority"
of the climate scientists so authoritatively predicted and the media so loudly blared in the 1970s 1980s never came to pass and
proved to be a hoax.
The New York Times and Lies about 'Acid Rain'. [Scroll
down] However, as scientists took measurements and assessed the streams, lakes and forests that supposedly were being ravaged by acid
rain, they found out a number of things. First, lake and stream acidity had very little relationship to the pH factor of local rainfall.
Instead, the acidity of the vegetation in the watersheds of these aquatic bodies was the significant factor, with the science firmly
established by the time that Edward Krug and Charles Frink published a paper in a 1983 edition of Science.
Acid Rain: Headline or Hoax? What
is referred to as "acid rain" is simply rain that has absorbed airborne particles from both natural and manmade
sources. Although some groups continue to try to scare Americans with stories of acid rain, scientific
evidence shows that these stories are greatly exaggerated.
What, Exactly, Is Acid
Rain? Normal rain has a pH of about 5.0. Acid rain typically has a pH of 4.6, and
the most acidic rain in North America (found in western Pennsylvania and nearby areas) has an average pH of 4.2.
That is similar to the acidity of tomato or apple juice.
Acid rain is a hoax! Rain is
acidic anyway! Natural rainfall has a pH of ~5.6 (from atmospheric CO2).
The Continuing Mythology About Acid Rain: On
Tuesday evening, July 25, Ned Potter of ABC News did a three-minute segment purporting to show how acid
rain (caused by sulphur dioxide — SO2 — emissions from Midwestern utilities) was killing trees in Camel's
Hump Mountain in Vermont. Aerial photos showed a pattern of dead or dying tall spruce trees. We
were informed acid rain was sterilizing the soil. An environmentalist guided us through the devastation.
It was potent TV. It was also a hoax.
This Is Going Around
On The Net. The big hoax that went on in the 70's and 80's was "Acid Rain". It was just as
big a story as global warming is now. Every newspaper and media outlet had it on constantly. Every
scientist that tried to tell the truth was ignored by the media. Every scientific paper that came out
proving it was a hoax was ignored. Finally 60 Minutes (usually a 100% liberal show) had a segment
entitled The Acid Rain Hoax ... POW it was as if the spigot had been turned off. There was essentially
never another story about it.
Acid Rain was once the environmental biggie, the Global Warming of the 70s and 80s. So the government
spent 10 years and $550 million to look into it. The National Acid Precipitation Assessment
Project (NAPAP) essentially concluded it is not a problem. For example, "The NAPAP study found that
among thousands of U.S. lakes, only 4 percent were somewhat acidic. One-quarter of those were
acidic due to natural causes, leaving only 3 percent somewhat influenced by human activities."
The NAPAP report came out in 1990, suspiciously about the time Global Warming became the new big thing in
In Defense of Plastic. I am
fed up to my burning ears with the carte blanche castigation of plastic. Plastic is one of the
greatest inventions ever, not only for modern society, but also for the environment. If plastic seems
to now pose an environmental threat, it's not plastic's fault — but the fault of the environmental
Senator Obama rips Bush for being unprepared for avian flu epidemic. A nice catch from
our friends at Grabien, who got it from Ace [update] and who had to go all the way back to 2005 to
find this nugget and the contemporaneous coverage at the NYT. At the time, the US prepared for a
predicted epidemic of the avian flu, also known as H5N1, of global proportions. The virus had been
identified for 18 years by that time, but by the end of 2004 had only resulted in 36 deaths and
50 known cases over the prior two years, according to WHO data. In 2005, the number of cases
would jump to 98 and deaths to 43, and the prevention of a pandemic became a high priority. At that time,
then-Senator Barack Obama scolded the Bush administration on the Senate floor, and quarterbacked a protest
letter from his fellow Democrats over the slow response and lack of preparedness by the White House: [...]
The Great Bird Flu Hoax: An entire industry has
taken flight around the great bird flu fear, with everything from bird flu masks and respirators to guides on
how to survive the coming plague being hawked to a terrified public. But there is no coming bird flu
Flu Hoax Exposed on Lou Dobbs. This avian flu is not a sudden arrival upon the scene. A lot
of people think it just appeared in the last couple of years, some people think it appeared in 1997.
Virtually nobody knows ... that this strain of avian flu, H5N1, goes back to 1959, in Scottish chickens.
Bird Flu Hoax: In recent
years I've discovered that getting a flu shot is one of the worst things you can do for your
immune system to be able to fight off the flu. It's a scam by the manufacturers of the flu shots.
Reviews of "False Alarm: The Truth About
the Epidemic of Fear". [Dr. Marc Siegel] advocates replacing fear with courage and worry with
faith: "Faith takes the worry away and transfers it to a higher Being who is controlling the world.
Any sense of control we have is illusory." His concluding comments effectively sum up his book: "What
bothers me most as a physician is that I see my patients being harmed, and there's little I can do to stop it.
Fear is infectious, and the fear of bird flu has become particularly virulent. There is a vaccine for this
fear: it is called information mixed with perspective."
Because television news has to be dumbed down and converted to one-syllable words, the
term "avian influenza" was changed to "bird flu." A total of 161 people have died from avian
The "bird flu" has only affected dirt-poor people on the other side of the world who have poultry running in
and out of their houses day and night. We certainly haven't seen the hundreds of thousands of deaths that
The Fed's Plan is More Scary Than the Bird
Flu. Like many Americans, I have been mildly interested, if not amused, watching the parade of
warnings — some quite dire — about the possibility of a bird flu pandemic. The
feds have spent billions of dollars preparing for a pandemic that most experts predict will not occur.
One Flu Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
Flu fearmongers must be quite depressed these days. Seasonal flu is late. Bird flu — despite
all the headlines — hasn't gained much traction among humans. And we haven't had pandemic
flu in 36 years.
WHO Confirms One Human-to-Human Bird
Flu Case. The World Health Organization (WHO) confirmed on Thursday [12/27/2007] a single case
of human-to-human transmission of the H5N1 bird flu virus in a family in Pakistan but said there was no
apparent risk of it spreading wider.
flu outbreak under control. A bird flu outbreak in northwest China has been
brought under control, state media said Tuesday. There have been no cases of human
infection and farmers who had contact with the poultry have been quarantined and have shown
no symptoms, the official Xinhua News Agency said.
U.S. pledges extra $320 million for
bird flu fight. The United States pledged an additional $320 million to the global fight
against bird flu and warned on Saturday [10/25/2008] against complacency in combating the virus, which could
mutate and cause a deadly pandemic.
The Editor says...
We're spending $320 million to solve a problem in some other country — without any
certainty that the "bird flu" will ever develop into a pandemic.
This is the epitome of money down the drain.
Mother claims flu shot is responsible
for death of teenage son. A Utah mother is claiming that a flu shot is responsible for the recent death of her 19-year-old son.
Chandler Webb received the shot on October 15 during a routine physical, after he had decided to go on a mission for The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. The day after the exam, Chandler became extremely ill — suffering from vomiting and headaches.
A little more than a week later, Chandler slipped into a coma and spent nearly a month on life support at Intermountain Medical Center in Murray,
Utah. While at the hospital, Chandler underwent a variety tests, but his doctors couldn't confirm what had caused his illness.
The Editor says...
Here in Dallas, the County government has been aggressively promoting and marketing flu shots for several years. As for me, I'd
rather take my chances with the germs than the government, because the people who are lining up for flu shots don't really know what's
in it! After making flu shots a matter of routine for several years, the government may someday add some extra ingredients.
Mad Cow disease:
Don't look now. For a scare to take flight it must contain the right mix of uncertainty
and scientific plausibility. And it must be talked up by the media and "remedied" by the government,
usually at enormous expense to the taxpayer. As a classic case of this, the authors cite the BSE fiasco,
which began in 1996 when the health secretary Stephen Dorrell stood up in the Commons to announce the possibility
of a connection between Mad Cow Disease and a horrendous new brain disease in humans called new variant CJD.
to death: Why it's the scare stories that are the REAL menace. Do you remember that day
in 1996 when a Tory health minister stood up in the House of Commons to announce that there might after all
be a link between BSE, "mad cow disease", and what seemed to be a new form of the human brain disease,
CJD? For years to come, we would continue to pay billions of pounds for more than eight million cattle
to be sent up in smoke, even though such a drastic step had never been recommended by any scientist.
Brews Over Caffeine Addiction. Dr. Astrid Nehlig recently completed a study
with laboratory animals, which confirmed that caffeine consumed in moderation contributes
to increased alertness and energy but does not bring about dependence at those levels.
addicts are less likely to develop dementia. Caffeine is associated with reduced odds of developing dementia
and cognitive impairment in women, according to a study published in The Journals of Gerontology. The research, by
scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, reveals that women over 65 who report caffeine consumption of more than
261 mg per day are 36 percent less likely to develop dementia over 10 years. This is equivalent to two to three cups
of coffee a day, five to six cups of black tea, or seven to eight cans of Coke.
There is a bunch of material about CO2 on this page.
Volcanic activity, forest and grass fires, fungi, algae, ferns and the decomposition
of seaweed all release chlorinated organics into the environment. Our own bodies
produce hypochlorite to fight infection and hydrochloric acid for proper digestion. And
there is, of course, sodium chloride — common table salt — present naturally in mines,
lakes and seawater, found in our blood, sweat and tears, and essential to the
diets of humans and animals.*
The Envirotruth about Chlorine: Greenpeace has
long waged a campaign against the chlorine industry claiming that chlorine poses a major threat to human health.
JunkScience.com Announces Top Ten "Most
Embarrassing Moments" of 2004. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officials who had halted use of
chlorine disinfectant in the Washington, DC drinking water system — due to unfounded cancer fears
hyped by the Environmental Protection Agency — replaced this proven germ-fighter with a more
corrosive substitute that leached lead from the pipes and caused wide-spread public alarm as lead levels
climbed above federal standards.
Greenpeace's Efforts to Ban
Chlorine are not only Sensational, but Dangerous. Chlorine is the 11th most abundant
element in the Earth's crust — more abundant in nature than carbon, and arguably as
essential as oxygen. While most people know that chlorine cleans water and disinfects,
many people may not know that chlorine is used to make everything from surgical sutures
and X-ray film to rocket fuel and football helmets. Or, that in the form of sodium
chloride, it is the compound of which table salt is made.
The Future of Chlorine. Numerous reports
in the media have ascribed possible detrimental health effects to chlorine, dioxin and other chlorinated chemicals,
often subjecting the public to exaggerated and misleading information. Greenpeace, a worldwide environmental
activist group, has led the attack, pushing for a total ban on chlorine and chlorinated chemicals.
Rachel's Folly: The End of Chlorine. Greenpeace,
the international environmental advocacy group, launched the first salvo in 1991 with its call to phase out
completely "the use, export, and import of all organochlorines, elemental chlorine, and chlorinated oxidizing
agents (e.g. chlorine dioxide and sodium hypochlorite)." As Greenpeace's Joe Thornton explains, "There
are no uses of chlorine which we regard as safe." Yet chlorination — considered one of the
greatest advances ever in public health and hygiene — is almost universally accepted as the method of
choice for purifying water supplies. In the United States alone, 98 percent of public water systems
are purified by chlorine or chlorine based products.
Facts about Chlorine and
Dioxins: Chlorine is an element found in abundance in the natural world. It is one of
118 elements that comprise the matter that makes up our universe, and one of the 20 or so that make up
90 percent of our planet. It is found in nature as inorganic salts (common table salt is sodium
chloride) and in more than 1,500 organic compounds, including plants, animals, and even human blood and saliva.
Nothing Cleans Like
Chlorine. For nearly 150 years, society has had a powerful weapon against
life-threatening infections caused by viruses and bacteria: Chlorine. One of
the most effective and economical germ-killers, chlorine destroys and deactivates a wide range
of dangerous germs in homes, hospitals, hotels, restaurants and, of course, water.
Chlorine: Cornerstone of Modern
Medicine. From acetaminophen to antibiotics, X-ray film to blood bags, and AIDS treatments to
anti-cancer drugs, the common bond among these miracles of modern medicine is chlorine.
The War on Chlorine: Nobody
would seek to ban strawberries or blueberries because mistletoe berries are poisonous. But
somehow, according to environmentalists, we have to ban the organochlorine used in plastic-making
because a different one is used in a pesticide accused of thinning bird eggshells. This
thinking also ignores the simple fact that, when discussing potential harm of chemicals, it's
necessary to distinguish between levels of exposure.
Exploiting Chemical Fears: For over a decade,
various extremist environmental groups have tried to banish vital industrial chemicals, especially chlorine,
with false and malicious claims about potential harm.
Why I Left
Greenpeace: The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine.
Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health,
virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are
based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health. My former colleagues
ignored science and supported the ban, forcing my departure. Despite science concluding no known health
risks — and ample benefits — from chlorine in drinking water, Greenpeace and other
environmental groups have opposed its use for more than 20 years.
EPA Goes After Perchlorate and
Chromium: The Media Follow Along Without Questioning. Perchlorate and chromium
are on EPA's bucket list of 'toxic chemicals' on which it proposes to set new limits. Neither
has been given fair coverage by the main-stream media. Quotes can be found from environmental
groups supporting the action, but nothing from scientists and others with an opposing view, typical
of the unbalanced reporting that has covered the perchlorate and chromium issues.
You're probably too young to remember when soft drinks contained cyclamates, but I remember
noticing that such products tasted a lot better before cyclamates were banned in the
U.S. That happened on October 18,
the same reason as saccharin, that is, the development of bladder cancer in rats who were given
massive doses of the stuff. But it is still in use in many other seemingly civilized
countries, including Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, Israel, New Zealand, and the United
Artificial Sweeteners Really That Bad for You? Too much sugar will make you fat, but too much
artificial sweetener will ... do what exactly? Kill you? Make you thinner? Or have
absolutely no effect at all? This week marks the 40th anniversary of the Food and Drug Administration's
decision to ban cyclamate, the first artificial sweetener prohibited in the U.S., and yet scientists still
haven't reached a consensus about how safe (or harmful) artificial sweeteners may be.
Madness Rules Our Age. Hyper-strict EPA requirements, Global Warming restrictions, and
the Kyoto protocols all defy empirical science. Who can forget those lab results from feeding mice
twenty and thirty times their weight in tested substances to detect cancer, and how the government
removed wonderful food additives from the shelves? Does anyone remember the sweetener cyclamate?
Banned in the USA, but still allowed in fifty five other countries.
EPA's Never Ending Dioxin Scare.
If ever there was an example of what's wrong with the intersection of government and science, the Environmental
Protection Agency's 20-year campaign to scare the public about dioxin is certainly a leading candidate.
The EPA slammed into a bureaucratic wall this week when a National Academy of Sciences panel told the agency
to take its dioxin report back to the drawing board.
all the eco-terrorist rhetoric comes a sweet taste of reality from an unlikely source: ice cream maker
Ben & Jerry's. Two independent laboratories using different methodologies discovered that a single
serving of Ben & Jerry's "World's Best Vanilla" ice cream contained about 200 times the level of dioxin
EPA says is safe. Nevertheless, the ice cream maker remains in business, and continues to sell its
"dioxin-laden" product offering real-world evidence that the low-levels of dioxin in our food and
the environment are not dangerous.
Unsafe Levels of Dioxin Found in Ben & Jerry's Ice
Cream, Study Says. The study authors report that, according to Ben & Jerry's and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency standards, the level of dioxin measured could cause about 200 "extra" cancers
among lifetime consumers of Ben & Jerry's ice cream. "The level of dioxin in a single serving of the
Ben & Jerry's World's Best Vanilla Ice Cream tested was almost 200 times greater than the "virtually
safe [daily] dose" determined by the EPA, said Michael Gough, lead study author.
Top Ten Junk Science Stories of the
Past Decade: Some called dioxin, a by-product of natural and industrial combustion
processes and the "contaminant of concern" in the Vietnam-era defoliant known as Agent Orange, the
most toxic manmade chemical. Billions of dollars have been spent studying and regulating
dioxin, but debunking the scare only cost a few thousand dollars.
Backyard Burning of Trash is Now the #1 Dioxin
Source! The US EPA will be issuing a new projection for dioxin emission from land-applied sewage
sludge for 2002/2004 based on surveys to begin in Spring, 2001. The US EPA expects that the new
projection will be lower than the value previously projected.
Viktory Over Alarmism. The "deadly
dioxin" legend began with, of all things, guinea pigs. When fed to them in studies, they did fall over
like furry tenpins. Yet hamsters could absorb 1,000 times as much dioxin before emitting their last
squeals and other animals seemed impervious to the stuff. Further, the animal deaths were from acute
poisoning. Yet as a matter of convenience for activists, it not only became accepted that guinea pigs
are the best animal model for humans but also that dioxin is a powerful carcinogen.
Covering Up Scientific Data Violates the
Public's Right to Know: In June 1999, Robert Liburdy, who had received
more than $3.3 million in federal grants for his research, was forced to leave Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory when it was discovered that he had faked data to produce results
which indicated that electromagnetic fields caused cancer. None of the 20 studies
subsequent to Liburdy's 1992 study have found any causal connection between
electromagnetic fields and cellular changes in the body.
Proof That Power Lines Don't Cause Cancer: The latest study, sponsored by the
National Cancer Institute and reported in the July 3, 1997, New England Journal of Medicine,
is one of hundreds which have put the power-lines-cause-cancer theory in the category of
On the other hand... Kill Cell Phones Before They Kill You.
[Sue] Anderson and others set about to update themselves on the latest science regarding health effects of microwave
radiation emitted by cell towers. "News and science reports from all over the globe seem to show that a
cell tower neighborhood is basically a sick neighborhood. We found many media reports about cancer clusters
in residential areas close to microwave towers," Anderson says.
The Power-Mad EPA. Recently the EPA ruled that
New York City had to replace 1,300 fire hydrants because of their lead content. The ruling was based on the Drinking Water Act passed by
Congress in 2011. As Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) pointed out while lambasting the agency, "I don't know a single New Yorker who goes
out to their fire hydrants every morning, turns it on, and brushes their teeth using the water from these hydrants. It makes no sense
whatsoever." Reportedly, the Senate is poised to consider legislation exempting fire hydrants if the EPA does not revise its ruling.
The EPA is not about making sense. It is about over-interpreting laws passed by Congress in ways that now continually lead to cases
before the Supreme Court.
EPA Pushes Gun
Control Through Green Ammo Mandate. The Herculaneum smelter, according to the National Rifle Association's Institute for
Legislative Action, is the only one in the U.S. that can produce lead bullion from raw lead ore and the components for traditional lead ammunition.
The only alternatives, the institute says, will be to import the ammo components or use EPA-approved "green" ammunition. The Arms Trade
Treaty may be unratified, but it provides the administration with a justification for restricting U.S. imports of ammunition and components.
End of the line for the lead bullet?
Regulations, bans force switch to 'green' ammo. When the last bullet-producing lead smelter closes its doors on Dec. 31, it will mark
a major victory for those who say lead-based ammunition pollutes the environment, but others warn 'green' bullets will cost more, drive up copper prices
and do little to help conservation. The bid to ban lead bullets, seen by some as harmful to the environment, started slowly more than a decade ago.
Backdoor gun control is here: no lead means no bullets.
The closedown [of the Doe Run Lead Smelter] is due to new extremely tight air quality restrictions placed on this specific plant. President Obama
and his EPA raised the regulations by 10 fold and it would have cost the plant $100 million to comply. In response to the Doe Run lead
smelter shutdown, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said the Doe Run Company "made a business decision" to shut down the smelter instead of
installing pollution control technologies needed to reduce sulfur dioxide and lead emissions as required by the Clean Air Act. Of course this is
why we need serious regulatory reform that precludes executive agency fiat, especially regulation implementation that exceeds a certain adverse financial
impact to a private sector business.
California poised to
become first state to impose full ban on lead bullets. California is on the verge of becoming the first state to impose a full ban on hunting
with lead bullets — with environmentalists and gun-rights advocates squaring off as Gov. Jerry Brown decides whether to sign the legislation.
The state already has a ban on lead-bullet hunting in eight counties with an endangered condor population. But the new proposal, overwhelmingly approved
this month [September 2013] by the Democrat-controlled General Assembly, would impose a statewide ban on all hunting.
The Growing Tyranny of the
Political Elite. For hundreds of years, human beings have used lead for many purposes, and life on earth has not
exactly come to an end. Now we are told that the lead used in hunting and fishing is harming animals and fish, and it may just
have to stop. The scary thing is that one individual, an appointed bureaucrat directing the Environmental Protection Agency,
has the power to impose such a ban. [...] And the EPA believes that it has the authority not just to police hunting and fishing
supplies, but to regulate carbon dioxide, a natural product of the act of breathing. The preferred modus operandi, in fact,
is to appoint a single individual with the power to control some large part of American life.
The Prophet of the Ruling
Class. So now the EPA has been petitioned to ban the use of lead in bullets and fishing weights.
For hundreds of years, human beings have used lead for those purposes, and life on earth has not exactly come to
an end. Now we are told that the lead used in hunting and fishing is harming animals and fish, and it
must stop. The scary thing is that one individual, EPA Director Lisa Jackson, has the power to impose
such a ban.
Tap Dance: If anything, some utility
managers conclude that just replacing city owned pipes actually causes lead levels to jump temporarily by
shaking debris loose — and probably produces no lasting reduction if water still flows through
lead fixtures once it's inside the building.
What would electronics be without
solder? John Burke, the senior manager of Optichron, an electrical components manufacturer in
Fremont, Calif., [says], "There is absolutely no evidence that there is any reason for taking lead
out of solder. There was no reason to do it in the first place, the replacement
is ecologically more damaging, and, by the way, the replacement is less reliable."
Pelosi's Toy Story: Under a
new law set to go into effect February 10, unsold toys, along with bikes, books and even children's
clothing are destined for the scrap heap due to an overzealous law to increase toy safety. The damage
comes from new rules governing lead in children's products. After last year's scare over contaminated
toys made in China, Congress leapt in to require all products aimed at children under 12 years old to be
certified as safe and virtually lead-free by independent testing.
law causes small-business devastation. Although horror stories keep pouring in about severe economic
problems caused by an anti-lead law that went into effect Feb. 10, Congress continues to ignore the cries for
relief. The law, called the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, provides fines starting at $100,000 per
violation, plus possible jail time, for anybody convicted of selling lead-containing items intended for use by children
aged 12 and under. ... Businesses selling everything from child motor scooters to used children's books to clothing
stores and thrift shops are throwing out inventory, laying off workers or even going out of business.
The EPA's RRP Rule isn't About Safety.
On April 22, 2010 an EPA regulation governing renovation, repair, and painting (RRP) took effect. The regulation governs any activity that
will disturb paint containing lead and applies to all homes built before 1978 and "child-occupied facilities". [...] But combating lead poisoning
is not a proper function of government. And RRP is going to do little, if anything, to combat it. It will however, grant the government
greater control over the lives of contractors and cost consumers a lot of money.
students kept at school overnight after mercury found. Concerned parents directed sometimes angry questions at
school and federal officials after the discovery of a small amount of mercury prompted officials to keep more than a thousand
students for up to 17 hours at a Las Vegas middle school to screen them for exposure to the neurotoxin.
The Editor says...
Mercury in very small quantities isn't something to be alarmed about, in my opinion.
In the early and middle 20th century, some people used to rub mercury on pennies to make them look like dimes.
We used to roll blobs of mercury in our hands, just to play with it — and occasionally we would drop it (accidentally) on
the carpet or in the grass, where it would be lost forever. In 1966, when I was in the 8th grade, our science teacher
constructed a mercury barometer in our classroom, using supplies found in the cabinet in the back of the room — which included
several pounds of mercury. Unforgettable! (He also experimented with small slices of sodium metal in the classroom.) Ahhh, the good old
days — when teachers and school administrators weren't afraid of their own shadows — or afraid of the lawyers. Oh, and speaking of
lawyers, any action you take based on anything you read on this web site are entirely your own responsibility. My point is that it isn't necessary to
detain 1,200 people overnight because they were in the same building with a "small amount" of mercury.
The Power-Mad EPA. The claims about mercury
are baseless, in a 2011 commentary published in The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Willie Soon, a geoscientist at Harvard and expert on mercury and
public health issues was joined by Paul Driesson, a senior policy advisor for the Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), rebuts the
claims about mercury that have been part of the environmental lies put forth for years. "There is no factual basis for these assertions.
To build its case against mercury, the EPA systematically ignored evidence and clinical studies that contradict its regulatory agenda,
which is the punish hydrocarbon use." "Mercury has always existed naturally in the Earth's environment... Mercury is found in air,
water, rocks, soil and tries, which absorb it from the environment. This is why our bodies evolved with proteins and antioxidants
that help protect us from this and other potential contaminants."
The Top Ten Unfounded Health Scares of 2010. [#10]
Mercury in Fish: [T]he study cited by Consumer Reports didn't find that the canned tuna they tested rose above levels that the FDA or EPA
said were of concern — and those levels were based upon the risks posed by consuming tuna every day for seventy years, not occasionally.
Tuna is the only fish many Americans eat, and it's reasonably inexpensive." [...] Bottom Line: The nutritional benefits of eating the recommended
amount of fish servings far outweighs any potential health risks that canned tuna may pose. Adequate fish consumption is important for the health
of developing fetuses and growing children.
should avoid tuna, report says. In a new review of seafood safety, Consumer Reports is
advising that pregnant women avoid eating tuna due to concerns about mercury exposure. "We're
particularly concerned about canned tuna, which is second only to shrimp as the most commonly eaten
seafood in the United States. We encourage pregnant women to avoid all tuna," Jean Halloran,
director of food policy initiatives for Consumers Union, the advocacy division of Consumer Reports,
said in a news release from the group. While pregnant women and children are at greatest risk
from mercury in seafood, anyone can be at risk if they eat too much seafood with high mercury levels,
Consumer Reports noted.
light-bulb logic. Trace amounts of mercury from coal-fired power-plant emissions affect a small
number of Americans, chiefly those who live near the emissions sources. At the same time, however, the Obama
administration has been trying to force Americans to accept even greater mercury risks by insisting that traditional
incandescent light bulbs be replaced with compact fluorescent lights (CFLs). The mercury vapor in CFLs is
at a much more dangerous concentration than anything coming out of power plants.
is Binge Gambling with US Economy. To read [Fred] Krupp's op-ed, you'd believe that implementing
the EPA's findings — which will cause some coal-fueled power plants to be mothballed and raise energy
costs for consumers and industry — will eliminate all mercury from the environment. According to
the Soon study, this is not true. He says: "America's coal-fired electrical generating units are
responsible for approximately 0.5% of mercury found in the air Americans breathe. Even eliminating every
milligram of this mercury will not affect or reduce the other 99.5% in America's atmosphere." Major sources
include forest fires and volcanoes.
Mercury reg. proposal 'watering down pro-life
message'. The Evangelical Environmental Network has been running campaigns about mercury and the unborn,
claiming that one in six babies born in America are exposed to harmful levels of mercury through their mother's
consumption of fish that ingest mercury from power plants. Cal Beisner, founder and national spokesman for
the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, tells OneNewsNow the left-leaning group is "grossly"
exaggerating the numbers that are actually more like one in 1,000.
FDA: Mercury-based fillings pose no serious health
hazard. After more than three decades of controversy, the Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday
[7/28/2009] issued new safety guidelines for mercury-based dental fillings that reaffirm the agency's long-held
position that their use isn't a serious health threat to patients.
States Split on Mercury Standards.
In May, Minnesota and New Hampshire enacted legislation imposing stricter controls than existing federal
proposals to limit the emission of mercury from power plants. Other states, including Delaware, Georgia,
Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, are considering such legislation or enacting limits through their
respective environmental agencies under orders from their governors.
The Editor asks...
If states as small as Delaware have their own environmental regulatory agencies, why does the EPA exist?
22 States Say EPA Too Soft on Mercury. Air
quality regulators in at least 22 states have concluded that the Bush administration's approach to cutting
mercury pollution from coal-burning power plants is too weak and are pursuing tougher measures of their
own. The 22 states listed as having tougher mercury-cutting plans than the federal government
are: [AZ CA CT DE GA IL IN ME MD MA MI MN MT NH NJ NY NC OR PA VA WA WI].
The Latest Reason Not to Worry About
Mercury. Despite their snazzy Internet campaigns, well-publicized investigations, and scary
language ("Tuna Roulette!", "The Mercury Menace!"), green-group activists can't change the simple fact that
the mercury levels in the fish we typically eat pose zero health risk to consumers. But there's more to
the story. Ladies and gentlemen, meet selenium.
The Nation Descends into Mercury
Madness. At some Maryland high schools, hazmat teams rush in to remove mercury that had gone
unnoticed. In Washington D.C., a broken thermometer causes a school to close. And across the
nation, environmental groups denounce the Environmental Protection Agency's new proposed rules for reducing
mercury emissions from power plants as inadequate to protect children. All this seems rather odd to
those of us who played with mercury in science lessons at school. The fact is that the health effects
of mercury have been dramatically overblown.
Mercury in Fish Overblown.
The effect of mercury emissions on human health via fish consumption has been significantly overblown by environmental
activists, who are keen to restrict mercury emissions for other reasons. But U.S. power plants emit only
a small fraction of annual mercury emissions. That is why a recent joint study from the Brookings
Institution and American Enterprise Institute found that the cost of the proposals vastly outweighed
their marginal health benefits.
Mercury Decision: Baseless
Fish Scares 'Could Have Adverse Health Consequences'. This week we've explored a recent
California court decision that may pave the way for common sense among the fish-eating public. Before
refusing to allow California's Attorney General to require warning signs everywhere canned tuna is sold,
Judge Robert Dondero heard thorough testimony from experts on both sides.
Mercury Decision: 'Expert
Witness' Misled The Court. Last week's landmark canned-tuna court decision was full of
twists and turns. ... Perhaps the oddest development came in the form of an "expert witness" whose
testimony the judge dismissed as "misleading" as well as "unreliable" and "biased" — and who
made claims (offered, the judge wrote, "under penalty of perjury") which turned out to be phony.
Decision: 'Virtually All' Mercury In Ocean Fish Is 'From Natural Sources'. On
Friday [5/12/2006], when the scales of justice swung in California's landmark mercury-in-tuna court
case, they hit some cherished environmental dogma squarely in the face. ... Now, at least in
California, the truth has become a matter of law — that the vast majority of these tiny traces
of mercury are as natural as the earth itself.
Fever Pitch on Mercury
Fears: It's enough to make any parent's heart race: children evacuated from schools as
hazmat teams race in to decontaminate the buildings, while national headlines scream, "highly toxic
hazardous spill." But when the source of this panic is a few beads of mercury from a broken
thermometer, it's time to take a deep breath and seek some sound information. Small mercury
spills can be easily cleaned up and don't pose a danger to children or their teachers — but
panic-driven responses can cause real harm.
Junk Science on Mercury
Debunked. House Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-CA) and
Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee Chairman Jim Gibbons (R-NV) issued earlier
this year a detailed report on the science of mercury and the environment, "Mercury
in Perspective: Fact and Fiction About the Debate Over Mercury." The paper
is a comprehensive synopsis of the peer-reviewed research regarding the debate over
Clinton's EPA Chief Springs the Mercury Trap She
Left for Bush. Although she served as President Clinton's EPA chief for eight years, Carol
Browner never imposed a crackdown on power-plant mercury emissions. But between Bush's election and
inauguration, she proposed an expensive, technically infeasible mercury plan — for her
successor. It was an effort to trap Bush by giving him the choice of imposing a draconian
policy — or face condemnation by the left for supposedly being "weak" on the environment.
Mercury: Grain of Truth, Gram of
Nonsense. You have probably heard or read the oft-repeated statement, "One gram of mercury can
contaminate an entire 20-acre lake." It shows up in the environmental advocates' literature as well as
in EPA and state agency documents and various fact sheets on mercury. The statement is meant to scare
us into believing that mishandling a thermometer or emitting even one gram of mercury would have irreversible
negative consequences. [The article debunks this claim.]
Senate Barely Squelches Mercury
Panic. [In March 2005], the Bush administration issued the first-ever rules regulating
emissions of mercury from coal-burning power plants — an event that itself raised doubt about the
urgency or need for such regulation. The modern electric utility industry, after all, began burning
coal and, thereby, emitting small amounts of mercury into the environment in the 1880s.
The Mercury-In-Fish Scare is All
Wet. The best science suggests that the mercury levels found in fish have no adverse effects on
human health. A study published in the Lancet, an international medical journal, decisively
demonstrates that there is nothing to fear from trace levels of mercury in fish. The Lancet study
intensively examined women and their children in the Seychelles islands — where they eat fish with
the same levels of mercury as the fish consumed in the United States. But they eat about 10 times as
much fish as the typical American.
Mothers, Babies and Mercury: Whether
they come from the U.S. FDA or special interest groups, warnings about methylmercury-contaminated fish
endangering the health of our babies and children are alarming. But the evidence contrasts greatly
from the fearmongering — regardless of the source.
Warning: The FDA just issued a new warning to pregnant women about mercury in
seafood. You can "protect your baby" from developmental harm by following three rules,
claims the FDA. But there's no evidence that the rules will protect anyone and they're
only likely to foster undue concern about an important part of our food supply.
Enviros Exploit Mother's
Day With Mercury Scare: U.S. power plants (search) simply aren't a major source
of mercury emissions. About 14.3 million pounds of mercury are released into the
atmosphere annually, according to figures from the Electric Power Research Institute. Of
that amount, about 9.5 million pounds are from natural sources (ocean outgassing and
terrestrial flux) and about 4.8 million pounds are manmade emissions. Only
about 6 percent of the manmade emissions come from the U.S.
EPA Proposes Mercury
Limits. More than half the mercury in the environment comes from natural
sources. U.S. power plants account for only 1 percent of global environmental
mercury, according to the Center for Science and Public Policy. Scientists monitor mercury
levels because as mercury settles in oceans and freshwater sources, it is absorbed by
fish, and their heightened mercury levels are passed up the food chain to humans. Although
environmental activist groups charge that mercury causes neurological damage in humans,
recent studies suggest present mercury levels are not harmful.
MoveOn.org — Wrong on Terrorism, Wrong on
Mercury. What do al Qaeda and mercury pollution have in common? Clinton appointees who
did little about them are now claiming in MoveOn.org political TV ad campaigns that, thanks to
George Bush, both threaten your health.
Alaska Disputes EPA Mercury
Guidelines. Alaskan health officials are telling state residents they can
safely exceed federal health advisories for eating fish caught in the state. Four
officials of the Epidemiology Section of the Alaska Division of Public Health published
an article on the topic in the March 2005 issue of The American Journal of Public
Health, claiming the federal government's precautionary approach to mercury may
be causing state residents more harm than good.
U.S. Senate Squelches Mercury
Panic. The EPA study notes, "Human-caused U.S. mercury emissions are estimated
to account for roughly 3 percent of the global total, and U.S. coal-fired power plants are
estimated to account for only about 1 percent." Importantly, mere exposure to mercury
isn't necessarily harmful. Despite much research, opponents of the Bush mercury rules could
not identify a single study that credibly links typical exposures to mercury directly to any sort
of health effect.
Mercury in Fish is Not Dangerous, Study
Shows. New data gathered from 700 children who were exposed to nearly unprecedented
levels of mercury while in their mothers' wombs show the extremely heightened levels of mercury
have caused no medical problems. For the past 15 years, scientists have been following the
700 children on the tiny island nation of Seychelles, Africa, whose mothers ate tremendous amounts
of high-mercury fish while pregnant. All the mothers ate high-mercury fish daily, resulting
in blood mercury levels six times higher than those of U.S. women.
Pelosi's Green House:
A 20-watt CFL [compact fluorescent light] emits as much light as a 100-watt incandescent bulb. But, unlike
Thomas Edison's creation, each CFL contains about 5 milligrams of mercury. On New Year's Eve, you
could have confused the town of Carmel, N.Y., with Chernobyl when a reported 100 firefighters, many in hazmat
suits, responded to a 911 call regarding a broken rectal thermometer.
Congress sends mercury export ban
to president. The House on Monday [9/29/2008] sent to President Bush a bill sponsored by
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama that would eventually ban the export of elemental mercury.
The United States is one of the world's biggest exporters of mercury ... . In the 2000-2004 period the United
States exported 506 more metric tons than it imported and the legislation notes that the export ban would
have a notable affect [sic] on the market availability of elemental mercury.
Sweden to ban mercury. Mercury is to be
banned in Sweden starting June 1st, environment minister Andreas Carlgren has announced. The ban
prohibits products containing the heavy metal from being brought to market in Sweden. "Mercury is now
dead and buried," Carlgren said.
$50,000 to clean up
a two-ounce mercury spill. Here is the headline in my local newspaper today: "Mercury
Removal from T.F. [Twin Falls, Idaho] Apartment complex results in $50,000 bill." That's right —
fifty grand. Two ounces of mercury were found in the road that leads into an apartment complex. It
cost local, state, and the federal governments $50,000 to clean up the two ounce catastrophe.
The Editor says...
The people who are so terribly concerned about the slightest trace of mercury in the air are the same people who
want us all to quit using incandescent bulbs and switch
to compact fluorescent bulbs — which
Mercury is not a major public health
problem. Mercury is a naturally occurring element that is ubiquitous in the environment.
It is also produced during some manufacturing processes and is emitted by coal-fired electric generation plants.
Naturally occurring mercury emissions dominate the world mercury "budget," with power plants in the U.S.
contributing no more than a fraction of 1 percent of annual global mercury emissions into the air.
Mercury emissions from industrial sources in the U.S. have fallen by 90 percent since the 1970s.
Power plants are responsible for about 40 percent of remaining emissions.
On the other hand... The Mercury Threat —
Again. One of the remarkable things about human achievement is how it resonates, continuing to be
influential long after its first impact, even after its creator's life is ended. A case in point can be
found in the work of W. Eugene Smith. ... What do Smith's photographs have to tell us today? Quite
a bit, actually, and more than you might think of photos four decades old. Because we've come full circle
as far as pollution goes. At the time, the task was to separate people from dangerous pollutants such as
mercury. But today, mercury in threatening amounts is being returned to the home environment in the form
of pigtail fluorescent bulbs, supposedly to fulfill the same environmental imperative as at Minamata.
Although the circumstances have changed, the basics remain the same: the arrogance and indifference of
politicians, the bullheadedness of special interests.
studies rats given very high doses of saccharin developed bladder cancer, so the FDA required
saccharin to be labeled as a possible carcinogen. Later research demonstrated that
saccharin caused bladder cancer in rats through a mechanism that was not present in
Sweetener Is Safe,
Government Panel Says. A Government advisory group has voted to give a
clean bill of health to the artificial sweetener saccharin, which, despite its pink-packeted
presence on restaurant tables everywhere, has been classified since 1981 as a suspected
cause of cancer.
May Be Delisted From NIH's Carcinogen List. A synthetic compound derived from
coal tar, saccharin was discovered in 1879 by a student researcher at Johns Hopkins University. Its tantalizing commercial appeal as a noncaloric
sugar substitute — it is 300 times sweeter than sugar — was obvious from
there is no credible evidence that aspartame (best known by the brand name Nutrasweet) causes
health problems, almost from the day it was approved by the FDA there has been a small group
of people claiming it causes everything from brain cancer to Gulf War Syndrome.
Salmon: Health food or pink poison?
Like alcohol and chocolate before it, salmon is now the subject of contradictory science. So what is the
bewildered, bemused consumer to do, pelted with so many admonitions about what to eat, what not to eat, and how
to eat it?
Farm salmon fiasco
joins history of food scares. We have a rich history of health scares,
great trumped-up phony hazards that supposedly lurk in our food and environment. Cancer-causing
agents, identified by the thousands, march through the media almost daily. The
big ones—from electromagnetic fields to alar to PCBs and trans fats—linger for years
in the public mind before they eventually fade. Sometimes whole industries are
wiped out or are traumatized.
Not Science, Behind Fishy Salmon Scare. Junk science doesn't get too
much fishier than last week's scary headlines about farmed salmon being a cancer risk. Farmed
salmon is so contaminated with PCBs, dioxins and other "toxic" chemicals, reported the news
media, that it shouldn't be consumed more than once per month. It was gullible
media alarmism run amok as even the "scientists" whose much-reported study appeared
in the Jan. 9 issue of "Science" plainly acknowledged there was no factual basis
Scientists Expose Fishy Warnings about Farmed
Salmon. An article in the January 9 issue of Science magazine warned readers against eating more
than one serving of farm-raised salmon a month, claiming the fish present a cancer risk. Scientists quickly
responded, however, with evidence showing the health benefits of eating farm-raised salmon substantially outweigh
any hypothetical health risks.
of the Day: Politically Correct Fish. If you read a recent Associated Press
article about a seafood distributor called EcoFish, you may have thought a fishmonger that
"helps people make meals that reflect their morals" was too good to be true. Look a little
closer, however, and you'll find that this New Hampshire company is a perfect
example of "black marketing."
Ozone and Freon
Fraud: The major costs of government regulations to the Appliance Industry in the early nineties
were related to the elimination of Freon, both from foam insulation and sealed refrigeration systems. The
excuse used by the EPA for the ban on Freon was it somehow seeps into the atmosphere and depletes the Ozone in our
air. There is no scientific data available, in or out of government, to describe this "claimed" process.
... Freon, the "villain", is an odorless, tasteless, chemically neutral substance, which is HEAVIER
THAN AIR, and by the laws of physics cannot rise into the atmosphere. If is spilled on the ground, it
will settle in the soil and become plant food.
Ozone: The Earth's protective shield is repairing.
The ozone layer, which protects us from ultraviolet light, looks to be successfully healing after gaping holes were discovered in the
1980s. The Northern Hemisphere could be fully fixed by the 2030s and Antarctica by the 2060s.
ozone-damaging emissions are coming from China, scientists discover. Mysterious emissions which are preventing
the hole in the ozone layer from closing are coming from China, scientists have discovered. Researchers from the
University of Bristol have found significant ongoing fumes of a potent ozone-depleting substance have their origin eastern
China. The compound, carbon tetrachloride, contributes to the destruction of the Earth's ozone layer, which protects us
from harmful ultraviolet radiation. As a result, the production of carbon tetrachloride has been banned throughout the
world since 2010 for uses that will result in its release to the atmosphere.
Climate 'Solution... Turned Out Not To Be The Solution'. Just a few weeks ago, Secretary of State John Kerry
admitted that "one of the most successful environmental agreements in history" was actually now a huge driver of climate
change. Late last week, Kerry went further, saying that "HFCs [hydrofluorocarbons], which was supposed to be the
solution, turned out not to be the solution," but can actually be "thousands of times more damaging than carbon dioxide."
Now, 170 countries, including the U.S., have agreed to cut the use of HFCs, used in many cooling and refrigeration
system. The Montreal Protocol in 1987 phased out CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) which were blamed for ozone depletion and
causing the infamous "hole" in the ozone layer of the earth's atmosphere. Kerry credits the introduction of HFCs with
saving the ozone layer, but acknowledges there were unintended consequences.
climate deal could make it harder to keep cool. The Obama administration signed onto a deal over the weekend
with nearly 200 countries to combat global warming by phasing out the refrigeration chemicals used in air-conditioners, even
as industry scrambles to find replacement chemicals needed to keep homes cool and food fresh. Environmental Protection
Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy, who was key in securing the deal, said the chemicals represent potent greenhouse gas
emissions, called hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, that are causing harmful man-made climate change, and are thousands of times
more potent than carbon dioxide.
Bright spot: Antarctica's ozone hole is
starting to heal. In a triumph of international cooperation over a man-made environmental problem, research from the United States and the United
Kingdom shows that the September-October ozone hole is getting smaller and forming later in the year.
Did We Really Save the Ozone
Layer? Another year has passed and that stubborn Ozone Hole over Antarctica refuses to go away. Data
from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) shows that the Ozone Hole for the fall maximum season grew
22 percent from 2014 to 2015. World consumption of Ozone Depleting Substances has been reduced to zero over
the last three decades, but the Ozone Hole is as large as ever. Did humans really save the ozone layer?
Francis' Eco-Encyclical: Marriage Between Green Tech and Economic Growth? One sign
that Pope Francis' encyclical on climate change may be creating a small storm of controversy within
the Vatican is that high level officials are now explaining why it is needed. [...] Interestingly,
Pope Francis is not the first one to address the ecology. Pope John Paul II in 1990, warned
in a speech about the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect because of "industrial growth, massive urban
concentrations and vastly increased energy needs." Twenty-five years later, NASA decrees that the
ozone layer is cured! I suspect it's less of a miracle than it is that the dire warnings about the
ozone hole were also fallacious. I hope that the Pope annuls this proposed marriage between
politicized science and his goals for helping the poor.
years after the hole in the ozone layer was found, NASA says it is 'cured'. The
discovery of 'holes' in the layer of ozone gas above Earth's poles became one of the most
high-profile environmental issues of the Eighties. People feared that the holes would lead to
increases in skin cancer, cataracts and sunburn around the world — and posed a large-scale
risk to human health. Governments agreed on the Montreal Protocol in 1987, limiting the use of
gas propellants such as CFCs (used in aerosols, among other things). This month, NASA announced
that the hole is shrinking rapidly — and will be extinct by the end of the century.
of Environmentalists Crying Wolf Over Ozone Thinning Appear. Adoption of environmentalism for
political and religious agenda falsely identifies good and evil. Worst is the claim that humans are
evil and don't belong on the planet. Anti-humanity is a fundamental theme typified by the Club of
Rome's 1974 comment that "The Earth has cancer and the cancer is man." The United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) says we must act even with inadequate evidence. Societies acted on insufficient and
incorrect evidence about ozone; now negative side effects appear and children, who they claim to protect,
Holes in the Recent Arctic
Ozone Hole Story. There are frequent stories of impending doom. If it isn't new it's a
recycled one, which works because few understood the original story was false. This allows exploiters to
take normal events and present them as abnormal. A recent Canadian story identifies a hole in the Arctic
ozone. How can this be? Wasn't the problem identified and resolved with the 1987 international
agreement, the Montréal Protocol?
The Editor says...
Aha! The ozone hole was enlarged by natural forces, not aerosol sprays or any other human
activity. What the stratosphere really needs is a few degrees of global warming!
Arctic Ozone Hole Leaves Scientists Gaping. The science journal Nature is making headlines
this week with news of the largest hole in the ozone layer over the North Pole in history, rivaling the size of
its well known Antarctic cousin. Researchers credit this "unprecedented Arctic ozone loss" to "unusually
long-lasting cold conditions" in the stratosphere at a time when their colleagues are in turmoil over melting
Arctic sea ice a few miles below, supposedly caused by man-made global warming. Of course, humans are also
responsible for the chilly stratosphere, they say.
Silent Spring II. Asthma
patients who rely on over-the-counter inhalers will need to switch to prescription-only alternatives as part
of the federal government's latest attempt to protect the Earth's atmosphere. The action is part of an
agreement signed by the U.S. and other nations to stop using substances that deplete the ozone layer, a region
in the atmosphere that helps block harmful ultraviolet rays from the Sun. Obama may have gone too far
The Tea Party,
Right About Everything. [Scroll down] The EPA now has power to regulate every use of
fossil fuels in this country, as well as every breath we take, if they so deem. What will it do with
that power? You get to guess. If you think it wouldn't do anything too stupid, know that the FDA
just outlawed common inhalers for asthma sufferers. Their reason was, get this, those inhalers are
blamed for contributing to upper-atmosphere ozone loss. Even if you think CFCs contribute to ozone
loss, how much do you think the CFCs released by asthma inhalers have to do with it?
Spending billions on a non-existent problem.
There are no holes in the ozone, there were none when it became a political issue in the 1990s and there are
none today. This is not an issue of semantics, but an important fact in the relationship between
scientific accuracy and the public perception and political reaction.
Ozone and Radon: The Real
Story. A headline in September 2000 read, "Ozone hole over Antarctica unusually large, U.N.
says." The headline was false. Thinning of the ozone layer occurred perhaps one to two weeks earlier
than normal, but no measurements had even been taken of the size of the area. Who is held responsible for
lying to the public — the United Nations weather agency, the news media, or both? The answer is, nobody
is ever held responsible for such lies. Popular stories about ozone fail to mention the beneficial
effect of UV radiation in metabolizing calcium into bone structures of land animals, including humans.
The Ozone Hole Is Bigger Than
Ever. If you haven't heard anything about the ozone hole over Antarctica lately it isn't because
it has gone away. Quite the contrary. Despite the fact that the chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs, that
were supposed to be causing it have been banned for many years, the Antarctic ozone hole, whose appearances
were largely responsible for the international decision to ban the use of CFCs, is bigger than ever.
Should We Worry About Ozone? The theory
of large-scale depletion caused by human use of CFCs is not yet supported by solid scientific evidence.
It is not clear that stratospheric ozone is being significantly depleted worldwide, or that any depletion that
may have occurred is permanent. Stratospheric ozone fluctuates so dramatically that it is almost
impossible to define a long-term, statistically significant trend.
Ozone Depletion: Although
environmental pressure groups have made exaggerated claims that the stratospheric ozone layer
is being eaten away by chlorofluorocarbons (most notably Freon) wafting into space, scientists
have yet to see any increase of solar ultraviolet radiation at the Earth's surface. Actually,
even the worst-case scenario would have resulted in only a minor increase in UV — one
you could experience by driving just 60 miles closer to the equator. Nevertheless,
the Bush Administration hastily imposed a ban on CFC production, costing U.S. consumers up
to $100 billion.
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion: 10 Years After
Montreal. The decision to phase out methyl bromide is curious, and seems to be ideologically
motivated. About two-thirds of methyl bromide present in the atmosphere is of natural origin. No
one has yet observed an increasing trend of bromine in the stratosphere, which would indicate a human
influence. In addition, the atmospheric lifetime of methyl bromide is less than one year. If a
problem should arise, production can be stopped and anthropogenic methyl bromide will rapidly disappear from
A Critique of the UN Scientific Assessment of
Ozone Depletion. There is no credible evidence for a long-term upward trend of ultraviolet
radiation at the earth's surface. A fair evaluation of the recent theory and of stratospheric
observations leads to the conclusion that chlorine from CFCs is not the principal factor leading to
ozone destruction below 25 km, where most of the ozone is located. Water, in the form of vapor
or ice particles, and sulfates in the form of aerosols may play a more important role.
The Ozone-CFC Debacle: Hasty Action, Shaky
Science. In spite of the hardships caused by the hasty phaseout of CFCs and other suspected
ozone-depleting halocarbons, the EPA has never questioned the adequacy of the science that forms the basis for
its phaseout policy. The facts are that the scientific underpinnings are quite shaky: the data are
suspect; the statistical analyses are faulty; and the theory has not been validated.
Antarctic ice threatened by ozone-hole
recovery. Recovery of the ozone hole above Antarctica could warm the Antarctic and cause more ice
to melt in coming decades, researchers say. As the ozone hole heals, wind patterns that shield the interior
of the polar region from warm air may break down, causing warming in the Antarctica as well as warmer and drier
conditions in Australia.
Why climate change
is hot hot hot. Remember the ozone layer? It was all the rage back in the old days.
It was caused by spray-on deodorants, apparently. So we packed 'em in, and switched over to roll-on
deodorants. And, because we forswore the sinful spraying of armpits, the hole began to heal. Which
is tough on the Antarctic ice cap. Because the only reason it isn't melting is because the ozone hole
isn't fully closed up. Once it is, more hot air will remain trapped and melt the ice. It may be
time to start spraying your armpit hair again.
The CFC Ban:
Global Warming's Pilot Episode. Although it has been only a little over twenty years since the
Montreal Protocol, which effectively created a global ban on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the interesting
history of the ozone hole has slipped under the radar, largely eclipsed by the much greater story of the
anthropogenic global warming fraud. It's interesting to revisit the CFC/ozone depletion scam and note
the striking similarities to the current campaign against CO2.
Weather Destroying Ozone in the Arctic. Did you know that cold weather had anything to do with
the so-called "ozone hole"? "Usually in cold winters we observe that about 25% of the ozone disappears,
but this winter was really a record — 40% of the column has disappeared," said Dr Florence Goutail
from the French National Centre for Scientific Research. "Research by Markus Rex from the Alfred Wegener
Institute in Germany suggests that winters that stand out as being cold in the Arctic stratosphere are getting
colder." "For the next few decades, the [Arctic ozone] story is driven by temperatures, and we don't
understand what's driving this [downward] trend," he said.
This article is highly speculative and makes specious, presumptuous assertions about facts not in evidence. How summer
thunderstorms could be punching new holes in the ozone layer. [Scroll down] The team makes no attempt to project when
significant erosion might be expected to occur. And researchers have yet to make the measurements that would confirm that the reactions
the study describes are occurring.
Those evil gas-guzzling SUV's:
Let me refer you
to this page about
Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards.
Anti-vinyl Coalition Seeks
Ban on Intravenous Medical Supplies. If it's bad for laboratory rats, then
it must be bad for humans, the old song goes. The latest environmental group singing
that tune is Healthcare Without Harm, a Washington, DC coalition of 140 environmental, health,
and activist groups that recently launched a campaign to eliminate the use of vinyl medical
products such as intravenous (IV) bags and tubing.
The Top Ten Unfounded Health Scares of 2006. [#6]
Teflon Contains a Cancer-Causing Chemical (PFOA): Research has shown that very high doses of PFOA can cause harm to animals, but the amount of
PFOA to which the general population is exposed is much lower. While further research is needed in order to more fully understand how PFOA acts in the
body, the current data indicate that we can expect no risk to human health associated with the levels of PFOA exposure found in the general population.
accusation doesn't stick. Teflon has recently gone from the frying pan into
the fire, thanks to some money-hungry lawyers. They've cooked up a scary story,
adding a dollop of hyperbole for good measure. Unfortunately, they left out common
sense and science.
against Teflon simply don't stick. For anyone who cooks but doesn't like scrubbing,
Teflon is a wonder product. Before Teflon, washing a pan or pot was among the most disagreeable
of tasks. Cleaning up is a very different task in today's post-Teflon world. There are
even some unintended health and safety benefits from Teflon kitchenware. You can cook using
less fat, grease, or oil. Doing so is better for your heart. There's also less chance
This very large subsection has moved to this page.
Part 1. I am going to try to persuade you of something that might seem impossible: that one of the
best things you can do to make the world a better place is to fight for more fossil fuel use — more use of
oil, coal, and natural gas. My case for expanding humanity's massive fossil fuel use might seem unworthy of even
considering given that it totally contradicts what trusted sources tell us is the consensus of virtually all experts,
but consider that 1) we know that sometimes what we're told is the "expert" view turns out to be catastrophically
wrong, and 2) the "expert" view that we should rapidly eliminate fossil fuel use is a radical and potentially
disastrous change in how we use energy. [...] Fossil fuels are a uniquely cost-effective source of energy, providing
energy that is 1) low-cost, 2) on-demand, 3) versatile, and 4) on a scale of billions of people in
thousands of places — which is why they are growing around the world, above all in places that care most
about cost-effective energy, such as China. Cost-effective energy is essential to human flourishing (our ability
to live long, healthy, opportunity-filled lives) because the more cost-effective energy is, the more people can use the
miracle of "machine labor" to produce vital material values such as food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.
Not Just Gas Stoves Democrats Are Coming For. Earlier this month, Biden's Consumer Product Safety
Commission announced that it opposed gas stoves and was looking at ways to eliminate them, prompting an outcry over the
coming ban. But climate scolds aren't just looking to ban your gas stove, America. They have a long list of
other appliances they want canceled, too. On Jan. 9, the CPSC pointed out that about 35 percent of U.S.
households use gas stoves, and then warned of the dangers of their use. [...] The nanny state move was further
complicated by the fact that the study, used by CPSC, warning that gas stoves promote asthma in kids was partly funded
by RMI, a group that seeks to "accelerate the clean energy transition," and was co-authored by Brady Seals, the manager
of RMI's Carbon-Free Buildings arm, which aims to retrofit buildings with electric appliances. In turn, RMI, which
used the study to promote stove electrification, has received at least $1 million in donations from
Breakthrough Energy, a "green energy" investment firm founded by Bill Gates, as well as the Bezos Earth Fund and
Bloomberg Philanthropies, according to the 2022 RMI donors report.
bags: Progressive war on your stove is very real. The first clue is the kinder, gentler puff pieces
appearing in the op-ed sections of the usual suspects. They pooh-pooh sane people's dismissal of the recent,
pretty thoroughly debunked BOMBSHELL STUDY. You know. The one where they measured all these horrific
toxic chemicals flooding the air while cooking on gas stoves... in kitchens encased in sheets of plastic sealed with
dust-proof ZipWall barriers? [Tweet] Yeah. That's the one. Not surprisingly, the New York Times has
jumped on the "simmer down" bandwagon. Quit trying to deny they're bad for you and Mother Gaia.
Let us lead you to the wonderful world of induction!
Behind The Gas Bans. The Climate Imperative Foundation is the newest and richest anti-hydrocarbon,
anti-natural gas group you've never heard of. How rich is Climate Imperative? According to the latest
report from Guidestar, the group took in $221 million in its first full year of operation. (Guidestar calls
the income "gross receipts.") That means that Climate Imperative, which is less than three years old, is already
taking in more cash than the Sierra Club, which bills itself as the "nation's largest and most influential grassroots
environmental organization." According to Guidestar, the Sierra Club collected $180 million in its latest
reporting year. Climate Imperative is also taking in more money than the Rocky Mountain Institute which collected
about $130 million in its latest reporting year. I use those groups for comparison because they are pushing
anti-gas initiatives across the country.
eco groups take aim at other home appliances amid gas stove debate. Democrats and far-left green groups
have set their sights on regulating a wide range of popular household appliances in a bid to push their broader
electrification and climate agenda. The push to regulate everyday appliances — including water heaters,
furnaces, clothes washers, dishwashers, ceiling fans, microwave ovens and shower heads — comes as the Biden
administration and Democratic lawmakers continue to set lofty net-zero and climate goals for weaning off fossil fuel
dependence. Environmentalists have argued that electrification, banning natural gas hookups and implementing
strict energy efficiency standards could help accelerate emissions reductions. "There's bad news for almost every
room in the house," Ben Lieberman, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Fox News Digital in an
interview. "Climate activists and the Biden administration want homeowners to stop using natural gas and to electrify
everything. That would affect appliances that come in natural gas and electric versions such as stoves, but also
heating systems and water heaters."
'Why Are So Many Americans and [GOP] Lawmakers Still Enthralled With Gas?'. The Thursday evening edition
of the PBS NewsHour devoted 11 minutes to the apparent foolishness... of cooking with gas. Science
correspondent Miles O'Brien condescendingly mocked anyone who would dare not throw out their gas stoves and purchase
more expensive induction stoves, given the obvious health hazards of natural gas (a danger the liberal press learned
about a few days go and won't stop shrieking over).
cities are already moving forward with gas stove bans that will affect millions. Democratic leaders in
major cities nationwide have already moved forward with bans on natural gas stoves even as the Biden administration has
pumped the brakes on similar regulations at the federal level. Cities including Los Angeles, San Diego, San
Francisco, Seattle and New York City — which are collectively home to more than 10 million
Americans — have enacted varying restrictions on natural gas hookups impacting gas-powered furnaces, ovens
and stoves. Leaders of the Democrat-led cities have argued that transitioning away from natural gas would help
achieve climate and net-zero ambitions.
The Editor says...
Nobody thought gas appliances were a problem until about two weeks ago. And now there's a mad rush to get rid of them,
for reasons that are never mentioned because their reasons are so stupid!
Chase CEO Warns Against Halt to Gas Use on CNBC; Musk Agrees. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon dealt
leftists a dose of energy infrastructure reality on CNBC's Squawk Box Thursday [1/19/2023]. While leftists are
busy calling for Americans to chuck their gas stoves off a cliff in the name of climate change, Dimon quipped, "We need
oil and gas," when Squawk Box co-host Joe Kernen asked him whether stakeholders will increase pressure on companies to
pursue Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) policies. Dimon said it would take "50 years" to transition
away from oil and gas completely. "It's a hundred million barrels a day that are used to heat, fuel, [and] feed
people." Dimon's comments are simply common sense. Anyone with a watt of common sense realizes that an
entire nation cannot merely switch its method of energy production and consumption overnight.
Area Regulators Want To Ban Gas Furnaces and Water Heaters. If you live in the San Francisco Bay Area, you
may soon have to give up your natural gas heaters. On March 15, regulators will decide if they will ban new
propane water heaters and furnaces, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. Residents would have to replace
their broken gas units with electric appliances, starting in 2027 for most water heaters and in 2029 for furnaces.
The sweeping proposal from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's board is similar to a recent move by the Biden
administration to crack down on gas stoves because of their alleged link to childhood asthma. The news drew
immediate public outrage, which the media described as the latest twist in the "culture wars."
the Green Energy Group Behind the Study That's Driving Calls To Ban Gas Stoves. The green energy group
behind a study cited in Consumer Product Safety commissioner Richard Trumka Jr.'s call to ban gas stoves has partnered
with the Chinese government to implement an "economy-wide transformation" away from oil and gas. Colorado-based
nonprofit Rocky Mountain Institute, which published the December study that attributes 13 percent of U.S. childhood
asthma cases to gas-stove use, is hardly staffed by an objective group of scientists. [...] The Rocky Mountain Institute
is far from the first green energy group to advocate for the banning of gas stoves, which nearly 40 percent of U.S.
homes use. But the nonprofit's newfound influence reflects the Biden administration's alignment with the left's
loudest climate activists. President Joe Biden has already proposed a natural gas phaseout in federal buildings,
which would ban fossil-fuel equipment in new buildings by 2030.
CNN host accidentally EXPOSES real motives
for gas stove ban live on-air. Every once in a while, left-wing propagandists will accidentally blurt out
the truth. That's exactly what happened on CNN the other day when one of the network's hosts was discussing the
Biden administration's proposed war on gas stoves. While the official party line from the federal government
claimed that gas stoves needed to be phased out to prevent childhood asthma, CNN let slip that there is a bigger motive
behind the move. [Video clip]
Gas Stove Scare Is A Fraud Created By Climate Change Authoritarians. In the past I have often tried to
take a big picture approach to the issues facing the American public and how there is almost always a deeper connection
between a variety of political and economic events. And, what has become increasingly clear to me is that in order
to understand government actions and geopolitics, you must always ask yourself "Who benefits?" [...] Right now I'd like
to take a look at a relatively small issue and how the little dominoes lead up to a bigger con game and a bigger
disaster. Let's talk about gas stoves. Frankly, I don't care about what my stove uses to cook with as long
as it works. That said, around 38% of US households use natural gas for cooking and heating. That's a
significant percentage of people that rely on gas based energy for their daily needs. Here's the problem,
though — Natural gas is not politically correct these days. Nearly all carbon emitting energy
sources have been marked by climate activists and western governments as a threat that needs to be erased between
2030 [and] 2050.
was behind that greenie push to ban gas stoves? The call to ban gas stoves in the U.S., based on
environmental concerns, certainly drew backlash from an angry public tired of seeing their household appliances,
critical possessions and standard of living being targeted. After all, they've already gotten our incandescent
light bulbs and flush toilets in many quarters. They've meddled with the design of our cars and guns.
They're trying to get our meat, telling us to eat bugs instead. Many consumers, and professional chefs, who say
gas is best for cooking, simply put their collective foot down. Where did this lunacy come from? About where
you'd expect — from our enemies.
New Study Does Not Link Gas Stoves with Asthma in Children. Here is a quick summary of the some of study's principle flaws, in no particular order:
• It's not actual research on children. It is a meta-analysis of previously published (and ignored) studies — a study of otherwise unpersuasive studies. The authors did a literature search for previous epidemiologic studies on gas stoves and asthma in kids and then just mixed those results together in an effort to contrive statistical significance. This is a bogus technique for a number of reasons including publications bias in the component studies — i.e., studies with null results aren't published.
• The study results, including the component studies, are weak statistical associations — i.e., noise range correlations. The study results, likely including the component studies, are not statistically significant either.
• Asthma is an allergic disease. There are no allergens in natural gas. So the study has no biological plausibility. No one knows what causes asthma in children and so competing causes could not be ruled out.
• The claim that gas stoves are responsible for 12% of childhood asthma — an epidemiologic concept called "attributable risk" — is entirely bogus because epidemiological studies can only be used to associate exposures with disease. They cannot be used to determine risk of disease because (1) the underlying data is not representative of the population; and (2) epidemiologic studies are just statistics (i.e., correlation is not causation) and cannot be used by themselves to determine cause-and-effect relationships.
bill blocks Biden admin from banning gas stoves: 'Regulation run amok'. House Republicans introduced
legislation on Thursday that would prohibit the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) from banning gas stoves, after
the agency indicated an interest in aggressively regulating or even banning the common kitchen cooking appliance used in
millions of homes. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and 43 House Republicans introduced the GAS Act, which is
aimed at making sure the possibility of a ban is taken off the kitchen table. "The Biden Administration's clear
consideration to ban an appliance used by more than 40 million homes and 76 percent of restaurants is worse than
Green New Deal-style regulation run amok," Issa said. "It is a preposterous overreach of federal power that would
deny Americans a necessary product they use every day."
ban is off, claims Biden, but many are skeptical. Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, and millions of
natural gas-cooking Americans can breathe a little easier: Both President Biden and the head of the Consumer Product
Safety Commission say they have no plans to ban natural gas stoves. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre
said yesterday that Biden "does not support banning gas stoves." Jean-Pierre pointed to a clarifying statement by
the head of the CPSC to buttress her point. "I want to set the record straight. Contrary to recent media
reports, I am not looking to ban gas stoves and the [CPSC] has no proceeding to do so," Alex Hoehn-Saric, chair of CPSC,
tweeted yesterday. [...] Conservatives had a field day exploiting the apparent floating of a potential ban on popular
natural gas stoves, showing photos of First Lady Jill Biden, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other top Democrats
cooking with gas. Others noted that the main study launching the discussion was authored by writers tied to two
climate-change advocacy groups.
The Green War on
Natural Gas Heats Up. Historically, those on the left never saw an energy source they liked.
Americans who have been around for a few decades remember the protests at nuclear power plants. Then there is the
war on coal which has been largely successful and continues unabated. But something can and should be said for
having a diversity of power available. If one supply goes down, there has always been another. But it
appears the ability to pick and choose is now under fire. On Jan. 14, Liberty Nation's Sarah Cowgill reported
on Governor Kathy Hochul's natural gas ban in New York, which will take place over the next ten years. This will
mean approximately 60% of New Yorkers will have to transition their homes to electric everything from water heaters to
stoves and ovens — the whole enchilada. Dictating energy sources is a dicey business because it takes
away a consumer's freedom of choice. This has become so troubling that 20 states have already passed laws
that make it illegal to block natural gas hookups.
Talk about Gaslighting!.
The Biden Administration has beat a hasty retreat from the trial balloon of banning natural gas stoves and other
appliances, but this is likely only because they got caught before the bureaucratic rule-making machinery of the
administrative state could make it fait accompli and provide cover for Democratic politicians. You know in your
bones the authoritarian climatistas are determined to ban all natural gas use that they can. As Jim Geraghty
pointed out at National Review, "When a member of a federal commission says 'any option is on the table' and
'products that can't be made safe can be banned,' you cannot say that 'fears of a ban are unfounded.'" I'm so old
I can remember back in the 1980s when the air quality regulators in Los Angeles wanted to ban backyard charcoal
barbecues and fast-food drive-through windows even though they had barely negligible air pollution impacts even with the
most generous computer "models" of pollution attribution.
Is Coming for Your Gas Stove. Compelling Americans to give up fossil fuels, gas stoves, and other
gas-fired appliances is not a vice for the Biden administration. Now more than ever, the administration's climate
change police are coming after cooks and Americans who heat their homes with natural gas. Consistent with this
prospect, the Wall Street Journal editorial board concludes that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is
poised to ban gas stoves soon. A puritanical war on fossil fuels drives this possibility. It follows a
destructive pattern designed to impoverish and control American citizens. President Biden has consistently claimed
that climate change is the greatest threat to American security. He argues that Americans must embrace an
ambitious climate action plan to prevent the cruelest impacts of climate change as part of the global transition to
clean energy technology. Spurred by the Biden administration's climate change fantasy, the federal government is
working tirelessly to make fossil fuels scarcer and more unavailable. This wearisome campaign represents a
surrender to far-left environmentalists, who are committed to making natural gas, petroleum, and all forms of fossil
fuel more expensive for working people.
that gas stove ban... Never mind. Yesterday we discussed the ridiculous idea of a federal ban on gas
stoves floated by Consumer Product Safety Commissioner Richard Trumka. This crazy idea was quickly panned far and
wide, particularly by chefs and others in the restaurant industry. The outrage over this latest woke nonsense was
great enough that it caught the attention of government officials who realized that they had clearly picked up a live
political grenade and were looking for somewhere to throw it. By the end of the evening, CPSC Chairman
Alexander D. Hoehn-Saric issued a "clarifying" statement, saying that he was "not looking to ban gas stoves" and
his commission "has no proceeding to do so." Perhaps government idiocy isn't quite as bulletproof as many of us
had previously assumed.
They Came For My Showerhead And I Did Nothing, Then They Came For My Light Bulbs And I Did Nothing, Now They Want My Gas
Stove. The news that the federal government is seriously considering a ban on the sale of gas stoves
caught many normal Americans off guard. It shouldn't have. Nor should they believe it when a regulator says
they won't actually ever ban the thing. In recent decades, regulators have wormed their way into every corner of
our lives — banning some products, ruining others, and pricing others out of reach of working
families — all allegedly for our benefit. The only thing that's surprising is that they hadn't targeted
gas stoves earlier. This week, the Consumer Product Safety Commission Commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. said that
gas appliances — used in 40 million U.S. homes and every commercial kitchen on the planet —
are in fact a "hidden hazard" that could be banned if they can't be "made safe."
Hochul quietly sneaks in proposal to ban sale of gas stoves, fuels outrage across New York.
Gov. Kathy Hochul quietly snuck a proposal to outlaw new gas stoves into the "New York Housing Compact" she
unveiled during her State of the State speech Tuesday — urging people to ditch their kitchens' gas grills and
go electric. The ban would affect old-timers and millennials who are obsessed with cast-iron pans, which are
tricky to use on electric stoves. "This is plain stupid," said a 70-year-old resident of Sea Gate, Brooklyn, who
gave his name as Victor K. "We lost electricity before, during Hurricane Sandy. The only thing we had
to heat up our food was gas. What if that happens again?" Hochul's plan would ban gas stoves, hot water
heaters and oil furnaces in both new home and commercial construction by the end of the decade.
The Editor says...
Isn't the demand for electricity already as great as the supply, with the addition of electric cars, Bitcoin mining, and marijuana
farms? Now millions of homes and restaurants will need electric power like never before. The only way around
this lunacy is if every restaurant installs a natural gas-powered generator! That's assuming natural gas isn't
outlawed entirely — to save the Earth.
Warn Gas Stoves Are 'Suddenly' Causing Children To Have Heart Attacks. Experts are now warning that gas
stoves are 'suddenly' causing children and young adults to suffer fatal heart attacks. According to Biden
administration officials, the banning of gas stoves has now become one of their top priorities after experts warned that
their use is not only dangerous to human health but also contributes to 'man-made climate change.'
official backs off gas stove ban talk after backlash. A Biden-appointed commissioner at the federal
Consumer Product Safety Commission tried to turn down the temperature after a report that the agency was considering a
national ban on gas stoves because they emit harmful pollutants. Richard Trumka Jr. told Bloomberg that the
appliances are a "hidden hazard" in a story published Monday. "Any option is on the table. Products that can't
be made safe can be banned," he told the news outlet. Trumka — the son of late AFL-CIO president
Richard Trumka — later clarified that any new regulation would only pertain to new appliances after he was
called out on Twitter by Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.). "Over 40 million American households use gas
stoves," Palmer wrote. "This type of power should never have been given to unelected bureaucrats and it is time
for it to end."
The Editor says...
Properly operating gas stoves do not "emit harmful pollutants." The only byproducts of natural gas combustion
are carbon dioxide, water vapor, and lots of heat. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
Gas Association Says Possible Ban On Gas Stoves 'Reckless,' Not Based On 'Sound Science'. The American Gas
Association (AGA) has taken aim at what it calls a"reckless" potential ban on gas stoves, and said a report linking the
use of natural gas for cooking with asthma is "not substantiated by sound science." AGA represents more than 200
local energy companies that deliver natural gas to more than 73 million customers throughout the United
States. In a statement on Jan. 10, the association criticized research in the International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health that linked indoor gas stoves with an increased risk of respiratory
illnesses like asthma in children. The research was led by researchers at RMI, an organization that advocates for
climate-friendly, carbon-free buildings, and other environmental groups. The research, which has been
peer-reviewed, concluded that 12.7 percent of current childhood asthma nationwide is attributed to gas stove use.
just stoves. NY to ban all gas appliances. Yesterday we looked at the federal government's
suggestion that they may either ban all gas stoves in the country or require expensive emission control
modifications. This is supposedly being done as a public health measure, but under the covers, it seems like yet
another covert attempt to eliminate fossil fuel use in America. That move, if it happens, clearly won't be enough
for the state of New York, where Governor Kathy Hochul will always try to bring her green energy one-upmanship game to
the table. During her State of the State speech yesterday, Hochul pledged to not only do away with gas stoves but
all natural gas appliances over the next decade. Thankfully, the ban would only apply to new construction projects
in the initial phases.
They want to ban gas stoves now? The Consumer Product Safety Commission is opening a period of public
comments on the "dangers of gas stoves." We'll get to the supposed dangers in a moment, but if a regulatory agency
like the USCPSC is already to the point of taking public comments, one of two things is almost certainly on the
way. They will either impose emission limits on the stoves, no doubt driving up the cost and/or reducing
efficiency, or they will ban the stoves altogether. Either way, somebody is about to make a boatload of money, and
it won't be the consumers.
administration gas stove ban idea leaves NYC restaurants feeling burned. During a Friday night dinner
rush, executive chef Peter Petti will have stainless steel pots of pasta water boiling while searing salmon and steaks,
all 12 burners ignited on the gas stoves at Sojourn, a New American restaurant on the Upper East Side. Nearly
everything on his menu — from a 30-day, dry-aged NY strip to a chocolate flambeed dessert —
is cooked on the range. "Some dishes require two or three pans on the burners," said Petti, 45, who's been cooking
with gas since the beginning of his culinary career in the early 2000s, when he started as a line cook at Eleven Madison
Park. The Feds, however, can't stand the heat. On Monday, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission said it
was considering a nationwide ban on gas stoves, which are currently used in 37% of US households and 76% of US
restaurants, according to Consumer Reports and the National Restaurant Association. The safety commission cited
recent reports that gas stoves emit unsafe levels of pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide and have
been linked to cancers, respiratory illnesses and cardiovascular problems. But the city's chefs and restaurateurs
are fuming at the possibility of a ban and the devastating effect it could have on the health of their businesses.
Keywords: Lobbyists, echo chamber, talking points. The
Creepy Cult Surrounding the Gas Stove Panic Gets Exposed. If you've been on social media the last day or
so, you've probably noticed there's a moral panic occurring over gas stoves. According to Democrats far and wide,
they are dangerous, cause asthma, and must be banned by the federal government. As RedState reported,
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pushed that line on Tuesday, resulting in much mockery given she herself has a gas
stove. But what's astonishing is that amidst her absolute certainty on the topic, she had never even mentioned the
issue prior. [Tweet] In other words, in the span of just 24 hours, Ocasio-Cortez saw some questionable
study, promoted it on the internet, gained legions of supporters for her position, and then tried to pretend that
everyone else had been ignoring her desperate calls. As Charles W. Cook notes, it's cultish behavior.
Is there anything the New York congresswoman could say that her army of simps wouldn't agree with? And none of
them even gave a second thought as to whether what she was saying was true or made any sense. It wasn't just
Ocasio-Cortez, though. Other Democrats lined up to preach the dangers of gas stoves, having all suddenly
become experts on the matter. [Tweet]
Safety Commission Walks Back Gas-Stove Threat amid Backlash. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
chairman Alexander D. Hoehn-Saric issued a statement Wednesday assuring the public that his agency has no intention
of banning gas stoves after a commission official drew the ire of the cooking public by suggesting the appliances might
be banned in the near future due to the alleged health threat they pose to Americans. "Over the past several days,
there has been a lot of attention paid to gas stove emissions and to the Consumer Product Safety Commission,"
Hoehn-Saric wrote in an official statement released Wednesday. "To be clear, I am not looking to ban gas stoves and the
CPSC has no proceeding to do so." Commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. had originally told Bloomberg News that fears
over air quality caused by gas stoves was creating "a hidden hazard." "Any option is on the table. Products
that can't be made safe can be banned," Trumka Jr. insisted. The comments came following Senator Cory Booker
(D., N.J.) and Representative Don Beyer (D., Va.) urging the federal agency to investigate the issue due to its
allegedly disproportionate impact on black, Latino, and low-income households.
The Editor says...
Wait, is this a solution to global warming, air pollution, asthma, or access/equity/fairness/racism?
Administration Considers Banning Gas Stoves over Health Concerns. A federal agency may look to ban gas
stoves over concern about the release of pollutants that can cause health and respiratory problems, according to a new
report. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is set to open public comment on the dangers of gas stoves
sometime this winter. The commission could set standards on emissions from the gas stoves, or even look to ban the
manufacture or import of the appliances, commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. told Bloomberg News. "This is a hidden
hazard," Trumka told the outlet. "Any option is on the table. Products that can't be made safe can be banned."
The Editor says...
The government is really good at solving problems nobody has. If gas appliances are unsafe, when did that start?
We had gas appliances when I was a little kid (in the 1960s), and they never hurt anybody. Back then, my perception was
that only the wealthy could afford all-electric homes, and that did not include us!
Brickbat: Bad Gas. The
Colorado Public Utilities Commission has passed rules that could make it more difficult and more expensive to build new
natural gas pipelines or extend existing ones in the state. The rules require regulators to sign off on any
pipeline construction plans by natural gas utilities with more than 90,000 customers. Utilities would have to pay
the full costs of pipelines up front. Democratic Gov. Jared Polis has set a goal for natural gas utilities to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 4 percent by 2025 and by 22 percent by 2030.
Colorado rules could limit natural gas line construction, expansion. Natural gas for heating, cooking and
hot water could be harder — or more expensive — to come by with the advent of new Colorado rules
scrutinizing new gas line construction, or extending existing lines. New rules affecting gas utility companies
have the potential to limit system expansion and increase the costs of installing natural gas in new construction, say
officials at the Colorado Energy Office. Xcel Energy officials warned the new rules have the potential to, for all
intents and purposes, ban line extensions.
Fuels Keep Us Warm and Secure During Winter Months. As a historic bomb cyclone ravages much of the country,
this extreme weather event has killed at least 20 people and put travel at a standstill. And it doesn't
help those in distress — or without power — feel secure when many in the media fear monger about
climate change correlating with winter weather. More reassuringly, however, conditions aren't worse.
Why? Continued reliance on fossil fuels keeps us warm and provides energy security. Much to the Biden
administration's dismay, net zero policies will make extreme winter events difficult to weather.
Truth About Natural Gas: A Wellspring for the U.S. and Global Energy Future. Americans are waking up to
the fact that anti-energy policies are spiking prices and limiting access to energy. At the same time, the world
is discovering that energy independence plays a critical role in ensuring nations can control their own destinies.
Energy disruptions and runaway prices are hindering investment and development at the state level. Michigan,
Texas, California, and many other states have aging and increasingly fragile energy infrastructures that have come
dangerously close to failure, or have experienced significant outages in the recent past. The nation is
experiencing systemic pressures that are stressing the abilities of states to create and deliver reliable and affordable
energy to residents and businesses. Energy security strengthens a nation's status and stature as a reliable energy
producer and exporter and promotes both national security and quality of life. The opportunity to return to energy
independence is currently facing the Unites States: natural gas is a wellspring of wealth and security for America and a
foundation for the world's energy future.
Indiana says converting 1,052 MW of coal to gas will be $381M cheaper than renewables and storage. AES
Indiana plans to convert two coal-fired units totaling 1,052 MW at its Petersburg power plant to natural gas in 2025,
which the utility estimates would be $381 million less expensive over 20 years compared with replacing the generating
station with renewable energy and storage. In the near term, The AES Corp. subsidiary's integrated resource plan
also calls for adding 240 MW of storage, up to 900 MW of wind, 90 MW of solar combined with storage and
75 MW of stand-alone solar by 2027, depending on the cost, according to a [recent] presentation on the pending plan.
Austria sues European
Union, claiming natural gas and nuclear energy are not 'green'. Austria is taking the European Union to
court over plans to characterize natural gas and nuclear power generation as sustainable energies amid efforts to fight
climate change. The Austrian government on Friday filed a lawsuit with the EU's top court over the classification
used to define clean energy resources. The EU's executive Commission plans to add certain nuclear and gas plants
next year to a list that helps investors determine which projects are sustainable. Austria's environment minister,
Leonore Gewessler, warned that the measure could "greenwash" nuclear power and gas despite the environmental damage they cause.
agenda now demands elimination of natural gas in homes nationwide. The green agenda coalition now is
demanding the elimination of natural gas furnaces and appliances in homes nationwide, a move that could trigger
replacements costs of $12,000 for homeowners. And the plan is being slammed as representing a federal government
"out of control," according to a state lawmaker. The plan is being pushed by the Sierra Club and dozens of other
"environmental" groups, who are demanding the Environmental Protection Agency ban the use of natural gas for home
heating[,] everywhere in the country. The groups' petition claims that the federal agency absolutely has to
regulate "deadly pollution" from the energy source.
Please use all-electric appliances — but only between midnight and sunrise. Don't worry, the power grid won't collapse! California
moves to ban natural gas furnaces and heaters by 2030. California is committing to a plan that will make
it the first U.S. state to phase out gas-fueled furnaces and water heaters in homes, a move environmentalists are
betting will provide a template for other states. The Golden State will ban the sale of all new natural gas-fired
space heaters and water-heating appliances by 2030, under a proposal unanimously approved by the California Air
Resources Board on Thursday. "We need to take every action we can to deliver on our commitments to protect public
health from the adverse impacts of air pollution, and this strategy identifies how we can do just that," board Chair
Liane Randolph said. "While this strategy will clean the air for all Californians, it will also lead to reduced
emissions in the many low-income and disadvantaged communities that experience greater levels of persistent air pollution.
to Ban Natural Gas Furnaces and Heaters by 2030. California is committing to a plan that will make it the
first US state to phase out gas-fueled furnaces and water heaters in homes, a move environmentalists are betting will
provide a template for other states. The Golden State will ban the sale of all new natural gas-fired space heaters
and water heating appliances by 2030, under a proposal unanimously approved by the California Air Resources Board on Thursday.
New England winter is coming. New England is approaching what grid officials and utility executives expect
to be a very pricey winter for energy consumers and one that risks a shortage of energy during extended periods of
extreme cold. It's not an unfamiliar forecast for the region, where cold temperatures and natural gas pipeline
constraints have a record of driving supply tightness, and thereby driving prices up, during cold winter months.
But this year, those pipeline constraints are overlaid by extremely competitive energy markets globally and fuel
commodity prices that are already higher than normal going into winter. That's led to warnings that $1,000 monthly
utility bills could be in order. At the heart of the challenge are New England's power generation and residential
heating profile. Natural gas accounted for 53% of the region's power in 2021, while gas is widely used for home
heating. In Massachusetts, more than half of households used gas to heat their homes in 2020.
Extremely dubious: Gas
stoves linked to asthma in children, adult cancers, scientist warns. The more than 40 million households
in the US who use a gas stove might want to consider an alternative. New findings have shown that gas stoves —
even when turned off — may cause asthma in children and put adults at risk of cancer. Dr. Jonathan Levy,
an environmental health professor at Boston University, claimed the stoves may pollute the air with nitrogen dioxide, which can
cause lung damage. The pollutant, a "byproduct of fuel combustion," is also the same that is produced on major highways,
but since the kitchen is an enclosed space, it puts inhabitants at more risk. The size of the home and the quality of
ventilation also play a part, Levy said.
The Editor says...
Gas stoves are reasonably safe, when the risks are weighed against the benefits. If there is too much nitrogen dioxide or
radon or any other gas in your house, it's probably because the place is sealed up too tightly to allow any fresh air to
come in. If your kid has asthma or peanut allergies or cancer or autism, you should probably wonder about the barrage
of vaccines he or she has had at an early age.
case for a Fossil Future. If we want a world in which all 8 billion of us have the opportunity to
flourish — to live long, healthy, prosperous, fulfilling lives — we need to use more, not less,
fossil fuel going forward. I explain this comprehensively in my book Fossil Future. [...] Despite 100+ years
of aggressive competition, fossil fuels provide 80%+ of the world's energy and they are still growing fast —
especially in the countries most concerned with cost-effective energy. E.g., China. Fossil fuels are uniquely
able to provide energy that's low-cost, reliable, and versatile on a scale of billions of people. This is due to
fossil fuels' combo of remarkable attributes — fossil fuels are naturally stored, concentrated, and abundant
energy — and generations of innovation by industry. There is currently only one energy tech that can
match (actually exceed) fossil fuels' combo of naturally stored, concentrated, abundant energy: nuclear.
governor calls for no new gas plants in climate fight. California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced steps Friday
[7/22/2022] to speed up the clean-energy transition and fight climate change, including an end to building gas-burning power
plants, even as the move away from fossil fuels has threatened his state with blackouts and forced him to reconsider nuclear
power. Newsom said he would work with Sacramento legislators to pass a law requiring California to reach carbon
neutrality, a goal set by his predecessor Jerry Brown in an executive order. In a letter to the state's top climate
change regulator, the Democratic governor also called for building offshore wind farms, deploying 6 million home heat pumps,
requiring the aviation industry to increase its use of clean fuels, and setting firm targets for removing carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere using land management and machines designed for the task. Perhaps most important, Newsom told the head
of the California Air Resources Board that he doesn't want new natural-gas plants built in the state.
The Editor says...
The avoidance of carbon dioxide emissions and the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are both futile. Any and all money
spent on these activities is wasted. China and India aren't wasting their time with projects like this, and they share the same atmosphere.
a low-cost way for the oil companies to respond to anti-petro Biden. I like fossil fuels. I like that
everything from coal to clean natural gas has raised most of humanity out of abject misery in my lifetime. I like that
parts of the world that seemed to have nothing to offer only had to look down to find a gift that has blessed us all.
I'm glad that some form of the dinosaurs continues to roam the earth if only as a part of the car I drive around. And
I'm glad that we can grow our food, cook our meals, drink clean water, heat our homes, have satisfying careers, and raise our
children in relative comfort compared to my great-grandparents' generation. Thank you, Oil Companies. All of us
depend every day on what you have done and continue to do. It must be a staggering shock to be told — in the
face of all evidence to the contrary — that your services will no longer be required in a few years.
Everyone knows it's a lie, but a hurtful one. Especially coming from some of the most listened-to voices at the highest
levels of our government.
Angeles joins movement to ban new natural gas hookups to fight climate change. As the nation looks for ways to
cut fossil fuel emissions to meet ambitious carbon reduction goals, natural gas, that common household fuel staple loved by
cooks, is feeling the heat. So far, 77 cities and towns and Washington state have banned or discouraged new natural gas
hookups. Los Angeles became the latest to join the list when its City Council voted last week to rewrite building codes
requiring new homes and buildings achieve zero-carbon emissions — effectively eliminating future natural gas
lines. Climate change experts say the shift is a necessary part of the nation's energy transformation. About half
of American homes use natural gas, and appliances burning natural gas make up 13% of U.S. greenhouse emissions, according to
the Environmental Protection Agency. At least 95% of those emissions come from water heaters, stoves, furnaces and
clothes dryers powered by natural gas.
The Editor says...
[#1] What could be more natural than natural gas? If natural gas affects nature, why interrupt the process? [#2] The
opinions of "climate change experts" are the only ones that matter, apparently. But how many years have the "experts" been squawking
about the imminent arrival of an irreversible tipping point, beyond which the world is doomed, unless we stop using hydrocarbons for
energy — without paying heavy taxes for it, that is. [#3] Obviously, "water heaters, stoves, furnaces and clothes
dryers powered by natural gas" are your only choice, if everyone goes out and buys an electric car, as the Democrats recommend, because
the power grid will be operating at its newly-reduced capacity: The tree-hugging baby-killing Democrats are doing away with nuclear
power and coal-fired power plants (in addition to natural gas), leaving less electric supply at a time when the same busybodies are
encouraging increased consumption.
Now the "decarbonization" people will see what life is like without gasoline, and it won't be pretty. Sri
Lanka Runs Out of Fuel, Says it Faces 'Most Difficult' Summer. Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe
announced on Monday that his nation had "run out" of petroleum-based fuel during a national address in which he predicted
that the next two months will be "the most difficult ones of our lives," Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported. "We have
run out of petrol. ... At the moment, we only have petrol stocks for a single day," Wickremesinghe said on May 16.
weeks of War undoes thirty years of energy propaganda: Everyone wants fossil fuels. There is pandemonium
on the markets and suddenly many nations want to be energy sufficient. It's perhaps not The Great Reset than the
collective-types were expecting? The gas flows from Russia to the EU are sporadically tightening, and the Yamal-Europe
line has been cut off. Gas in Europe is now trading at €340/MWh which is fully 22 times the long term
average. Newcastle coal normally trades around $60 per ton, but now is over $400 USD. A few days ago the former
head of MI6 in the UK called for an immediate lifting of the frakking ban which was set to see concrete poured down the only
two shale gas wells in England by March 15th. Thirty-five Tory MPs and four peers sent a letter to Boris demanding the
same thing. Now even Boris Johnson is suggesting the Green targets could be relaxed, not just for Britain, but for all
stoves and water heaters face a climate change reckoning. In 2019, Berkeley became the first city in the
country to ban gas stoves and water heaters in all new construction in order to cut down greenhouse gas emissions that are
causing climate change. Since then, dozens of others, including Seattle, San Francisco and New York, have followed suit
with similar restrictions and President Biden has laid out an ambitious plan to help Americans ditch gas appliances and
heaters in favor of electric ones.
The Editor says...
For those of you who have just tuned in, here is the other side of the argument about gas appliances: [#1] Man-made "greenhouse
gas emissions" are not necessarily "causing climate change;" [#1A] Even if they are, the benefits are well worth it;
[#1B] The climate changes all the time anyway, no matter what we do; [#1C] Nothing we do about "greenhouse gas emissions"
makes any difference if China emits more than anybody else; [#1D] Nothing we do about "greenhouse gas emissions" makes any
difference if all the volcanos and termites in the world emit far more CO2 than we do; [#1E] the rate of global warming is
near zero at the moment, and whatever the rate of global warming may be, it's to tiny and too slow to notice; [#2] The
electricity which will power your new electric appliances (made in China by slaves) will have to come from a power plant, which
means the "greenhouse gas emissions" will merely move to the power plant, and you've gained nothing, even if there's
a problem to be solved, which there isn't.
spills into the environment are normal and may even be beneficial. I don't understand the commotion over oil
spilled into the Gulf of Mexico from drilling operations after Hurricane Ida. Oil has always oozed out of the ground to
foul land, lakes, and oceans. That's how people first discovered the stuff. In nature, some oil on the surface
evaporates off as naphtha (probably the basis of the ancient Greek fire). Other oil is digested by bacteria, converting it
into simple organic compounds that other organisms feast on, leading to localized exuberant biodiversity. The heavier
components of oil remain as lumps called bitumen or asphalt. The Dead Sea was called Lake Asphaltites because of the
gooey pebbles that floated onto the surface from underwater seeps. This asphalt was used on Egyptian mummies. Oil
found floating on lakes or in puddles was used by Indians to caulk canoes and as medicines. In California's
úber-environmentalist Santa Barbara County, an estimated 11 to 160 barrels of oil seep into the ocean daily and
have for countless centuries.
activists want to get rid of gas stoves, whether you like it or not. Today [2/23/2021] the Washington Post
published a story about the battle over the use of natural gas in homes and kitchens. This is ultimately a battle
between consumers, many of whom like their gas stoves, and activists who want to see gas removed from home heating and
cooking in favor of electric appliances. Naturally, this is a fight that began in Berkeley, California.
Gas Bans Meeting Resistance from Reality. Some 40 communities in California have implemented bans or
restrictions on the use of natural gas, which have ignited a backlash from some of California's prominent Black and Latino
leaders, who indicate that the prohibitions on the fuel are a form of regressive tax on low- and middle-income
residents. This battle over the future of residential and commercial use of natural gas in California is an example of
Natural Gas Plant Has Achieved Zero Emissions. Just outside Houston, a company called NET Power has just
brought a revolutionary new power plant online. The company says it can burn natural gas while capturing 100% of carbon
emissions, with no increase in the cost of electricity. In this episode of "The Spark," we take you inside the world's
first zero-emissions natural gas plant.
Feeding the Fat Green
Pigs. In the era before coal, oil and electricity, the environment suffered greatly. Whales were
slaughtered for lamp oil; forests were cleared for firewood, mine props, building materials, roofing shingles and sailing
masts; London ("The Big Smoke") and Pittsburgh ("The Smoky City") were smothered in smog from open fires, charcoal kilns and
iron smelters; horses powered public and military transport and city streets were layered with horse manure. Then came
the hydro-carbon revolution. Kerosene lamps saved the whales and coal-powered steam engines delivered electricity
(clean-coal-by-wire) to the cities — and much of the sulphurous smogs disappeared. Coke from coal replaced
wood charcoal to make iron and steel. Steel and concrete saved the forests and trucks and railways allowed the
farmland, which once fed millions of horses, to produce food for humans.
Another great idea from the tree-hugging hippies who brought you 1.6-gallon toilets: No
more fire in the kitchen: Cities are banning natural gas in homes to save the planet. Fix global warming
or cook dinner on a gas stove? That's the choice for people in 13 cities and one county in California that have enacted
new zoning codes encouraging or requiring all-electric new construction. The codes, most of them passed since June, are
meant to keep builders from running natural gas lines to new homes and apartments, with an eye toward creating fewer legacy
gas hookups as the nation shifts to carbon-neutral energy sources. For proponents, it's a change that must be made to
fight climate change. For natural gas companies, it's a threat to their existence. And for some cooks who love to
prepare food with flame, it's an unthinkable loss.
Proving a Negative.
[A]t some point in the future, alternative, non-carbon-based fuels will indeed become the norm. [...] But those fuels are not
here now. So in the short term, we need oil. And we've got it, and that makes us independent of having to depend
on other countries for our oil. The popular phrase in the recent past of proponents of the U.S. oil industry was,
"Drill, baby, drill!" We did and we've got it. That is why those recent terrorist events perpetrated against the
oil market had virtually no effect on world oil pricing. In years past, those attacks would have sent shockwaves of
panic throughout the world's energy sector.
Dream to End Fossil Fuels Also Means Going without Plastics. The current crop of Democratic Party presidential
wannabees have drunk the Green New Deal (GND) Kool-Aid. Stop fracking! Stop oil and gas production on federal
lands! Ban offshore oil and gas production! Most of these "rocket scientists" come from states that import their
refined products for transportation fuels and heating oil. They do not want any of those stinking oil refineries in
their backyards but please continue to import the gasoline and diesel from refineries in the Virgin Islands or from
Venezuelan-owned refineries. So where do we get plastics if oil and gas production ceases?
would make a great poster child for Russia. The United States has established itself as the greatest oil
producer in the world ahead of Russia and Saudi Arabia. There is a power dynamic from being oil independent that cannot
be ignored. Putin knows this. The Saudis know this. The 184 countries that signed the Paris Accord know
this and are aware they need to align themselves with an energy giant. Traditionally that giant was the U.S., but the
gild is coming off the lily. Russia has traditionally been painted as the bad guy. Prosperity around the world
from deep earth minerals/fuels is now being weaponized against the West since the oil, natural gas and particularly coal
prosperity has led to reduced infant mortality, extended lifespans, and allowed the movement of goods and people anywhere in
the world via the diesel engine and jet turbine. Both have done more for the cause of globalization than anything else;
and both get their fuels from oil.
The Social Benefits of Fossil Fuels Far Outweigh the Costs.
First, fossil fuels are lifting billions of people out of poverty, and in turn improving health. "The most fundamental
attribute of modern society is simply this," writes historian Vaclav Smil in his 2003 book on energy: "Ours is a high
energy civilization based largely on combustion of fossil fuels." Fossil fuels, and coal in particular, provided the
energy that powered the Industrial Revolution. Today, coal plants still produce most of the electricity that powers
high-tech manufacturing equipment and charges mobile computing devices. The alternative energy sources environmental
activists favor are generally more expensive. Energy economists Thomas Stacey and George Taylor calculate that wind
power costs nearly three times as much as existing coal generation and 2.3 times as much as combined-cycle gas.
There is a negative correlation between energy prices and economic activity.
Social Benefits of Fossil Fuels. Humankind's historic and ongoing use of fossil fuels has resulted in huge
benefits for people, wildlife, and ecosystems. Five of those benefits are documented here.
and phytoplankton appear to thrive in the waters around naturally occurring oil seeps on the Gulf floor. Researcher Ajit
Subramaniam, an oceanographer at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth analyzed the effects natural oil seeps on microorganisms in
the Gulf of Mexico, and found that microorganisms called phytoplankton were twice as concentrated in areas where oil was seeping naturally
than clearer waters, in a paper published online Monday [1/25/2016] in the journal Nature Geoscience. "This is the beginning
of evidence that some microbes in the Gulf may be preconditioned to survive with oil, at least at lower concentrations," said Professor
Subramaniam in a press release. "In this case, we clearly see these phytoplankton are not negatively affected at low concentrations
of oil, and there is an accompanying process that helps them thrive. This does not mean that exposure to oil at all concentrations
for prolonged lengths of time is good for phytoplankton."
A useful pipeline spill in
Arkansas. The environmentalists who were waging a losing war against the proposed Keystone pipeline woke up to the news
of a small pipeline leak in Arkansas and thought it was Christmas morning. If environmentalists were the praying kind, they would
say the Arkansas leak was an answer to their prayers. They think it ends the debate over the Keystone pipeline.
The Editor says...
Sometimes pipes leak, but railroad cars leak more often. The ocean floor leaks oil continuously.
Oil Cult Is Proved Spectacularly Wrong. In December, U.S. oil exports hit a record of 3.6 million barrels per day,
thanks in part to soaring domestic petroleum production. Last year, domestic natural gas production averaged 69 billion
cubic feet per day, a record, and a 33% increase over the levels achieved back in 2005. That year, Lee Raymond, the famously
combative former CEO of ExxonMobil, declared that "gas production has peaked in North America."
How Fossil Fuels Saved Humanity from Nature and Nature from Humanity.
Nothing can be made, transported, or used without energy, and fossil fuels provide 80 percent of mankind's energy and 60 percent of its food
and clothing. Thus, absent fossil fuels, global cropland would have to increase by 150 percent to meet current food demand, but conversion of
habitat to cropland is already the greatest threat to biodiversity. By lowering humanity's reliance on living nature, fossil fuels not only saved
humanity from nature's whims, but nature from humanity's demands.
Where is the evidence
for EPA's claims? [By implementing the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,] EPA claims it will "protect
hundreds of millions of Americans, providing up to $280 billion in benefits by preventing tens of thousands of
premature deaths, asthma and heart attacks, and millions of lost days of school or work due to illness," because
of the cleanup of mercury, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, and other emissions. Exactly where did the EPA come up
with these incredible health benefits?
Energy Myths of the Left.
From confused "peak oil" theorists to confused Congressmen, it's all but impossible to hear a discussion of
US energy policy without hearing the left's tired refrain: "The United States currently uses 25% of
the world oil production but has only 2% of world reserves." The left uses this misinformation to argue
against domestic oil drilling, claiming that with only two percent of the world's reserves, we can't possibly
have enough oil in the ground to matter. ... [Mark] Twain would be proud of these haters of fossil fuels whose
"statistics" fall apart upon examination of a couple of definitions and a few pieces of data.
Peak oil: Although supporters
of peak oil theory are correct that new oil discoveries over the last several decades have been smaller than in
the past, it is unknown how much crude oil is yet to be discovered. Predictions about hitting peak oil in
the near term might be correct, but there are at least four reasons for optimism that they are not. First,
high oil prices induce more exploration by oil companies.
you've heard about fossil fuels may be wrong. According to the conventional wisdom, the U.S. and
other industrial nations must undertake a rapid and expensive transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy
for three reasons: The imminent depletion of fossil fuels, national security and the danger of global
warming. What if the conventional wisdom about the energy future of America and the world has been
"Clean" is the Energy Challenge. A recent analysis by the non-profit media outlet ProPublica
demonstrates the lobbying melee over clean that is certain to undermine any attempts at long-term investment.
Its "report" on natural gas combined and skewed various reports by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to make faulty assertions about the comparative environmental impact of natural gas versus coal —
claiming some natural gas supplies were only marginally cleaner than their much dirtier energy cousin, coal.
The EPA quickly refuted this claim, which has now been thoroughly debunked.
Sea Life Flourishes
in the Gulf. The catastrophists were wrong (again) about the Deep Water Horizon oil spill. There
have been no major fish die-offs. On the contrary, a comprehensive new study says that in some of the most
heavily fished areas of the Gulf of Mexico, various forms of sea life, from shrimp to sharks, have seen their
populations triple since before the spill. Some species, including shrimp and croaker, did even better.
All The News That Is
Unfit to Print. [Example #3] The Gulf Oil Hysteria: We were told that aquatic life in
the Gulf of Mexico would be ruined for generations. Offshore drilling in general was now to become obsolete
and synonymous with environmental catastrophe. Drilling was stopped in the gulf. Prophets of doom
assured us of the scary Exxon Valdez comparisons. And yet life returned to normal, without much discussion
of the absence of permanent damage or why the horror stories proved not so horrific.
Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste.
California is blessed with interesting place names from its multicultural heritage. Pismo Beach is named
after the Chumah Indian word for 'globs of tar' due to natural Hydrocarbon outflow found on this beach.
The Spanish Portola Expedition in 1769 discovered "molten geysers of tar" at the present day La Brea tar
pits in downtown Los Angeles. La Brea is Spanish for tar. Tar still oozes from the ground at
La Brea, down now to about 10 gallons per day. Globs of tar still wash up at Pismo Beach, but
are now blamed on man's failed drilling or shipping efforts.
Gaia's Oil Spills.
According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, between 1985 and 2001, spills from offshore platforms and
pipelines accounted for only 2% of the oil released in U.S. waters. ... Nature, not man, is by far the largest
contributor of oil into the marine environment. In the Gulf of Mexico, natural oil seeps account for 95%
of offshore oil, the National Academy of Sciences reports. In Southern California, they contribute 98%
of the crude in the offshore zone. Those same natural seeps are responsible for 60% of the oil found in
the North American marine environment.
Environmental Benefits of Offshore Drilling: Louisiana produces almost 30 percent of
America's commercial fisheries. Only Alaska (ten times the size of the Bayou state) produces slightly
more. So obviously, Louisiana's coastal waters are immensely rich and prolific in seafood. These
same coastal waters contain 3,200 of the roughly 3,700 offshore production platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.
From these, Louisiana also produces 25 percent of America's domestic oil, and no major oil spill has ever
soiled its coast. So for those interested in evidence over hysterics, by simply looking bayou-ward, a
lesson in the "environmental perils" of offshore oil drilling presents itself very clearly.
Offshore Oil Drilling; an Environmental Bonanza.
[Scroll down] A study by LSU's Sea Grant college shows that 85 percent of Louisiana fishing trips involve
fishing around these platforms. The same study shows 50 times more marine life around an oil
production platform than in the surrounding Gulf bottoms. An environmental study (by apparently honest
scientists) revealed that urban runoff and treated sewage dump 12 times the amount of petroleum into the
Gulf than those thousands of oil production platforms. And oil seeping naturally through the ocean floor
into the Gulf, where it dissipates over time, accounts for 7 times the amount spilled by rigs and
pipelines in any given year.
The Natural Gas Crisis: Greens Engineer
Another Disaster. Most Americans don't know it, but the price of natural gas has increased
as much as 700% in the last three years. It's not that there aren't huge amounts of natural
gas. The problem is that access to it has been effectively blocked. "We're not running
out of natural gas, and we're not running out of places to look for natural gas," says Keith Rattie,
president of Questar, an energy developer. "However, we are running out of places we are
allowed to look for gas." Why do you think that is?
Montana Voters Favor Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas
Recovery. A majority of Montana voters favor increased production of oil and natural gas in the
Rocky Mountains, according to a December  poll conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. The
poll results may suggest a growing consensus among Western voters that energy production is not necessarily at
odds with environmental concerns.
The future of oil: Oil
over $40 a barrel accelerates exploration for new fields, and development of known but technologically inaccessible
fields, including some fields four miles below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, where there may be at
least 25 billion barrels.
Predictably, the recent rise in oil prices has the usual doom-and-gloom crowd, which has consistently been
wrong for 30 years, out saying once again that this proves we are running out of oil and that severe curbs
on gasoline consumption must be imposed to preserve what little is left for future generations. They need
not worry. There is growing evidence that oil is far more plentiful than we have been led to believe.
Environmentalists Still Can't Get
It Right. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that there was "little or no chance" of
oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In
1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years.
In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned
nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had
only a 10-year supply of natural gas.
How much oil lies beneath the Earth's
crust? In the 1970s, the consensus turned grim again: oil production would peak in the
mid-1980s and then drop precipitously. A famous CIA report predicted the "rapid exhaustion" of accessible
fields, while President Jimmy Carter warned that oil wells were "drying up all over the world." Now
doomsday forecasts are back, predicting the end of oil in this decade or the next.
Are We Out of Gas? Let's
get a little historical perspective. In 1914, the U.S. Bureau of Mines predicted American
oil reserves would last merely a decade. In both 1939 and 1951, the Interior Department
estimated oil supply at only 13 years. "We could use up all of the proven reserves of
oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade," declared President Jimmy Carter gloomily
in 1977. In fact, the earliest claim that we were running out of oil dates back
to 1855 — four years before the first well was drilled!
An oil 'crisis'?: part
II. Soaring oil prices have revived the old bogeyman that the world is running out of oil. This
has been a worldwide phenomenon. At the end of the 20th century, the known reserves of petroleum in the world
were more than ten times what they were in the middle of the 20th century — despite an ever-growing
use of oil.
Redesigning trucks in
Washington: Since 58 percent of the oil we use is imported, while only 40 percent
goes into cars, SUVs, vans and pickups, it follows that we would still be importing millions of barrels
a day even if there were no passenger cars or trucks.
Arctic oil: Facts versus
Fiction. The truth is that the latest U.S. Geological Survey estimates are that the
entire "1002 Area" contains up to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. If found, this
oil could replace all of our imports from Saudi Arabia for more than 30 years! The reserve
could prevent our dependence on foreign oil from getting any worse for decades. Rather than being
56 percent dependent like we are now, it could cut our dependence to around 50 percent, according
to the Energy Information Agency.
Oil Is Not the Problem.
John Robinson is the sort of man whose views on matters scientific and environmental must be taken
seriously. His conclusions on oil spills, based on long experience, do not comport with
environmentalist orthodoxy, to say the least.
Characters in Search of a Reason for New Orleans's Smoking Ban. [Scroll down] A
recent study, for example, detailed in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, followed
76,000 women and ultimately showed "no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer
and exposure to passive smoke." That's a pretty unambiguous and confident conclusion. But old
lies die hard, and never harder than old lies that the government has been fully invested in perpetuating
and disseminating for decades. The Centers for Disease Control, a government agency, still reports
that nearly 3,400 people die each year from lung cancer due to secondhand smoke exposure. [...] This is all
about coerced behavior change and conformity to a government-approved lifestyle which is to be decided upon
by our betters.
Passive smoking —
another of the Nanny State's big lies. Between 1959 and 1989 two American researchers named James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat surveyed no few than
118,094 Californians. Fierce anti-smoking campaigners themselves, they began the research because they wanted to prove once and for all what a pernicious,
socially damaging habit smoking was. [...] Much to their surprise, Kabat and Enstrom discovered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ie passive
smoking), no matter how intense or prolonged, creates no significantly increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer.
A look at the evidence behind
outdoor smoking bans. Prohibition on smoking in parks and on beaches has three justifications, according to two Columbia University
researchers, Ronald Bayer and Kathleen Bachynski. Those are: risk of secondhand smoke, pollution caused by cigarette butts and the
risky role models smokers are to children. "Our analysis of the evidence for these claims found it far from definitive and in some cases
weak," the researchers wrote. What they conclude is that what's behind the bans is an effort to "denormalize" smoking as part of an overall
public health campaign.
Debate Rages Over Second-Hand
Smoke: Looking for a surer method of being ripped apart than entering a lion's
den covered with catnip? Conduct the most exhaustive, longest-running study on
second-hand smoke and death. Find no connection. And then, rather than being
politically correct and hiding your data in a vast warehouse next to the Ark of the
Covenant, publish it in one of the world's most respected medical journals.
Secondhand Smoke Fears Overstated,
Study Finds. A 38-year study of Californians, begun by the American Cancer Society and concluded
by the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), has concluded that secondhand smoke has little if any
negative impact on mortality. The study, published in the May 17 issue of the British Medical
Journal, throws cold water on the efforts of state and local governments to ban smoking in restaurants
and other public places in the name of public health.
Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger.
In 1992 EPA published its report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," claiming [second-hand smoke] is a serious
public health problem, that it kills approximately 3,000 nonsmoking Americans each year from lung cancer, and that it is a
Group A carcinogen (like benzene, asbestos, and radon). [But] in November 1995 after a 20-month study, the
Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and
conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring
it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.
Calif. tests prove secondhand smoke not a health hazard. Air quality tests performed in Minnesota
and California in smoke-filled bars and restaurants show that secondhand smoke may not be the major health
hazard that some claim it is. The Environmental Health Department in St. Louis Park, Minn.,
tested for trace levels of nicotine and found results between 1 and 33 micrograms of nicotine per cubic meter of
air. ... This means not only is it not going to kill you to smell smoke once in a while, it isn't even going
to have much of an effect on you.
Where's the Consensus on Secondhand
Smoke? More than a year has passed since U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona said, "The debate is
over. The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard."
At the time, Carmona released a seemingly impressive 727-page report on secondhand smoke, the introduction of which
claims secondhand smoke killed approximately 50,000 nonsmoking adults and children in 2005. Carmona's report
stated the new orthodoxy in the anti-smoking establishment: There is a "consensus" on the dangers of
secondhand smoke. But did his report actually make the case?
Passive Smoke: It is preposterous
that those "scientists" who promote junk science studies such as this one are not exposed for the charlatans
they really are. Instead, they pass as if they were "scholars" dedicated to saving humanity, and they
get big dollars and media credence! The devastating part is that this incredible distortion is not an
isolated case, but today it is almost the standard used for the most disparate issues, from pesticides,
to plastic toys, to passive smoke, to food.
Stoking the Rigged Terror of Secondhand Smoke.
By any sensible account, the anachronism of the tobacco culture should be slated for extinction in an advancing
civilization. Why must it happen under the tyranny of deception, when intelligent and transparent ways are
available? The mild and pleasurable addictivity of nicotine and a lurking black market have continued to
frustrate the abolitionist crusade, and abolition will not work in the long run.
Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand
Smoke Is No Danger. A well-recognized toxicological principle states, "The dose makes the poison."
Accordingly, we physicians record direct exposure to cigarette smoke by smokers in the medical record as "pack-years
smoked" (packs smoked per day times the number of years smoked). A smoking history of around 10 pack-years
alerts the physician to search for cigarette-caused illness. But even those nonsmokers with the greatest
exposure to SHS probably inhale the equivalent of only a small fraction (around 0.03) of one cigarette
per day, which is equivalent to smoking around 10 cigarettes per year.
Six years ago, when I asked an epidemiologist about a report that a smoking ban in Helena, Montana, had cut
heart attacks by 40 percent within six months, he thought the idea was so ridiculous that no one would
take it seriously. He was wrong. Since then 10 other studies have attributed substantial short-term
reductions in heart attacks to smoking bans, and last week an Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee endorsed
their findings. But a closer look at the IOM report, which was commissioned by the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, suggests its conclusions are based on a desire to promote smoking bans rather
than a dispassionate examination of the evidence.
Genetically modified crops and biotech foods:
Are Farmers Defying Bans to Cultivate GM Crops? Conditions for food crops around the world are the best in
all of human history. Elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration and warmer temperatures have greened the earth since
the end of the Little Ice Age in the 17th century. GM crop varieties are proven to be disease resistant, drought
tolerant, and high yielding. This means more efficient farming and more food, at lower prices, for the world.
GM crops also protect poor farmers against crop loss or excessive financial expenditure in purchasing pesticides and
insecticides. However, accessing these crop varieties is very difficult for farmers, as countries are still very slow
in allowing their commercial cultivation. Today the world produces more food crops than ever before. But we
must not get complacent. Utilizing scientifically advanced GM food crop varieties will ensure global food security
in the coming decades, helping us maximize the advantage of existing global climatic conditions — but only if
governments permit them.
The plot against
fracking: How cheap energy was killed by Green lies and Russian propaganda. [Scroll down] But these
days the anti-innovation forces have deep pockets and few scruples and have won some big battles. We now know that the
opposition to genetically modified crops in Europe has resulted in more pesticide use than would otherwise have been the
case, yet that opposition was very profitable for the big green pressure groups. They fanned the flames of opposition,
coining terms such as "Frankenfood", and nimbly hopped from one fear to the next as each myth was busted: biotechnology was
going to poison people, damage ecosystems, cause allergies, impoverish small farmers, boost corporate profits, and so
on. They turned Monsanto into a pantomime villain and forced it to contemplate a strategy (making plants that could not
breed true so the plants could not spread in the wild) that activists then criticised as a "terminator technology" designed
to prevent small farmers saving seed, thus forcing them to rely on Monsanto. Eventually, the issue lost its ability to
yield donations and media interest, so the green business blob moved on.
Opposing viewpoint: GM corn set to stop man spreading
his seed. Scientists have created the ultimate GM crop: contraceptive corn. Waiving fields of maize may
one day save the world from overpopulation. The pregnancy prevention plants are the handiwork of the San Diego
biotechnology company Epicyte, where researchers have discovered a rare class of human antibodies that attack sperm. By
isolating the genes that regulate the manufacture of these antibodies, and by putting them in corn plants, the company has
created tiny horticultural factories that make contraceptives. 'We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make
anti-sperm antibodies,' said Epicyte president Mitch Hein.
Moore and the Agenda of Fear. Politically motivated climate alarmists are using fear to gain control of human
behavior and environmental resources and undermine free, prosperous societies. [...] [Dr. Patrick] Moore calls the
brouhaha over genetically modified food the most serious environmental hoax. Genetic modification has contributed
immensely to agricultural productivity, and there's not a single verified case of harm caused by it. Besides, gene flow
between species is not unnatural; it is the stuff of evolution, producing hardy, competitive, and viable species. He
reports that almost every major scientific, medical, and nutritional organization says genetically modified food is as safe
as, or safer than, conventional food.
Poverty, Malnutrition and Death — Part 2. It's easy to farm organically in the wealthy EU and USA,
where consumers can afford to demand much more expensive organic meats, eggs, fruits and vegetables. It's much harder
if you have to deal with the insects and crop diseases that plague African farmers on constant massive levels and locusts
that bring true catastrophes every few decades — and then sell your meager crop yields to impoverished
families. That modern pesticides might save billions of dollars of crops every year and stop locusts before they can
swarm by the tens of billions — or that bioengineered crops might feed more people, from less land, with less
water, with greater resistance to insects, with less need for chemical pesticides (natural or manmade) — never
seems to occur, or matter, to those who demand nothing but organic for Africa.
you anti-GMO? Then you're anti-science, too. In keeping with our era of ideological boycotts, I will no longer
be purchasing Kind bars. Or Barilla pasta. Or Triscuit crackers. Or Del Monte diced tomatoes. Or
Nutro dog food. A one-person boycott, of course, is really just a change in your shopping list. But the companies
that produce these brands are guilty of crimes against rationality. All advertise on their packaging, in one way or
another, that they don't contain GMOs — genetically modified organisms. Walking down the aisle of my
supermarket, I could have picked many other examples. Some food companies seem to be saying that GMO ingredients are
not even fit for your dog. My boycott is rooted in the fact that there is no reputable scientific evidence that direct
genetic modification — instead of slower genetic modification through selective breeding — has any
health effects of any kind. None.
Parade of Impending Catastrophes. Genetic modification of plants, often considered an impending catastrophe for various
exaggerated reasons, has produced wonderful products — for example, herbicide-resistant corn that enables no-till planting.
Rather than plowing under last year's corn crop to prevent weeds, the new crop is simply planted through the refuse from last year's
crop, and any weeds that emerge with the corn are killed with an herbicide, to which the corn plant is resistant. This saves a
vast amount energy and prevents topsoil erosion from plowing. The resulting corn is perfectly good. Almost every Midwest
farmer is now doing no-till corn. But genetically modified corn is subjected to hysterical attacks.
optimized corn is more nutritious, could revolutionize agriculture. Scientists at Rutgers University in New
Jersey and Chinas Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences have come up with a way to improve the nutritional value of corn
using smart gene-editing technology. By adding a single E. coli gene, the corn grows with an essential amino acid that
is otherwise available in meat only. The resulting foodstuff could help transform nutrition for people in developing
countries, and dramatically reduce worldwide animal feed costs. The amino acid, methionine, is crucial for things like
growth and tissue repair, while the sulfur found in methionine also protects cells from pollutants and slows the cells aging
process. Because of its importance, a synthetic form of methionine is therefore added to field corn seed in a highly
Unholy Alliance Between Big Biz And Big Alarmism. Cargill, one of America's biggest food and agriculture
companies, recently announced its partnership with the Non GMO Project, an organization focused on misinforming consumers
about GMO safety, and, as the organization's name implies, ridding the American marketplace of GMOs. [...] Cargill claims
this move comes in response to their customers demanding GMO-free products. If this is true, Cargill is smart to provide
products and services that please their customers. Yet, Cargill could have provided this verification independently
and without aligning with a radical anti-GMO activist organization that tries to stoke public fear about GMOs.
Researchers Find GMO Ban Would Result in Higher Food Prices and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Using economic modelling to assess the global economic and
greenhouse gas emissions impacts of banning genetically modified (GMO) crops, a recent study in the Journal of Environmental Protection finds banning GMO foods would
result in higher food prices around the world than would otherwise be experienced if GMO crop use was continued or expanded. The research, from scientists at
Purdue University found food prices would be between 0.27 percent and 2.2 percent higher, depending on the region, absent the use of GMO crops.
According to the study, higher food prices from a GMO ban would result in a total welfare loss conservatively calculated $9.75 billion.
The Death Cult of
Environmentalism. As The Washington Post reports, 107 Nobel laureates have signed a letter blasting Greenpeace
for opposing the deployment of a GMO rice which would help fix a dreaded condition, vitamin A deficiency.
Who's 'Anti-Science' Now. It takes a lot of gall to accuse people of being anti-science dunderheads while
ignoring science yourself. Yet that's precisely what Greenpeace is doing when it comes to the safety of "genetically
Developing Climate-Adapted GMO Rice. A team of scientists from eight countries at the International Rice
Research Institute in Los Banos, Philippines is genetically modifying certain strains of rice to reduce the amount of water
required to grow the rice. Rice is a staple food crop in many countries around the world. Rice crop failures have
led to malnutrition, disease, and death for millions of people over the past 10,000 years. Rice plants grow through a
chemical process known as C3 photosynthesis, which wastes a great deal of water and reduces plant's food-making efficiency.
It also makes C3 plants vulnerable to the extremely warm weather often experienced in many rice-growing regions of the world.
Vermont brings food industry to its knees on GMO labels. General Mills' announcement on Friday [3/18/2016] that it will start
labeling products that contain genetically modified ingredients to comply with a Vermont law shows food companies might be throwing in the
towel, even as they hold out hope Congress will find a national solution.
The War on GMOs: Coming Soon to a Kitchen Near You?
Leave it to Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders' home state of Vermont to demonstrate another case of government ineptitude.
Beginning July 1, the state will "require labels on all genetically modified foods produced or sold within the state," notes
a Wall Street Journal editorial. And for what? Despite there being thousands of positive studies on GMOs, "consumers who see
a 'No GMO' label near a 'No TransFat' mark might think there is reason to avoid GMOs, though no evidence supports that conclusion," adds
the Journal. [...] Like every regulation, the cost is actually passed down to consumers. Companies may decide to ditch GMOs
completely, which means resorting to pricier ingredients. That in turn results in higher costs at the grocery store.
Rice Activists Want To 'Save The Whales' But Let Children Go Blind. Ordinary rice — which
itself has been extensively genetically modified over centuries — produces β-carotene, a precursor
of vitamin A, in the leaves but not in the grains, where the biosynthetic pathway is turned off during plant
development. In "Golden Rice" (GR) — called that because of its golden color — two
genes (one from corn, the other from a bacterium) have been inserted into the rice genome by precise molecular
techniques of genetic engineering. That modification enables the carotenoid biosynthetic pathway to
produce and accumulate β-carotene in the rice grains.
of the End of Anti-GMO Hysteria? The GMO-labeling movement — the latest cause célèbre
of liberal elites — was dealt a major blow last week when Congress passed HR 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food
Labeling Act. [...] Forty-five Democrats voted in favor of the bill — including Marcia Fudge, Sheila Jackson Lee,
and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus — over concerns that labeling would mean higher costs to their
constituents. The bill now needs a Democratic co-sponsor in the Senate.
The Anti-Science Left.
Many on the left — including a few of my fellow libertarians — are paranoid
about genetically modified organisms. These are crops that have DNA altered to make them grow faster
or be more pest-resistant. The left calls that "playing with nature" and worries that eating GMO
food will cause infertility, premature aging and a host of other problems. The fear makes little
scientific sense. There is no reason to think that precise changes in a plant's genes are more
dangerous than, say, the cross-breeding of corn done by American Indians centuries ago or a new type
of tomato arising in someone's organic garden. Nature makes wilder and more unpredictable changes in
plant DNA all the time. Yet the left's fear of GMOs led activists to destroy fields of experimental
crops in Europe and, most tragically, bans on GMO foods that might help prevent hunger and malnutrition
in African and Asian nations.
Neil Young, Greenpeace work to starve the world's poor. Today, 6,000 children will die
from Vitamin A deficiency. Each year, 500,000 people, mostly children, lose their sight; half of
them will die within a year of becoming blind. Altogether, over 2 million people every year are
victims of Vitamin A deficiency. Many of those lives could be saved if Golden Rice were in their
diets. But the ongoing opposition of anti-GMO activist groups and their lavish scare campaign
with its combined global war chest estimated to exceed $500 million a year have kept Golden Rice
off the global market. Deploying highly sophisticated PR and un-scientific scaremongering,
Greenpeace has led that opposition. But it hasn't acted alone.
to Stop Serving Genetically Altered Food. In a first for a major restaurant chain, Chipotle Mexican
Grill on Monday [4/27/2015] will begin preparing only food that is free of genetically engineered ingredients.
"This is another step toward the visions we have of changing the way people think about and eat fast food," said
Steve Ells, founder and co-chief executive of Chipotle.
Five Ways Liberals
Ignore Science. Undermining the future of genetically modified crops — a process,
that in one form or another, humans have been engaged in for around 10,000 years — probably hurts
society (the poor, in particular) more than any global warming denial ever could. Across the
world, almost every respected scientific organization that's taken a look at independent studies has
found that GMOs are just as safe as any other food. There is no discernable health difference
between conventional or organic food. There is a difference, though, in productivity, in
environment impact and the in ability of the world's poor to enjoy healthier, high-caloric diets for
a lot less money.
approves first genetically modified potato for commercial planting. The Agriculture
Department on Friday [11/7/2014] approved the first genetically modified potato for commercial planting in the
United States, a move likely to draw the ire of groups opposed to artificial manipulation of foods.
The Innate potato, developed by the J.R. Simplot Co., is engineered to contain less of a suspected
human carcinogen that occurs when a conventional potato is fried, and is also less prone to bruising
during transport. Boise, Idaho-based Simplot is a major supplier of frozen french fries to
fast-food giant McDonald's.
Death Threats From Anti-GMO
Nuts. A new "Monsanto Collaborators" website created by millionaire organic activist
Mike "the Health Ranger" Adams charges that hundreds of thousands of deaths have been caused by GMO
crops, and that people who support genetically-modified organisms, like myself, Fox News's John
Stossel and the former ABC Newsman Jon Entine, are guilty of mass genocide, and hence deserving of a
punishment that befits our crime. "Every 30 minutes, a farmer commits suicide due to GMO crop
failures," Adams claims, blissfully unaware, apparently, that stories of mass suicide by farmers in
India, perpetuated by another millionaire organic activist, Vandana Shiva, have been thoroughly
debunked. The suicide rate among Indian farmers began to increase years before GMO crops were
introduced, and the rate of farmer suicides has remained constant since GMOs were introduced even as
adoption of GMO crops across the Indian subcontinent has steadily increased. Pesticide usage has
decreased 40 percent, while yields and profits have increased.
Activists Are Pro-Death Activists. India's intelligence agency is targeting anti-GMO
activists as a threat to the economy. But officials in America remain willing to hold "dialogue"
with the enemies of progress, hoping to arrive at a "consensus." [...] [H]aving never experienced
mass starvation as Indian policy makers have, American policy makers are rushing to negotiate with
the same food terrorists who banned DDT in 1972, the only effective means of controlling mosquitoes
that spread malaria, a regulatory coup that resulted in more deaths than both world wars.
We Need G.M.O. Wheat. Three crops —
corn, soybeans and wheat — account for a vast majority of the value of America's agricultural crop output. But wheat is
different in one important respect. While more than 90 percent of the nation's corn and soybean acres are now planted with seeds
genetically engineered to resist insects, herbicides or both, there is not a single acre of genetically engineered wheat being grown
commercially in the United States.
Study Linking Genetically Modified Corn
to Rat Tumors Is Retracted. Bowing to scientists' near-universal scorn, the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology today [11/29/2013]
fulfilled its threat to retract a controversial paper claiming that a genetically modified (GM) maize causes serious disease in rats, after the authors
refused to withdraw it.
Does Environmentalism Cause Amnesia?.
[Scroll down] What does hurt people is bad public policy. Exhibit A is the U.S. ethanol mandate — justified in
part as a response to global warming — which diverted the corn crop to fuel production and sent global food prices soaring in 2008.
Exhibit B is the cult of organic farming and knee-jerk opposition to [genetically modified crops], which risk depriving farmers in poor countries
of high-yield, nutrient-rich crops. Exhibit C was the effort to ban DDT without adequate substitutes to stop the spread of malaria, which
kills nearly 900,000 people, mostly children, in sub-Saharan Africa alone with each passing year. The list goes on and on.
The Irrational Fear of GM Food. Farmers can now produce
more crops in an environmentally sustainable way at a lower cost thanks to the efforts of hundreds of scientists over the past half-century. Seeds are developed
in a laboratory and then field tested to enhance nutritional value or resistance to drought, disease and herbicides. Genetically modified crops are now planted
on nearly a quarter of the world's farm land by some 17.3 million farmers. More than 90% of those farmers are smallholders who harvest a few acres in
In Search of Frankencorn in Hawaii. Hawaii is the
epicenter of a ferocious anti-biotech campaign that aims to shut down such biotech seed production farms. I was there to see for myself the Frankencorn
that haunts the activists' choleric imaginations. Anti-biotech signs and literature are festooned across the Hawaiian Islands. The Crystals and
Gems Gallery in Hanalei, for example, displayed several protest posters and offered fliers urging a ban on biotech crops.
Existing cropland could feed four billion more.
The world's croplands could feed 4 billion more people than they do now just by shifting from producing animal feed and biofuels to producing exclusively food for
human consumption, according to new research from the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota. Even a smaller, partial shift from crop-intensive
livestock such as feedlot beef to food animals such as chicken or pork could increase agricultural efficiency and provide food for millions, the study says.
Top French court lifts ban on growing Monsanto GM corn.
In the second legal setback to French restrictions on MON810 corn in five years, the Council of State court said a moratorium imposed on the product since March 2012 failed to uphold
European Union law. Under EU rules, such a ban "can only be taken by a member state in case of an emergency or if a situation poses a major risk" to people, animals or the
environment, it said.
Golden rice: Anti-GMO extremists
refuse to let you decide. What if one of the biggest problems in the developing world was a lack of vitamin A? And what
if you could engineer a crop that was a staple in most of that world that would provide sufficient vitamin A to prevent certain diseases,
conditions and death: [...] You'd be a hero right? You'd be hailed as someone who has vastly improved the lives and chances for millions.
Unless you ask Greenpeace.
The inconvenient truth
about GM. [Scroll down] Early indications are that this could increase wheat yields by a dramatic 30 per cent.
The National Farmers' Union president, Peter Kendall, describes the potential as "just enormous". And it is indeed the sort of breakthrough we
desperately need, since — in little more than 35 years — the world will have to increase food production by a challenging
70 per cent if it is to feed its growing population.
of new 'superwheat' grain hailed as biggest advance in farming in a generation. A 'superwheat' created by British
scientists could increase crop yields by up to a third. In one of the biggest potential advances for farming in a generation,
researchers have cross-bred modern wheat seed with ancient wild grass species to produce a more resilient, productive crop.
Researchers at the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB) said the new 'superwheat' could be combined with current
varieties to boost drought tolerance, disease resistance, as well as their yield.
Benefits of Bt corn go beyond
rootworm resistance. Engineered to produce the bacterial toxin, Bt, "Bt corn" resists attack by corn rootworm, a pest
that feeds on roots and can cause annual losses of up to $1 billion. But besides merely protecting against these losses, the
Bt trait has also boosted corn yields, in some cases beyond normal expectations.
A Golden Rice
Opportunity. Finally, after 12 years of delay caused by opponents of genetically modified (GM) foods, so-called
"golden rice" with vitamin A will be grown in the Philippines. Over those 12 years, about eight million children
worldwide died from vitamin A deficiency. Are anti-GM advocates not partly responsible?
Environmentalism and Human Sacrifice.
"Golden rice" contains vitamin A, making it by far the most effective and cheapest way to get vitamin A into Third World
children. So who would oppose something that could save millions of children's lives and millions of other children from
blindness? The answer is people who are more devoted to nature than to human life. And who might such people be?
They are called environmentalists.
Deadly Opposition to Genetically Modified Food. Finally, after a 12-year delay caused by opponents of genetically modified foods,
so-called "golden rice" with vitamin A will be grown in the Philippines. Over those 12 years, about 8 million children worldwide
died from vitamin A deficiency. Are anti-GM advocates not partly responsible?
The Media Is Obsessed With Bad News.
GM means "genetically modified," which means scientists add genes, altering the plant's DNA, in this case to make the crop
resistant to pests. Last week, Poland joined seven other European countries in banning cultivation of GM foods.
The politicians acted because headlines screamed about how GM foods caused huge tumors in rats. [...] What the headlines
don't tell you, though, is that the female Sprague-Dawley rats used in the test usually develop tumors — 87 to
96 percent of the time.
environmentalist's confession — I was wrong about genetically modified crops. For the record, here and upfront, I
apologize for having spent several years ripping up [genetically modified] GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the
anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonizing an important technological option which can be used to
benefit the environment. As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and
nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.
modified foods: Why does California insist on finding a problem where nobody else does? On the state's ballot in November,
Californians will be voting on Proposition 37 — an initiative that would require all foods produced with or from genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) to carry mandatory warning labels. Oh, sure, it all sounds well and good and simple enough, except that such
a measure would impose significant expenses on (often small) businesses; would cost the way-past-completely-broke Californian government up
to over a million dollars to regulate the practice; and, oh yeah — is completely pointless because there is not a single documented
case of "adverse health consequences" due to genetically engineered foods.
GM Crops Saving Farm Economy from
Drought. An August 11  federal government crop report shows biotechnology is saving the
Midwestern farm economy from devastation in the wake of this summer's prolonged drought.
They're trying to scare
you. The campaigners warning us we might end up with two heads after eating GM foods are
ignoring the science that says it's good for you. Let me prove how dead to reason are the state
politicians now screaming that genetically modified crops could kill us.
Frankenstein food beats
starvation. As we eat our chips, hamburgers and milkshakes for lunch today, let's put the debate
about genetically modified food into perspective. We eat food laden in fats and preservatives largely
without debate or complaint. Yet the prospect of producing GM foods that could be drought resistant,
grown without being heavily treated with pesticide and made more nutritious has caused a huge outcry.
Tomato Tastes Better. Shoppers who miss the taste of farm-grown tomatoes may find solace in
a new technology that puts back what generations of breeding for hardiness and shelf life have taken out.
A new variety of tomato has been genetically modified (GM) to produce geraniol, a rose-smelling compound found
in fruits and flowers. In a blind taste test, 60 percent of 37 testers preferred the flavor of
the GM tomato, according to a study published online this week in Nature Biotechnology.
Beyond Jeremy Rifkin: Crops made
with gene-splicing techniques are currently grown by 8.5 million farmers in 21 countries on more
than 100 million acres annually. Americans have consumed more than a trillion servings of foods
that contain gene-spliced ingredients. Throughout all this experience, there is not a single documented
case of injury to a person or disruption of an ecosystem.
Zambia Allows Its People To
Eat. Zambian president Levy Mwanawasa has finally ordered agricultural officials to allow
GM corn into the country, greatly expanding the amount of food that will reach his country's
Environmentalists Say: Let
My People Go Hungry. No environmentalist can point to a single person who's been killed
or even injured by a genetically modified food. Yet the entire world knows Africans die in large numbers
due to starvation from famine, despotic governments and other preventable complications. In
sub-Saharan Africa alone, 34% of the population — 194 million people — reportedly
goes hungry every day.
Biotech Advances Are Making Foods
Healthier. Most people know fish is one of the healthiest foods on the market. Omega-3
fatty acids, abundant in fish and in little else, are proven to improve heart health, alleviate hypertension,
ease arthritis, and lower cholesterol. However, many people dislike the taste of fish it generally
does not lend itself to fast and easy cooking [and] fish can be relatively expensive for people on a
limited budget. Researchers at the University of Maryland announced in April that they have
discovered a way to genetically modify soybeans to produce omega-3 fatty acids.
Activists Threaten World Food
Supply. When Kenyan biologist Florence Wambugu developed a virus-resistant sweet potato
that promised to feed millions, the Earth Liberation Front destroyed her lab and her crops. In another
blow to scientific progress, eco-fanatics bombed a Minnesota plant genetics center to keep it from producing
life-saving agricultural research. When activists don't approve, poor people don't eat.
Biotechnology Beat the
Drought in 2005. After this past summer's drought in major corn-producing
states, such as Indiana and Illinois, the U.S. corn harvest may establish 2005 as a hallmark
year in the genetic modification of plants, industry experts said on September 29. The
federal government is predicting corn production this year will be the second-highest
in U.S. history, despite the droughts.
California County Rejects
Biotech Ban. Sonoma County, California voters on November 8 soundly rejected
a measure that would have banned cultivation in the county of genetically enhanced
crops. The defeat, 56 percent to 44 percent, was devastating to anti-biotech activists, whose best chances for biotechnology
bans are in counties such as Sonoma, where genetically enhanced crops are virtually nonexistent.
California Fruits and Nuts Against
Agriculture: California's referendum process frequently leads to incredibly dumb
issues appearing on the ballot — and to some preposterous outcomes. Among the
most egregious examples this year is Measure M, a Sonoma County anti-biotechnology proposal
that would prohibit the cultivation of plants or seeds improved with state-of-the-art techniques.
Bugs Not Building
Resistance to Biotech Crops. The superbugs aren't showing up. In a major
disappointment for environmental activists, insects are not building up resistance to the
genetically-engineered Bt corn and cotton that have been planted on millions of acres
around the world since 1995.
Founder of "Green Revolution" Lauds GM
Crops: Norman Borlaug, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for launching the "Green Revolution"
in agriculture that helped curb world hunger, appeared on National Public Radio March 26 to laud genetic
modification in agriculture and caution against the organic farming movement.
Review of "The Frankenfood Myth". In
The Frankenfood Myth: How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution, food safety experts
Henry Miller and Gregory Conko have written a brilliant account of how self-interest, bad science, and excessive
government regulation have profoundly compromised the potential of the new biotechnology. This book is a
call to action for policymakers to resist a destructive political process that is currently denying enormous
potential benefits to consumers throughout the world.
Planting the seeds of misinformation:
In Europe, the public has become obsessed with the idea that genetically engineered foods are too risky for general
consumption. This uncertainty has been fueled by the distortion and misinformation spread by anti-biotechnology
activists. It is easy to mislead the public on the subject of genetic engineering, because most people are unsure
of what genetic engineering is and why scientists consider it so important.
Greenpeace and Poverty: Greenpeace
activist Farida Akthen recently blasted the Bangladesh agricultural ministry for approving research on one
of the most promising of all biotech miracles: golden rice. By adding a daffodil gene to
ordinary rice, researchers gave it a golden color and enriched it with beta-carotene, which people can
convert to vitamin A. Simply by eating a few ounces of golden rice a day, malnourished children
can ward off a vitamin deficiency that causes half a million kids to go blind every year and leaves
hundreds of millions (including many thousands in Bangladesh) susceptible to disease, intellectual
impairment and death.
Why Mandatory Biotech Food
Labeling is Unnecessary: Bioengineering and recombinant DNA techniques
have been used to develop crops with traits that increase yields and allow farmers to
reduce their use of synthetic pesticides and herbicides. The technology has made
substantial contributions to the production of safe, inexpensive, and healthy foods. The
next generation of products promises to provide even greater benefits to consumers, such
as enhanced nutritional value and even foods that act as medicines. Unfortunately,
opponents of this safe and important technology have convinced many consumers that mandatory
labeling of bioengineered foods is necessary to give them a choice when making purchasing
decisions. Mandatory biotechnology labeling is not warranted scientifically,
economically, or legally. It could actually serve to mislead consumers, not provide
them with important information.
Dr. Strangelunch — Why
we should learn to stop worrying and love GM food. Plant breeders using
biotechnology have accomplished a great deal in only a few years. For example,
they have created a class of highly successful insect-resistant crops by incorporating
toxin genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Farmers have sprayed
B.t. spores on crops as an effective insecticide for decades. Now, thanks to some
clever biotechnology, breeders have produced varieties of corn, cotton, and potatoes that
make their own insecticide. B.t. is toxic largely to destructive caterpillars such
as the European corn borer and the cotton bollworm; it is not harmful to birds, fish,
mammals, or people.
EPA and sound science
validate biotech corn benefits. Sound science has debunked yet another
purported biotech scare, as the EPA on October 16  declared biotech corn
perfectly safe for monarch butterfly consumption. A 1999 study reported in
the journal Nature claimed a high death rate among monarch caterpillar larvae fed milkweed
leaves dusted with high doses of pollen from genetically modified corn. The story
was quickly trumpeted by the anti-technology lobby and the mainstream media as a stark
warning against animal and human consumption of "Frankenfoods."
The Editor asks...
If your family is hungry, do you care about caterpillars? When some leftist,
tree-hugging, earth-worshipping hippie tells you that biotech corn endangers butterflies,
the correct response is, "So what?" There is no shortage of butterflies!
Spud growers face a decision. Willing or not,
U.S. potato growers are about to be joining corn, cotton, soybean and dairy producers in the biotech fray.
They have thus far avoided the fight only because they have refused to use the pest-resistant and high-starch
GM varieties that have been available since 1999. Processors, unwilling to subject their fast food
customers to the "frankenfood" fruitcakes, refused to buy them.
New technology fights old pests, feeds more
people. When I started farming 30 years ago, I never dreamed of how technological progress
would revolutionize agriculture. We still can't control the weather. Yet recent innovations in
biotechnology have improved agriculture beyond anything I ever thought was possible. We may even be on the
verge of making another eternal scourge of farmers permanently obsolete. I'm talking about pests.
GM Corn Protest Based on Bio-Fraud:
Environmental and consumer groups staged protests and held news conferences across the country in April  to
call attention to their claim, as one news release put it, that "the genetic contamination of Mexican native corn varieties
threatens not only the genetic integrity of corn, one of the world's most important basic crops, but the food security for
millions in the Americas." The statement is false and even its author knew it was false at the time it was
written. It is an example of bio-fraud, an all-too-common tactic of radical environmental groups.
U.S. Blames "Green Groups" for Food Shortage.
Environmental groups and biotech companies are accusing each other of exploiting starvation in much of southern Africa for
political gain as countries in the region try to determine whether it is safe to use genetically engineered
crops to relieve famine.
As the world begins to starve it's time to
take GM seriously. [Scroll down] It is a point stressed by crop experts such as Professor Chris Pollack of
the University of Wales. 'To stop widespread starvation, we will either have to plough up the planet's last wild
places to grow more food or improve crop yields. GM technology allows farmers to do the latter — without digging
up rainforests. It is therefore perverse to rule out that technology for no good reason. Yet it still seems
some people are willing to do so.
crops needed in Britain, says minister. Ministers are preparing to open the way for genetically
modified crops to be grown in Britain on the grounds they could help combat the global food crisis.
Ministers have told The Independent that rocketing food prices and food shortages in the world's poorest
countries mean the time is right to relax Britain's policy on use of GM crops.
GM crops: not
against nature. The Prince of Wales is a man of social conscience who acts with complete
propriety in intervening in public debate. And his concern for the environment is scrupulously
politically disinterested. Unfortunately, his apocalyptic predictions of the effect of genetically
modified crops do not enhance public debate, but degrade it. He maintains that GM crops augur
Green activists 'are keeping
Africa poor'. Western do-gooders are impoverishing Africa by promoting traditional farming at the
expense of modern scientific agriculture, according to Britain's former chief scientist. Anti-science
attitudes among aid agencies, poverty campaigners and green activists are denying the continent access to
technology that could improve millions of lives, Professor Sir David King will say today.
GM Grapes Raise Hopes
for Midwest Wine Industry. One of the most effective, widely used herbicides in the United States —
known as 2, 4-D — has a serious drawback: It devastates grapes. That makes it very difficult to
raise grapes in the Midwest, because 2, 4-D is widely used on popular staple food crops including corn and wheat, and
it can harm grapes up to two miles away from its point of application. Scientists, however, report a minor genetic
modification of Midwestern grapes can make them resistant to 2, 4-D.
Biotech could save world wheat
crops. Norman Borlaug is the most decorated civilian in history — largely because he was
able to cross-breed a super-wheat that fended off the stem rust fungus, which had historically stolen one-fourth
of the world's wheat crops. ... Borlaug's wheat breeding success made him "the Father of the Green Revolution."
He and his fellow high-yield farming scientists saved 1 billion people from famine in the 1970s.
A Real Humanitarian. Though
[Norman] Borlaug has passed away, his Green Revolution needn't die. Aggressive advancements in the research and
use of genetically modified foods, which he supported, would carry on the good work he has done. That would
actually be the most fitting tribute to a man whose life was far more important than the legion of lesser lights
who garnered much more attention.
Greens: Apologize to
High-Yield Farmers! Studies show that modern farming techniques — reviled by
environmentalists — not only saved billions from starvation, but are tremendously more
eco-friendly than "organic" farming practices.
Somewhat related... Congress
bans FDA from approving genetically modified fish. Genetically modified salmon will not go on sale
in the U.S. The House of Congress has voted to ban the Food and Drug Administration from passing the fish
fit for human consumption. The FDA had said last year that they thought the fish, which grows twice as
fast as normal salmon, appeared to be safe.
Urban sprawl, landfill space, overpopulation, and finite natural resources:
Why Climate Alarmists Are Ignoring All-Time Record Crop Production in India. All-time record crop production in
India belies the doomsday narrative of climate alarmists. To no great surprise, the U.N. and media ignore the
remarkable achievement of this country of 1.4 billion people because it contradicts a political agenda pursued with religious
fervor. Even as the world's largest democracy enhances global food security, the media spread news of the U.N.'s "code
red" for humanity over August's specious report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that rising temperatures
threaten the earth. In fact, India's record food production contradicts claims about adverse climatic effects on crops.
[...] Also important to note is that this remarkable success in food production would not have been possible without an
environment favorable to crops. What the media call a curse — increased levels of carbon dioxide and greater
warmth — has been a blessing to farmers and consumers. Yields of food crops — in India and
worldwide — have benefited from the fertilization effect of carbon dioxide and the longer growing seasons
resulting from natural increases in temperature. Overall, agriculture certainly has not been hurt by weather;
otherwise, such record harvests likely would have been impossible.
of The Biggest Lies & Hoaxes Perpetrated on The American People. [#9] The Overpopulation Myth: This is
perhaps one of the most appalling hoaxes they've leveraged. They've had countless "population control" organization
setup for decades, to monitor and control populations. Thousands of couples heeded their advice and opted not to have
children based on their purported concerns. The reality is, the world has been in a population growth decline for a
long time and the US is at an 80-year low. The lies these people have perpetrated, and the lengths they've gone to
control the population through abortions, war, manufactured diseases, GMOs, geoengineering, and quite possibly via vaccines,
Has the Overpopulation Myth Remained So Persistent When It's So Easily Disproven? [Thomas] Malthus could never
have imagined the "dizzying capacity for innovation" that human beings have shown in modern times, as Art Caden observes at
Forbes. There were fewer than a billion people on the planet in 1800. The Earth is now nearing 8 billion people,
and that population is far better fed today than they were in 1800. That population growth, the likes of which Malthus would
have believed unimaginable, has been met, and even exceeded, by food production — to the extent that our government now
subsidizes American farmers, to the tune of billions each year, in order to incentivize them to not grow excess food on their
lands. These efforts exist as a measure to keep prices at "profitable" levels for farmers, in our government's vainglorious
efforts to fix prices in a free market. But government price-fixing aside, shouldn't it be easy to conclude that any
assertion that an increasing population invariably leads to famine is extremely illogical, or at the very least, quite simply
an incorrect hypothesis?
The Rise of the New Left Urbanists.
In recent years, a new faction has emerged in city politics: what one might call the new Left urbanists. These
activists believe that local governments must rebuild the urban environment — housing, transit, roads, and
tolls — to produce a new era of city flourishing, characterized by social and racial justice and a net-zero carbon
footprint. The urbanists rally around provocative slogans like "ban all cars," "raze the suburbs," and "single-family
housing is white supremacy" — ironically, since they're generally white, affluent, and educated themselves.
They're often employed in public or semipublic roles in urban planning, housing development, and social advocacy. They
treat public housing, mass transit, and bicycle lanes as a kind of holy trinity — and they want to impose their
religion on you.
Arizona 'futuristic hippie commune' has a problem. In the middle of Arizona's desert lies something unexpected:
a rather strange, unfinished "city of the future." [...] A nonprofit group called the Cosanti Foundation has been working for decades
to create a city that would inspire the future of urban design by incorporating a range of environmentally-friendly features to
reduce sprawl and minimize the need for cars while harnessing solar power and natural vegetation to energy reduce costs. [...]
Construction began in 1970, but a new building has not been completed since 1989, Vice reports.
is nonsense. [Scroll down] I decided to give them one last shot. I wrote, "I had this discussion in
high school in 1972 and I argued that population will take care of itself. It has. Birth rates are down from 5 in
1950 to 2.5 in 2015. "The death rate has fallen faster which make it appear as if we are having too many babies.
Babies are an increasingly smaller share of the population. "The idea that we are crowding out other animals is not
true. The polar bear population has quintupled since the 1950s. Gray whales number about 21,000, an estimate that
matches pre-whaling days. Man is a pretty good steward of the planet. In fact, oil saved the whale! Rockefeller
sold kerosene cheaper than whale oil. "In my state, the bear population was 500 in 1979. It now tops 10,000.
Deer top a million. Elsewhere, wild turkeys roam the streets of suburban New Jersey.
Change Alarmism Is The World's Leading Cause Of Hot Gas. Sorry, but by now, this rhetoric is familiar. You can
go back to 1970, when Harvard biologist George Wald, riding a wave of popular environmental panic during the decade, estimated
that "civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."
Or you can go back to 1977, when President Barack Obama's future science "tsar" John Holdren co-authored a book with Paul R.
Ehrlich predicting that global warming could lead to the deaths of 1 billion starving people by 2020. (The authors
theorized that "population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing
Are Almost 5 Times as Abundant as They Were in 1980. Humanity is enjoying a world of increasingly cheap and
ever more abundant mineral, argicultural, forestry and energy resources reports a brilliant new study, the Simon Abundance
Index. This analysis by Marian Tupy, editor of Human Progress at the Cato Institute, and Professor Gale Pooley from
Brigham Young University — Hawaii uses data on 50 different commodities to track their price trajectories over the
past 37 years from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. They find in real price terms their basket of
commodities decreased by an average of 36.3 percent between 1980 and 2017. That's great, but their breakthrough insight
is that, since 1980, global real hourly income rate per capita has grown by more than 80 percent, which means that the
commodities that took 60 minutes of work to buy in 1980 now take only 21 minutes of labor to buy in 2017.
As a result, the "time-price" of their basket of commodities has fallen by 64.7 percent.
Debunking the overpopulation
alarmists. Population Bombed: Exploding the link Between Overpopulation and Climate Change, [is]
an extensively researched, well-written and concise new book published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The
book comes out exactly 50 years after Paul R. Ehrlich published The Population Bomb, in which the Stanford University biology
professor famously claimed that population growth would result in resource depletion and the starvation of hundreds of millions of
people. The authors of Population Bombed, Pierre Desrochers, who is an associate professor of geography at the University of
Toronto, and Joanna Szurmak, who is a doctoral candidate in the graduate program in Science and Technology Studies at York University,
Toronto, take stock of past scholarship on "depletionism" and provide a cheerful rejoinder to the doomsayers.
Happened to the "Population Bomb"? That's the question the New York Times asks
in its latest "Retro Report," a series that looks back and updates prominent stories from the past.
"The Unrealized Horrors of Population Explosion" is fairly devastating to the leading figure of that
famous apocalypse, Paul Ehrlich, author of the monster best-selling book The Population Bomb.
[...] Fun footnote to this: At the urging of the Rockefeller clan, Nixon established a special
commission on population growth, with an eye to proposing a population control policy for the U.S.
But at one early meeting, someone made the obvious point that any policy that targeted the birthrate
would disproportionately affect blacks and other minorities who had the highest birthrates in the
U.S. The commission was never heard from again.
Unrealized Horrors of Population Explosion. The second half of the 1960s was a boom time for
nightmarish visions of what lay ahead for humankind. In 1966, for example, a writer named Harry Harrison
came out with a science fiction novel titled "Make Room! Make Room!" Sketching a dystopian world in which
too many people scrambled for too few resources, the book became the basis for a 1973 film about a hellish future,
"Soylent Green." In 1969, the pop duo Zager and Evans reached the top of the charts with a number called
"In the Year 2525," which postulated that humans were on a clear path to doom.
The World's Resources
Aren't Running Out. How many times have you heard that we humans are "using up" the world's resources,
"running out" of oil, "reaching the limits" of the atmosphere's capacity to cope with pollution or "approaching the
carrying capacity" of the land's ability to support a greater population? The assumption behind all such statements
is that there is a fixed amount of stuff — metals, oil, clean air, land — and that we risk exhausting
it through our consumption. [...] But here's a peculiar feature of human history: We burst through such limits
again and again. After all, as a Saudi oil minister once said, the Stone Age didn't end for lack of stone.
Does Environmentalism Cause Amnesia?.
[Scroll down] In case you're wondering what happened with that battle to feed humanity, the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization has some
useful figures on its website. In 1968, the year Mr. Ehrlich's book [The Population Bomb] first appeared, Asia produced 46,321,114 tons of maize and 439,579,934 of
cereals. By 2011, the respective figures had risen to 270,316,205, up 484%, and 1,289,633,254, up 193%. It's the same story nearly
everywhere else one looks. In Africa, maize production was up 247% between 1968 and 2011, while production of so-called primary vegetables
has risen 319%; in South America, it's 308% and 199%. Meanwhile, the world's population rose to just under seven billion from about 3.7 billion,
an increase of about 90%. It is predicted to rise by another 33% by 2050.
EPA: Green Gone Wild. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to vastly expand its power. Last year, the agency paid nearly $700,000 to the National
Academy of Sciences to draft the document "Sustainability and the U.S. EPA." This manifesto rationalizes why the EPA has the right to
regulate every business, community and ecosystem in the country. The key to the EPA's regulatory control is "sustainability," an
illusive and ill-defined term even more broadly applicable than the interstate commerce clause.
National Heritage Sites and Agenda 21. In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy,
how many single-family homes damaged by the storm surge will be rebuilt as high density dwellings? This is after all, the Smart Growth trend across the
country — destroy traditional homes in the suburbs because they are "unsustainable" and build high rises in inner cities.
President Obama shows his disdain for the suburbs: Obama's Housing
Agency Spending Millions to Transform Inner Cities Into 'Sustainable Communities'. The Obama administration's effort to create
government-sanctioned "sustainable communities" moved ahead this week, with the announcement of almost $5 million in planning grants.
Seventeen poor communities across the U.S. will share the $4.95 million to draft plans for the "next generation" of public housing and other
"sustainable" neighborhood improvements, such as better schools, anti-crime efforts, and greater access to health care and grocery stores.
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Shaun Donovan said the "Choice Neighborhoods Planning Grants" are intended to revitalize entire
neighborhoods — "to improve the lives of the residents who live there." In other words, the planned infrastructure improvements
lean heavily on social engineering.
Overpopulation is a matter of perception. Green and pleasant land.
The UK has a population density of 255 per square kilometre, placing it at number 13 out of 89 territories with a
population of more than 9 million (figures from the UN). Bangladesh is top of the list at 964 per km², while
both the Netherlands and Rwanda come in at just over 400, India has 368 and Vietnam 255. Clearly, the stage of
development is no guide to how crowded a country is. But there are other surprises. China, with the world's
largest population, has only 140/km², considerably lower than Italy (200/km²).
about "urban sprawl" and start worrying about federal stewardship. One of the green movement's great gripes with humanity is that
people just take up too much [...] room, and ergo put a lot of ecological stress on the land on which they live. The ever-sprouting world
population, they argue, isn't sustainable, as we'll eventually run out of space to put people. A new graphic from Environmental Trends,
however, aptly demonstrates how unfounded these fears are.
Earth is nearing its
limits, U.N. says. The Earth's environmental systems "are being pushed towards their biophysical limits," beyond
which loom sudden, irreversible and potentially catastrophic changes, the United Nations Environment Program warned
The Big Green Money Machine — how anti-fishing activists are taking over NOAA.
For the first time in at least a century, U.S. fishermen won't take too much of any species from the sea, one of the nation's top fishery scientists
says." This is from an article written by Jay Lindsay for the Associated Press and the top fishery scientist is Steve Murawski, who retired
early in 2011 as Director of Scientific Programs and Chief Science Advisor at NOAA Fisheries. So why are so-called "marine conservationists,"
ENGOs, the handful of billion dollar foundations that support them and the upper echelons at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
in the U.S. Department of Commerce still claiming that radical surgery is needed to "save" our fisheries?
Growing Out of Poverty. According to a just-published
World Bank report, the percentage of people living on less than $1.25 per day — or its local
equivalent — has plummeted from 52 percent of the global population in 1981 to 22 percent in 2008.
The World Bank doesn't provide more recent data, but other indices show that the 2008 financial crisis did not interrupt
this trend. For millions of households, crossing the symbolic $1.25 threshold means leaving destitution behind and
moving toward a more dignified life — no trivial achievement. Moreover, this escape from poverty happens
while the global population continues to grow. Doomsday prophets who warned about a ticking "population bomb" have
not been vindicated, to say the least. Global warming messiahs, beware: human ingenuity proves able to cope
with the predicaments of Mother Nature.
Welcome to Sustainable City. As I walked through
Washington, D.C. Ronald Reagan National Airport Terminal C on my way to the gate, a large electronic billboard caught my
attention. ... Capturing the site on my iphone, the typical fare of environmentalism popped up, presenting Siemens as the
leader in "sustainable development," "green buildings," "intelligent buildings," "smart grid," "sustainable urban development,"
"sustainable communities," "environmental care," and health care. ... Familiar with the UN Agenda 21 propaganda and its
buzzwords preceded either by "sustainable" or "green" everything, in the name of saving the planet from human behavior, a
clever and devious attempt to control every facet of human activity and life, I stopped immediately.
Nazi Roots of Sustainable Development. Much of the European Union's green sustainable development plans
are largely based on government controlled land use planning theories rooted in the lebensraum tradition. Literally,
lebensraum means "living space." Lebensraum was originally developed by German geographer Friedrich Ratzel (1844-1904)
and then greatly expanded under the banner of National Socialism (1933-1945).
Come on in, the Earth Is Fine.
Last week the United Nations Population Fund released a report heralding the birth of the world's 7 billionth
person. The milestone is important, the United Nations explains, because their calculations now project
that global population is likely to hit 9.3 billion by 2050 and could go as high as 15.8 billion by
the end of the century. As you might imagine, these dire warnings were greeted with eager and solicitous
concern by the alarmist media.
Smart Growth America!. I received
a robocall two days ago. It was my Magisterial District Supervisor, inviting me with all his Smart Growth
friends to a tour of Belmont Bay, a mixed-used residential area with a new George Mason University environmental
science facility. He called the right person for the wrong reasons. ... The words he used, Smart Growth,
flagged my attention immediately, since I recognized one of the euphemisms used by UN Agenda 21 to hide
land use control, regulation, and confiscation under the guise of environmental protection.
The Bicycle Overlords.
If you sometimes scratch your head while sitting in traffic and ask yourself why transportation planners and
local political leaders make such odd decisions that result in more congestion, wasted fuel, and increased
pollution, you may want to check out the urban planning doctrine called Smart Growth (or, New Urbanism) that
is the current fad in many communities across the country. Chances are, your local government is fully
wedded to it already.
"Smart Growth" Intensifies Air Pollution. For years, regional transportation plans, public officials,
and urban planners have been seeking to densify urban areas, using strategies referred to as "smart growth" or
"livability." They have claimed that densifying urban areas would lead to lower levels of air pollution,
principally because it is believed to reduce travel by car. In fact, however, EPA data show that higher
population densities are strongly associated with higher levels of automobile travel and more concentrated air
The Socialist Phobia
of Scarcity. If you are a socialist, chances are you believe that there is only a limited amount
of wealth in the world. People are impoverished only because rich capitalists are hoarding it. You
probably also believe that global natural resources are scarce, the world's water supply is drying up, and
irreplaceable species are becoming extinct. This irrational fear of scarcity is what drives the socialist
advocacy for abortion of the unborn and euthanasia of the aged and infirm. As it turns out, the
"population bomb" has thus far been a dud. Paul Ehrlich's 1968 book of the same name predicted mass
starvation and global social upheavals by the 1980s. Although this never happened, it has not
deterred true believers.
Are climate models lying about food too?
Computer models at Stanford University have just "told" us that man-made global warming has already sapped
some of the yield potential from our food crops. They say wheat yields would have been 5.5 percent
higher since 1980 without the earthly warming; corn yields would have been 3.8 percent higher.
Stanford's computers apparently didn't tell their programmers that U.S. corn yields have actually risen by
more than 60 percent since 1980 — during a period when they were supposedly hampered by too much heat.
Fast Train To Hell.
Public sector planners appear to be smitten with rail as the answer to environmentally friendly transport
that will reduce automobile use — the b$#234;te noir of righteous greenies. And even better, rail
transit adds considerably to their desire to re-settle populations to prevent "sprawl," a condition they find
repugnant. Most Americans call sprawl "neighborhoods," however, little realizing that ramping up urban
rail transit creates the cutting edge of the ax designed to control where they live. Localized rail
transit is a planner's dream and a city's nightmare.
Food chain not stretched to limit —
yet. The cable network MSNBC is warning that the world food chain "has been stretched to the
limit" by rising world demand and a series of crop failures in several countries. The TV network's
warning is premature. The U.S., in fact, could ease the current global food price spike with one
administrative action — limiting the amount of U.S. corn that gets turned into corn ethanol.
Gasping for Water and Other Lies.
The "water shortage" wail is an elite ruse that has been around awhile. It is identical to the population
explosion cry that says "...the planet is over-populated, our resources are rapidly vanishing, and millions are
going to starve to death." We have six billion (+) people on the planet and enough food to feed them 2,100
calories a day, according to world food experts. ... The world could feed nine billion if it had too.
In Defense of Plastic. The
fact is, according to Angela Logomasini of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, plastic bottles are not filling
up landfills. They represent less than one percent of landfill waste. She goes on to agree that they
don't degrade, "but nothing does." In addition, we have an artificial shortage of landfills because
environmental regulations prevent the creation of new ones. We have no shortage of land in America
and could open numerous new land fills to meet growing needs. Angela Logomasini agrees that we have
plenty of landfill space and adds, "one large landfill 44 miles by 44 miles could manage 1,000 years
of our waste.
all this talk of an apocalypse getting a bit boring? This year is the 40th anniversary of
Paul Ehrlich's influential The Population Bomb, a book that predicted an apocalyptic overpopulation
crisis in the 1970s and '80s. Ehrlich's book provides a lesson we still haven't learnt. His
prophecy that the starvation of millions of people in the developed world was imminent was spectacularly
wrong — humanity survived without any of the forced sterilisation that Ehrlich believed was
necessary. It's easy to predict environmental collapse, but it never actually seems to happen.
Population Bomb: It's been 40 years since Stanford University population biologist Paul
Ehrlich warned of imminent global catastrophe in his book "The Population Bomb." As it turns out, the book
was aptly, though ironically, named. Forty years later, no such mass starvation has come to pass.
Man-Made Drought. The efficient solution is to allow a water market to develop so that
allocations can be made in a competitive environment. The way to get consumers voluntarily to use less
water is to allow the market price to rise to reflect its decreased availability. At higher prices,
consumers will have an incentive to conserve. Water will be demanded only for its most highly valued
uses. An efficient allocation results, and no regulatory intervention or costly policing is needed.
Green Lies and "Open Spaces": To hear
environmental zealots tell it, they are just trying to save the last few patches of greenery from being
paved over. But in fact the land area of the United States covered by forests is more than three
times as large as the land area covered by all the cities and towns across the nation.
"Smart Growth" Policies Hurt.
There is mounting evidence that smart growth policies have already prevented thousands of American households
from their claim of the American Dream of owning their own home. Designed as an environmentally-sensitive
response to perceived suburban overcrowding or "sprawl," smart growth policies crowd housing units together
into clusters of dense, skyward structures.
Are the Communists Coming?
[Scroll down] When a candidate uses terms such as "smart growth," and "sustainability," don't take
these words to be meaningless. Know that they come from Agenda 21, a product of the U.N. Conference
on Environment and Development. This is the same conference that produced the Convention on Biological
Diversity, and the Climate Change Treaty. Agenda 21, and its policies seek to take elected officials
out of the policy-making arena and place that authority in the hands of appointed "stakeholder councils," and
the like. "Stakeholder councils" serve much the same function as "soviets" in the old communist regimes.
Global Warming on Steroids:
We are being subjected to demands that we alter our economy to accommodate an utterly false assertion of global
warming. At the same time, environmentalists are actively involved in schemes to put as much of the U.S.
landmass as possible off-limits to any development. All of this has been neatly spelled out in a United
Nations plan alleged to insure "sustainable development", but which in fact is designed to inhibit and
prohibit any development anywhere.
Going Green = $4 per Gallon. [Scroll down]
Such policy is driven by the Sustainable Development lobby. Led by massively wealthy and powerful special interests
like the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, the National Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice, to name a very few.
With their dollars and lobbyists, they are forcing Congress to implement the policies outlined in the UN's Agenda 21
soft law document. It pretends to be environmental policy, but is really a complete transformation of our society and
economy to a top down control, leading toward global governance. The environment is just the excuse to convince
unaware Americans to give up their liberties "to save the earth."
Livable communities is a socialist trap!
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) has authored a bill S.1619 titled the "Livable Communities Act." It is one
of the most dangerous bills to ever threaten our liberty. Worse even than the Obamacare scheme.
S.1619 creates a new permanent federal office: The Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities" for
the enforcement of this bill the "Development Czar" if you will. Sen. Dodd is lying when he says S.1619
is purely voluntary.
Al Gore, the United Nations, and the Cult of Gaia (1999):
[Scroll down] These people believe in Gaia — an "Earth spirit," goddess or planetary brain — and
they think that human beings can have mystical experiences or a spiritual relationship with this entity.
In order to protect Gaia, in their view, the U.S. and other industrial countries have to be prohibited from
certain uses of the world's natural resources. This is called "sustainable development."
Do As We Say, Not As We
Do. So why are so many smart-growth advocates avoiding density in their own lives? Take
Henry Cisneros, a board member with Smart Growth America. The onetime head of the federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development came to Los Angeles a decade ago to work for the Spanish-language channel
Univision — and immediately found a home in the plush, gated community of Bel Air Crest.
Fuels: Saving the Trees for the Woods. The phrase "addiction to fossil fuel" has
become a modern-day put-down that it ought not to be. Many today see this so-called addiction
as a root problem, yet the benefits are beyond estimate — and long forgotten. One
benefit of our use of fossil energy is the trees we don't burn. As surely as complaint follows
progress, the use of fossil energy saved America's forests. Until the late 1800s, the yearly
consumption of wood for fuel in the United States was more than 300 cubic feet per person. If
we burned that much wood per person today, it would be used up in 10 years.
California Voters Defy Activist
Groups, Approve New Home Construction. Voters in the San Francisco suburbs of
Pittsburg and Antioch, reflecting support from key Democratic elected officials, defied the
Sierra Club and other activist groups by approving on November 8 two proposed housing
developments. The activist groups have vowed to challenge the new communities in every
venue possible, including zoning boards, planning commissions, and the courts.
[This is typical of liberal Democrats. If they can't win at the ballot box, they
head for the courtroom.]
Smart Growth = Crime, Congestion and Poverty.
Urban sprawl has sparked a national debate over land-use policy, launching a movement in the past decade
called "smart growth." Advocates of such policies contend that urban sprawl causes crime and congestion,
and limits opportunities for the poor and minorities.
Testimony on Smart Growth and Public
Transit. I do not favor sprawl. I favor allowing people to live and work where and how they
like. And there is no reason not to allow it. Even today, urbanization accounts for less than three
percent of the nation's land area. The "Smart Growth" movement seeks to stop or control urban sprawl.
Proponents claim that it will reduce traffic congestion, reduce air pollution and reduce costs. It is
important to understand that smart growth and containing sprawl require higher densities. Smart growth's
goals simply are unattainable without much higher densities.
Research: As much as 20 percent of federal transportation funding goes to transit,
which serves less than 2 percent of travelers. Since transit service is so much slower than
cars and is focused principally in the core and central business districts of major metropolitan areas, people
who use transit because they do not have a car face limited mobility and diminished job prospects.
Fewer roads for
more people. What does Beijing have in common with Portland, Oregon? Urban
congestion. It's much worse in Beijing, but Portland's traffic congestion isn't getting
any better. Further, both cities' traffic is worsened by bad government.
What Causes Sprawl? While
many factors spur Americans' shift from urban to suburban living, the main
force behind this transition is our increasing wealth. This has raised living
standards and allowed widespread automobile ownership.
Living Wage, Dying City. Population
losses have occurred in most of the developed world's inner cities, with cities such as Paris, London,
Milan, Vienna, Stockholm, Tokyo and Osaka sustaining losses. In general, this international trend
toward decentralization and suburbanization can be traced to rising affluence. As people acquire
the income to afford automobiles and larger homes with more space in the suburbs, they move.
Costs of Sprawl Measured in
Benefits? Anti-growth advocates have invoked near hysterical language in
characterizing the imperative for dealing with what they claim are the higher government
costs of more sprawling development.
The Crusade Against Urban
Sprawl: There is a strong relationship between urban sprawl and air
pollution — but not the one the new urbanists suggest. In the United
States, air pollution tends to increase with population density. Similarly,
traffic congestion tends to be worse in higher density urban areas.
Garbage Crisis? The general public is, at long last, beginning to take a more cautious, critical
attitude toward the claims of the environmental establishment. Environmental values are still important
to the electorate, but so too are other values such as common sense, individual freedom, property rights, jobs,
and economic well-being. Moreover, the general public is beginning to recognize that much environmental
hectoring consists of gross exaggerations and sometimes, as in the case of Big Green, directly contradicts
elementary scientific principles as well as readily available evidence.
Increasing Abundance of Resources. Catastrophism in one form or another is really nothing
new. It can be traced back at least to 1798 with the publication of Thomas Malthus' Essay on
Population. Since that time we have been fed a steady diet of catastrophist predictions of imminent
disaster. The most revealing thing about these predictions is that they have never come true.
Americans. John Stossel says that one writer, worrying about Niger, said that birthrates
must be reduced drastically or the world will face permanent famine. Viewers and readers are left
with the idea that the problem is the number of people, but that's nonsense. Niger's population
density is nine people per square kilometer; however, population density in the United States is
28 per square kilometer, Japan 340, the Netherlands 484, and Hong Kong 6,621. One would have to
be brain-dead to argue that high population density causes poverty and starvation. A better argument is
oppressive and corrupt governments.
colossal food waste is stoking climate change. Annually, the UK dumps 6.7 million
tonnes, meaning each household jettisons between £250 and £400 worth of food each
year. Most of the waste — which nationally costs £8bn — is
sent to landfill where it rots, emitting the potent climate-change gas methane.
The Editor says...
Quite a bit of methane is produced if all that food is digested, too. So what's the difference?
And of course the food is "sent to landfill where it rots." That's the idea. If it didn't
rot, the landfill would be teeming with garbage from decades ago. The article is replete with one-sided
arguments, meaningless statistics, and global warming alarmism.
for Christmas Giving: Another book that debunks much organized hysteria is Sprawl by Robert
Bruegmann. If you or someone you know happens to believe the "open space" and "smart growth"
advocates — or even take them seriously — the plain facts and no-nonsense analysis
in this book will make the hysteria collapse like a house of cards.
No Lefty Left Behind. ACORN is the group
most responsible for imposing living wage laws in many of America's cities, and it's currently conducting a sustainable
development campaign that, by limiting the growth of the suburbs, would make it more difficult for people to flee the
San Francisco Imposes Green Building
Codes. Green building codes signed into law by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (D) may cost
city residents and businesses $700 million each and every year in expenses and lost economic output, the
city's Office of Economic Analysis is reporting. The green building codes, signed in August, will force
residents and businesses to pay significantly higher construction costs and rents and will likely drive many
of them out of the city, the agency warns.
Fake Christmas Trees
Not So Green. [Scroll down] Another huge drawback to fake trees is that eventually, they will
end up in a landfill where they will linger in the environment forever, whereas live trees are recycled and
made into mulch," [Clint] Springer explains.
The Editor says...
So what? When the landfill is "full", whenever that is, the local government will
cover it with dirt and make a golf course. And if there's a pile of plastic and glass
under the golf course, what difference does it make?
False Solutions and
Real Problems. There were certainly places here and there where it took half a family's income just to put
a roof over their heads. ... Almost invariably, these severe local problems had local causes — usually severe
local restrictions on building homes. These restrictions had a variety of politically attractive names, ranging from
"open space" laws and "smart growth" policies to "environmental protection" and "farmland preservation."
Plastic diapers, plastic bags and disposable coffee cups, turn out to be non-threats to the environment,
according to the green Conscious Consumer and the Union of Concerned Scientists. While the
environmentally aware were quick to preach to the rest of us how our use of disposable diapers, for example,
was ruining the planet, they seem slow to catch on to this news.
How Much Does Climate Change Naturally?
[Scroll down] There is no doubt humans alter the world, however, it is far less than depicted in
environmentalist reports and documentaries. The world map shows vast areas virtually unoccupied.
What a dope! Human
race 'must colonise space or face extinction', warns Stephen Hawking. The astrophysicist says that
our only chance for long-term survival is to move away from Earth and begin to inhabit far-flung planets.
In an interview with the website Big Think, Professor Hawking said he was an optimist but the next few hundred
years had to be negotiated carefully if humans were to survive.
Poverty: The Real Face of the Leftist Environmental Agenda. Paying homage to a long
legacy of radical environmentalism, President Obama's faithful followers have advanced the Livable
Communities Act to attack nonexistent problems like sprawl and overpopulation, as well as sub-issues like
pollution. Humans will be punished for seeking to improve their quality of life, with new limits on
mobility and Orwellian guidelines dictating where citizens will be allowed to live and work, with the
justification of ushering in "sustainable growth." The facts do not matter to Obama and the left.
Shoves the Amazon Fires off the Climate Alarmist Radar. As is always the case with climate alarmist campaigns
designed to frighten the public, the images used in the campaign's messaging are as fake as many of the messages. When
French President Emanuel Macron issued a tweet falsely claiming, "The Amazon rain forest — the lungs which produce
20% of our planet's oxygen — is on fire," the photo he used to accompany the false message was of a fire that
occurred during the 1990s. That 20% claim was echoed throughout the climate alarmist virtue-signaling community, with
Usual Suspects like Leonardo DiCaprio, soccer star Christian Renaldo and many others cutting-and-pasting it. [...] As
reported by Michael Shellenberger in Forbes, that 20% claim is utter nonsense.
The myth of ecocide.
It is hard to think of any other global event this year that has been as awash with misinformation as the rainforest
fires. We've been told these fires are a calamity, an act of 'ecocide'; they're proof of humanity's contempt for the
environment; they will blacken and possibly even destroy 'the lungs of the world', as the rainforests are referred to, given
they produce 20 percent of the world's oxygen. It's all untrue.
Facts You Need to Know About the Amazon Rainforest Fires. [Scroll down] This "lungs of the earth" moniker
that the Amazon has received over the past several days and weeks is just flat out wrong. Most biologists and
environmentalists have said that they don't really know where this phrase came from. Even the 20% number, say it
produces 20% of the world's oxygen, is not correct because there's a lot of respiration that occurs in the Amazon
rainforest — with the decay that comes from older trees decomposing and the wildlife, the bugs and the beetles and
the animals, it's not just that they're producing oxygen, but they're producing the oxygen and taking in oxygen. So,
even if we were to completely eliminate the Amazon rainforest, which is not what I'm advocating for, that's certainly not
what we should do, there's still plenty of oxygen on the planet. That's not a crisis, nor will it ever be a crisis
Fanned the Flames Of Amazon Fires Only to Get Burned. The world was at a standstill last week when news broke
out over fires engulfing the Amazon Rainforest in and around Brazil. Guess who was first blamed for the blaze?
The newly-elected Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro — who media have dubbed the "Trump of the Tropics." Is
that any surprise? It turns out, however, farmers were responsible for starting the fires.
Turns Out Those
Stats About Our Destroying the World's Forests [are] Totally Fake. "After searching for evidence to support
Tabart's claim, the closest source I could find is an article from GreenActionNews, which claims that 80 percent of the
earth's forests have been destroyed," he explained. "The problem with that claim is that according to the United
Nations, there are 4 billion hectares of forest remaining worldwide. To put that in perspective, the entire world
has 14.8 billion hectares of land." "For 80 percent of the forest area to have already been destroyed and for
4 billion hectares to remain, 135 percent of the planet's surface must have once been covered in forests," Hammond
forests grew 9% in a new satellite survey. Past estimates of how much of the world's drylands are covered in
forests have run into lots of problems: For instance, the satellite images used to measure them are often so
low-resolution that it's hard to figure out the difference between a tree, a shadow, or even a patch of dirt. To
correct for that, an international team of researchers performed the first global study using a new set of
ultra-high-resolution Google Earth images — in which each pixel represents a patch of ground less than a meter
wide, as opposed to tens of meters. Hundreds of scientists and students then combed through 210,000 images and found
that the world's drylands host 40% more forests than thought, the team writes today [5/11/2017] in Science.
That's more than a 9% bump in total global forest coverage, or two-thirds the size of the Amazon.
Has More Trees Than We Thought: Crank Those Chain Saws. Researchers have found that Earth has trillions, not
billions, of trees. Good news, right? Not for those in the scientific community who are always looking for a way
to cast man and human activity as scourges of the planet. As reported Tuesday [9/1/2015] in the Washington Post, "A team
of 38 scientists finds that the planet is home to 3.04 trillion trees, blowing away the previously estimate of 400 billion.
That means, the researchers say, that there are 422 trees for every person on Earth." That's a healthy ratio. [...] But
rather than joy, there's defeat. "In no way do the researchers consider this good news," writes Post reporter Chris Mooney.
"The study also finds that there are 46% fewer trees on Earth than there were before humans started the lengthy, but recently accelerating,
process of deforestation. Looked at another way, we were doing OK when we thought there were only 400 billion trees, but now
that we know there are 3 trillion, things are miserable.
ditch the doom and gloom and celebrate our improving environment. From an early age children are taught to
recycle paper as a way of saving trees. The first reason this is a myth is that paper is produced mainly from
plantation forests planted to be harvested and planted again. While those trees are growing, they are sequestering
carbon, which, when converted into paper and disposed of in a landfill, sequesters that carbon for a long time. The
same is true for houses made mainly from lumber. The fact is that forest cover in the United States has remained
constant despite concerns of urban sprawl thought to "pave paradise and put in a parking lot," as sung by Joni Mitchell.
For the past decade, forest cover has been approximately 33 percent, slightly above the global average of 31 percent.
Killing Animals to Save Animals: A Conundrum.
In the 1990s, E. O. Wilson [...] popularized various numbers ranging from 4,000 to 100,000 species a year being lost, and these
numbers were repeated over and over again in environmental groups' fund raising literature, in congressional testimony, and in
speeches by Al Gore (who in 1993 said that 'one-half of all species' could disappear in our lifetime), apparently an extrapolation
of Wilson's pronouncement, reports Stephen Budiansky. Yet, after more than 90 percent of the Atlantic coastal forests of
Brazil were cut down, mostly in the 19th century, the actual number of animal extinctions has been zero, even though many of the
Brazilian species are highly endemic, found nowhere else in the world.
The Rain Forest News
Crunch: The fact that the rain forest has come and gone in the imagination as a fad ought to
make some take pause and consider that the same fate is likely to await the global warming absolutists.
Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate. It seems that, not content with
having lied to us about shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, and rising sea levels, the IPCC's latest
assessment report also told us a complete load of porkies about the danger posed by climate change to the
Rainforest Eco-tastrophe Claim Confirmed as
Bunk. A new study, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) refutes a
claim in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report that up to 40 percent of
the Amazon rainforest might disappear imminently. According to the IPCC's assessment, this disaster would
be triggered by a relatively slight drop in rainfall of the sort to be expected in a warming world. It
now appears that just such conditions have already occurred, and in fact, the Amazonian jungles were unaffected,
says Gerald Warner, a columnist with the Telegraph.
New Study Debunks Myths About
Vulnerability of Amazon Rain Forests. A new NASA-funded study has concluded that Amazon rain
forests were remarkably unaffected in the face of once-in-a-century drought in 2005, neither dying nor thriving,
contrary to a previously published report and claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
At last we reach the source. Last week, after six months of evasions, obfuscation, denials
and retractions, a story which has preoccupied this column on and off since January came to a startling
conclusion. It turns out that one of the most widely publicised statements in the 2007 report of the
UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a claim on which tens of billions of dollars
could hang — was not based on peer-reviewed science, as repeatedly claimed, but originated
solely from anonymous propaganda published on the website of a small Brazilian environmental advocacy
group. The ramifications of this discovery stretch in many directions.
No convincing evidence for decline in
tropical forests. Claims that tropical forests are declining cannot be backed up by hard evidence, according
to new research from the University of Leeds. This major challenge to conventional thinking is the surprising finding
of a study published today in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences by Dr Alan Grainger, Senior Lecturer in
Geography and one of the world's leading experts on tropical deforestation. "Every few years we get a new estimate of
the annual rate of tropical deforestation," said Dr Grainger. "They always seem to show that these marvellous forests
have only a short time left. Unfortunately, everybody assumes that deforestation is happening and fails to look at the
bigger picture — what is happening to forest area as a whole."
Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste.
If a tree falls in the forest it matters not whether there is any sound. That fallen tree represents a
potential resource. Man can fashion that tree into useful products or he can burn the cellulose material
and recover chemically stored solar energy. Or man can chose to let that tree rot in the forest.
There is nothing inherently superior to the 'rot in the forest' option. Rotting wood provides a food
source for disease and predatory insects. The outcome is exactly the same with regard to the wood.
Portions are returned to the air as carbon dioxide and portions are returned to the soil. The question
becomes, is the planet better off if humans 'control' the forest or if insects and disease control the forest?
Can Rainforests Be Saved With Cash
Injections? Protecting the world's rainforests is a central issue at this month's Climate Change
Conference in Cancun. Huge sums are to be offered to countries that protect their forests. However,
experts fear that these rewards could be misused, and that they could actually promote deforestation.
You have no reason to worry (and no reason to complain) about pollution in the ambient air if you intentionally inhale cigarette smoke
on a regular basis. This section is for the benefit of non-smokers. Additional information about air pollution is in
the Radon and Urban Sprawl sections
above, and in the EPA subsection
on this page.
of the Worst" News Media. About 15 years ago I co-authored a book about air pollution and the Clean Air
Act. I know — you'll just have to contain your excitement. One of the things we found was an
example of what might be called the reverse Lake Wobegone Effect, i.e., according to local media every local area had
"some of the worst" air pollution in the whole country! Every metro area was below average! Of course, if every
place has "some of the worst" of anything, then no place really does (as the government's air quality data bear out*).
[...] Actual EPA data shreds these claims, but environmental advocacy groups (especially the American Lung Association's
annual "state of the air" report) produce cookie-cutter press releases claiming that each local area suffers "some of
the worst" pollution in America, and the media dutifully repeats these claims. This is why most environmental
"reporters" are really just stenographers for environmentalists. This ought to be embarrassing for any serious
editor or publisher, but there aren't many serious editors or publishers any more.
mayor to impose daily fines on motorists. Sadiq Khan, current Mayor of London and WEF member, is set to
impose £12.50 daily fines to all motorists who enter or commute through the greater city of London. The
Mayor has announced that the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) will be expanded across all London boroughs from August
2023, as per the Greater London Authority website. London commuters and residents who drive
'non-compliant' vehicles will be dinged daily. Khan described the decision as "one of the toughest decisions" he's
taken as mayor, but insisted millions from the bustling city will benefit from the cleaner air. The Ultra Low
Emission Zone, or ULEZ for short, was introduced in 2019 as a means to ensure that vehicles meet emission standards set
for the city, lest their drivers pay a daily surcharge. Though pollution levels have decreased since the
introduction of ULEZ, Khan claims that there is still "far too much toxic air pollution permanently damaging the health
of young Londoners and leading to thousands of early deaths every year."
The Editor says...
Is the air in London really that bad, or is this just a way to skim money from nearly everybody? This decree
might be about control, or money, or electric cars, but I doubt if it's really about air quality.
The Flawed EPA Theory That Won't Go
Away. The Lancet response (Letters, Nov. 12) to Bjorn Lomborg's op-ed (Nov. 5) states, "A
zero-carbon future brings many health benefits. Our conservative estimates suggest 1.2 million deaths
annually could be prevented with no exposure to fossil-fuel-derived small-particulate-matter air pollution." I
conservatively call that claim false. [...] The EPA's claim that particulate matter kills, parroted by the Lancet, was
never credible. Rigging the peer review hasn't helped.
has caused more pollution in 8-years than Britain has in the last 220, report claims. China is responsible
for 14 percent of all emissions throughout history, making it the second biggest polluter in the world, while the USA is
in first place as it is responsible for 25 percent of all emissions. In comparison, the UK has emitted just
4.6 percent of all emissions, which is the fifth highest in the world. The Telegraph has reported that China has
caused more pollution since 2013 than Britain has since the Industrial Revolution first began. It comes at a time
former Labour leader Ed Miliband recently suggested Britain should pay to help developing countries recover for "loss
and damage" from climate change.
OUT: Ozone; IN: Particulate
Matter. It's the go-to solution when you need to complain about air pollution: particulate matter less than
2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter, aka Fine Particles aka PM-2.5. It's dangerous! It's deadly! Removing it
from the air will usher in previously unforeseen levels of economic prosperity! We know this to be true because the
academic elite and the ruling class assure us it is so. [...] Oddly, PM-2.5 didn't always have the starring role in the
nation's air pollution drama that it enjoys today. Shoot, for the first twenty-six years of the Clean Air Act it wasn't
even officially on stage. The star of the air pollution world for the first thirty or so years was urban ozone,
sometimes called smog.
The air quality in North America is spectacular, compared to the air quality in India and China. Air
pollution: Thermal plants closed, trucks can't enter Delhi. The Commission for Air Quality Management in
NCR and Adjoining Areas ordered a slew of measures on Tuesday [11/16/2021] to deal with the air emergency in the
capital. These include shutting down all except five thermal power plants within a 300km radius of Delhi till November
30; stopping entry of trucks in Delhi except for those carrying essential commodities; keeping diesel and petrol vehicles
more than 10 and 15 years old, respectively, in NCR off the road and banning construction and demolition activities in NCR
till November 21, except for some government and infrastructure projects. All educational institutions in NCR will
remain closed till further orders with only online mode allowed. At least 50% of the government staff across NCR will
work from home and private establishments will be encouraged to do so till November 21. Among other measures announced by
the commission are banning of DG sets in entire NCR, except for emergency services, and ensuring that all industries in NCR
with gas connections are run only on gas, failing which they are to be shut down. The ones using unapproved fuels shall
be closed by the respective governments with immediate effect, and wherever gas is available, they will be shifted to that
mode of fuel.
dirtiest cities list raises issue: Why don't politicians call out China? A new tally of global cities'
emissions finds that the top 25 are responsible for 52% of the planet's urban greenhouse gas emissions. Twenty-three of
those are in China. New York City is the first American city to appear, at No. 26. Out of the top 75,
just four other American cities are listed — San Diego, Houston, Chicago and Los Angeles — all of them
ranked 41 or higher. In other words, the U.S. — including each of our major cities — is
outperforming the world when it comes to emissions. All this data begs a question of our elected leaders who say we
have to do more for our environment, banking on the fact that many Americans hear "environment" and think only locally, as in
their state or nation. The fact is that the environment — including carbon emission — is global,
so what we do here matters but what happens globally matters as much, if not more.
York City/New Jersey subway PM2.5 levels 77 times greater than EPA standards; No bodies found. A new study
reports on PM2.5 (soot/dust) levels in subway stations. The New York City and New Jersey PATH system had a mean level
of 779 micrograms per cubic meter — 65 times higher than the EPA's outdoor air standard of 12 micrograms
per cubic meter. The highest level measured (1,499 micrograms per cubic meter) is almost 50% higher than the worst air in any
Chinese city that we know about. Onboard air quality PM 2.5 measurements were lower but still on average 30 times higher
than EPA standards. In 2018, PATH carried 81.7 million passengers, about 280,000 per week day. Keeping in mind
that the EPA says that any exposure to PM 2.5 can kill you within hours, where are the bodies? Why aren't governments
calling for an immediate shutdown of subway service?
Coronavirus Lockdown Has Not Made the Air Cleaner. Just about every day, someone claims that the air is
cleaner. That, we are told, is a small benefit of the coronavirus-induced economic lockdowns. By reducing traffic
on our roads, we are polluting the air less, providing a visible example of the supposed benefits of imposing more
environmental regulation. In my hometown of Seattle, one environmental activist told the local paper that people can
"physically see that difference in the cleaner air." The air-quality data tell a different story. According to the
EPA's air-quality monitors, levels of particulate matter — known as PM 2.5 — are not lower now and
have, in fact, been higher recently than the median level of the last five years. Consisting of particles smaller than
2.5 microns, PM 2.5 includes natural sources such as smoke or sea salt, as well as human-caused pollution from
combustion. In Philadelphia, a city health commissioner said, "I would expect our air pollution levels will probably go
down because the number of vehicles in the streets are less." Recent particulate-matter levels, however, have been close
to the five-year average. In Dallas, the levels of PM 2.5 are higher than average.
The air quality in the United States is excellent, compared to most other countries. Air
pollution in Delhi spikes as deadly smog envelops city. Air pollution levels in India's capital remained at
near record levels, forcing schools to shut down through mid week and keeping residents indoors as the nation grapples for
solutions. The air quality index, or AQI, reached as high as 858 at some areas in New Delhi at 6.30 a.m. Monday
[11/4/2019] after breaching 1,000 over the weekend, according to website AirVisual, which monitors air pollution around the
world. Readings above 300 are considered hazardous; anything below 50 is safe. [...] "A child born yesterday in Delhi
would have smoked the equivalent of 40 to 50 cigarettes on the first day of his or her life," said Arvind Kumar, a lung
surgeon at the Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in Delhi and founder of the Lung Care Foundation.
are banning drive-thrus to improve Americans' health — but will it work? A growing number of local
legislatures in cities across the country want to put an end to drive-thru windows. In August, Minneapolis became the
latest city to pass an ordinance banning the construction of new restaurant drive-thrus. Officials say the ban will
help curb pollution, make the city more walkable and improve health problems pertaining to obesity. Other places that
have enacted similar measures say they are aiming to combat traffic, cut carbon monoxide emissions and litter. But fear
not, Chick-fil-A fiends, the zoning changes currently in effect only affect new construction. Thus far, cities in
California, Missouri and New Jersey have implemented similar bans.
The Editor says...
This is the first time I've heard a claim that drive-through windows increase carbon monoxide emissions. But you see, the
customers at a drive-through window are outdoors, and the occupants of the next car in line are exposed to carbon monoxide
anyway, just by driving to the restaurant, or anywhere else. (Incidentally, the natural concentration of carbon monoxide in
air is around 0.2 parts per million (ppm), and that amount is not harmful to
Climate Hysteria — Part 2. [Scroll down] We certainly have cleaned up a lot of the air
problems in the United States, in Europe. That's certainly not happening in China. It's certainly not happening
in Africa, and it was our increasing affluence that gave us the ability to enforce environmental protection. With
regard to carbon dioxide emissions, of all the industrialized nations on earth since 2005, the United States has cut its
emissions more than any other country. Did you hear that? We've cut our emissions more than any other
country. That's why we don't need the Paris Accord — it's just a paper tiger. It allows the Chinese to
continue to increase their emissions. They say that they will try to hold them constant around the year 2030.
Phony Case For Electric Cars. The truth is that every city in America has made massive improvements in air
quality over the past several decades — progress that was made without any help from electric buses, cars or
taxis, and while "gas guzzlers" continued to dominate domestic car sales. Air quality in most places today is above, or
well above, the government's standards for safety. Don't believe it? Then go to the official government source
for such information: The Environmental Protection Agency. It's been tracking pollution levels for decades,
whether it's smog, carbon monoxide, or dust. Even in California, smog levels have declined sharply over the years.
is the world leader in clean air. Over the last 50 years, harmful air pollution known as particulate matter has
plummeted. Toxic pollutants like lead, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide are now nearly nonexistent in our air.
Ozone is down dramatically. We're the only highly populated nation in the world to meet the World Health Organization's
standards for particulate matter and by a long shot. In fact, our standards are among the strictest in the world.
These radical air quality gains occurred at the same time our population, energy consumption, vehicle miles traveled, and
gross domestic product also grew dramatically.
White People Responsible for Blacks' and Latinos' Higher Exposure to Pollution. A study in the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences claims that white people contribute more to pollution than black and Latino people,
but the latter suffer from it more than the white polluters. "The air that Americans breathe isn't equal," USA
Today says in its report on the study. "Blacks and Hispanics disproportionately breathe air that's been polluted by
non-Hispanic whites, according to a study," USA Today says. "This new research quantifies for the first time the
racial gap between who causes air pollution — and who breathes it."
Declared this to Be Crazy Week? There are so many things stupidly wrong with this whole story that I don't even
know where to begin. First, this study, and many others like it, anchor their alarm on the supposed fact that particulate
pollution causes about 42,000 premature deaths in the U.S. every year. Though the EPA relies on this figure, the
epidemiology behind it is very weak. But without this scary statistic, a lot of regulations would fail even the most
generous cost-benefit test. Second, particulate levels have been falling fast for the last 25 years, and will
continue to fall in the future. Most studies such as this one are relying on obsolete data. What this means is
that most black and Hispanic Americans, even in the places that still have the highest air pollution levels like the Los
Angeles basin, are breathing air today that is lower in ambient pollution than white people inhaled 20 years ago.
Don't expect NPR or anyone else to put it in perspective this way. They've got an agenda and a narrative that needs
to be kept up.
Air Is Clean And Getting Cleaner. [A]ir quality is very good pretty much everywhere in the United States.
This fact stands in stark contrast to utterly absurd claims in the media, such as blaming air pollution for killing 155,000
Americans. Why is there such a disconnect between reality and what the media say? Because bad news is
intrinsically more interesting than good news. It's the same reason that murder and violence grab top headlines, even
though both are near historic lows. [...] Air pollution is not a problem in the United States. It is a problem in
Europe, and it is a monumental problem in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.
Left Favors Global Warming. China — one of those "developing world" countries [John] Kerry alluded
to — is actually the biggest problem. If man-caused warming is real — a big if, to be sure, to
any clear-thinking, logical minded person — it's more China's fault than anyone's, due to their huge economy and
unrestricted use of coal-fired power plants without pollution filters or any such modification. They spew an enormous
amount of pollution into the atmosphere every day and no one in the Democratic Party, the environmentalist movement, or the
liberal mainstream media ever criticizes them. Instead, their criticism is always directed at Republican
businessmen. President Obama played right into this — wittingly or unwittingly — when he
completed an agreement with China that requires even further American emissions reductions while not requiring China to begin
making significant cuts until 2030.
the Cleanest of Them All. Take a wild guess what country is reducing its greenhouse gas emissions the most?
[...] The answer to that question is the U.S. of A. Wow! How can that be? This must be a misprint. Fake
news. America never ratified the Kyoto Treaty some two decades ago. We never enacted a carbon tax. We don't have a
cap-and-trade carbon emission program. That environmental villain Donald Trump pulled America out of the Paris climate accord
that was signed by almost the entire rest of the civilized world. Yet the latest world climate report from the BP Statistical
Review of World Energy finds that in 2017, America reduced its carbon emissions by 0.5 percent, the most of all major countries.
The Editor says...
So what? Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It's plant food.
Key Air Pollutants Drop 73 Percent Since 1970. Americans who value clean air and robust economic growth do not
need to make an either-or choice, according to the Environmental Protection Agency's new annual report on air quality.
The EPA report released Tuesday [7/31/2018] finds that between 1970 and 2017, the combined emissions of six main kinds of
pollutants decreased by 73 percent even as the U.S. economy grew substantially over the 47 years.
The EPA's work is finished. Why they demonize carbon dioxide: The
Environmental Protection Agency reported that pollution is down 73% since EPA's founding in 1970. "Through federal and state implementation
of the Clean Air Act and technological advances in the private sector, America has achieved one of the great public-private successes of our
time — dramatically improving air quality and public health while simultaneously growing the nation's population and economy," said Acting
Administrator Andrew Wheeler. "This report details a remarkable achievement that should be recognized, celebrated, and replicated around
the world. A 73 percent reduction in any other social ill, such as crime, disease, or drug addiction, would lead the evening news."
The numbers are astounding:
• Sulfur dioxide (1-hour) ↓ 88 percent
• Lead (3-month average) ↓ 80 percent
• Carbon monoxide (8-hour) ↓ 77 percent
• Nitrogen dioxide (annual) ↓ 56 percent
• Fine Particulate Matter (24-hour) ↓ 40 percent
• Coarse Particulate Matter (24-hour) ↓ 34 percent and
• Ground-level ozone (8-hour) ↓ 22 percent
And the numbers explain why the EPA treats a nutrient, carbon dioxide, as a pollutant. Having reduced real pollution, the Captain Planets
at the EPA need a new villain to battle.
states sue EPA over air pollution from Midwest. Eight northeastern states said on Tuesday [12/26/2017] they sued the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to force it to impose more stringent controls on a group of mostly Midwestern states whose air pollution
they claim is being blown in their direction.
Journal Perpetrates the Noble Lie that American Air Quality Kills. The iconic academic journal of American
medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), published since 1812, has committed itself to a Noble Lie,
that ambient (natural) air quality in America kills hundreds of thousands annually. Jeffrey Drazen, MD, lung specialist,
Editor in Chief of the NEJM since 2000, Distinguished Parker B. Francis Professor of Medicine at the Harvard School of
Medicine, professor in the Department of Environmental health at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health,
is in his 17th year of tenure as editor of the NEJM and in that time he has approved publication of false claims about air
quality lethality, resulting in the NEJM become a partisan news outlet that promotes the US EPA political agenda and onerous
burdensome air regulations that chase a phantom air quality scare. Air quality in America isn't killing anyone.
The air in the United States is extremely clean, compared to the air in other countries. India's Air Pollution 18
Times the Healthy Limit. Air pollution in New Delhi hit 18 times the healthy limit Friday under a thick, toxic
haze after a night of fireworks to celebrate the Hindu festival of Diwali, despite a court-ordered ban on their sales.
Residents of the sprawling Indian capital, which ranks among the world's most polluted cities, complained of eyes watering
and aggravated coughs as levels of PM 2.5, tiny particulate matter that reaches deep into the lungs, rose alarmingly.
Air quality usually worsens in New Delhi ahead of Diwali, the festival of lights, and the Supreme Court temporarily banned
the sale of firecrackers, aiming to lessen the risk to health.
Surprising Pollution From Trees.
Research from the metropolis of Berlin shows that green spaces, from forests to public parks can intensify ozone pollution in cities, an effect that
is pronounced during heat waves. During a bad hot spell in 2006, plants in Berlin contributed to as much as 60% of the observed ozone pollution,
with potential risks for the health of city-dwellers. The problem is caused by a class of chemicals called volatile organic compounds, or VOCs.
Plant leaves pump out VOCs naturally but some of these gases can also create chemical reactions in the air that form ground level ozone — a pollutant
harmful to people, especially those with preexisting respiratory disease. Summer is a big concern because plants increase the amount of VOCs they
emit during hot weather. In Oregon, about 22 million metric tons of emissions are released a year as the states trees die. That's the
equivalent of nearly all annual statewide emissions derived from the transportation and power generation sectors combined reports Catherine Mater.
Jay Lehr asks the question, what do you get when you go into the North Woods, a great, beautiful unspoiled area where there is no industry for miles?
The answer is you inhale the pine odor. Guess what? Pine odor is made up of polycyclic aromatics, which are carcinogens, in the cleanest air
we supposedly have in this country.
bird carcasses tell the story of how air pollution has improved in the last 100 years. Horned Larks are cute
little songbirds with white bellies and yellow chins — at least, now they are. A hundred years ago, at the
height of urban smoke pollution in the US, their pale feathers were stained dark gray by the soot in the atmosphere. A
new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that the discoloration of birds in museum collections
can be used to trace the amount of black carbon in the air over time and the effects of environmental policy upon pollution.
Exposes EPA Scare Tactics Behind Air Quality Rule. Most of the American public is unaware the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with the help of the American Lung Association and radical environmental groups, has
nearly succeeded in an attempted takeover of absolutely all industry in the United States. How could EPA accomplish
such a grand scheme? By claiming exposure to particles in the air as small as 2.5 millionths of a meter can cause
death in a matter of minutes, hours, or days. It is called the PM2.5 rule, and the best scientific research shows
these particles are ubiquitous and, contrary to EPA's claims, are harmless.
Truths The Earth Day 'March for Science' Protesters Ignore. The fact is that by any important measure, the
environment is cleaner and healthier today than it was 60 years ago, 40 years ago, or even 20 years ago. For example,
data from the Environmental Protection Agency show that, from 1995-2015, levels of every air pollutant it monitors saw steady
declines, to the point where they are at or below national standards. Carbon monoxide levels plunged 72% over those
years; nitrogen dioxide fell 45%; ozone, 24%; soot, 37%; sulfur dioxide, 73%; and lead declined 93%. The sharp reduction
in sulfur dioxide emissions "significantly reduced damage to water quality in lakes and streams, and improved the health of
ecosystems and forests," according to the EPA. The share of children tested who showed high levels of lead in their blood
dropped from close to 8% in 1995 to just 0.5% by 2015. Water quality overall has improved, with once severely polluted lakes,
rivers and streams clearing up. Per-capita water use has declined 30% since 1975, notes the U.S. Geological Survey.
Misuse of Asthma as a Justifaction for EPA Rules. If the drastic reduction in real air pollution hasn't reversed the
trend in asthma, how can the regulation of a non-pollutant, CO2 have any effect on asthma? Unless the goal is to lower
atmospheric CO2 to about 150 ppm and wipe out ragweed and other allergen-producing plants, the EPA's Clean Power Plan,
like all previous rules, will have no demonstrable effect on asthma. Anyone who clicked the "ragweed" link is probably asking
the same question I did, "Why do the alarmists claim that CO2 and AGW will kill all the good plants and enable ragweed to thrive"?
Charts That Blow Apart EPA's Asthma Claims. In an attempt to garner support for the Environmental Protection
Agency's controversial regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, President Obama and EPA officials have taken
to linking climate change to an issue that hits most Americans close to home: asthma. The problem is that carbon
dioxide — which the rule regulates — does not cause asthma. According to the EPA, one in ten
American children suffers from asthma. [...] The EPA is relying on dubious asthma claims because its climate rule has
no discernible impact on climate change.
Dangerous Regulatory Pollution. EPA whitewashed the toxic flash flood it caused in Colorado. But it says
particulate matter smaller than 10 microns (PM10) is risky and worries incessantly about 2.5-micron particles.
(A human hair is 50-70 microns; dust, pollen and mold are around 10; combustion exhaust particles are 2.5 microns
or smaller.) The tinier specks, EPA asserts, "can get deep into your lungs, and some may even get into your bloodstream."
Eliminating all such particles in our air is absolutely essential to human health, longevity and well-being, the agency
insists. There is no threshold below which there is no risk, its advisors say.
The Editor says...
The elimination of all smoke from the atmosphere is a thinly-disguised attempt to outlaw the use of hydrocarbons as fuel,
by portraying the issue as a threat to public health.
wants new regs on states for national parks. Hikers climbing up Shenandoah National Park's Old Rag might find
their view of the Blue Ridge Mountains obscured by smog as the summer tourism season kicks into gear. Many national
parks have had problems with ozone for years, but the Environmental Protection Agency is working on stricter regulations that
officials hope will keep air pollution from clouding the views from mountaintops and hurting the lungs of park
visitors. Despite those areas being owned by the federal government, the states are responsible for the air quality in
national parks and federal wilderness areas, said Jeffrey Olson, a public affairs officer at the National Park Service.
The Editor says...
One does not generally go mountain climbing in a National Park (or elsewhere) if one has difficulty breathing. As usual, the
federal government is solving problems that nobody has, either to grab additional power or justify the existence of useless agencies
pizza is bad for the environment, according to science. If you love wood-fired pizza or wood-smoked barbecue,
then go outside right now and peel that "Go Green" bumper sticker off your Prius. Science says your favorite foods may
be major causes of environment pollution. A study conducted by 10 air pollution experts from seven universities has
found that burning wood to cook [food] is polluting the air we breathe. The collaborative study, whose findings have
been published in the journal Atmospheric Environment, was conducted in the fifth largest metropolitan area in the world:
Sao Paulo, Brazil, home to 21 million people, 7 million road vehicles and one very dangerous air pollution problem.
You Are $13,000 Poorer
Because of Federal Regulations. Given the great reductions in U.S. ambient air pollution that have already been achieved,
epidemiologists are not all agreed that deeper cuts will bring commensurate benefits. A March 2015 study in the Annals of
Epidemiology asks, "Has reducing fine particulate matter and ozone caused reduced mortality rates in the United States?" The
researchers looked at trends in nearly 500 counties between 2000 and 2010 and found that "predicted substantial human longevity
benefits resulting from reducing PM2.5 [particulate matter] and O3 [ozone] may not occur or may be smaller than previously estimated."
A May 2014 study in Epidemiology also found no meaningful increase in cardiovascular risk among Europeans who experienced long term
exposure to current levels of air pollutants.
Black lungs matter! Clinton
Promises Al Sharpton A Task Force To Fight 'Environmental Racism'. Hillary Clinton will empower the Department of Justice and
Environmental Protection Agency to fight against "environmental racism" through "stronger enforcement" of environmental regulations, she
announced on Wednesday [4/13/2016]. "Across America, the burdens of air pollution, water pollution, and toxic hazards are borne disproportionately
by low-income communities and communities of color," states a memo on the climate justice initiative released by Clinton's campaign.
The Editor says...
The air in every large American city is cleaner now than it was 50 years ago. And unless you live in Democrat-controlled Flint, Michigan,
the quality of the water supply is more than adequate all over the country. Big government is far more dangerous than environmental hazards.
Cheers for Holiday Lighting! World oil reserves are over 20 times greater now than they were when record-keeping
began in the 1940s; world gas reserves are almost four times greater than they were in the 1960s; world coal reserves have risen
fourfold since 1950. Political events can drive supply down and prices up, but the raw mineral resource base is
prolific — and expanding in economic terms thanks to an inexhaustible supply of human ingenuity and exploratory
capital. Record energy consumption has been accompanied by improving air quality. Urban air quality is
significantly better today than in the 1970s in the United States. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported
that air emissions of the criteria pollutants declined by 60 percent from 1970, while energy usage increased by a third.
Climate Regulations Will Save Lots of Imaginary People. The Environmental Protection Agency, an aggressive arm
of the nanny government, has just issued new air quality standards that mandate that the new "safe" level of ozone in the air
we breathe shall be lowered from the current 75 parts per billion to 70 ppb. I feel better already, perhaps.
I also feel better for all the theoretical lives that will be saved, according to EPA sponsored studies [...] However, my joy is
tempered by the realization that those are not real lives saved — rather, they are "estimated deaths saved," as in "We
applied health impact assessment methodology to estimate numbers of deaths and other adverse health outcomes that would have been
avoided during 2005, 2006, and 2007 if the current (or lower) NAAQS ozone standards had been met. Estimated reductions in
ozone concentrations were interpolated according to geographic area and year, and concentration — response functions
were obtained or derived from the epidemiological literature."
the deadly air pollution myth. [Scroll down] It is easily demonstrated that
particulate matter doesn't kill anyone. The particulate matter at issue is soot that is about
one-twentieth the width of a human hair. The EPA has essentially claimed particulate matter to be
the most toxic substance known to man. The agency's scientific documents say there is no safe
exposure to particulate matter — i.e., any inhalation of it can cause death, both in the
short-term (hours or days) or in the long-term (decades of exposures). This claim has been repeated
numerous times by EPA officials. [...] The epidemiology studies are controversial. All rely on
exceedingly weak correlations between dubious air-monitoring data and death rates. All were funded
by the EPA and then rubber-stamped as science by the very same EPA-paid researchers. The agency has
refused congressional requests to produce the studies' underlying data for independent review. The
EPA also ignores studies with contrary results.
Washington Want to Hide Science Data from the Public? The EPA claims that the mercury
air and toxics rule would produce $53 billion to $140 billion in annual health and environmental
benefits. But the agency vastly overstates the environmental benefits by including estimated
benefits from reducing particulates already covered by existing regulations. Not including these
particulates lowers the projected benefit to only $6 million, at most. In other words, these
co-benefits account for 99.996 percent of the agency's estimated benefits — much of that
being PM2.5 co-benefits. Here's where the secret science comes in. The two studies that represent
the scientific foundation for 1997 ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards are highly
questionable and the data concealed, even though the studies were paid for by federal taxpayers and thus
should be public property.
only EPA stood for 'Enough Protection Already'. The air we breathe is also cleaner than it's
been for 60 years. In a rational world, environmental bureaucrats would now say, "Mission
accomplished. We set tough standards, so we don't need to keep doing more.
De Blasio wants
to ban new wood fireplaces. Mayor Bill de Blasio celebrated Earth Day on Tuesday by
proposing more regulations — including a ban on new wood-burning fireplaces. The
mayor made the proposal, along with those for other sweeping regulations that he said would update emission
standards and help curb air pollution. Instead of wood-burning fireplaces, de Blasio wants to
allow only cleaner-burning units, such as those that use natural gas.
The Editor says...
It snows in New York. Don't people have a right to stay warm in their own homes?
EPA Bans Most Wood
Burning Stoves In a Corrupt Scheme, Fireplaces Next. As of January 3rd, the EPA banned about 80% of the wood-burning stoves and
fireplace inserts in the United States. Stoves which are used to heat 12% of the homes in America and are especially needed in outlying
rural areas. Fireplaces are also being looked at. The EPA is attempting to reduce particle pollution with new rules. Instead
of limiting fine airborne particulate emissions to 15 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m³) of air, the change will impose a maximum
12 µg/m³ limit. [...] The draconian EPA regulations will be spread out, one will take place in March and the next in five to
eight years. Stoves currently in use will not be affected but obviously, getting them repaired will become more and more difficult.
The Power-Mad EPA. A federal appeals court
recently heard a case about the EPA's interpretation of the 2012 Mercury and Air Toxics Rule, yet another effort in the "war on coal" that
would shut down more coal-fired plants that provide the bulk of the electricity the nation requires. The EPA is asserting that the rule
would annually prevent 11,000 premature deaths, nearly 5,000 heart attacks, and 130,000 asthma attacks. Moreover it asserts that it
would help avoid more than 540,000 missed work days, and protect babies and children. These statistics are plucked from various studies
published in journals and are typical of the way the EPA operates to justify its rulings.
Never Cleaner. By any demonstrable measure, the
environment in the U.S. has never been cleaner in our lifetimes than now. [...] As a measure of the quality of air in our country, the EPA maintains data
and statistics that quantify air quality from 1980 to the present. Based on the EPA's own data, the national ambient air quality standards for certain
target pollutants have all steadily and dramatically reduced. As a national average:
• Carbon monoxide has been reduced 82%
• Ozone has been reduced 28%
• Lead has been reduced 89%
• Nitrogen oxides have been reduced 52%
• Particulate matter as PM10 has been reduced 38%, and fine particulate matter as PM2.5 has been reduced 27%
• Sulfur dioxide has been reduced 83%
China smog emergency shuts city of 11 million people.
An index measuring PM2.5, or particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), reached a reading of 1,000 in some parts of Harbin, the gritty capital of
northeastern Heilongjiang province and home to some 11 million people. A level above 300 is considered hazardous, while the World Health Organisation recommends
a daily level of no more than 20.
The Editor says...
The EPA standard is 12 micrograms per cubic meter, and "As a practical matter, the average level of PM2.5 in U.S. air is about 10 micrograms per
cubic meter," according to Steve Milloy.
The level that is "considered hazardous" is 30 times the U.S. average. In other words, the EPA's work is finished. The air here is as
clean as it has ever been.
The Epidemiologist Fallacy Strikes Again. EPA, CARB, And Air Pollution. Jerrett and his fellow authors published an
immense work (under CARB contract) which suffered fatally from the epidemiologist fallacy. This is when an epidemiologist says, "X causes Y" but who never — not
once — measures X. [...] Jerrett et alia said that small particles in the atmosphere — no! ozone — no! nitrogen dioxide —
caused early deaths. X caused Y. Problem is, they never measured, not even once, the actual exposure of any individual to dust, O3, or NO2. X went missing.
In essence, they looked back into public records and found addresses of people who may or may not still live in California and discovered how far these people lived from a highway.
The (statistical) distance from the highway was said to equal the amount of exposure to pollutants. That's the proxy.
Ozone, Mo'Zone and NoZone. The Environmental Protection
Agency's war on economic growth, jobs, poor families, modern living standards, and people's health and welfare is about to get a lot more damaging. The Clean Air Act says
EPA must set standards for ozone and other pollutants — and periodically review existing standards, to determine whether they are adequately protecting public health,
or need to be tightened further.
The EPA's work is finished. Tier 3
Tyranny. [Scroll down] The latest example involves a third layer (or tier) of rules the agency says will clean the
nation's air and save lives by forcing refineries to remove more sulfur and other impurities from gasoline. EPA and refiners call the
proposal Tier 3 rulemaking. Tier 3 tyranny is more accurate, as the rules would cost billions of dollars while bringing
infinitesimal benefits, and will likely be imposed regardless. Since 1970, automakers have eliminated some 99 percent of
pollutants that once came out of the tailpipes of the nation's cars. "Today's cars are essentially zero-emission vehicles, compared
to 1970 models," says air pollution expert Joel Schwartz, coauthor of the book Air Quality in America.
EPA Ozone Rules Could Put 'Entire Country' Out of Business, Industry Group Warns. American Petroleum
Institute Director of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs Howard Feldman warned that new ozone regulations currently
under review by the Obama administration and the Environmental Protection Agency could put "nearly the entire country"
out of business. "Such strict standards are not justified from a health perspective and are not needed to continue
air quality progress," Feldman said Thursday on a conference call with reporters.
The Steady March Toward Cleaner
Air. Air quality in the United States is getting cleaner, but sadly many Americans believe the opposite. In order to
explain the reality of America's improving environmental quality, Steven Hayward has spent years compiling environmental data with his Almanac
of Environmental Trends. [...] Hayward writes: Virtually the entire nation has achieved clean air standards for four of the six main
pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act (carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and lead). The only pollutant where
the clean air standard is still widely exceeded is ozone. In the case of ozone and particulates, the areas of the nation with the
highest pollution levels have shown the greatest magnitude of improvement.
Earth Day Lesson: Environment is not
Climate. In China the demand for electricity is so great that coal is burned very inefficiently, without any controls, and the
air makes Los Angeles of the 1950s look good. Of the ten most air-polluted cities in the world, eight are in China. India likewise
needs to clean up. It's easy for Americans to criticize, but they're sacrificing air quality to get faster economic growth.
The EPA can no longer justify its existence. EPA: Hiding One's Light Under a Bushel.
In 1970 [when the EPA was created,] 31 million tons of sulphur dioxide, a prime contributor to smog, was emitted into the atmosphere.
In 2008 it was 11 million tons. In 1970 34 million tons of volatile organic compounds were emitted. In 2008 it was
16 million. In 1970 204 million tons of carbon monoxide; in 2008 it was 72 million. The EPA recently declared
carbon dioxide a pollutant (which means we pollute the atmosphere every time we exhale). And the only major country in the world where
carbon dioxide emissions are declining? The United States. We emitted less CO2 in 2012 than in 1992. Water pollution has
similarly abated. Unhealthy air days in major U.S. cities these days are a rarity. Even Los Angeles had only 18 in all
of 2011. Manhattan had exactly none.
industry, lawmakers say EPA fuel rule would hike prices at the pump. The proposal, released Friday morning [3/29/2013], aims
to reduce sulfur in gasoline by more than 60 percent in 2017. The agency claimed the change would save lives and cut down
significantly on respiratory ailments by making the air cleaner. But critics questioned those claims, and said the plan would impose
higher gas prices on hard-hit families.
The Editor says...
The amount of sulphur dioxide in the air is about one third of the levels experienced in 1970 — when there were less than half
as many vehicles on the road.*
In 2011, there were 244,778,179 vehicle registrations.*
In 1970, there were 108,407,306 vehicles on the roads in the U.S.*
It is therefore safe to conclude that sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere isn't killing anybody — and thus any claims that the new
EPA regulations "would save lives" are specious. The purpose of this new regulation is to justify the EPA's existence and to
turn the screws a little tighter on "big oil."
Chinese air episode exposes EPA
fraud on PM 2.5 levels. According to EPA risk estimates, the day the PM2.5 level spiked to 886 micrograms per cubic meter,
the daily death toll should have increased to about 518 deaths — that is, if what the EPA says about PM2.5 is true.
Thus far, however, there is no evidence from China that the EPA's claims about PM2.5 are anywhere close to being true. The Chinese
media have reported on four deaths related to the current air pollution crisis. Two Chinese boys were reportedly killed in a train
accident caused by visibility problems. Two other people were apparently killed in a car accident, again caused by visibility
problems. Yet there are no reports of a spike in deaths caused by breathing the heavily polluted air.
An Imaginary Dustup?
The Incalculable Harm of Regulation. [Scroll down] If you operate a grain elevator in St. Joseph, Missouri, or a
fertilizer business in my home town, what incentive do you have to grow, to expand, to invest? You're on notice that you are
dangerous, that your activities are a threat to others. If you are that fertilizer dealer, you've also learned something else.
You've learned to be extremely cynical about the whole enterprise.
China air pollution "beyond index".
According to the government monitoring, levels of PM2.5 particles were above 700 micrograms per cubic meter on Saturday [2/9/2013], and declined by Monday to
levels around 350 micrograms — but still way above the World Health Organization's safety levels of 25.
The Cost of Obama's Regulatory
Explosion. [Scroll down] Of course, the Obama White House fancifully contends that, in addition to costing
colossal sums of money, its regulations also save colossal sums of money. But only the truly credulous could believe this is
true — or that there's any accurate way to quantify the "savings" that would ensue from, say, cleaner air (to the extent
that these regulations even legitimately advance such goals).
China's bad air puts the
lie to EPA scare tactics. In scientific documents, the EPA has repeatedly concluded that any exposure to PM2.5 can kill,
and it can kill people within hours or days of inhalation. The EPA has estimated that every 10 microgram-per-cubic-meter
increase in PM2.5 increases daily death rates by about 1 percent. That rate is asserted to be higher for vulnerable
subpopulations like the elderly or sick. What should all this mean for China? On the worst day so far of the ongoing
Chinese air pollution event, Beijing's PM2.5 levels peaked at 886 micrograms per cubic meter — an incredible 89 times
greater than the U.S. daily average. Based on EPA risk estimates, we should expect the daily death toll in Beijing to have
skyrocketed by 89 percent on a same-day and next-day basis. Remember that PM2.5 essentially causes "sudden death," according to
Second Term Regulations That Will Destroy America. Although President Obama previously admitted that the "regulatory
burdens and regulatory uncertainty" of tightening an existing ozone standard would harm jobs and the economy, he still pointed to
the fact that it will be reconsidered in 2013. EPA itself estimated that this would cost $90 billion a year.
Other studies project that the rule could cost upwards of a trillion dollars and destroy 7.4 million jobs, and put
650 additional counties into a category of "non-attainment". This is the equivalent of posting a "closed for business"
sign on communities which will suffer from severe business and job losses resulting from large numbers of plant closures.
EPA's statistics not science, but nonsense.
The scientific and medical reality is that ambient air pollution — even as grimy, stinky, eye-watering and ugly as it is in
China — does not kill or hasten death. Fine particulate matter was such a public health problem, in fact, that no one knew about it
until EPA-funded researchers invented it in 1993 — 30 years after the Clean Air Act was enacted. Since the Clinton administration,
the agency has been using its invention to impose billions and billions of dollars of costs on our economy in return for the entirely imaginary benefit
of tens of thousands of lives saved annually.
Grill a Burger, Go to Jail? [T]he regulatory
juggernaut never rests. Now they're after our flame-broiled whoppers, our animal-style In-n-Outs, and other cavalcades of carnivoric calories.
At least that's how I read the news of the new study from UC Riverside (a prime contractor for pro-smog regulator research) that finds that "Air Pollution
from Burger Joints Worse than Trucks." [...] It seems to me the lede here is exactly backwards: the real story is how dramatically we've been able
to cut diesel emissions through a combination of engine emission controls and reformulated, low-sulfur diesel fuel.
The Editor says...
There isn't any smog in this country except in a few large metro areas in the summer. The EPA is squandering billions
of dollars to fight a problem that does not exist.
EPA's scary-air sniffers. Americans on their
way to work or school may soon be reaching for a new high-tech device as they head out the door — a personal air-quality monitor.
That's the vision of bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who are trying to develop a portable sniffer that measures the body's
reactions to pollution in the air. It's bound to take fear-mongering to a new level.
Poisoning the Kids. As a measure
of the quality of air in our country, the U.S. EPA maintains data and statistics that quantify air quality from 1980 to
the present. Based on the U.S. EPA's own data, the national ambient air quality standards for certain target
pollutants have all steadily and dramatically reduced. As a national average:
• Carbon monoxide has been reduced 82%
• Ozone was reduced 28%
• Lead has been reduced 89%
• Nitrogen oxides have been reduced 52%
• Particulate matter as PM10 was reduced 38%, and fine particulate matter as PM 2.5 has been reduced 27%
• Sulfur dioxide has been reduced 83%
Regardless, according the Obama administration and its supporters, the quality of the air in our country is
literally killing our kids.
EPA Misrepresents Benefits of
Ozone Restrictions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is overstating the benefits of new
rules to further tighten ambient air quality standards regarding ozone, according to a study by NERA Economic
Consulting. EPA's statements about its proposal to cut ground-level ozone "grossly misrepresent what EPA is
actually estimating as the potential benefits of reducing public exposures to ozone," according to the report.
Age of environmental fear.
The United States is among the cleanest nations on the planet. U.S. environmental programs have set the
standard for the world. Many other nations copy our regulations wholesale. We have set tough goals and
achieved them. Lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone and carbon monoxide levels have declined precipitously.
Likewise, levels of benzene, arsenic, mercury and many other pollutants have decreased. Perhaps most important,
the life expectancy of the average American has risen from 71 to about 77 years. But don't expect the
government or environmentalists to talk about this success.
Where is the evidence
for EPA's claims? [By implementing the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,] EPA claims it will "protect
hundreds of millions of Americans, providing up to $280 billion in benefits by preventing tens of thousands of
premature deaths, asthma and heart attacks, and millions of lost days of school or work due to illness," because
of the cleanup of mercury, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, and other emissions. Exactly where did the EPA come up
with these incredible health benefits?
Horses kill people, too, you know. Automobiles
gave America mobility, prosperity and greater freedom. Fair-minded people with a knowledge of
history understand that we should be exceedingly thankful for the automobile and its crucial role in the
economic, social and political progress achieved since Henry Ford put America on wheels in 1908 with the
Model T. Note that average life expectancy in America that year for men was 49.5 years and
52.8 years for women. Today, the overall average life expectancy in America is 78.37 years, a
58 percent improvement for men and a 48 percent gain for women. So much for the killer
Ongoing Assault on the Economy. Affordable energy is critical for a prosperous economy.
Yet, despite the fact that the U.S. is still in the middle of a pronounced economic slump, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of proposing or finalizing a number of air-quality
regulations that would limit energy choices and increase energy prices, thus seriously retarding the economic
recovery. Economists estimate that just four of these dozens of rules could alone cost the economy
trillions of dollars annually. In addition, the rules will cost millions of jobs and raise energy
prices, and all with little or no public-health benefit.
Nation's Air Quality Continues to
Improve, Report Says. [Scroll down to page 14] The State of the Air 2011 report examines
ozone and particulate pollution at official monitoring sites across the United States in 2007, 2008, and 2009.
The report uses the most current quality-assured nationwide data available for these analyses. Joel Schwartz,
a senior consultant with Blue Sky Consulting Group of Sacramento, California, said the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and environmental activist groups continue to frighten people into believing national air quality is
worsening, despite the evidence.
Beware the Wrath of the EPA. Just when you
think you have heard it all, bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., come up with some hair-brained idea that leaves you
scratching your head in wonderment. The Environmental Protection Agency has apparently run out of things to
regulate and tax, so it has come up with new guidelines for regulating "particulate matter emissions" — more
commonly known to you and me as "dust."
eats crow. Doomsayers who make a living warning that the sky is falling victim to
human-induced pollution need to take a deep breath. It turns out Mother Nature has her own
resources for cleaning up the air. ... Good news for most earthlings isn't necessarily appreciated
by leftists who butter their bread spreading hysteria over purported global warming, which they
recently rebranded as "climatic disruption." For them, the revelation that the atmosphere
exhibits self-cleaning properties is as unwelcome as another snowstorm, the most recent of which
left Americans as far south as Georgia shoveling the white stuff this week.
EPA's Smoke-and-Mirrors on Smog and Soot.
This article begins a series examining the science behind the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed
proposed tighten air quality standards for ground-level ozone (O3 or smog) and fine particulate matter
(PM2.5 or soot).
EPA's Unethical Air Pollution
Experiments. The people at the EPA claim that they must control air pollution to prevent the deaths of thousands.
Then they expose human subjects to high levels of air pollution. Is it possible that they are lying, or unethical, or both? [...] The
only way out for the EPA in this episode is to acknowledge the reality that ambient levels or even higher levels of PM2.5 are not toxic or
lethal, based on their own research, and to admit that their claims of thousands of lives lost from small particles is nonsense.
EPA to propose tougher rules
on soot. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rolled out plans Friday [6/15/2012] to toughen standards
for fine particulate matter, or soot, which is dangerous microscopic pollution emitted by factories, power plants, diesel
vehicles and other sources. The proposal, which the agency is issuing under a court-ordered deadline, would pare the
current annual exposure standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter down to between 12 and 13.
EPA Proposes Stricter New
Standards for Soot Pollution. Adding to the Obama administration's mounting heap of regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) proposed Friday [6/15/2012] new air quality standards to curb the purportedly fatal repercussions of soot emissions. In reducing the emission of such
particles, which environmentalists say are one of the most hazardous air pollutants, oil refiners and large manufacturers will be forced to invest in
costly pollution-reduction upgrades.
The EPA's Flawed Zero Tolerance Policy. For the last three years, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has justified new air quality regulations — unprecedented in stringency and cost — on the
assumption that even trace levels of particulate matter can cause early death. The EPA's guiding principle in this effort has been that there
is no price too high to preempt further particulate reduction, says Kathleen Hartnett White, a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
The EPA has gone so far in this endeavor as to claim that its rules will save 230,000 lives by 2020. However, such rhetoric is built on implausible
assumptions, biased models, statistical manipulations and cherry-picked studies.
What's EPA smoking? As reported in an October
2003 study published in the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine, the risk of sudden death among those who smoked as
long as 10 years was zero. If you can smoke for 10 years and have zero chance of sudden death, you can breathe average U.S.
air for thousands of years with zero risk of sudden death. Given that the "worst" U.S. air has, perhaps, twice the level of PM2.5 as
average U.S. air, you even could breathe the "worst" U.S. air for thousands of years with zero risk of sudden death. Therefore, the
EPA's claim that PM2.5 is killing people and the nation stands to reap billion of dollars' worth of health benefits from its new rule are
EPA Sued Over Heinous Experiments on Humans.
After accumulating evidence via the Freedom of Information Act that showed the Environmental Protection Agency conducted disturbing experiments that
exposed humans to inhalable particulates the agency has said are deadly, sound science advocate Steven Milloy has sued the federal government.
The American Lung Association's Fear Campaign:
In the July issue of Environment & Climate News I showed how the American Lung Association (ALA) misleads
Americans about air pollution levels and trends in their communities and the nation. This month, I will
document the evidence that even air pollution levels far higher than any we experience in the United States are
perfectly safe, and that the nation's air does not cause adverse health effects. ALA claims, "Over
136 million Americans are exposed to unhealthful levels of air pollution." Even in terms of
actual federal standards, this is a vast exaggeration.
Facts Not Fear on Air Pollution:
Most of what Americans "know" about air pollution is false. Polls show most Americans believe air pollution
has been steady or rising during the last few decades and will worsen in the future, and is a serious threat to
people's health. But these widely held views are based on myths that are demonstrably false. Air
quality in America's cities is better than it has been in more than a century, despite the fact that Americans
are driving more miles, using more energy, and producing and consuming more goods and services than ever.
EPA Data Show Fewer Children Affected by Air
Pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency's new report — 'America's Children and
the Environment' — notes that air pollution declined, but asthma prevalence continues to rise. One
possible conclusion from this is that air pollution is not actually a cause of asthma. In fact,
that's the most plausible conclusion.
How the EPA Is Like DDT.
Asthma is a perplexing disease for which, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there is no known
cause. According CDC statistics, the percentage of the general population with asthma increased by 265% from
1980 to 2009. According to EPA statistics, from 1980 to 2009, the emissions of sulfur dioxide when down by
about 76% and, from 1995 to 2009, emissions of nitrogen dioxide went down by about 48%. There is no statistical
relationship or known causal relationship between asthma and emissions of these compounds. Yet, when announcing
the new cross-state emissions rules in 2011 to further restrict emissions of these compounds, EPA Administrator Lisa
Jackson claimed, without evidence, the new regulations will prevent 400,000 new cases of asthma each year.
Air Quality: Air pollution in western
world cities has been improving for decades as technology has improved vehicle internal combustion engines and
also lower sulphur fuels have reduced SO2 emissions. These vital facts so inconvenient to the Greens, and
the over green EPA bureaucracies plus the anti-car brigade, have been very slow to penetrate the screen of green
media bias and it is only since 2000 that scraps of truth slip out saying that AQ is improving.
Testimony before a Texas
Senate Hearing on Wind Turbines: I have practiced medicne for 36 years in the United
States, and I assure you that people do not die from a change in temperature of 2 degrees or even 4,
they do not die from air pollution in the United States. Not one person. Killer air and toxic air
pollution are an historical problem, not a current problem, created by old industrial pollution more than
50 years ago, combined with a less capable medical system.
Air Pollution Risks Exaggerated?
Although the authors claim to have demonstrated a substantial risk from air pollution, they may have mistakenly
attributed to air pollution health risks that are actually caused by other factors omitted from their
analysis. Furthermore, even taking the results at face value, the study found a relatively small
risk from particulates when compared with other risks people face.
What Americans 'Know' about Air Pollution Is
False. The nation's spectacular progress on air pollution began long before the 1970 Clean Air
Act federalized air quality policy. Air quality has continued to improve since 1970. Virtually the
entire nation now attains federal standards for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead,
and levels of these pollutants continue to decline. What makes these air quality improvements so
extraordinary is that they occurred during a period of rapid increases in pollution-generating
The Condition of Our Nation: The
Press Is Always Wrong. Contrary to the pervasive negativity in the media, the U.S. today is in
the best shape it has ever been. For example, pollution is way down. As a boy raised in the 1940s
and 1950s on the shores of Lake Erie, it is truly a miracle to me that Lake Erie is now clean. The
Cuyahoga River no longer catches on fire; even the Hudson River in New York is back to its pristine
state. Over the past 30 years, the percentage of days per year in the Los Angeles area that have
violated federal air quality standards has fallen from over 50 percent to less than 10 percent.
In addition, the number of federal "health advisory" days per year in California has fallen from 166 to 11
over the same period.
Sees Record Low Ozone. The Houston metropolitan area, often cited as having the nation's most
polluted air, exceeded federal ozone standards for a record-low 16 days in 2008. The official tally
from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality contradicts a recent claim by the Houston Chronicle that
"the region's goal of consistently healthy air remains elusive."
False Alarm: Heat Advisory, a recent report from the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC), claims that increased temperatures resulting from global warming will cause higher
ozone smog levels and therefore harm Americans' health. In other words, in addition to other
harms, NRDC claims global warming will cause future air pollution to be worse than current air
pollution levels. For example, NRDC asserts that the number of days per year exceeding the EPA's
8-hour ozone standard will increase by an average of 60 percent in America's metropolitan areas.
This report shows that air pollution will decline in the future, regardless of whether there is global
warming, and that NRDC exaggerates likely future temperature increases in any case. [PDF]
THIS is an air quality problem: Global
warming gets cold shoulder. [Bjørn Lomborg] nominates as the most important, urgent and solvable problem facing
the world: "Air pollution in the Third World. More than 1 billion people don't have access to electricity
and many use really poor fuels, such as wood and dung, that pollute the air."
Three Things to Know About Pollution:
(#1) Air quality in the United States has markedly improved. Between 1993 and 2002, aggregate emissions
of the six principal pollutants (nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, carbon monoxide
and lead) decreased 19 percent. During the same time period, United States gross domestic product
grew at an average of 5.15 percent annually. Volatile organic compound emissions from cars and
trucks have fallen 73.8 percent since 1970, and carbon monoxide emissions from cars have been reduced
Air Quality Rule Costly for Wisconsin Families.
The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board has unanimously approved regulations that will bring the state into compliance
with the Bush administration's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). Compliance will cost the state's
residents more than $1 billion, or more than $500 per household, according to state officials.
Ozone, a major component of smog, is widely believed to
form from pollutant precursors (such as NOx oxides of nitrogen produced during combustion, (read auto engines and power
plants). However the more I examine data the more I am convinced that this is not the whole story and that much
tropospheric (lower atmosphere) ozone, which includes urban ozone of course, is in fact natural in origin, the product of
peak afternoon temperatures on hot days acting on reactive particles in the air which are very often chemicals given off
from vegetation, forests, sea foam and soil, not necessarily in urban areas at all.
The Editor asks...
Where is there a factory in New York, or any other state, that belches smog and soot? You'd have to go
back to the 1960s to find such a place. In any case, since smog is a mixture of fog and smoke, I doubt
if factories emit smog.
Dangers of high-speed governing: "The days of
Washington dragging its heels are over," said President Barack Obama the other day as he hastened to destroy
the auto industry, eliminate jobs, render Americans less safe when they drive and gouge more dollars out of
them. When you are president, such things can be easy, a virtual snap of the fingers, simply a matter of
issuing a couple of executive orders, one of which says the following in so many words: The administration
is going to go through some motions with EPA and then let California and other states set their own tailpipe
emission standards even though they are much tougher than national standards.
Detroit Takes One (More) for the Team.
Never mind the absurdity of the issue. California has received waivers to set its own Clean Air Act rules
since the very beginning because California suffered unique air pollution problems. California does not
suffer unique global warming problems. In no way is the state uniquely affected by the climate risks posed
by tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide. California politicians were acting purely in a grandstanding capacity
to seek such a waiver. Mr. Obama would be acting from purely a least-cost political calculation in granting it.
Plants Absorb More Carbon Dioxide
Under Polluted Hazy Skies. Plants absorbed carbon dioxide more efficiently under the polluted
skies of recent decades than they would have done in a cleaner atmosphere, according to new findings published
this week in Nature. The results of the study have important implications for efforts to combat
future climate change which are likely to take place alongside attempts to lower air pollution levels.
Environmentalism vs Creativity: It's
not a coincidence that countries with the most government controls are also the most polluted. I've
breathed the dirty air of a few former totalitarian, Eastern European nations, and I can attest that Hungary
and Bosnia, for example, are far more polluted overall than, say, Houston or L.A. If industrial progress
was as harmful to mankind as environmentalists would have us believe, then the life expectancy of people living
in the most industrialized nations would be decreasing, not increasing.
Car emissions order could affect Texas
motorists. Texans might drive cars designed for California attitudes if federal regulators
agree to permit state-by-state auto emissions standards, a prospect that emerged Monday in President
Barack Obama's first major environmental policy action. Obama ordered the Environmental Protection
Agency to review the Bush administration's refusal to allow California and 13 other states to set the
nation's toughest vehicle emissions standards.
The Editor says...
This is why it is necessary for the other 49 states to squawk when California does something stupid:
Their worst ideas have a way of spreading across the country.
U.S. Air Quality Continues to Improve.
Sulfur dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants have fallen sharply this year, according to a recent report by energy
research firm Genscape. Emissions of other pollutants have dropped as well. For the first half of 2009,
SO2 emissions dropped 24 percent versus the first half of 2008. Emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx) fell
5 percent in May and 11 percent in June compared against the same months last year.
California's Toxic Air
Scare Machine: James Enstrom, southern California native, earned a Ph.D. in elementary particle
nuclear physics at Stanford, then received postdoctoral training in epidemiology and a Masters in Public Health
from UCLA. ... In 2005, Enstrom published his results of a robust and current (50,000 people, 1973-2002) study
on the effects of small particle air pollution in California. He found no premature death effect in California
from small particle air pollution. California's air pollution of the '50s and '60s has declined for
thirty years, and Enstrom was also familiar with the improvement in air quality and the conundrum of
increasing rates of asthma that was being misrepresented by CARB.
This might not be off topic: Excessive
cleanliness may boost allergies. Put away the hand sanitizer. It's not necessarily the
grime, dust bunnies, cat dander or pollen causing those miserable springtime allergies. The culprit
actually may be too much cleanliness. "Allergies have become widespread in developed countries:
hay fever, eczema, hives and asthma are all increasingly prevalent. The reason? Excessive
cleanliness is to blame," said Dr. Guy Delespesse, an immunologist and director of the Allergy Research
Laboratory at the University of Montreal.
quality improving despite population, vehicle growth. Most Americans are breathing cleaner air,
even as cars flood the roads and populations boom, according to recent environmental data. An Environmental
Protection Agency report shows air pollution declined dramatically between 1990 and 2008 thanks to increasingly
stringent vehicle, industry and consumer standards. Ozone levels nationally are down 14 percent, lead,
78 percent, and carbon monoxide, 68 percent, among other reductions in the six most common air
pollutants, the report said.
Air pollution is not a major public
health problem. [Scroll down to page 12] Air quality is better today in virtually all parts
of the U.S. than at any time since measurements began. According to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), emissions of the six "criteria" air pollutants dropped 57 percent between 1970 and 2007, while GDP
increased 207 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 179 percent, energy consumption increased
47 percent, and U.S. population grew by 49 percent. Concentrations of particulate matter (PM10)
have decreased by 28 percent and of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) by 11 percent nationally since
1990. Virtually the entire nation meets federal standards for carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
dioxide, and lead.
EPA Goes Ape Over Power Plant Emissions.
[Scroll down] What do Americans really die from? Genetic dispositions to illness. Accidents.
Poor diets. And bad lifestyle choices that include smoking, drinking, and taking illegal drugs. With the
exception of asthma that affects about seven percent of the population none of this has anything to do with air
quality. Indeed, the causes of asthma remain somewhat shrouded in mystery even if the symptoms do not.
None of this empirical knowledge and data has the slightest effect, however, on the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the American Lung Association that profits greatly from any claims about air quality. Both are
inclined to making wild claims.
EPA's Clean Air
Act: Pretending air pollution is worse than it is. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) continues to tighten air quality standards at considerable societal expense under the guise that new
standards are necessary to protect public health. Focusing on the EPA's proposed Clean Air Transport
Rule (CATR), this analysis shows that:  America's air is already safe to breathe and it is
much better than the EPA would have the public believe; and that  The EPA relies on health
studies that exaggerate harm and economic studies that understate regulatory costs in order to maintain
the fiction that its ever more stringent regulations are providing meaningful public health benefits.
"There is no area of our lives the leftists won't invade." Progressives
Want to Ban Barbecue Aromas And So Much More. The city council in Austin, Tex. took up
"the smell of barbecue and a proposal to control it," the New York Times reported in April, "in response to
some citizen complaints." They plan to order the restaurants to control the odors because it is a "public
nuisance." Austin is known for its barbecue restaurants and food trucks. Most would close, perhaps
all. "A public nuisance is an activity that threatens the public health, safety or welfare, or does damage
to community resources." The city of Austin wants to take a handful of citizen complaints and make them into a
public health hazard. We won't ban illegal immigration but we will ban the aromas from restaurant barbecues.
The Editor says...
This problem is easily solved. Let the left-wing liberal authoritarians shut down all the barbecue joints in
Austin. Better yet, all the restaurants that emit any discernable aroma. Then sit back and wait for the outcry
from the low-information voters who haven't been paying attention. The restaurants will be back open in a few days,
and the experience may make Libertarians out of a lot of hungry citizens.
Who Is Greener?
In Pittsburgh, coal-fired steel mills in the 1940s and '50s belched so much smoke that lawyers and bankers working indoors
had to go home at noon for lunch and a change of shirts. Ohio's Cuyahoga River caught fire in 1969. That event sparked
passage of the Clean Water Act. America cleaned up air and water. [...] Even our own very liberal Enviromental
Protection Agency acknowledges that "emissions from a new car purchased today are well over 90 percent cleaner than a
new vehicle purchased in 1970."
news: the EPA's new smog rules will only cost 40 times as much as they said. So we'll be sucking well over $50B
a year out of the economy to achieve a reduction in ozone levels from 75 parts per billion to... 70 parts per billion.
That's a pretty steep price for what is likely barely measurable change. Trying to determine the effectiveness of such a change,
even if it's achieved is a challenge. The EPA's own information on the subject doesn't go much further than saying that more
ground level ozone is bad and less is better.
Smog Regulation Will Cost 40x More Than It Predicted. The Environmental Protection Agency estimated its stricter smog
limits would only cost Americans $1.4 billion a year, but a new report argues the total cost to the economy is likely 40 times
higher than agency estimates. The right-leaning American Action Forum says EPA's updated smog, or ground-level ozone, rule could
cost $56.5 billion in lost wages based on economic losses from counties that couldn't comply with the agency's 2008 rule.
China smog around 50 times
WHO recommendations. A swathe of China was blanketed with dangerous acrid smog Monday (Nov 8) after levels of the most dangerous
particulates reached around 50 times World Health Organization maximums, with energy use for heating blamed as winter sets in. Pictures
showed smog so thick that buildings in Changchun, the capital of Jilin province in the northeast, were rendered invisible.
The Editor says...
If dirty air was as toxic as the EPA claims, nobody in Changchun would be alive today.
Fertilizer Shortage Puts
World On Verge of Food Crisis. The world is facing a long list of troubles often isolated to specific
regions. Still, one issue experts warn is just on the horizon is a global food shortage that is likely to threaten
every country. Farmers everywhere are already noting there is a shortage of fertilizers needed to keep crop yields
at their highest levels to feed the nearly 8 billion people of the world. Last year, for instance, U.S. Army
Special Forces veteran and author Michael Yon [says] that all of the 26 major plants in Europe that produce
nitrogen-based fertilizers are either closed down or on the verge of closing. This will lead to famine. [...]"
The Real Agenda for Taking Over 3,000 Dutch Farms. As the Dutch government insists it must shut down 3,000
farms and kill off one-third to half of the farm animals to meet EU nitrogen guidelines, farmers and their many allies
in The Netherlands continue to protest. [...]There is no evidence that wind and solar can replace fossil fuels.
The opposite is true. Storage from wind and solar can't work at the present time. Mainstream media has
portrayed farmers as anti-environmentalist and conspiracy theorists. It's not true. It's propaganda. [Tweet]
Belgium's Energy Suicide?
Belgium's situation is dramatic. While our neighbors have taken and are taking measures to cushion the energy
crisis, maintain their budgetary health and guarantee their energy supply, Belgium is in a situation of clear and
obvious failure on all three counts. I will only deal here with the energy misery, which is entirely avoidable and
caused by the anti-nuclear tendencies of two environmentalist political parties, Ecolo and The Greens. Security of
energy supply seems, for some officials, to be an abstract concept. It is anything but. In practice, when
energy security is not guaranteed, it means load-shedding, blackouts and an explosion in energy costs, as well as, for
many, having to choose between "heat or eat".
Nitrous Oxide and
Climate. Nitrous oxide (N20) has now joined carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) in the climate alarm
proponents' pantheon of anthropogenic "demon" gases. In their view, increasing concentrations of these molecules
are leading to unusual and unprecedented warming and will, in turn, lead to catastrophic consequences for both our
ecosystems and humanity. Countries around the world are in the process of greatly reducing or eliminating the use
of nitrogen fertilizers based on heretofore poorly understood properties of nitrous oxide. Reductions of N2O
emissions are being proposed in Canada by 40 to 45 percent and in the Netherlands by up to 50 percent. Sri Lanka's
complete ban on fertilizer in 2021 led to the total collapse of their primarily agricultural economy. To provide
critically needed information on N2O, the CO2 Coalition has published an important and timely paper evaluating the
warming effect of the gas and its role in the nitrogen cycle. Armed with this vital information, policymakers can
now proceed to make informed decisions about the costs and benefits of mandated reductions of this beneficial molecule.
War on Nitrous Oxide Threatens Starvation. A climate-inspired war on nitrous oxide (N2O) is threatening
the global food supply. At risk are the viability of modern agricultural businesses and the very lives of the
people who consume their plant and animal products. Fanned by climate alarmists, fears that nitrous
oxide — a greenhouse gas — is contributing to global warming are driving some world leaders to
promote restrictions on its emission from croplands, livestock pastures and greenhouses. Nitrogen-based
fertilizers make up 56 percent of global fertilizer consumption, thus playing an essential role in enriching soil
fertility to increase yields and maintaining food security. Experts project that just over half of the planet's
population could be sustained without nitrogen fertilizer. In other words, almost half of the world's people would
starve without it.
Under Green Policies. United Nations officials now tell politicians that the climate "crisis" demands
countries make all sorts of sacrifices, like cutting nitrogen waste. Much of that waste comes from synthetic
fertilizer, so activists applauded when Sri Lanka's government decided to become the first country to really take their
advice. Sri Lanka banned all synthetic fertilizers. Oops. Suddenly, the same farms produced much less
food. Food prices rose 80%. One result: riots. As my new video shows, thousands swarmed the president's
mansion. Some had a cookout on his lawn. The president resigned and fled the country. It turns out
that we need chemical fertilizers.
farmers, fisherman revolt against government greenie impositions. Greenie policies have destroyed Sri Lanka and
Pakistan, and they destroy pretty much any economy wherever they go. The revolt has now hit the Netherlands. [...] The
government passed a greenie law to cut nitrogen and carbon emissions by 50% by 2030 and then blandly declared that, yah, yah,
"the honest message ... is that not all farmers can continue their business." So for the Dutch farmers, who are among the
world's most productive, who feed a continent and beyond from their tiny artificially created landscape, with, yes, cows,
which are all about creating this newly created problem of nitrogen as well as cow-[emission] carbon, are suddenly the
target. They've got to quit producing and die. Pay no attention to the fact that not every nation can sustain
cows but would like to buy beef and leather and gelatin and milk and all the other things cows produce. They all will
now see shortages at the supermarkets and, worse still, shortages of cow "byproducts," which are sold as crop-saving
fertilizer around the world. Pay no attention to the unintended consequences the Dutch farmers are warning about.
The tsentral planners have spoken, and now the cows must die. Too bad about the farms and farmers and consumers.
'Nitrogen Pollution' the Next Insane Environmental Extremist Cause? For years, environmental extremist
bureaucrats have created economy-crushing rules by claiming life-essential carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Mercifully,
the Supreme Court slammed a flaming stake into the heart of Biden's plans to use the Environmental Protection Agency to enact
the "Green New Deal" without going through the proper legislative process. However, there is troubling news from the
Netherlands about another life-essential chemical being smeared: Nitrogen. Thousands of farmers were gathering in
a village near the centre of the Netherlands on Wednesday to protest a government plan to curb nitrogen pollution, many
travelling by tractor from all corners of the country and snarling traffic.
The Non-Crisis Nitrogen "Crisis" In The Netherlands.
On the Fourth of July, a group of angry Dutch farmers and fishermen, presumably dressed as colorful Frisians, and in the grip
of angry exuberance, burnt bales of hay on roads, and blocked up highways with tractors and farm equipment, shutting down
traffic throughout the country. Ports and borders were stopped up. [...] This was all in protest of the government's
declaration that nitrogen is a "crisis", and so threatening to confiscate farms to "solve" the "crisis." Prediction:
Later, it will be said to be a coincidence when the government eventually disposes of the confiscated farms by selling them
to rich people.
Farmers Become Ungovernable After 'Climate Change' Agreement. You won't see it on any of the alphabet networks,
but a protest movement is exploding in the Netherlands after the government moved to shut down farms in order to "fight"
climate change. The contentious move, pushed by the World Economic Forum, was enacted as part of an EU agreement that
seeks to limit the release of nitrogen. This is what becoming ungovernable looks like. [Tweets] Of all the
aspects of the green agenda, none is more damaging and suicidal than putting in arbitrary provisions that limit the
production of food across the globe. I'm not in support of targeting anything to "lower emissions" because I believe
it's spitting into the wind to make wealthy elites feel better about their lifestyles. Yet, even if I did support that
agenda, the last place that should be targeted is the food sector.
Farmers in Mass Revolt Against Green Fascism. Thousands of Dutch farmers descended on the Netherlands capital
to protest against onerous environmental restrictions that threaten their livelihoods. The demonstrations were sparked
after the coalition government proposed that "Dutch livestock farming should be slashed to meet commitments on reducing
nitrogen emissions," reports Dutch News NL. Farmers traveled to the Hague in their tractors, causing tailbacks in
excess of 620 miles and huge traffic jams around and in the city.
Trail Of Protesting Dutch Farmers Snarls Traffic for Hundreds Of Miles. Thousands of Dutch farmers rolled their
tractors over highways to The Hague to protest a possible crackdown on nitrogen emissions from livestock and farming
operations. The angry farmers snarled traffic for hundreds of miles in what has been called the Netherlands' busiest
morning rush hour. Brightly colored rows of the tractors rolled slowly down main roads all morning on Tuesday.
The Dutch automobile association ANWB says it recorded more than 700 miles of traffic jams at the peak of rush hour,
mostly due to the protest.
The Editor says...
Nitrogen is not a pollutant. More than 78 percent of the atmosphere is nitrogen already. Just like
carbon dioxide, nitrogen is plant food. It's about as harmless as a gas can be, without being completely inert.
I see truckloads of liquid nitrogen on the highway every day. Wherever those trucks deliver their payloads, the
nitrogen will eventually return to the atmosphere. The radical left is trying to outlaw the emission of everything
but oxygen — although that might be next — by anyone engaged in agriculture, industry, or daily
life. They are doing this to obstruct capitalism and obtain leverage and power where they currently have none.
Carbon: Scientists Worry About Nitrogen's Effects. Public discussion of complicated
climate change is largely reduced to carbon: carbon emissions, carbon footprints, carbon trading.
But other chemicals have large roles in the planet's health, and the one Dr. Giblin is looking for in Arctic
mud, one that a growing number of other researchers are also concentrating on, is nitrogen.
On the other hand... Can Nitrogen Be
Used to Combat Climate Change? Growing evidence suggests that as humanity pumps more nitrogen
into the environment, forests could become bigger carbon sinks and help mitigate climate change. But
experts warn that it's a dangerous experiment that could have serious consequences.
The Editor asks...
Where is "humanity" getting this nitrogen that it is supposedly "pumping" into the environment? No
matter how much additional nitrogen "humanity" has at its disposal, it's only a microscopic fraction of
the atmosphere's nitrogen content. The mass of the atmosphere is about 5.14 x 1018
kilograms, or about 5.67 billion megatons, over five quadrillion tons, and 78.08% of that (by volume) is
nitrogen. There is simply no way that "humanity" can add more than a drop to that bucket.
on Preventing Peanut Allergies. A diet that includes peanuts in the first year of life
may greatly reduce the chance of developing peanut allergies in children at risk for getting them,
according to a highly anticipated new study. The findings appear to be the most definitive
evidence yet to discount the medical community's longtime recommendation that parents avoid giving
peanut products to young children. That practice has failed to stem the growing rate of peanut
allergies. Some doctors now suggest that not eating peanuts may actually have helped spur more allergies.
Early exposure 'cuts peanut allergy'.
Eating peanut products as a baby dramatically cuts the risk of allergy, a study reported in the New
England Journal of Medicine suggests. Trials on 628 babies prone to developing peanut allergy
found the risk was cut by over 80%.
The War On Peanuts: North
Carolina is the fifth-largest peanut grower in the U.S., yet peanut-allergy nazis have persuaded even officials in that
state to crack down on PB&Js.
Harvard prof slams US nut allergy
hysteria. A Harvard professor of medical sociology has agreeably warned that increasing hysteria
over nut allergies in kids bears the hallmarks of mass psychogenic illness (MPI) — described as "a
social network phenomenon involving otherwise healthy people in a cascade of anxiety". Writing in the
British Medical Journal, Nicholas A Christakis cites the extreme example of when a potentially fatal
peanut was "spotted on the floor of a school bus, whereupon the bus was evacuated and cleaned (I am tempted to
say decontaminated), even though it was full of 10-year-olds who, unlike two-year-olds, could actually be told
not to eat food off the floor".
Free lunch "safety":
Some people can die from eating ordinary wholesome foods like salmon or peanut butter. If the government banned
every food that was fatal to someone, we might all die of malnutrition.
Public Policy or Hysteria? As someone with a background in public policy making and enforcement, I find
it alarming that so much public policy today, particularly in schools, is motivated by fear-of-lawsuit hysteria rather
than sound research, cost-benefit analysis, least restrictive means to meet the policy objective and other rational
criteria. One extreme example of hysteria-based decision making is the banning of peanut products in schools.
allergies — a Yuppie invention. Your kid doesn't have an allergy to
nuts. Your kid has a parent who needs to feel special. ... Genes don't mutate fast enough to
have caused an 18% increase in childhood food allergies between 1997 and 2007. And genes
certainly don't cause 25% of parents to believe that their kids have food allergies, when 4% do.
The fear about peanut allergies
is nuts. What constitutes a peanut allergy for a parent is not what constitutes it for a doctor.
If a child has diarrhea or vomits after eating nuts, it may signal a food allergy, but it may also mean food
poisoning. The FAAN study did not confirm its subjects' claims that they were allergic to nuts.
That would have required medical records and testing, neither of which were included in the study.
Doubt Is Cast on Many
Reports of Food Allergies. Many who think they have food allergies actually do not. A
new report, commissioned by the federal government, finds the field is rife with poorly done studies,
misdiagnoses and tests that can give misleading results.
Is There a
Reason to Ban Peanuts From Flights? The Transportation Department has asked the public for
weeks to comment on whether the once-popular, but increasingly rare, snack for passengers should be banned
or restricted on airline flights for the sake of those who suffer serious allergies. But whichever way
public sentiment falls, there can be no ban on peanuts without scientific proof to back it up.
Athletic Clothing Brands Have High Levels of Hormone-Disrupting Chemical BPA: Watchdog Group. Sports bras
and athletic shirts made by some of the major global sports brands were found to contain dangerous levels of the
estrogen-mimicking chemical bisphenol A, commonly known as BPA, posing a considerable risk to people's health, according
to legal notices sent by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH). BPA — an endocrine disrupting
chemical that upsets the body's functioning through blocking or mimicking hormones — is linked to
developmental and health problems mostly for young children. For adults, studies have found that high levels of
the chemical results in heart problems, while experts have connected BPA to obesity, diabetes, ADHD, and other ailments,
with more research pending for definitive conclusions.
to sign into law new EPA power over toxic chemicals. President Obama signed into law Wednesday [6/22/2016]
sweeping new power for the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate thousands of toxic substances found in everyday
products from household cleaners to toys and furniture. [...] The law sets safety standards for a host of toxic substances,
including asbestos, formaldehyde and Bisphenol A, commonly known as BPA.
anti-BPA activism is the real danger. Alarmist claims about the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) have reached an
absurd level. [...] BPA has been used safely for more than five decades to make hard clear plastics (polycarbonate plastics)
and epoxy resins that line the inside of steel and aluminum cans. There are no verified cases of anyone suffering ill effects
from BPA exposure from consumer products, and numerous comprehensive scientific reviews have found BPA safe at current typical
Ignoring Science, 97% of Stories Hype BPA
as Health Threat. Fear of chemicals and "toxins" is rampant among the so-called "environmental" left. Unfortunately, that
phobia infects national media coverage as well. For more than a decade, the left has been on the attack against BPA, a chemical that is
commonly found in plastics and other products. Anti-chemical groups such as the Breast Cancer Fund and some scientists have crusaded
against BPA (known formally as bisphenol A), connecting it to cancer and reproductive problems and claiming that it is "a threat to human
health," despite government agencies that have declared it "harmless" even in baby bottles. Much of the national media have bought in
spreading fear of the chemical in ordinary canned goods, on cash register receipts, in dental sealants and more. In just the past two
years, the three broadcast networks and top five national newspapers have continued to report on the "hidden danger" of BPA, labeling it
"carcinogenic" and "toxic" often with small or flawed reports from activists.
Confirms BPA Poses No Realistic Health Risk. The FDA just commented on a new
peer-reviewed study which found no health impact from low doses of bisphenol-A. BPA is a plasticizer
often found at low doses in things like foods, children's milk bottles, and toys. Anti-chemical
activists responded by sending out waves of demands to parents that this useful chemical be banned
from the shelves. The FDA said, "The study reported no effects of BPA at any dose except at the
very highest levels, and is consistent with the FDA's current position that BPA is safe at the very
low amounts that occur in some foods." The FDA found BPA's "low dose" safety range is huge:
from 2.5 to 2700 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day.
The Top 10 Unfounded Health Scares of 2012. [#10] BPA
and receipts: [BPA] has been used to harden certain plastics and resins and can be found in water bottles, baby bottles, cups, toys and other consumer
goods, as well as in the coating used inside metal food containers in order to prevent spoilage and food-borne illness. Some research has indicated
that BPA can seep into food or beverages from containers made with BPA and now apparently BPA can leach into your body from a store receipt. [...] According
to Justin Teeguarden, a toxicologist and senior research scientist at the Pacific Northwest National Research Lab in Washington, BPA poses no danger
to humans because it is rapidly metabolized and excreted in the urine. A person would have to consume hundreds of thousands of times more than
the amount they do now, in order to even measure significant levels in the blood.
BPA Replacement Faces the
Same Attacks as BPA. Anti-chemical activists claim Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical providing strength and flexibility
to plastic products, poses threats to human health. The activists point to studies showing rats develop health complications when
continuously fed mega-doses of BPA. Scientists report, however, that humans do not ingest nearly enough BPA to pose a threat to
human health. Clinical tests and observational studies confirm the scientists' reports.
FDA Affirms Bisphenol A Is Safe in Food
Packaging. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has reaffirmed that bisphenol A, a chemical used in certain plastics and resins, poses
no identified risks to human health at current exposure levels. FDA's decision came in response to a Natural Resources Defense Council petition for
the agency to ban BPA in food packaging and containers. [...] Health risks, however, have never been documented in humans. In addition, the studies
suggesting BPA may cause negative health effects in rats have been criticized for their methodology and are dependent on huge doses that are not comparable
to any foreseeable human exposure levels.
Ignoring Science, 97% of [News]
Stories Hype BPA as Health Threat. In just the past two years, the three broadcast networks and top five national newspapers have
continued to report on the "hidden danger" of BPA, labeling it "carcinogenic" and "toxic" often with small or flawed reports from activists.
Ninety-seven percent of two years' worth of newspaper and TV news stories that discussed BPA were about the supposed danger or potential threat of the
chemical. This despite an Institute of Medicine study (funded by Komen) and government agencies' findings about the chemical. Just two of
the 87 stories focused on research that found BPA wasn't the risk the left claims it is. A popular charity, Susan G. Komen for
the Cure (which recently angered the left when it rescinded grants to Planned Parenthood), paid the Institute of Medicine to do a study of
environmental risks of breast cancer. When the findings did not call BPA a risk factor breast cancer, some on the left were furious.
Food and Drug
Administration Prepares BPA Decision. Anti-BPA activists allege BPA exposure threatens reproductive
health, can cause cancer, and increases the risk of child behavior problems. The assertions are based on some
studies indicating rats may suffer these effects when they are fed mega-doses of BPA. The asserted health risks
to rats, however, have never been documented in humans. The studies suggesting BPA may cause negative health
effects in rats have been criticized for their methodology and are dependent on huge doses not comparable to any
foreseeable human exposure levels.
and Drug Administration Prepares BPA Decision. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is
preparing a decision on whether to ban bisphenol A, a chemical widely used in plastics and the
linings of metal food containers. To settle a lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense
Council, FDA agreed to issue its decision by March 31. The NRDC filed a petition with the
FDA in 2008 requesting the agency ban BPA.
Prof Spins Scary Soup Study: Media Swallow. Unfortunately, if journalists don't bother to wrestle
with the regulatory science, they'll never know whether they are being spun or whether, in this case, Professor
Michels is not as familiar with the research literature on BPA as a professor with two Ph.Ds should be.
The Big BPA Lie. BPA is not
carcinogenic or mutagenic; BPA does not adversely affect reproduction or development at any realistic dose;
BPA is efficiently "metabolized" and rapidly excreted after oral exposure. So where does the worldwide
anti-BPA public relations campaign originate?
Chicago Ban Bisphenol-A in Baby Bottles. The Chicago City Council has banned bisphenol-A, a chemical that
strengthens plastics, from food and beverage containers intended for use by children under three years old. ... The
chemical known as BPA, widely used in baby bottles, has never been shown to endanger human health, but it has affected
laboratory rats fed extremely high doses.
A Chemical Scare
Campaign Is Good Business for Some. If you're unfamiliar with Bisphenol A (BPA), it is a
chemical used to make lightweight, versatile, durable, high-performance plastics. It's also one of the
most extensively tested products in the world. For example, as Norris Alderson, the FDA's associate
commissioner for science, said just last year, "a large body of available evidence" demonstrates that
products made with it are safe.
More about BPA: The
Tangled Web of Green: Manufacturing a Public Scare. In addition to the "incestuous" relationship among
some scientists, there seems to be an "incestuous" relationship between newspapers and environmental activists
claiming to be health experts. Consider that the "health advocates" quoted in the December 29
Journal-Sentinel article by almost-Pulitzer Prize winner Meg Kissinger are Janet Nudelman of the Breast Cancer
Fund and Alex Formuzis. The Breast Cancer Fund's agenda, despite its name, is environmental issues.
Senate May Ban Chemical That the FDA Says Is
Safe. When it returns from Easter break next week, the Senate is expected to vote on
a bill that would ban the commonly used chemical Bisphenol A (BPA), despite repeated assertions
from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that the compound is safe.
Government and the Food Safety Modernization. The recent target of radical environmental activists
and ratings- seeking media alarmists, BPA has been accused of being associated with an assortment of adverse health
effects, none of which are supported by acceptable scientific evidence or have been validated by FDA. BPA
critics have called the widely-used chemical the "biological equivalent of global warming," and claims of its
health effects run the gamut from autism to cancer to genital and reproductive abnormalities. Not to be
outdone by the global warming alarmists, the anti-industry BPA fear mongers continue to propound flimsy "evidence"
unsupported by any reputable scientific body.
water bottles won't hurt you. Canada has announced it will ban the chemical bisphenol A —
known as BPA — which is used to make plastic water and baby bottles. The head of the Canadian
environmental group Environmental Defence is thrilled: "Kudos to the federal government. ... We look
forward to seeing BPA legally designated as 'toxic' as soon as possible." But the evidence doesn't
actually show that BPA is toxic. Europe's equivalent of the FDA concluded: "(T)he data currently
available do not provide convincing evidence of neurobehavioral toxicity."
The Deadly Obama Virus.
In the beginning of the 2009 flu season, Barack Obama declared the H1N1 swine flu a national
emergency. By October of that year 1,000 people had already died, and according to the president
there was the threat of a pandemic. [...] Speaking of pigs, according to the CDC, after the swine
flu scare was over, in a country that typically sees 36,000 deaths from the flu annually, that year
12,000 Americans died of the swine flu.
The Swine Who Live to Scare You. We
live in a world of competing lies, all swirling around us and generated by government and what are now called
"non-governmental organizations." ... These are the swine who live to scare you because they know this is the way to
benefit from your ignorance, gullibility or because you will not take the time to check out the "facts" they are
telling you, using them like cattle prods to make you and others move in the direction they want.
The Administration's Flu
Fear-Mongering. 'In keeping with the administration's proactive approach" to swine flu, the
White House has announced that President Obama has declared the disease "a national emergency." It's
the second such declaration, with the first in late April. And in case you didn't know what "proactive"
meant before, now you do: "hysterical."
Millions of swine flu shots wasted.
Germany is stuck with €250 million worth of swine flu vaccine ordered during the height of the flu panic
last winter but never used because the mass immunisation campaign was a failure, according to a Friday [5/7/2010]
No More Crying 'Spanish Flu'. Flu
season has officially ended. We had about 12,000 fatalities, a third the usual number according to Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. Yet almost all infections were H1N1 swine flu. The World
Health Organization (WHO) has confirmed 18,036 swine flu deaths over the past year, somewhat shy of the 250,000 to
500,000 it estimates die annually of seasonal flu. So it's hard to imagine that a year ago top public health
officials and the media were comparing swine flu to the Spanish flu of 1918-19.
WHO Says H1N1 Pandemic Is Over. The World Health Organization declared the swine flu pandemic
officially over Tuesday [8/10/2010], months after many national authorities started canceling vaccine orders
and shutting down hot lines as the disease ebbed from the headlines.
The Editor says...
At long last, the "all clear" signal is given. According to the WHO, the "pandemic" was still underway
a year after anybody else thought so. They got as much mileage out of this manufactured crisis as they
could, but eventually they finally had to give it up.
This subsection has moved to a page of its own,
More than a decade
later, SARS offers lessons on Ebola. It was a novel virus whose early symptoms could
easily be mistaken for a dozen other common afflictions. With no treatment or vaccine in hand, it
bubbled up — and quickly mushroomed — in a group of poor, populous countries.
Healthcare workers who treated the infected died by the hundreds. Eventually, the virus boarded
airplanes and crisscrossed the globe, infecting thousands in the span of several months. Millions
more came down with a paralyzing fear of the deadly and mysterious pathogen: severe acute respiratory syndrome.
Here's a rule of thumb about diseases:
The rarer and less likely they are to kill you, the more hype they get. The New York Times ran more than 2,000 articles
on SARS, which ultimately killed zero Americans.
The Fear Equation.
In early March of 2003, when SARS swept into Hong Kong from Southern China, the streets of one of
the world's most densely populated areas were practically deserted. Venders in kiosks sold face
masks and hand sanitizer to anyone brave, or foolish, enough to leave home. The fear of a new highly
contagious disease is understandable, and, with no effective treatment or vaccine for SARS, it was
difficult to know what to do. The World Health Organization recommended that officials in the
countries most affected warn people with a fever to stay off international flights. Hong Kong went
further, using infrared scanners and thermometers to take the temperature of more than thirty-six
million passengers as they arrived. Nineteen hundred and twenty-one of them had a fever, and forty
were admitted to the hospital. None developed SARS. (Canada and Singapore also scanned arriving
passengers. Neither country found anyone with SARS.)
NYC resurrects ban on foam containers.
The New York City Council first banned foam takeout containers in 2013. The law went into effect in 2015 but was quickly
overturned after a group that included a restaurant trade organization and a major foam manufacturer sued the city. The
city's Department of Sanitation has issued a second report maintaining that Styrofoam and other foodservice foams are not
recyclable and wants it banned again. Sanitation Commissioner Kathryn Garcia told Fox 5 that New York City wants to
be at the forefront of the environmental movement. She said Styrofoam tends to fall apart easily, pollutes waterways, and
is not recyclable.
ban begins Friday in D.C. Officials with the Department of Energy and Environment will launch undercover spot
checks to ensure no businesses use the foam containers. Establishments not in compliance will be issued a warning and
given 30 days to follow the new law.
York City ban on foam cups and containers begins July 1. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio fulfilled a
campaign promise on Thursday [1/8/2015] by announcing a ban on serving food and drinks in polystyrene foam containers,
a measure hailed by environmentalists but long opposed by the food service industry.
Another foamy excuse.
Mayor de Blasio has just targeted an old Bloomberg bogeyman: styrofoam. By July 1, single-use
polystyrene foam products — plates, cups, bowls, takeout containers and so forth — will
be banned. By next year, the city will impose fines.
Bloomberg's Last Crusade:
Banning Styrofoam Cups. With the sun finally setting on the Bloomberg empire, New York City's fastidious mayor attempts to
seal his legacy by tackling the most dangerous threat facing America's largest city: styrofoam cups?
Mayor Bloomberg wants to ban Styrofoam. At the request
of the mayor, the City Council's Sanitation Committee is holding a hearing Monday [11/25/2013] on a bill to prohibit the use and sale of plastic foam cups
and plates that have long been ubiquitous in delis, bodegas and even school cafeterias. Deputy Mayor Cas Holloway will testify on behalf of the
administration, which first proposed the ban in the summer and is now rushing to get it enacted into law.
NYC Bill Would Ban
Styrofoam Containers. The New York City Council is considering a bill to ban the sale of food served in polystyrene foam
containers. Mayor Michael Bloomberg and at least 11 Council members publicly support the proposed ban, but consumers
and small business owners are rallying against it. The Bloomberg administration claims the many years it takes polystyrene to
break down in local landfills justifies the product ban. According to the American Chemistry Council, however, polystyrene foam
containers comprise less than 1 percent of landfill waste.
York City's Imperial Mayor Bloomberg Bans Again. Still pulsing with the power from outlawing big servings of sweet
drinks, Michael Bloomberg now wants to run Styrofoam out of his city. Clearly, he believes that everyone has to live exactly as
he wants them to live. During Thursday's State of the City address, New York Mayor Bloomberg called for a ban on
Styrofoam food packaging. It's all a part of his crusade to eliminate smoking, sugary drinks, salt and other items
he doesn't like — and, hence, thinks no one else should have.
NYC Mayor Bloomberg Calling For
Styrofoam Ban. When I sit here lamenting living in the blue state of New York, I take a little solace in knowing
that at least I don't live in New York City and I don't have to put up with that tyrant of a Mayor, Michael Bloomberg. Not
only is he telling people what they can eat and drink, now he's going after food and beverage containers.
City considers ban on Styrofoam cups and
containers. First he dictated the size of our cups — now he wants to ban what they're made of. The
Bloomberg administration is considering banning Styrofoam cups and containers — popular at thousands of delis and food
carts across the city — as it prepares to roll out a major recycling announcement in the coming weeks, a Sanitation Department
official said yesterday [2/6/2013].
Food Fight Waged Over Congressional
Utensils. More than a decade ago, lawmakers pushed for more robust recycling after a number of environmental groups blasted
Congress for having an informal program with questionable results. After becoming speaker in 2007, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi,
D-Calif., introduced the Green the Capitol initiative, which revamped the House with, among other things, new lights and biodegradable
cups and utensils, all meant to reduce the Capitol's carbon footprint.
The Editor says... SO? If that's what you believe, then don't use those cups. That will leave more for
the rest of us. But really, styrofoam products have been marketed since
1954*, and if
there was anything dangerous about it, we'd all be dead by now. Lots of things cause cancer,
apparently. Get used to it. Styrofoam is made from styrene, and...
California Judge Rules Styrene Safe.
Styrene, an organic compound used widely in food packaging and a variety of plastic products, is not a known
carcinogen and therefore cannot be listed among California's Proposition 65 chemicals "known to the
State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm," a California Superior
Court judge has ruled. The decision is a blow to environmental activists who had lobbied to affix the
Prop 65 label to styrene even though no regulatory body anywhere in the world has classified it as a
known human carcinogen.
With the country on the brink of bankruptcy, is this a major priority? House
Democrats renew battle against cafeteria Styrofoam. House Democrats are once again attempting to do away with
Styrofoam products in congressional cafeterias, this time with an amendment to a fiscal 2012 Legislative Branch Appropriations
bill. Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) introduced an anti-Styrofoam amendment on Wednesday [7/13/2011] during an Appropriations
Democrat Moran Fails
to Ban Styrofoam from House Cafeterias. Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) has failed in a bid to secure a
proposed amendment to the 2012 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill that would ban Styrofoam products from
congressional cafeterias. The amendment, introduced Wednesday, failed to pass the House Appropriations
Committee on a 26-18 vote, along party lines.
California Styrofoam Ban Will Hurt
Restaurants And Manufacturing Plants. A California bill to ban polystyrene containers —
affectionately known as Styrofoam — won't go into effect until 2016, but people are already up in
arms. Democratic state Sen. Alan Lowenthal's bill to put a stop to Styrofoam use in grocery stores,
restaurants, and food vendors is set to pass in the Senate. It would be the first state-wide ban of
Styrofoam in the country, though over 50 cities in California, including San Francisco, have already
enacted bans of their own.
Announces Plan to Heavily Reduce Salt in Prepared Foods. Food companies are coming under renewed pressure to
use less salt after U.S. regulators spelled out long-awaited guidelines aimed at reducing sodium levels in dozens of foods
including condiments, cereals, french fries and potato chips. The voluntary goals finalized Wednesday [10/13/2021] for
163 foods are intended to help lower the amount of salt people eat. A majority of the sodium in U.S. diets comes from
packaged or restaurant foods — not the salt added to meals at home — making it hard for people to make
changes on their own.
wants to radically reduce salt in the nation's food supply. Health officials are urging food manufacturers and
services to take drastic action against America's insatiable appetite for salt. The Food and Drug Administration has
asked food-producing companies to slash the amount of salt in their products by at least 12%, giving businesses 2½
years to hit the mark, according to a statement made Wednesday [10/13/2021]. "What we'd like to see is the food
industry gradually lower the sodium content," Acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock told NBC News, targeting
conventionally purchased foods and groceries — namely, processed and prepackaged foods, such as condiments, snacks
and frozen dinners, as well as dishes from chain restaurants.
Awareness Week 2019: Is it really as bad as we're led to believe? How much salt do you consume every day?
Government guidelines say we should limit our intake to no more than 6g per day, but if you're like me, that doesn't mean a
lot. So I got out my kitchen scales and weighed it. Turns out 6g is the equivalent of 1 teaspoon. I looked
at the small pile of white crystals, and imagined sprinkling salt over my fried eggs in the morning or whisking some into a
vinaigrette or seasoning a steak before grilling. Suddenly 6g didn't seem like a lot. But Action on Salt —
the group behind Salt Awareness Week, which runs from 4 to 10 March — wants us to meet that 6g target and
more. We average around 8.1g a day, so we're looking at just over a 25 percent reduction.
Why Everything We
Know About Salt May Be Wrong. New studies of Russian cosmonauts, held in isolation to simulate space travel,
show that eating more salt made them less thirsty but somehow hungrier. Subsequent experiments found that mice
burned more calories when they got more salt, eating 25 percent more just to maintain their weight. The research,
published recently in two dense papers in The Journal of Clinical Investigation, contradicts much of the conventional wisdom
about how the body handles salt and suggests that high levels may play a role in weight loss.
The FDA's Foolish
War on Salt. Earlier this month, as I touched on briefly in a recent column, the FDA issued a "voluntary"
sodium "guidance" for the food industry. The agency is seeking to pressure companies to reduce the salt content of
their foods. It establishes and applies to 150 categories of food. It also creates two- and 10-year salt-reduction
goals, with an eye to allowing time for "American palates to adapt to new tastes and manufacturers to reformulate products."
The FDA claims the guidance is "intended to address the excessive intake of sodium in the current population and promote
improvements in public health." But the plan, I wrote, has "faced sharp criticism." So what's wrong with this
voluntary guidance? Many things. Here are three. First, it's not based on scientific consensus. [...]
The 'War On
Salt' Is Bad Policy Based on Bad Science. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, one of the few openly
authoritarian organizations functioning in the United States, once sued the Food and Drug Administration for refusing to
regulate Americans' salt intake. No worries. This week, the Obama administration finally embraced CSPI's junk
science and allowed the FDA to set new "guidelines" to "nudge" companies into treating a perfectly harmless ingredient as if
it were a dangerous chemical.
Nannies Say New Salt Guidelines [are] Imminent. The Obama administration plans to continue its war on food and
food manufacturers with proposed guidelines for sodium consumption. According to Politico, new sodium guidelines are
set to be released as early as this summer...although the science behind the regulation is confused. The government
effort to get Americans to lower their sodium consumption has stalled on several fronts due to recent studies that contradict
the conventional wisdom that sodium is a "pressing health threat." A new lawsuit filed by the left-wing Center for Science
in the Public Interest should fast-track the voluntary guidelines that were written two years ago but never released, the FDA
says. The suit alleges that the government violated the law by not forcing companies to label certain products with
Obama's latest food crackdown:
Salt. Reducing salt consumption has long been part of the administration's push to get Americans to eat
healthier. But a plan to nudge food companies to take steps to voluntarily reduce sodium in their products, launched
seven years ago, has been stalled amid concerns about political blowback and new studies questioning whether salt is actually
a pressing health threat.
York City brings in salt warnings on menus to tackle heart disease. A symbol of a tiny salt shaker warning that
certain meals are high in sodium will appear on menus in chain restaurants in New York City from this week. The move makes
New York the first US city to use salt labelling in an effort to combat heart disease and stroke. Any menu item containing
more than one teaspoon of salt must display the emblem of a salt shaker in a black triangle.
Uncle Sam's 'science'.
First it was high cholesterol, which the nation's top nutrition panel recently declared is no longer
a "nutrient of concern" — reversing 40 years of official warnings. Now, reports
The Washington Post, the scientific consensus on whether Americans eat too much salt is shifting.
"There is no longer any valid basis for the current salt guidelines" that recommend no more than 2,300 milligrams
of sodium a day, warns one researcher on a landmark study published last year in the New England Journal
of Medicine. "So why," she asks, "are we still scaring people about salt?"
Science-Free Anti-Salt Crusade. It seems that Michael Jacobson, watch commander of
the food police and executive director of the anti-corporate Center for Science in the Public
Interest (CSPI), hates food. On any given day, he is battling with berries, clams, fat free and
fat laden foods. A strict vegetarian, Jacobson has made a lucrative career of attacking America's
nutritional products and scaring hungry consumers. In its last IRS filing, CSPI claimed a budget of
nearly $20 million, not including Jacobson's speaking, writing, and appearance fees. Their
latest target is salt, and his agenda-driven scare tactics have influenced government bureaucrats who
share his vendetta against U.S. corporate food producers. This is especially true of the FDA.
foods that were supposed to be incredibly unhealthy — but are actually anything but. [#4] Salt — Old
Wisdom: Salt kills. It raises blood pressures, causes hypertension and increases the risk of premature death. New Wisdom: Salt
is essential to health. Too little salt can actually lead to premature death. The new wisdom is actually older than the old wisdom.
Long before it became the number-one evildoer in the Department of Agriculture's hit list, worse than fats, sugar and booze, salt was considered so
valuable to body and soul that it was literally used as currency.
Killer salt and
other 'scientific' disasters. Some of you probably missed it, but the Centers for Disease Control announced earlier this
month that consuming reasonable amounts of salt is not dangerous at all, despite decades of "science" claiming that salting up your
steak and potatoes was tantamount to a death sentence. [...] In fact, the CDC has concluded that everyone ought to be eating between
1½ and 3 teaspoons of salt per day. If you have been eating less than a teaspoon of salt a day, you may in fact
be harming yourself.
Feds assail salt: No pizza, chips, Mexican food, chicken tenders, sandwiches. First fatty foods, then sugary drinks, now President
Obama's food police are gunning for salt in their effort to upend the typical kiddy diet. The latest evidence came Tuesday [9/9/2014]
when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a report that school-aged children are eating a mountain of salt. The intake
is so high, that the CDC is recommending a 50 percent cut within eight years.
The "guidelines" will be "voluntary" unless you don't comply. The
Obama Administration Wants Americans To Stop Eating So Much Salt. The FDA, perhaps
still smarting from the recent artisanal cheese kerfuffle, is setting its sights on a bigger
target: salt. "The current level of [sodium] consumption is really higher than it should be,"
said FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg. That's why they're preparing "voluntary guidelines" for the
food industry encouraging them to stay below certain salt levels. While the guidelines will
initially be voluntary, health groups are lobbying for mandatory standards — lobbying that will
only grow more intense if businesses refuse to comply once the standards are released.
Food Nannies Won't Be Stopped
By Shoddy Science. The Food and Drug Administration has begun to look at regulating the amount of salt in "processed" foods, and they're
being cheered on by progressives. ThinkProgress' health reporter Sy Mukherjee asked "why can't the FDA do more to crack down on these additives?",
and lamented that foods generally recognized as safe cannot be so easily controlled by regulatory fiat. Media Matters noted the "positive
effects" from diets with reduced salt and said that those who disagreed with FDA regulations are waging a "war on health."
Cajoles 21 Companies to Remove Salt from Products. On Monday, February 11, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg
announced that he had succeeded in cajoling 21 companies to remove more salt from some food products. Companies such as
Butterball, Heinz, Starbucks, Oscar Mayer, and Kraft Foods have committed to taking more sodium out of products ranging from popcorn,
to cold cuts, to breakfast sandwiches. Bloomberg announced that 21 companies out of 24 agreed to the changes.
Top health-policy doc says city's war on salt is misguided.
City health czar Dr. Thomas Farley is warring with a noted scientist over sodium in the same medical journal where Farley trumpeted the city's war on
salt. "We cannot extrapolate that lowering sodium consumption would reduce cardiovascular risk or premature death," declared Dr. Sean C.
Lucan of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in this month's American Journal of Public Health.
War on Salt Heats Up. Salt is not only the world's most popular
seasoning, but an essential nutrient. If experience is any guide, the mostly voluntary measures to stop us from
consuming it will soon give way to more coercive tactics. Now might be a good time to start stocking up, unless
you want to pay black market prices for something you literally cannot live without.
Federal Effort to
Commandeer the Nation's Salt Shakers Is Based on Bad Science. Salt has always been prized as a
culinary marvel — perking up flavors, masking bitter elements and preventing spoilage. Soup
without salt is excellent for nourishing your garden, but unfit to eat. Any number of dishes taste better
with a dash or two. But many experts and public health organizations see salt as a killer, which in excess
amounts causes high blood pressure and heart disease. They think we would all be better off eating less,
and they want the government to make sure we do.
cops have sour prescription for our diets. There are two things that will make finger-wagging
food cops go ballistic: sugar and salt. ... In May, research published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association reported that, among 3,700 subjects studied over time, the cardiovascular death rate was highest
among those who ate less salt. And in July, a review determined that even a 50 percent salt reduction
is not associated with a significant decrease in heart disease.
The Coming War on Bacon.
Having dramatically expanded the role of the government in your doctor's office and your bank this year, the Obama
administration is turning its attention to your kitchen. Sara Burrows, a reporter for the Carolina Journal, reported
on the ramifications of the Obama administration's war on salt, announced recently as a nationwide decade long program
by the FDA.
Tobacco Tyrants Turn Their Attention To
Salt. Why do food processors put a certain quantity of salt in their products? The answer
is the people who buy their product like it, and they earn profits by pleasing customers. The FDA has
taken the position that what the American buying public wants is irrelevant. They know what's best and
if you disagree, they will fine, jail or put you out of business.
Gateway Spice: FDA Wants To Regulate Salt. The Food and Drug Administration is planning an
unprecedented effort to gradually reduce the salt consumed each day by Americans, saying that less sodium in
everything from soup to nuts would prevent thousands of deaths from hypertension and heart disease. The
initiative, to be launched this year, would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt
allowed in food products.
The Editor says...
I'd rather take my chances with too much salt than with too much government.
FDA Plans to Force a
National Salt Cutback. To use one of the president's favorite words, this expansion of the Nanny
State is unprecedented. The federal agency believes that, without further authorization from Congress,
it can go ahead and take charge of our palates. ... Alas, now that the government has taken an even larger
stake in the health-care industry, it will now busy itself finding inexorably more intrusive ways to govern
our personal health.
A Matter of Bad Taste.
Earlier this year, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg unveiled the National Salt Reduction Initiative, a set
of "voluntary" guidelines to cut the amount of sodium in processed and restaurant foods by 20 percent over
the next five years. ... In order to make 308 million lives worth living, a mayor is telling a country
how to consume grilled cheeses and frankfurters.
Pol: Ban all salt from
restaurant cooking. Brooklyn Assemblyman Felix Ortiz has introduced legislation to eliminate the
use of salt "in any form" in preparing food in every restaurant in the state — a move similar to
Mayor Bloomberg's efforts to change people's eating habits, including reducing salt intake. Ortiz['s] bill
calls for a ban on salt.
Public health groups want Uncle Sam to start separating us from salt for our own good — along with
saturated fat and sugar. Uncle Sam is listening — and doing. Call it the blanding of America.
Or call it another blow by the nanny state for freedom — freedom from our undisciplined appetites.
Freedom from personal responsibility. Freedom from choice. Why, even freedom from freedom.
Look, freedom from freedom works for zoo animals, doesn't it?
Federal War on Salt Could
Spoil Country Hams. If the food police get their way, North Carolinians can kiss their country
hams, bacon, and fresh Bright Leaf hot dogs goodbye. These Southern specialties might not disappear
altogether, but, if the health agency's crusade against salt is successful, they never would taste the
next Obamacare target: Your bacon sandwich. Are you prepared to go from the supermarket to
the black market for your bacon? The Food and Drug Administration is preparing to lower the boom on
sodium content in American food. And companies are scrambling to lower the salt levels in their products
in advance of the new rules.
FDA Is Urged
To Toughen Rules on Salt. A consumer group prodded the Food and Drug Administration yesterday to
regulate salt as a food additive, arguing that excessive salt consumption by Americans may be responsible for
more than 100,000 deaths a year. The government has long placed salt in a "generally recognized as
safe" or GRAS category, which grandfathers in a huge list of familiar food ingredients. But in an FDA
hearing yesterday [11/29/2007], the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) urged the agency to
enforce tougher regulations for sodium.
Autism Fraud Just the Tip of the Iceberg.
The lead author of that anti-vaccine study, which also appeared in one most respected medical journals, The
Lancet, was British physician Andrew Wakefield. And its consequences include millions of terrified
and confused parents, large drops in vaccination rates and death. Yet while this "deliberate fraud" has
been exposed, others continue to go unchallenged, or worse, get trumpeted by reporters who should know better.
Regarding Wakefield, many people, including me, have spent years puncturing his claims and those of his acolytes
in the anti-vaccine movement. But a media that thrives on sensationalism instead played up the phony link.
Banner Day For Junk Science. A 1998 British medical study linking autism to childhood vaccines by Dr.
Andrew Wakefield, published as fact in the prestigious Lancet journal, was exposed by a rival as a fraud.
According to an investigation from U.K. medical journal BMJ, Wakefield misrepresented or altered the medical
histories of all 12 patients in his study.
Journal Claims Doc's Study Linking Vaccines to Autism Fueled By Money. The link between Autism and
the Measles, Mumps, Rubella vaccine (MMR) is the medical version of the "birther" and "truther" stories. The
findings of the original scientific paper haves never been duplicated, the original paper was withdrawn as false by
the medical journal which originally published it and the Doctor who conducted the study lost his licence because
of the rules he broke while conducting it. Despite all of that evidence, there are people for whom there is
not enough evidence in the world to convince them the original study was bogus.
The report that first triggered scares that a vaccine to prevent measles, mumps and rubella might cause autism in children
has received another devastating blow to its credibility. The British Medical Journal has declared that the research
was not simply bad science, as has been known for years, but a deliberate fraud.
Redefining "Autism," "Poor," and Other Words in
Misleading Ways. [Scroll down] Genuine autism is a truly tragic condition, both for those afflicted by it and for
their parents. Few people would have any problem with the idea that both voluntary donations and government expenditures are well
spent to help those suffering from autism. "Autism," however, has been sweepingly redefined over the years. What was
discovered and defined as autism back in 1943 is just one of a number of conditions now included as being part of "the autism
spectrum." Many, if not most, of these conditions are nowhere near as severe as autism, or even as clearly defined. [...] Before
1990, 1 child out of 2,500 was said to be autistic. This year, it is said to be 1 out of 88.
Have You Used Siloxanes Today? Yes! In April of this
year, Canadian Environmental Minister, Peter Kent, announced that the government of Canada had concluded that siloxane D5 was not harmful
to the environment. D5 is used in a host of consumer and industrial products including automobile parts, and life-saving medical
devices. Why, then, should you be concerned about siloxanes? The answer is that you shouldn't.
The EPA's Long War on Chemicals.
Currently in the EPA's chemical action plan crosshairs are siloxanes, a type of silicone which, in turn, comes mostly from sand.
Siloxanes are inert, non-allergenic, odorless and colorless. They've been safely used for decades in thousands of consumer and
industrial products — everything from medical cream and sunscreen to automobile tires, high-efficiency insulation and
spacecraft. There are a wide variety of siloxanes, but the EPA isn't saying which ones have been targeted making it almost
impossible for outside parties to provide any sort of meaningful input to the process. If you wanted to stack the deck
against something, that would be a great way to do it.
bees stolen from a grocery store's headquarters. A grocery store in Pennsylvania got a not-so-sweet deal when
nearly 60,000 bees were stolen from one of its pollinator farms. The Giant Company has alerted beekeepers in the area
after three beehives and their colonies were stolen from the company headquarters in Harrisburg Pike between Jan. 28-30.
"Bees are an essential part of our food supply chain and having these beehives were one way we were helping to address the
declining bee population here in our hometown community," said Community Impact Manager Jessica Groves in a press release
obtained by the Associated Press.
What really harms
the bees? Some myths have the tendency of never going away. Lightning does, in fact, strike at the same
place twice, your zodiac sign doesn't mean anything, and a penny dropped from the Empire State Building wouldn't kill a
person. More elaborate myths have benefited from popular supporters and even made their way into parliaments and
governments, one of which being the infamous "Beepocalypse." The idea that bee populations are on the decline has been
debunked for more than half a decade, most notably through reporting in the Washington Post, which pointed out that contrary
to popular belief, bee populations are at record highs. In fact, only 2% of wild species provide 80% of crop
pollination, and those 2% are thriving. However, legislators and activist organizations are still using "bee decline"
as a common reference to support or enact legislation to ban neonicotinoid insecticides in the European Union.
pollinators from an imaginary bee-pocalypse. A torrent of media stories from 2013-2014 presented frightening
tales of "unprecedented" colony collapse disorder (CCD) among honeybees, conjuring up visions of a "bee-pocalypse" and "a
world without bees," a world in which flowers and agriculture would be decimated. Many articles blamed neonicotinoid
pesticides, while others added climate change and biotech (GMO) crops as likely culprits. Some mentioned Varroa
destructor mites and various viruses and diseases as possible causes. Virtually none suggested that organic food
industry chemicals could also be implicated in bee deaths. The overall tone was "deep concern," bordering on
hysteria. But it sold papers and air time. Over the next few years, the number of US honey-producing bee colonies
(hives) generally and gradually increased, though with bumps in the road. There were 100,000 more hives in 2014 than in
2013, and numbers went on a slight roller coaster in subsequent years, up and down in the same range as 1993-2012.
Change is Not Decimating Bees. Several media outlets — namely National Public Radio — are
touting a tall tale that climate change is decimating bee populations throughout North America. The (false) alarm is
based on a February 7 study published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The study,
however, is deeply flawed and does not change the very low likelihood of climate change seriously impacting bee populations.
After examining the study, titled "Climate change contributes to widespread declines among bumble bees across continents" —
one immediately notices that there is a key issue missing that is not discussed in the paper at all: Colony Collapse
Disorder (CCD). In non-scientific jargon, CCD occurs when entire hives suddenly experience population crashes. CCD
has been called the honeybee's biggest enemy by scientific researchers. [...] Neither the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
nor the International Union for Conservation of Nature believe a climate-caused bee crisis is on the horizon.
No Wild Bee-pocalypse, Either! [Scroll down] Once again, disingenuous activists intent on banning
neonics are wrong on the facts and, therefore, also on the policy. Claims that wild bee populations are in peril and
declining — specifically, due to the widespread use of neonics — have emerged over the last several
years, as "progress" toward a ban on neonics, which seemed to be moving ahead in the European Union, stalled. The
two-year "partial ban" adopted by the EU in 2013, though still in place despite its ostensibly temporary nature, had still
not yielded the definitive, permanent prohibition sought by the activists. The anti-neonic crowd had hinged its initial
condemnation of neonics on their supposed dire threat to honeybees, but that presented a host of problems.
in decline for decades, finding new homes in unusual places. Between the rumblings of rolling suitcases and
idling aircraft engines, some travelers may miss the new buzzing sound at the world's busiest airport. Through a
partnership with Bee Downtown — a start-up that introduces beehives to companies in cities — Delta is
the first U.S. airline to integrate honeybees into its world headquarters, which straddles Atlanta International Airport.
killer bees threaten Texas neighborhood: 'It was like a horror movie'. One million aggressive bees have swarmed
a Texas neighborhood and residents are unsure of what to do. The bees have set up shop in an east El Paso home for
about three years, but homeowners said the insects have lately become more aggressive. The couple told KFOX14 that they
are worried about people who walk by the home and the children who go to school nearby. Bee specialist Pyong Livingston
went to the home to remove the hive but the bees became agitated during extraction. Rudy Reyes, a KFOX14 photographer,
reported that he was stung eight times while shooting video of the bees.
of bees killed and $60G in damage done by vandals in Iowa, police say. Vandals destroyed 50 beehives and did
$60,000 in damage to a local honey business in Iowa on Thursday [12/28/2017], police said. The owners of Wild Hill
Honey in Sioux City discovered the destruction, which also resulted in thousands of bees being killed, when they went to
clear snow off them Thursday morning [12/28/2017].
The Editor says...
If this was an act of eco-terrorism (and why else would somebody attack fifty
beehives?), I can understand why the environmentalists would be totally silent about it. You can't complain about a shortage
of bees while someone's intentionally wrecking beehives, especially if it was done as some kind of animal rights statement.
dies after getting attacked by bees in yard. Family and friends are mourning the loss of a Massachusetts father
who died of what is believed to be a heart attack after he was swarmed by bees while blowing leaves from his lawn. Eric
Dahl, 48, was said to be in excellent health and had no prior incidents involving bees, his wife, Alison, told The Sun Chronicle.
No shortage of bees here: 'Gigantic mob' of bees attack in California,
six people hospitalized. Six people were hospitalized after a swarm of bees attacked people on the outskirts of Los Angeles
on Saturday [9/16/2017], forcing authorities to cordon off the area. Firefighters were called to the incident shortly before 5pm on
Saturday following reports that people were being stung by bees in the parking lot of a grocery store in Monterey Park, a city in the
suburbs of LA.
Are Bouncing Back From Colony Collapse Disorder. The number of U.S. honeybees, a critical component to agricultural production, rose
in 2017 from a year earlier, and deaths of the insects attributed to a mysterious malady that's affected hives in North America and Europe declined,
according a U.S. Department of Agriculture honeybee health survey released Tuesday [8/1/2017]. The number of commercial U.S. honeybee colonies
rose 3 percent to 2.89 million as of April 1, 2017 compared with a year earlier, the Agriculture Department reported. The
number of hives lost to Colony Collapse Disorder, a phenomenon of disappearing bees that has raised concerns among farmers and scientists for a decade,
was 84,430 in this year's first quarter, down 27 percent from a year earlier. Year-over-year losses declined by the same percentage in April
through June, the most recent data in the survey.
We're better at
tracking the deaths of bees than people who die in police custody. As with deaths in custody, the issue of
honeybee deaths is not new. Colony collapse disorder — the generic term for mass exodus of adult worker bees
from a given colony — is nearly vernacular, and wonks routinely debate the scale of the problem and its long-term
consequences. Such debates hinge on quantitative modeling, on forecasts that correlate honeybee population against crop
yields or ecosystem resilience. Ask any beekeeper: the only way to know how many bees are around is to count them.
to Worry. The Bees are Just Fine. I don't know if it has always been so, but the current age seems to
have a deep belief in catastrophe waiting right around the corner. And things like "Colony Collapse Disorder" are more
comfortable to worry about than problems like ISIS, or corrupt federal agencies like the IRS, or a lack of economic recovery
because the current occupant of the White House can't stop regulating, and controlling, and spending in direct violation of
the U.S. Constitution.
Bees Healthy, Taxpayers Stung. One year and $82 million after the Obama administration launched its Pollinator Health
Task Force, honey bee colonies are doing great — just as they were one year before the advent of Obama's costly initiative. In fact,
2014 witnessed a 20-year high in numbers of managed honey-producing colonies, according to the most recent data available from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). So why do we need a Pollinator Health Task Force? Obama's excuse is that honeybees are
dying in record numbers, jeopardizing both honey production and $15 billion worth of pollinated food crops. [...] Nevertheless,
U.S. honey farmers have maintained fairly steady hive totals over the past two decades. Honey-producing colonies numbered
2.77 million in 1994, 2.56 million in 2004, and 2.74 million in 2014. How have they managed it? Quite
simply, seasonal dieoffs are nothing new, and beekeepers know how to deal with them.
Now? Nope. You've probably heard by now that bees are mysteriously dying. In 2006,
commercial beekeepers began to witness unusually high rates of honeybee die-offs over the winter —
increasing from an average of 15 percent to more than 30 percent. Everything from genetically
modified crops to pesticides (even cell phones) has been blamed. The phenomenon was soon given a name:
colony collapse disorder. Ever since, the media has warned us of a "beemaggedon" or "beepocalypse" posing a
"threat to our food supply." By 2013, NPR declared that bee declines may cause "a crisis point for crops,"
and the cover of Time magazine foretold of a "world without bees." This spring, there was more bad news.
Beekeepers reported losing 42.1 percent of their colonies over the last year, prompting more worrisome
headlines. Based on such reports, you might believe that honeybees are nearly gone by now.
Obama announces plan to
save honey bees. Honey bees pollinate fruit, nuts and vegetables, and are crucial for
the nation's food industry. They have declined sharply in recent years due to various factors,
including pesticides, mite infestations and loss of genetic diversity, the White House said Friday
The Editor says...
By now you should instinctively know that just because "the White House says" something, it's not
necessarily true, especially on environmental matters that may not be a problem at all, on which
the White House wants to spend tens of millions of dollars (from what source?) without putting the
matter to a vote in the Congress, where we have elected representatives.
'Federal Strategy' to Protect Bees Includes DoD, National Security Council. In a
presidential memorandum issued on Friday [6/27/2014], President Barack Obama announced a "federal strategy to
promote the health of honey bees and other pollinators" with the help of agencies including the
Defense Department and the National Security Council. Pollinators such as honey bees and
butterflies contribute to the economy through benefits to agricultural crops, but their numbers are
declining because of a "combination of stressors," including nutrition, habitat, parasites,
diseases, pesticides and a lack of genetic diversity, the memo stated.
Bees doing just fine, finds EU, but continues to ban the pesticide which didn't harm
them. [Scroll down] "Honeybee decline is less dramatic than first thought," the survey admits. What it
also shows is that bee colonies are mainly being wiped out in winter not summer — which is the opposite of what would
happen if neonicotinoid pesticides were responsible for their deaths. The real killer, it turns out, was the harsh winter
of 2012/2013 — as shown by the fact that the majority of the affected hives were in the colder countries of Northern
Europe, rather than the southern ones.
Bees are in Danger? Another Environmental Lie
Exposed. I cannot say it strong enough. Do not believe the lies that environmental groups, particularly those that receive
millions from liberal foundations and from members who never question the "science" they claim to justify massive scare campaigns. One such
organization is Friends of the Earth (FOE) and its latest claim is that bees are dying all over the world as the result of the use of pesticides
in agriculture and by people protecting their gardens. It is a lie.
Bee Deaths May Stem From Virus, Study
Says. The mysterious mass die-offs of honeybees that have wiped out roughly a third of commercial colonies each year since
2006 may be linked to a rapidly mutating virus that jumped from tobacco plants to soy plants to bees, according to a new study.
Science, Belief and Policy.
[S]ometimes, in the world of realpolitik, a decision to take temporary action becomes by default a mandate for permanent change. For example,
the use of neonicotinoid insecticides in the EU has been temporarily banned as a precautionary measure because of possible (but unproven) links to
steep declines in bee populations. Because it will probably be no clearer in two years' time which are the important factors affecting bee
health, it is quite likely this ban will be extended, even if bee populations have failed to increase. No real attention is likely to be
given to the overall balance of costs and benefits to farming, the food supply, the countryside or consumers, simply the hypothetical possibility
of harm to bees. Ratcheting up of restrictions on pesticides is a sign of a highly risk-averse society.
green bullying, junk science and EU lies killed off yet another successful industry. [Scroll down] The Greenies had them in their
sights and there was an end to it: on went the bee costumes, up went the placards, out came Vivienne Westwood and Stephen Fry, and really, if
the only place you got your information was the mainstream media that would have been all you would have ever heard of it. You'd have
known — simply because you did: it was a known fact — that neonicotinoids were killing bees and had to be banned.
Except a) it wasn't true and b) the story gets murkier and murkier. We now know that the EU ban on neonicotinoids in May this year
was enacted not on the basis of any hard scientific evidence, but rather as a result of manoeuvrings by a socialist French ex-MEP [...]
There is no bee crisis. Contrary to what you may have
heard, there is no "bee-pocalypse." There is lots of alarmist talk about colony collapse disorder, people are blaming pesticides and talking about
hundreds of billions of dollars at risk. But a closer look tells a very different story. Yes, honeybees are dying in above-average
numbers, but the most likely cause is the varroa mite and associated viruses. Moreover, if you look at the actual numbers, they undermine
much of the catastrophic rhetoric.
Washington Ag Department
Rejects Asserted Pesticide Link to Bee Decline. The Washington State Department of Agriculture rejected a request to ban a garden pesticide that
environmental activist groups have unsuccessfully attempted to link to declines in the honeybee population. Responding to environmental activists' assertions,
Thurston County commissioners asked the Washington Department of Agriculture to ban homeowners from purchasing neonicotinoid pesticides. Neonicotinoid
pesticides are commonly used to kill aphids and other insects that attack home garden plants.
like "global warming" is off the hook for honeybee deaths. I published a story about the loony
idea that was proposed by some researcher in Europe about "cell phone radiation may be killing bees". I
pointed out that it was garbage then, as it is now. ... Fast forward to 2012, it looks like the culprit for
colony collapse disorder has been found and it has nothing to do with global warming.
Tied to Global Bee Deaths. The sudden collapse of honeybee colonies around the world, a condition
identified in 2004, is most likely caused by the parasite Nosema ceranae, not the human causes alleged by
environmental activist groups, Spanish researchers have reported in Environmental Microbiology Reports, a
journal of the Society for Applied Microbiology.
farmer killed by swarm of bees. A Texas farmer who disturbed an underground bee colony
while plowing a field died after he was stung hundreds of times by a swarm that attacked him, a fire
official said on Monday [6/29/2015].
plans to launch world's first "artificial moon" over city to light up night sky. The world's first artificial
moon could be launched by 2020, China Daily reports. China's space industry is preparing to put an artificial moon into
orbit over the city of Chengdu. The fake moon is expected to be launched from the Xichang Satellite Launch Center in
China's Sichuan province. The artificial moon will act as a nightlight. Similar to the real moon, the artificial
one will have a reflective coating that deflects sunlight to the Earth — only it will shine eight times brighter
than the real moon, scientists say, according to China Daily.
Plans To Launch Multiple Artificial Moons Into Orbit By 2022. In a move that could save hundreds of millions of
dollars in annual electricity costs, the Chinese government is planning to launch a "fake moon" into space in 2020. The
moon, according to China Daily, is actually an "illumination satellite" featuring reflective panels. These panels will
catch and release light from the sun just as the moon does, although Wu Chunfeng, head of Tian Fu New Area Science Society in
Chengdu, says the satellite has the potential to be approximately eight times as bright as the natural celestial reflector.
The satellite will allegedly be able to adjust its brightness, aim light in different directions (a possible aid in times of
disaster), and limit or expand its ground coverage, which could range from 6 to 50 miles in diameter.
The Editor says...
Why would China do this? Is it really a project that will keep a night-light on for the entire country as "a possible aid in times of
disaster," or is it a way to keep farmers and slaves working all night? Presumably these reflectors would be controlled so that they
light up only Chinese territory. What happens when the Chinese lose control of the satellites, and they start pointing reflected
sunlight in other directions? Where are the "light pollution" activists now? Are there no astronomers in China? They can't
be happy about this idea.
The following article reeks with bias and misinformation: Earth
Is Lit, And That's A Problem. The ever-widening use of artificial lights is making the nighttime Earth glow
increasingly brighter, with the amount of global light growing about 2 percent each year. That worries advocates for
the protection of dark skies, who say that artificial night glow can affect wildlife like migrating birds and keeps people
from connecting to the stars. What's more, they say, all that wasted light sent out into space is effectively wasted
money. The findings are in a new study in the journal Science Advances that used five years of data from a
satellite launched in 2011. This satellite has an instrument that gives scientists a more reliable way to measure nighttime
light than they've had in the past.
The Editor says...
It is impossible to keep the excess light from street lights and automobile headlights from reflecting off the ground, and out into space, without
turning off the lights altogether. When excess light escapes into space, that is not "effectively wasted money." In any event, widespread prosperity
and the well-being of mankind is far more important than occasionally disoriented birds and a handful of disappointed back yard astronomers. One cannot
set up a telescope in an urban environment and reasonably expect to see faint stars anyway. And another thing — who paid for that satellite?
And how many more satellites are being built to solve problems we don't really have?
cities are taking another look at LED lighting after AMA warning. The American Medical Association issued a
warning in June that high-intensity LED streetlights — such as those in Seattle, Los Angeles, New York, Houston
and elsewhere — emit unseen blue light that can disturb sleep rhythms and possibly increase the risk of serious
health conditions, including cancer and cardiovascular disease. The AMA also cautioned that those light-emitting-diode
lights can impair nighttime driving vision. Similar concerns have been raised over the past few years, but the AMA
report adds credence to the issue and is likely to prompt cities and states to reevaluate the intensity of LED lights they install.
Doctors issue warning about
LED streetlights. [Scroll down] An incandescent bulb has a color temperature of 2400K, which means it
contains far less blue and far more yellow and red wavelengths. Before electric light, we burned wood and candles at
night; this artificial light has a CT of about 1800K, quite yellow/red and almost no blue. What we have now is very
different. The new "white" LED street lighting which is rapidly being retrofitted in cities throughout the country has
two problems, according to the AMA. The first is discomfort and glare.
The Editor says...
The article immediately above is nothing but liberal propaganda. Incandescent bulbs haven't been used for street lighting in at least 40 years. LED lights are
being used now because [#1] environmentalists complain about "light pollution," and [#2] environmentalists complain about the electricity consumed by street lights.
"Problem" #1 isn't a problem at all: well-lit urban areas are a deterrent to crime, and surveillance cameras work better with lots of light. The street lights
are pointing down (for your benefit), and the high-intensity headlights of the oncoming cars are pointed right at you. Many are arc lamps, and some are LEDs.
"Problem" #2 wouldn't be a problem at all if the left-wing earth-worshiping tree-huggers would cease their opposition to coal-fired power plants and nuclear
energy. As far as the allegedly damaging effects of higher color temperatures and shorter light wavelengths, street lights don't emit anything as harsh and intense
as ordinary sunlight, which has a high ultraviolet content. Moreover, the majority of those who are all worked up about the color temperature of streetlights
are also staring at a computer screen or a television most of their waking hours. How many minutes per day are they outdoors?
Now EPA Looking to
Regulate 'Light Pollution'. For thousands of years, man has sought to ward off the dark by using light to illuminate the
night. Now, EPA chief Gina McCarthy and celebrity astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson want to take us back a few thousand years by
giving the agency the ability to deal with "light pollution." The only way to deal with light pollution is to, well, turn off
the lights. This will be a boon to astronomers like Tyson who will be able to see the stars and planets a lot better. But
for the rest of us, not so good. Crime will rise, accidents will increase, and more people will die just so that Tyson can study
The Editor says...
How many astronomers are there in the U.S.? There are 12,436 Individual Members in the International Astronomical Union, worldwide,
and 2,796 National Members in the U.S. There are also
backyard amateur stargazers who enjoy astronomy as a very expensive hobby. Not all of them are affected by extraneous light,
because many serious professional astronomers work at isolated observatories (for example, Fort Davis, Texas) where the locals are
very careful about outdoor lighting at night. What would be gained by shutting off all light sources in the United States,
for the benefit of a few thousand members of this "special interest group" who, by and large, have only one long-term goal, and that is to disprove
the first chapter of the Bible and come up with their own theories about the origin of the universe. So-called light pollution is a problem
that almost nobody cares about, but any "solution" enacted by the EPA would add huge costs to the construction and operation of every highway, office
building, factory and refinery. There is an abundance of light at night only in prosperous, productive, and free countries. Places like
North Korea and Cuba don't have such "problems," although their citizens would probably enjoy it. Times Square in New York City is as
well-illuminated as a football field, every night of the year, because of all the self-luminous advertising on the walls of the urban canyon.
There's a big crowd of tourists there every night. That's capitalism at work — and capitalism is what the America-hating tyrant Barack H.
Obama and his heavily-politicized EPA abhor most.
chief: Light pollution 'in our portfolio'. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy [...], who has
led the EPA in its recent campaigns to put strict regulations on power plants and U.S. waterways, was asked by astrophysicist Neil
deGrasse Tyson if he could suggest a new mission for the agency. "So is there a day, is there some occasion, where I can add
light pollution to your portfolio," he asked McCarthy during a segment released for Sunday's [1/3/2016] episode of "Star Talk," a weekly
late-night talk show he hosts on National Geographic. "Well, this is another thing that's been called to our attention for
satellites," McCarthy answered. "The imagery of the United States at night shows all those flares from oil and gas in places
that are in the middle of nowhere. It is startling to me, to see the change in the night sky."
Courts against Proposition 65. Around 1.8 million tons of glyphosate has been used across the U.S. since 1974.
Such a commonly used chemical has obviously demanded a rigorous health and safety assessment. It has repeatedly been certified as
non-threatening to humans from regulatory bodies all over the world, including in the U.S., Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and
Japan. The controversy over the substance arose when IARC — a semi-autonomous branch of the World Health Organization
(WHO) based in Lyon, France, which was recently slammed by House Science Committee members for its "manipulation of scientific data"
and "shoddy work" — found it "probably carcinogenic" to humans. Despite the fact that this remains the only major
study to reach such a conclusion, IARC's ruling meant that glyphosate was automatically added to California's Proposition 65
list, a lengthy catalogue of supposed carcinogens.
Scientist Withheld Evidence Popular Herbicide Doesn't Cause Cancer. The Reuters news agency uncovered evidence
a study by a World Health Organization scientist concluding the popular herbicide Roundup is a probable carcinogen is
wrong. Reuters' investigation found the lead scientist involved in the research withheld key data indicating the weed
killer is safe, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and European Food Safety Authority concluded in the 1970s when
they approved Roundup for use. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health
Organization, declared glyphosate (Roundup) a probable carcinogen in December 2015. Since then, citing the IARC's findings
as evidence, hundreds of plaintiffs have filed suit against Monsanto, Roundup's manufacturer, saying the company failed to warn
them about the risks from Roundup or that it caused their cancers.
Left-Wing Science Scandal. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in RoundUp, the most widely used herbicide in
the world. Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide, meaning it will kill just about any plant. Since it would
kill the crop as well as the weeds, for quite a few years it couldn't be used over the top of an emerging crop.
Instead, its use was restricted to lower-value burndown situations, where weeds in a field would be killed prior to planting,
or, e.g., to keep down weeds on railroad rights of way.
of Monsanto's 'Roundup' Called Into Question. The European Chemicals Agency on Wednesday said glyphosate, the
key chemical in Monsanto Co.'s flagship herbicide, doesn't cause cancer, but the agricultural giant is facing new questions
over the safety of the weedkiller. [...] Glyphosate, which Monsanto invented and has marketed since 1974 under the brand
"Roundup," is the world's most widely used herbicide. Its use proliferated with the advent of corn and soybeans
genetically engineered to survive the spray. It has been deployed to destroy everything from illegal coca crops in
Colombia to weeds sprouting among railroad tracks. Monsanto generated $3.5 billion in sales last year from its
agricultural-productivity division, which largely reflects its Roundup business.
farmers sue Monsanto over Roundup. Three cancer-stricken Nebraska farmers and an agronomist are suing Monsanto, alleging that the
company misled consumers about the safety of Roundup, the most widely used herbicide around the globe. The World Health Organization labeled
glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, as a likely carcinogen last year. The four Nebraskans suing all have non-Hodgkin's lymphoma,
one of the types of cancer glyphosate is most associated with, the Lincoln Journal-Star reports.
immediately yanks study showing weed killer doesn't cause cancer. Before jumping into this rather odd story,
one quick question: is the EPA really the appropriate agency to oversee a study on whether or not some product causes
cancer? I mean, if the Center for Disease Control wants to be in the business of studying gun violence instead of the
Department of Justice in general or the FBI in particular, I suppose it fits in with the "logic" of the federal government,
but their main mission seems to be rather far afield from medical work. We'll leave that mystery for another day and
get on to the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency recently did, in fact, release a study which shows that
glyphosate — the primary ingredient in general purpose week killers like Roundup — is not carcinogenic.
Opposing viewpoint: EPA
in bed with Monsanto / Bayer, burying studies that show glyphosate causes cancer. With so much scientific
evidence supporting the fact that glyphosate causes cancer, how can anyone still believe that weed killers that contain it,
like Monsanto's Roundup — now part of Bayer — are somehow safe? The answer is simple: The
company has the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its pocket, and they're all too willing to help them cover up
damning evidence that their products are toxic. The EPA is a government agency, and Monsanto knows that lots of people
trust authoritative groups supposedly tasked with "protecting" us. It's been a mutually beneficial relationship over
the years, with a recent piece in Bloomberg Businessweek — hardly part of the "alternative media" —
breaking down the dirty details of their dealings over the years.
This subsection has moved to a subsection on the California page,
Calls For 'A Billion' People To 'Stop Eating Meat'. A speaker at the World Economic Forum (WEF) called for
one "billion" people to "stop eating meat" Wednesday, saying it would have a "big impact" on the "current food system"
and help reduce carbon emissions. "If a billion people stop eating meat, I tell you, it has a big impact.
Not only does it have a big impact on the current food system, but it will also inspire innovation of food systems," Jim
Hagemann Snabe, chairman of the Germany-based conglomerate Siemens AG, said during a panel called "Mobilizing for
Climate." The WEF's conference in Davos, Switzerland, attended by many world leaders and top business executives,
started Monday and runs through Friday.
Red meat is not a health
risk. New study slams years of shoddy research. Studies have been linking red meat consumption to
health problems like heart disease, stroke, and cancer for years. But nestled in the recesses of those published
papers are notable limitations. Nearly all the research is observational, unable to tease out causation
convincingly. Most are plagued by confounding variables. For example, perhaps meat eaters simply eat fewer
vegetables, or tend to smoke more, or exercise less? Moreover, many are based on self-reported consumption.
The simple fact is that people can't remember what they eat with any accuracy. And lastly, the reported effect
sizes in these scientific papers are often small. Is a supposed 15% greater risk of cancer really worth worrying about?
Dangers of Climate Change Activists. What is it about people who are successful in one field and believe that
gives them credence to serve as an expert in a totally unrelated field? Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft and
reportedly the fourth-richest person on the planet, now self-identifies as a climate expert, and not only an expert, but a
fervent disciple of the latest religion for the non-religious, which would be "climate change." In a new book,
"How to Avoid a Climate Disaster," Gates takes the rhetoric to a new and hysterical level when he claims the battle
against changing climate is "an all-out effort, like a world war, but it's us against greenhouse gases." As all statists
do, he urges "regulation to force people to eat synthetic meat." Gates invests in a synthetic meat company called Beyond
Burgers. Anyone else see a potential conflict of interest? He's not alone. Al Gore, the original "Chicken Little"
of climate panic, has lobbied for climate policies that limit meat while his firm invests $200 million in meat substitutes.
Don't eat the bug burger. Don't
eat the soy burger. Eat beef. [Thread reader] When [people] say, "American cuisine is McD's," there's a
grain of truth. Most people don't exactly know the truth, so they don't exactly know the lie, either, so they just take it, or
sputter helplessly. Most Americans don't know the expression, "Beef and Liberty!" They should. "Beef and Liberty!"
sounds like hipster irony, but it's not. It was a fairly common expression of English patriotism in the 18th century.
It was even the motto of one of London's most prestigious beef-steak clubs (back then, men belonged to steakhouses like country
clubs). But why? What makes eating beef so British that one of the (many) French epithets for Brits is les rosbifs?
Because it's expensive. Cows require so much more food and space than other animals, that domesticating them in large numbers
was historically a gentleman's endeavor. A European peasant of the pre-industrial age could hardly afford beef, let alone
go into the beef business.
At What Point
Do We Realize Bill Gates Is Dangerous? Bill Gates is [...] willing to put untold sums of money toward making the insane things
he believes a reality — and all of those insane things hurt people. The most recent idiocy? Impossible Burgers for all
the white people. [...] This isn't even the scariest idea-biscuit Gates has floated. [...] He's an unelected software developer with no medical
training; nothing about him suggests he's qualified to make public policy on healthcare for an entire planet, no matter how heavily he wants to
buy his way in. What this comes down to, though, is that Bill Gates has been so rich for so long that he's spent the bulk of his adult
life without anyone telling him he's wrong. That has the same corrosive effect on character and sanity that you see in the case of kings
expert' Bill Gates' synthetic beef folly. What is it about people who are successful in one field and believe
that gives them credence to serve as an expert in a totally unrelated field? Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft and
reportedly the fourth-richest person on the planet, now self-identifies as a climate expert, and not only an expert, but a
fervent disciple of the latest religion for the non-religious, which would be "climate change." In a new book, "How to
Avoid a Climate Disaster," Mr. Gates takes the rhetoric to a new and hysterical level when he claims the battle against
changing climate is "an all-out effort, like a world war, but it's us against greenhouse gases."
Gates's Fake Steak is Reverse 'Jack and the Beanstalk', The Rich are Stealing From the Poor Again. Just when
you thought it might be unsafe to venture out for food in the new Utopian leftist America and make your own choices about
eating, the HeMan of the Universe Bill Gates himself, fresh off of a tour of redesigning education and healthcare, has now
gotten into the plastic bean steak business. "Bill Gates wants wealthier nations around the globe to ditch eating beef
and instead switch to lab-grown or plant-based alternative "meats" in an effort to combat climate change," Breck Dumas wrote
in an article for The Blaze. Yes, Gates wants people to eat "synthetic steak". For people who make a living off of
tell Gates, "yes," this sounds like a brilliant idea. For the rest of humanity, the idea falls a little flat.
Gates: 'All rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef'. Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates said in a new
interview that all rich countries should transition to 100% synthetic beef in order to significantly curb the greenhouse-gas
emissions driving climate change. In an interview published Sunday [2/14/2021] by MIT Technology Review,
Mr. Gates, who is now co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and chair of the investment fund Breakthrough
Energy Ventures, said the U.S. switching to plant-based meats like those sold by Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat will be
"required" for saving the planet. "As for scale today, they don't represent 1% of the meat in the world, but they're on
their way," he said.
The Editor says...
Saving the planet from what? For the benefit of whom? At what price?
Vegetarianism Won't Save the World from 'Climate Change'. Vegetarians and vegans have been getting very uppity
of late. One reason for this is that some idiot told them they hold the key to saving the world. According to the
(rampantly vego-loon) Humane Society "your diet could save the planet". According to Yvo de Boer, the former head of
the UN climate agency, "the best solution would be for us all to become vegetarian."
The Editor says...
After we give up meat, and air conditioning, and coal, and petroleum, and the internal combustion engine, and then pay a "carbon tax"
on everything we do, there's no guarantee the world will be any better off — and we certainly won't be.
Fake Meat Product Finds Stock Tanking. "Beyond Meat" is a newly marketed meat substitute that is all the
rage. Everywhere you turn, there's a story hyping up this unnatural, processed product meant to replace good old
American meat. One iteration of the fake meat product, the "impossible burger," is even available in fast food form at
Burger King in an "Impossible Whopper." Self Magazine tells you that this item is convincing meat eaters to eat plant
burgers (not this meat eater.) CNN comforts you with the news that the "impossible burger" shortage is over.
Going green is nothing but
a scam. Corporations aren't actually using "green" electricity to power their businesses, they're just
pretending they are because millennials want to believe the actions of others are making up for their own carbon
footprint. NBC got seriously mocked recently for its "Confess Your Climate Sins" project. The self-proclaimed
"climate warriors" apparently don't practice what they preach, despite a growing (and profitable) greenwashing epidemic that
attempts to control society. Eating meat? That's bad all of a sudden, and not for the health reasons your doctor
has been warning you about for decades. Eating meat is bad for the climate. Ditto plastic straws and single-service
eating utensils. Save the planet, catch a hideous disease from poorly washed restaurant ware. Air conditioning is
bad. Sweat away your carbon guilt instead. Honestly, how much of this is an actual problem, and how much is
sheep-controlling propaganda pushing a political agenda?
This Now, Before They Tell You Not To. One day eggs are bad, next day they're good. Or good in moderation.
Who knows? One reason what to eat is so hotly debated is all the money tied up in it. The dietary guidelines
the U.S. government issues every five years are the culmination of a process that involves not only nutritionists, doctors, and other
health professionals but also the food industry and its many lobbyists. In the latest guidelines, issued early this year, the
expert panel's preliminary report included advice to lower consumption of red and processed meats, for the environment as well as for
your health. The meat industry weighed in, and in the final version only men and teenage boys were urged to eat less protein.
The environment was cut out of the equation altogether. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services have said that the guidelines are based on a rigorous review of scientific evidence and consideration of comments from
the public and federal agencies.
A fridge too far?
The Associated Press is continuing its tradition of celebrating people who are making a difference in an effort to "save
the planet" through noble acts of sacrifice. One such person is Josh Spodek of Manhattan. After taking
recycling and composting to the extreme, Spodek determined that he still wasn't doing enough. So now he has
permanently unplugged his refrigerator, which was apparently using too much electricity and contributing to the climate
crisis. He started out by unplugging it for three months during the winter, but now he has shifted his shopping
and eating habits to allow him to live entirely without refrigeration. [...] It's hard for me to ignore the likelihood
that there is more going on here than just another liberal who is trying to eliminate his carbon footprint. This
is someone who has fully bought into the idea that humans don't "deserve" the benefits of technology and that we all
need to live in pods and eat bugs.
EPA Prepares To Crack Down On Home Appliances. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new
rules on Friday that would restrict the use of refrigerators, air conditioning equipment and heat pumps that utilize
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The EPA's proposed rule would crack down on the manufacturing and importing of goods
containing HFCs, which would restrict the use of HFCs in refrigeration units, air conditioning systems and heat pump
equipment starting in 2025, according to an agency press release. In accordance with the Kigali Amendment to the
Montreal Protocol, a global climate treaty that the Senate ratified in September, the agency intends to reduce the
production and consumption of HFCs by 85% by 2036.
as Spain bans air conditioning from dropping below 27°C. A debate has been sparked after Spain's government
moved to prevent offices, shops and other venues from setting air conditioning below 27°C in the summer. It is part
of plans to cut the country's energy consumption and limit dependency on Russian gas. The decree, published on Tuesday
morning, will also stop heating from being raised above 19°C during the winter. The rules will be mandatory in all
public and commercial buildings, including bars, cinemas, theatres, airports and train stations.
Conditioning Is An Inconvenient Truth for Inequality Nail-Biters. The story about the mass production of air
conditioners is that what were once status symbols are now common. Crucial here is that people got very rich making air
conditioners common. It's how the world works. Or at least how to grow rich in the world. The best way to
become very well-to-do very quickly is to produce in abundance, and at low prices, what used to be scarce and nosebleed
expensive. Translated for those who need it, inequality is born of democratizing access to essential goods. When
you shout about inequality, you're shouting at the very individuals who are aggressively and intrepidly removing unease from
your life. From cars, to computers to smartphones, what was initially a bauble of the rich was rendered commonplace by
people who attained great wealth for making them commonplace.
war on air conditioning heats up. It's the scariest moment of the year for many homeowners — that
first really hot day, usually in May, when we turn on our air conditioners for the first time since the previous summer and
cross our fingers that it still works. If not, it will need to be repaired or possibly replaced, and the 2022 air
conditioning season is shaping up to be a very expensive one thanks to environmental regulations. Meanwhile, the Senate
is busy considering a United Nations climate treaty called the Kigali Amendment that would make things worse.
Air Conditioners as Big a Threat as ISIS. Secretary of State John Kerry said in Vienna on Friday [5/26/2017]
that air conditioners and refrigerators are as big of a threat to life as the threat of terrorism posed by groups like the
Islamic State. The Washington Examiner reported that Kerry was in Vienna to amend the 1987 Montreal Protocol
that would phase out hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, from basic household and commercial appliances like air conditioners,
refrigerators, and inhalers.
It's time to reconsider air conditioning for the sake of 'cooling justice'. Thursday [8/26/2021] Vox published
a piece about the need to reconsider air-conditioning in order to promote "cooling justice." The article is based on a
book on the same topic but this interview with the author is a bit vague. What exactly is "cooling justice" and what
would that look like in practice? I confess I'm a bit curious if only because I like to know what it is that the left
has planned for all of us. Here's the author not quite telling us what that is: [...] Get "confortable with
discomfort" doesn't sound like an improvement. Anyway, it has to be done because air-conditioning is racist, hence the
need for "cooling justice." [...] Of course an alternative solution to power companies shutting off parts of the grid to
prevent a brownout is generating more power. But New York hasn't really been going in that direction lately, having
recently shut down a nuclear plant that provided a lot of the city's power.
The Editor says...
You can rest assured that the offices of Vox (and Newsweek, and the New York Times) are completely, if not excessively, air-conditioned
most of the year. Any business with computers (in other words, all of them) has to be air conditioned. Grocery stores and
hospitals can't operate without it. Government offices, churches, museums, country clubs, and the residents of the southern states
will never give it up. Some people can't afford air conditioning. Some people can. That's just the way it is.
The Woke War on Air Conditioning.
As summer reaches peak heat, a recent piece in Time magazine on air conditioning exemplifies the rot pervading
academia and threatening the nation. Eric Dean Wilson, an instructor and graduate student at City University of New
York, wrote about how air conditioning will destroy the planet. His essay demonstrates the confluence of such
intellectually fashionable ideas as environmentalist extremism, critical race theory, equity, and the condemnation of
capitalism and "white supremacy." Wilson has no training in climate science or mechanical engineering. Yet he
teaches "climate-themed writing and environmental justice" at the City University of New York. Wilson describes his
recent book, After Cooling: On Freon, Global Warming, and the Terrible Cost of Comfort, as "a look at air
conditioning's contribution to climate violence, and a critique of the American addiction to personal comfort."
The Editor says...
[#1] I like having a roof over my head when it rains, a steady supply of electricity 24/7, and a blanket in the winter. Does
that mean I'm addicted to personal comfort? Aren't we all? Are most of us addicted to electricity? Yes. So what?
[#2] Something tells me that if one were to visit the offices of Time magazine tomorrow afternoon, one would find it fully air-conditioned,
perhaps excessively, and the room housing the magazine's computer systems is probably quite cold. I used to work in a building full of
computers, and the more indispensable the computers were, the colder their rooms were. Without air conditioning, computer rooms
conditioners save 20,000 lives in USA each year. Over the last century there was a remarkable decline in deaths
due to hot days and heatwaves. (Not that the media seem keen to say so). Mortality on a hot day declined by
fully 75% in the decades after 1960 when air conditioners started to be rolled out. In the words of the authors from [a]
2016 study, the people of the US have largely adapted in ways that protect them from extreme heat. The kind of hot days
they are talking about happen on average 20 days a year in the US. There has not been a similar reduction in deaths
from cold snaps.
Conditioning — Saving Lives but Getting No Love. Every summer brings heat waves, but recent summers
have also brought waves of criticisms about air conditioning. We are told that it is unnecessary, unhealthy and most of
all that it contributes to climate change. It is even derided as sexist. These views are badly unbalanced —
not to mention hypocritical since many were written in air-conditioned comfort — but they are gaining some
traction. And they could not be coming at a worse time. The world is on the cusp of an air conditioning
revolution, as it is finally becoming available to billions of people who have thus far been deprived of its benefits.
But it won't happen unless the anti-air conditioning agenda is stopped.
Kerry apparently thinks] Refrigerator chemicals are just as bad as ISIS. Air conditioners and refrigerators
pose as big a threat to "life on the planet" as the threat of terrorism, Secretary of State John Kerry said Friday
[7/22/2016]. Kerry was in Vienna negotiating a global climate deal to phase out chemicals used as refrigerants in basic
household and commercial appliances such as air conditioning and refrigerators, called hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs. The
chemicals are a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions that many scientists blame for contributing to global warming.
The Editor says...
How many air conditioners are operating at this moment in
John Kerry's multiple residences?
Leaders Try to Ban Another Greenhouse Gas. Delegates are likely to take till the meeting's final day on Oct. 14
to hammer out the knotty details of an amendment to the protocol. Ideally, the amendment will set the terms for a rapid
phasedown of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), the most common of which is the refrigerant HFC-134a, which has 1,430 times more
warming potential than carbon dioxide (CO2) over 100 years[.] The amendment would stop the manufacture of HFCs and
then reduce their use over time. "An ambitious amendment is the quickest and least expensive way to reduce the effects of
climate change," says Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, who has been a
mainstay at ozone negotiations since almost the beginning of the 1987 treaty. He says a phasedown could prevent the
equivalent of 100 to 200 billion tons of CO2 being released into the atmosphere by 2050. That prevention
could avert half a degree Celsius of warming by the end of the century.
The Editor says...
Weigh these options: [#1] The elimination of air conditioning and refrigeration, versus [#2] One-half degree of global
warming by the end of 2099, which may happen no matter what anybody (or everybody) does. If any further elaboration is needed to
help you make up you're mind, then you're wasting your time on this web site.
to reach key milestone in air-conditioning phase-out. Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to reach a milestone Thursday [9/22/2016]
in finalizing a key part of President Obama's climate change agenda on phasing out refrigerants used in air conditioners that are blamed for raising
the Earth's temperature. The White House said Kerry will meet with nearly 100 nations on Thursday to hash out an amendment to the Montreal
Protocol, first created to fix the ozone layer in the 1980s, to phase out refrigerants to combat global warming. The deal would reduce the Earth's
temperature by 0.5 degrees, Brian Deese, the president's climate change adviser, told reporters on a call Wednesday. Observers said the deal
on Thursday is the prelude to a big push by the administration to finalize the deal on limiting hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, during an international
gathering in Kigali, Rwanda, next month.
The Editor says...
The Obama administration, as mentioned above, claims the deal would reduce the Earth's temperature by one-half degree. Is that imperceptible
change worth doing away with air conditioning — or making it prohibitively expensive? If today is one-half degree warmer than yesterday, would
you even notice? Mr. Kerry, acting on behalf of President Valerie Jarrett and her commie sock puppet Barry Soetoro, is pretending to solve
a problem that does not exist.
on Air Conditioners and ISIS. Secretary of State John Kerry recently said that air conditioners and
refrigerators are as big a threat to life as the threat of terrorism posed by groups like the Islamic State. Careerist
folks in government parrot the party-line message. Kerry has heard it from the top-down and buys into it. President
Obama has said that global warming, not the Islamic State was the real threat. Kerry was negotiating a global climate
deal to phase out chemicals used as refrigerants in basic household and commercial appliances such as air conditioning and
refrigerators, called hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs.
Miscellaneous / everything:
loud car? A traffic camera might be listening. Over the years, there have been numerous efforts to
quiet the cacophony [in New York City]. One of the latest: traffic cameras equipped with sound meters
capable of identifying souped-up cars and motorbikes emitting an illegal amount of street noise. At least 71
drivers have gotten tickets so far for violating noise rules during a yearlong pilot program of the system. The
city's Department of Environmental Protection now has plans to expand the use of the roadside sound meters. [...] The
new devices record the license plates of offenders, much like how speedsters are nabbed by roadside cameras.
Vehicle owners face fines of $800 for a first noise offense and a penalty of $2,625 if they ignore a third-offense
hearing. City officials declined to reveal where the radars are currently perched.
The Editor says...
Every big city is noisy. The population density is high, and everybody has a leaf blower, a subwoofer, a couple of dogs, or a crying baby.
Sirens are necessary. Gunshots abound. Jackhammers mean progress. The big city airport has lots of big planes
arriving and leaving every few minutes. The big city is where it's at, and it comes with unavoidable byproducts.
greenie left is coming for your coffee. It wasn't enough that the greenie left came for our light bulbs,
our flush toilets, our guns, our plastic straws, our gas stoves, or our hamburgers. Now they're coming for our
coffee. [...] What they want, of course, is to take away more stuff from us, the better to control us. It wasn't
enough to target our gas-powered cars and tell us to take the bus. It wasn't enough to take away our electricity
and natural gas in the name of 'going green' and tell consumers to freeze in winter. It wasn't enough to howl for
an end to jet travel while greenie leftists bought carbon indulgences and continued to jet about with their private
planes. It wasn't enough to take away our plastic bags, to ensure that we only use unsanitary bacteria-filled
cloth recycle bags. It wasn't enough to take away our meat and tell us to eat bugs. All these are things
they are — no, really — trying to take away. In some cases, they have succeeded at such
schemes, too, all for a phony and chimerical quest to stop global warming, which somehow never happens.
So Wrong So Long.
On January 1, "60 Minutes" featured a segment with Paul Ehrlich, who predicted that earth is headed straight for
extinction. For Ehrlich, 90, this is not a new theme. "The battle to feed all of humanity is over," was the
first line of his 1968 The Population Bomb. During the 1970s, the author contended, "hundreds of millions
of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." By 1979, Ehrlich prophesied, the
oceans would be without life and by 1999 pesticides would reduce the population of the United States to
23 million. None of that happened, and it wasn't even close. On Frontpage Magazine, David
Harsanyi was all over it. "Couldn't '60 Minutes' find a fresh-faced, yet-to-be-discredited neo-Malthusian to
hyperventilate about the end of the world?" Harsanyi wondered. "Why didn't producers invite a single guest to push
back against theories that have been reliably debunked by reality?"
year, another round of global warming doomsday predictions that never came to pass. No matter how far the
predictions are off, the sycophants in the media will continue predicting the talking points that the science is settled
and continue their support for the destruction of industries that produce reasonably priced and reliable energy. [...]
Thank goodness the climate is and has always been cyclical and natural.The reason the Earth has so many deserts and so
much water is because we have always had floods and long droughts. It has nothing to do with our driving
Maldives at risk?
[Scroll down] One of my favorite examples of this phenomenon is the case of the Maldives, a tiny group of
over 1000 islands nestled in the Indian Ocean. Back in 1988 climate scientists were predicting that the Maldives
would be under water by 2018 or so. Melting icecaps and glaciers would increase sea levels that the islands, few
of which are much higher than sea level, would be swamped. It was alarming, and of course the political leaders of
the islands begged for foreign aid to deal with the crisis. Rising sea levels were also fouling the ground water
of the islands (shockingly these tiny islands actually have groundwater) and before the residents were drowned by rising
seas they would die from lack of water — by 1992, in fact. Thirty years ago. Today they are
predicting that the groundwater will be fouled in... 30 years. Shockingly, today the Maldives are larger,
populated by more than twice as many people, and a tourist destination.
Synopsis: If you drive your car, all the fish in the ocean will die! For
marine life to survive, we must cut carbon emissions. A study published on August 22
in the journal Nature Climate Change found that if greenhouse gases continue to be emitted at their
current rate, nearly 90 percent of all marine species could face extinction by the end of this
century. The most impacted groups would be the ocean's top predators (particularly tuna and
shark, since they are hunted by humans for food), areas with large amounts of biodiversity, and
coastal fisheries of low-income nations, according to the study.
The Editor says...
Awww. It's always the "low-income nations" that are hardest hit by global warming. And it's your fault, for
filling up your gas tank, you evil person. No, the reality is that "low-income nations" will
always be miserable places to live, largely because most of them are run by heavy-handed socialist
autocrats. Also note that it's mighty bold to predict that almost all marine life will end in
the next 77 years. Rash predictions of that sort have been made numerous times in the last
60 years, and the dire pronouncements always flop, at no cost to those who make them.
Short History of Climate Alarm. Noel Brown gave us until 2000 to save the planet. But over the years, the
impending date of doom has been continually pushed back. In 2009, Gordon Brown, UK Prime Minister at the time, baldly
stated that we had 'fewer than 50 days to save our planet from catastrophe'. His deadline ran out on 9 December 2009.
Australian Chief Scientist, Penny Sackett, was more opti-mistic. Just days before Gordon Brown's zero hour arrived, she
warned us we had an extra five years to save the world from disastrous global warming. Three years earlier, in 2006, Al
Gore was much more specific, threatening that, unless drastic meas-ures were taken to reduce greenhouse gases within ten
years, the world would reach a point of no return. When the world ignored Al Gore's warning, the UN's Christiana
Figueres gaveus another three years' breathing space, but that deadline unfortunately ran out too, just five months
ago. However, it is Prince Charles who must take the prize for getting it wrong most often.
Is a Wake-Up Call for Eco-Utopians. [Scroll down] Consider a long-run perspective. Throughout most
of human history, farmers produced only organic food — and food was so scarce that, despite the much lower
population in the past, malnutrition was widespread. The long-term, global decline in undernourishment is one of
humanity's proudest achievements. Lacking a sense of history and taking abundant food for granted, some
environmentalists want to transform the global food system into an organic model. They see modern agriculture as
environmentally harmful and would like to see a transition to natural fertilizers that would be familiar to our distant
ancestors, such as compost and manure. However, conventional farming is not only necessary to produce a sufficient
amount of food to feed humanity (a point that cannot be emphasized enough — as the writer Alfred Henry Lewis once
observed, "There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy") but it is in many ways better for the environment.
According to a massive meta-analysis by the ecologists Michael Clark and David Tilman, the natural fertilizers used in
organic agriculture actually lead to more pollution than conventional synthetic products. Fertilizers and pesticides
also allow us to farm land more intensively, leading to ever-higher crop yields, which allow us to grow more food on less land.
Mass Psychosis of Liberals. Liberals have mastered the art of wanting to believe in a false reality,
constructing a Bizarro Universe, while at the same time, excusing themselves for committing the very same transgressions
against society and nature that they accuse others of doing. [... For example,] Anthropogenic Global Warming is Real:
Anyone with even 1/100th of a functioning average brain can look at the mounds and mounds of scientific evidence and see that
this is nothing more than a giant PR hoax, designed to cast conservatives in a bad light, to paint them as "anti-science" and
"not caring about the earth" in order to convince the inattentive sector of the American electorate (a slice far too big,
unfortunately) to vote against Republicans. According to the dire warnings made in the late 1990s, Manhattan was
supposed to be under water by now, yet the latest reports are that it hasn't yet lost Parking Space One. And those
polar bears? Still surviving and their numbers are actually increasing.
next climate change target: cement. When it comes to battling climate change, all of the eco-warriors out there
will be quick to tell you what the real threat to the future of the world is. It's fossil fuels, right? Oil,
coal, natural gas... they are all working together behind the scenes to bring down the entire planet. But did you know
that there's another, potentially even bigger villain hiding out there in plain sight? If you live anywhere with a
greater population density than a wooden shack in a forest, you can probably step out your door and see it immediately.
It's concrete. That's right, the stuff that comprises the sidewalks, buildings, and most every other type of
construction project you can imagine. And the process of creating concrete and allowing it to cure after it is poured
is dumping vast, increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. The biggest culprit in this story is reportedly
China, but that doesn't mean that you privileged Americans strolling around on your fancy sidewalks are going to be given a
pass by the environmentalists.
change': An Ideologically Driven Movement. In the mid-1970s, scientists and the media overwhelmingly supported
global cooling with the same vigor and urgency as Professor Overpeck supports global warming today. [...] Scientists have
been telling us that humanity will end in ten years for the past half-century. [...] Does anyone remember the "scientific"
theory of "acid rain" propagated during the 1970s and 1980s, which was supposed to destroy the forests and poison our lakes
and rivers unless we closed down coal-fired power plants? [...] Apart from greenhouse gases, there are other more persuasive
causes such as the Sun's activity, the Earth's reflectivity, atmospheric pressure, and angle of rotation that impact the
planet's temperature. Therefore, there is no reason to be alarmed.
were Bigger Floods and Rain-bombs in the 1800's. One day when the ABC finally gets the Internet they'll be able to
find official pages like "Known Floods in the Brisbane and Bremer River Basin". [...] As Ken [Stewart] reports the ABC made a
fuss over three Queensland sites recording more than 1 metre of rain in just four days. But neither the ABC or the
BOM is telling Australians that there have been at least nine similar "Rain Bombs" before and most of them were more than one
hundred years ago. I went looking at Climate Data Online for four day rainfall totals over one metre, to compare with the
recent totals above at Mount Glorious, Pomona, and Bracken Ridge. For a start, Pomona's BOM station has been closed for
years, and Bracken Ridge is not listed at all, so those reports are from rain gauges external to the BOM network and can't
be checked. That's OK. In about half an hour I found the following four day rainfall records.
1893 was a wet year! Crohamhurst had 2023.8 in five days, and
Brisbane had three floods in two weeks in February and another in June.
warning signal: Refrigerators are destroying the world. This time it isn't the oil and gas industry, cars
with internal combustion engines, or the [emissions] of cattle on beef ranches. The culprit in this case can be found
right in the homes of virtually everyone reading this. It's your refrigerator. Well, not your specific
refrigerator. Everyone's refrigerators. In fact, all cooling technology of every sort that is currently in use,
unless you're in the habit of harvesting ice from a lake and saving it for the summer. That's the message being brought
to us by David Owen in a lengthy column at The New Yorker this week.
Yet Another Man-made
Crisis. [Scroll down] Almost all of the created-crisis-creating plastic pollution in the oceans is so
small that you cannot see it. This admission aligns well with my personal experience. Like Nils-Axel Mörner,
I am a dedicated fan of the "Oh yeah? Let me see for myself"-school of evidence. Until I retired five years ago,
I had spent one half of my adult life living on the sea on boats and ships, both as a professional mariner and as Captain of
my own vessels. I have a lot of sea miles under my belt. To actually see something floating on the surface of the
sea is so very rare that it invariably calls for closer inspection at least by binoculars or at other times by a brief
divergence from one's intended course to "go have a look". Failing to investigate an object large enough to be seen at any
distance was considered negligent by the Captains I have served under and I have followed suit when I was the Captain.
The "garbage patch" is a fraudulent invention — a fantasy.
Need a Political Climate Change. If you had any doubt that California's present shortage of available water for
farming in the Central Valley is a political, not a climate, problem, Anthony Watts will disabuse you of the notion. If
you've any doubt that this administration puts the desires of the crazy greens over the public interest, the Wall Street
Journal's editorial board puts that to rest. Per Watts, since 1861, before the industrial revolution, California has
recorded periods of heavy rainfall and truly massive floods which more water storage could mitigate. On the "flip
side," the state has had long periods of drought which can be dated from 800 A.D. to the present, obviously long before
"the modern occupation of California." These swings are attributable to something NOAA (the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration) calls "Atmospheric Rivers."
Wild Weather, Wet or Dry, is Nothing New. For those wondering about the recent heavy rains in the west, going
from drought to deluge in a few short months, here's some data and history to illustrate that it is nothing new, and it has
nothing to do with the claims of a "climate change" influence. Before the industrial revolution, electricity, eight
lane highways, and gas-guzzling SUV's, there was a 43-day rainstorm that began in December 1861 that put central and southern
California underwater for up to six months. The highest rainfall ever in California during recorded history likely occurred
in January 1862, during the "Great Flood". This was an atmospheric river event like we are experiencing now, but lasted several
days, dumping 24.63 inches of rain in San Francisco, 66 inches in Los Angeles, leaving downtown Sacramento underwater.
Years Ago Today Climate Grifter, Al Gore, Predicted by this time We would Be Underwater with No Polar Ice Caps.
It was 13 years ago today that the failed Presidential candidate turned VP, turned climate grifter, Al Gore, said that by
this time in our history there would be no polar ice caps left, and most of the eastern seaboard and coastlines around the
world would be underwater. It turns out, the man who once claimed he helped create the internet, was wrong about that
as well as he continues to peddle the same lies while moving the goal posts. [Video clip]
Different Perspective on Global Warming. We have grown accustomed to climate change being talked about in a
certain way. Usually, it involves words and phrases like "dangerous," "catastrophe," "red zone," and "one minute to
midnight." Equally dramatic are the policies proposed by many in Washington, D.C., to force a transition away from
conventional energy to more politically preferred options. These admittedly painful changes, we are told, are urgently
needed "for the common good." However, climate trends don't support rapid economy-altering responses, and areas of
uncertainty in our scientific understanding caution for humility in policymaking. The United Nations' Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change recently reported that the earth has warmed 1.1 degrees Celsius since 1850.
Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions. Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and
environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with
due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in
government and science. More than merely spotlighting the failed predictions, this collection shows that the makers of
failed apocalyptic predictions often are individuals holding respected positions in government and science. While such
predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures
are typically not revisited.
'Experts' Are 0-41 with Their Doomsday Predictions. For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific
community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of
getting 41 predictions wrong. In other words, on at least 41 occasions, these so-called experts have predicted some
terrible environmental catastrophe was imminent ... and it never happened. [...] Why would any sane person listen to someone
with a 0-41 record? Why would we completely restructure our economy and sacrifice our personal freedom for "experts"
who are 0-41, who have never once gotten it right? If you had an investment counselor who steered you wrong 41times,
would you hang in there for number 42? Of course not. You'd fire him after failed prediction two or three.
And if that's not crazy enough, the latest ploy is to trot out a 16-year-old girl to spread prediction number 42, because
it is so much more credible that way.
Honestly, is climate change
really humanity's greatest threat? Exactly 10 years after "Inconvenient Truth," I decided I needed to be more discerning about what was
"coming down the pike." After seeing the film and doing my research, I found most of Gore's previous "expert" predictions proved false needing to be debunked as myths.
• Rising Sea Levels: inaccurate and misleading. I also noticed Al had purchased a beautiful beachfront mansion! [So has Barack H. Obama. So has Nancy Pelosi.]
• Increased Tornadoes: Declining for decades.
• New Ice Age in Europe: they've been spared; it never happened.
• South Sahara Drying Up: completely untrue.
• Massive Flooding in China and India: did not happen.
• Melting Arctic: false — the largest refreezing in years occurred years ago.
• Polar Bear Extinction: actually they are increasing!
• Temperature Increases Due to CO2: no significant rising for almost 25 years.
• Earth in a True Planetary Emergency in a Decade Unless Drastic Action Taken to Reduce Greenhouse Gases: never happened.
• Note: Mt. Kilimanjaro has continued to have abundance of snow; Glacier National Park had to remove a sign predicting the ice would be gone by 2020;
this year Antarctica recorded its coldest winter on record.
and the false prophets of climate alarmism. For a media that allegedly hates lying former presidents, there
sure seems to be a deafening silence when former President Barack Obama does it. Speaking before the U.N. Climate
Change Conference in Glasgow, Scotland, Obama blamed the Trump administration for "active hostility toward climate science,"
NBC News reported. In doing so, Obama also peddled the same, tired, climate change cultist rhetoric that many leftists
embrace despite their bearing no relation to science. "You've been bombarded with warnings about what the future will
look like if you don't address climate change," Obama said. "And, meanwhile, you've grown up watching many of the
adults who are in a position to do something about it either acting like the problem doesn't exist or refusing to make the
hard decisions needed to do something about it." But what if the "warnings" are hype and not based on any sort of
at climate hysteria. We should laugh at climate hysteria, especially the fantasy proposals for stopping evil
climate change. Electrify everything by running it on wind and solar? Restructure the economy? Restart the
world in a green image? Stop eating meat and drinking milk? These proposals are all laughable, so feel free to
laugh at them, as it will do a lot of good. Same for the scary science that supposedly justifies these outrageous
proposals. It only exists in monster computer models that are deliberately programmed to produce it. True science
is based on observation and we are seeing nothing to support these fantastical hot models. Floods, droughts, heatwaves,
hurricanes and wildfires, are all continuing to occur in normal amounts, along with sea level rise. Dealing with
natural disasters is important but hoping to prevent them by not using gasoline or gas is just nuts.
UN Video Warns Humans About Coming 'Climate Disaster' Extinction. In a truly bizarre video released by the
United Nations Development Programme on Wednesday, a talking computer-generated dinosaur warns humans that they must take
urgent action to avoid what our histrionic friends in the Democrat Party are fond of calling "the existential threat of our
time" — climate change (or whatever they're now calling it) action to avoid extinction. Yes, the extinction
of mankind is apparently right around the global warming corner if we don't get [...] in gear and stop being mean to the
planet and our environment before we enter into irreversible climate armageddon. And of course, the talking dinosaur
has a name: Frankie the Dino.
The Editor says...
The climate is changing so little and so slowly that the global average temperature will make an imperceptible small change
over the course of your lifetime. Nobody is going to be extinct. You will never meet a "climate refugee."
People don't move from one country to another because of bad weather. There will never be a war fought over global
warming. Most of all, the climate will never be affected by legislation.
number of humpback whale calves spotted: Another predicted 'climate change' disaster that didn't happen.
Many people are happy about this widely-distributed story from the CBC: ["]There were no humpbacks off southwest
B.C. 25 years ago, but now as many as 500 have been identified["] [...] It took my friend Mike Nadler, who sent me
this story, all of 30 seconds to spot a sampling of supposedly science-based stories from earlier this very year —
one of them 2 months ago — about the disastrous impact of climate change on humpback whale procreation.
Charles says [there is a] "dangerously narrow window" to accelerate climate action. Britain's Prince Charles,
in recorded remarks at an environment event in Saudi Arabia on Saturday [10/23/2021], said there was a "dangerously narrow
window" to accelerate climate change action. Citing experts, he said the UN Climate Change Conference COP26 due to
start at the end of October must have nationally determined contributions (NDCs) with "clear baselines" and net zero emission
targets by 2050. He was addressing the Saudi Green Initiative forum, at which top exporter Saudi Arabia had earlier on
Saturday announced its target to reach zero-net emissions by 2060.
Know the Daily Aspirin the Feds Told Us Old Folks to Take? Well, Stop It! That's Bad for You Now.
This time the new federal advice is about aspirin, the world's most widely-used drug that made Bayer a household name after
its invention in 1897. You know how, based on a 2016 recommendation, you should be taking one low-dose aspirin tablet a day
to prevent heart disease, the nation's and even the world's top killer? Estimates say around 30 million Americans pop
one of them daily, me included. Well, forget it. A government-backed advisory board just opened public comment on
a proposed advice change to say that we shouldn't be doing what we were told we should be doing for almost the last decade.
Suggested Aspirin Lowers COVID Mortality Rates, Now the Powers That Be Are Attacking It. According to an
article released last Wednesday by the Jerusalem Post, Israeli researchers copied a test done at George Washington University
where they recorded over 400 COVID patients from hospitals across the country who took aspirin for reasons unrelated to COVID
itself. This simple treatment resulted in a 44 percent reduction in needing the mechanical ventilator, reduced ICU
admissions by 43 percent, and overall hospital mortality by 47 percent. When the Israelis conducted the same test,
they got very similar results and even found that aspirin takers were less likely to get a COVID infection in the first place as
discovered by Dr. Jonathan Chow of the research team: [...]
'Science' of Climate Change. Why do politicians want to hype a nonexistent climate crisis? In a word:
power. By claiming that there is an urgent climate crisis the politicians can spend billions to fight the imaginary
foe. [...] The parade of imaginary environmental catastrophes during the last 70 years is very long. Here are some
books predicting this or that environmental disaster: Our Plundered Planet (1948), Road to Survival
(1948), Silent Spring (1962), Famine 1975! (1967), The Population Bomb (1968), The Limits to
Growth (1972), An Inconvenient Truth (2006), This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. Climate
(2014), The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming (2019).
Deep Optimism Manifesto. Previous eco-scares and doomsday predictions have proven to be false. Everything
from Malthus's predictions of mass starvation to Silent Spring (DDT) to alar to acid rain to nuclear winter to ocean
acidification to ozone to The Population Bomb to mass extinctions to insect populations crashing to bee colony
collapse to soy products causing everything from cancer to infertility. Sea levels are not rising more than they were
in the 1800s. Polar bears are thriving. Extinction rates aren't particularly high and are not increasing.
These scares are always invisible and always out in the future. The scare is great for media sales, so they amplify
it. Social media amplifies it further.
Cabal That Cried Wolf and Undermined a Republic. Manmade environmental hoaxes have evolved from the Coming Ice
Age to Acid Rain to Global Warming to Climate Change, with each one being manipulated to scare citizens and implement
government policies and programs that never die, despite the fact that posited catastrophes never actually emerge.
Think about the "Peak oil" fears of the 70s and the ethanol programs we're still stuck with today, despite the extraordinary
increases in oil production and reserves.
ready for the left's climate-change 'emergency' lockdowns. President Biden claims recent hurricanes prove we're
in a "climate crisis" — "code red" for the world, he warns. White House climate adviser Gina McCarthy adds
that climate is now a "health emergency." It's convenient for politicians to treat every hurricane, tornado and flood
as an apocalyptic sign from Gaia — and then blame political apostates for offending the goddess. But it's an
irrational way to think about the world. Because our situation is, in most ways, quantifiably better than before on
nearly every front. This reality is probably difficult to accept for a generation subjected to decades of fearmongering,
but climate anomalies are nothing new. When a freak snowstorm hit Texas this year, the administration used it to push
draconian policies. But the Texas storm was no different than the rare 1973 blizzard that hit the South. It
happens. And there's nothing we can do.
Noted in Passing: Green
Lies Continue. [Scroll down] Here's a more recent story featured on both CNN and FOX News, "A huge
swirling pile of trash in the Pacific Ocean is growing faster than expected and is now three times the size of France...".
Oh really? Three times the size of France? How was this verified? Did someone go out there with a tape
measure? No. Did the International Space Station record footage as it orbited overhead? No. NASA
satellite Imagery? No. US Navy Reconnaissance? No. Google Maps Satellite view? No.
National Geographic Special Report? No. There is NO evidence of this [...] thing. Just drawings,
assertions, phony composites, and scary stories, endlessly repeated. What started as a [deceptive] article written by
Captain Moore has now mushroomed into tales of FIVE Great Garbage Patches.
Time To Stop Terrorizing Our Children. If you are a male or a female (or know someone who is) and have been
sleeping too soundly lately, type "billions of children facing climate shock" into Google and you will discover dozens of
articles from last week warning that almost half the world's 2.2 billion children will face, as one article says,
"climate-related disasters in their lifetimes, [a UNICEF] report found." [...] Now, let's pretend you're a 7 (or 38) year
old, lying awake all night, worrying and struggling to solve pollution, injustice, and extinction problems. With these
stress-inducing "unfixable" homework assignments, is it any wonder that so many kids (and child-like adults) are consuming
record levels of ADHD meds and antidepressants? [...] Many of Grimm's Fairy Tales have been banned or deemed too
"violent" for children. However, politically correct Saturday morning cartoons pound home the message that little boys
and girls are going to die horrible deaths unless their parents give up their cars, wash their hands properly, become vegans,
and stop challenging the effectiveness of wearing masks.
problem with climate change politics. The UN has been predicting planetary disaster for decades, usually
scheduled to happen in about a decade's time. In 1972 — half a century ago — Maurice Strong, the
first UN Environment Programme director warned that the world "had just 10 years to avoid catastrophe". In 1982
his successor, Mostafa Tolba, the then head of the UN Environment Programme told the world that it had just 18 years
before "an environmental catastrophe as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust". Yet 2000 came and went and we just
partied like it was 1999. As sea levels would rise, we were told that the Maldives islands would be under water over a
decade ago, they're building more luxury hotels. We were told the source of the great Ganges River in the Himalayas,
the glaciers, would have melted long ago. The great Ganges River still flows, and the glaciers are still there.
The Australian Great Barrier reef would be dead, it is alive and thriving. We were told by the UN Food Programme in the
sixties that Earth could not feed a growing population and that the future was bleak with much of humanity facing
starvation. The earth's population has more than doubled since the sixties with fewer people in absolute poverty.
UN routinely warns us that
we have just a few years left until catastrophe. [Thread reader] In 1972, half a century ago, Maurice
Strong, first UN Environment Programme director warned that the world had just 10 years to avoid catastrophe[.] In
1982, Tolba, head of UN Environment Programme told the world that it had just 18 years before an environmental catastrophe as
irreversible as any nuclear holocaust[.] In 1989, a senior UN official warns Associated Press that we have to fix climate
change by 1999 or climate change goes beyond human control[.] In 1990, Tolba, head of UN Environment Programme told the
world must fix global warming before 1995 — Otherwise, we'd lose the climate struggle[.] In 2019, all the
greats of the UN met to tell us that we have just 11 years to fix climate[.]
Climate change. In: Moon wobble. We are once again being warned of incoming dangers, particularly
for coastal regions, as sea levels rise and the tides become higher and stronger. Normally, the next two words
following such a dire forecast would be "climate change," but now there's a different cause being given. The moon will
be starting to "wobble" more in its orbit in the next decade, exerting a greater gravitational pull on the oceans, so tides
will continue to grow higher for the following ten years before slowly beginning to recede again. When you combine
these accelerated tides with higher ocean levels (that's the part they'll blame on climate change) it's projected to spell
bad news for people living near the coasts. So I suppose we should get to the key question in this report. Why is
the moon wobbling more and how can this be blamed on conservatives?
Lost Count Of How Many 'Last Chances' We've Had To Save The Planet. John Kerry said earlier this month that
we've reached "the last best opportunity we have to get real and serious" about global warming. What's the difference
between him and a loon walking down Manhattan's Fifth Avenue wearing one of those sandwich boards proclaiming the end of the
world is nigh? We're struggling to see any. Kerry, the Biden administration's special presidential envoy for
climate [...] is part of a chorus of fearmongering that goes back more than three decades. "In 1989 the United Nations
gave us 10 years to save the world," science site Watts Up With That posted last year. Guess blogger Eric Worrall then
went on to list more than a dozen "last chances" to stop global warming. "If we do not heed this last chance, I'm sure
there will be another last chance in the near future, just like all the previous last chances," he said. Dire,
way-off-base predictions have been the hallmark of radical environmentalism for at least a half century.
Day's legacy of failed apocalyptic predictions. All the solemnity that attaches to Earth Day, with scolds like
Greta Thunberg and politicians attending "virtual" summits, ought to be drowned out by peals of laughter. The real
slogan of the global warming crowd ought to be. "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me fifty times, shame on you."
Yes, fooled by phony proclamations of doom fifty times. At a minimum.
Times Spread Fake News that East Coast Beaches Would Be 'Gone' by 2020. "[M]ost of the beaches on the East
Coast of the United States would be gone in 25 years," the fake New York Times told the world 25 years ago, all the
way back in 1995. Fact check: It's 2021 and America's East Coast beaches are doing just fine! [...] The date of
the article is September 18, 1995. The headline reads, "Scientists Say Earth's Warming Could Set Off Wide Disruptions."
So here we are 25 full years later, a whole quarter of a century later, and the first prediction from these unnamed "experts" has not
even come close to occurring, so why should we believe the dire predictions about the year 2100? We shouldn't.
would Texas have prepared for record cold and snow if they listened to the media and other global warming fanatics the last
forty years? Since 1980 Americans have heard that the Earth was warming rapidly, that the South would not have
winters anymore and we would see "the end of snow." We were told it is the "scientific consensus" and the science was
"settled." So why the heck would politicians prepare for something when they were told by "experts" that it would never
happen? [...] Clearly the UN, Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill Gates and all the others that push this garbage on the public,
without scientific data to support it, are to blame, not the Texas politicians. John Kerry, who flies on private jets,
is out there saying there are only 9 years left to solve the problem. If we had honest reporters, instead of people
pushing an agenda, they would tell him that the UN said in 1989 that we only had ten years left to solve the problem.
Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions. Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and
environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with
due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in
government and science. More than merely spotlighting the failed predictions, this collection shows that the makers of
failed apocalyptic predictions often are individuals holding respected positions in government and science. While such
predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures
are typically not revisited.
greenies' tales about Hawaii's vanishing beaches miss one important fact. The greenies have a new battle in the
"war on climate change." They want to rid the world of sea walls. Sea walls are barriers that property owners put on
the waterside of the beach to protect their property from encroaching waves. According to the environmentalists,
though, sea walls exacerbate the way anthropogenic climate change and the resulting rise of the sea destroy beachfront
property. I'm sure this a fine theory, except for the part about anthropogenic climate change causing the sea to
rise. In fact, as this article from Watts Up With That explains with tremendous clarity, any sea level rise is minimal
(according to NOAA, around 1.7 mm per year). Instead, what's often happening is that the land is sinking. Sinking
land happens not because of climate change. It happens because the Earth's crust is a dynamic system that is constantly on
the move. Nowhere is that more obvious than in Hawaii.
City Mandates Gas Pumps Must Carry Cigarette-Style Health Warning About Climate Change. Well, however well
warning labels work — or even if they do — the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, is about to see if it
works for gas in the way I described it. According to The Guardian, every pump in the city will come with a sticker
that warns you that you're killing the planet with each tank you fill. The warning labels will read that burning fossil
fuels has "major consequences on human health and the environment including contributing to climate change." Under a city
ordinance that passed in January but didn't get much attention over the course of the year because we were busy with, you
know, other stuff, the policy order stated "that in order to reach our sustainability goals, the City must actively pursue
innovative methods to reduce vehicular emissions."
city to post climate change warning stickers at gas stations. Cambridge, Massachusetts, has become the first US
city to mandate the placing of stickers on fuel pumps to warn drivers of the resulting dangers posed by the climate
crisis. The final design of the bright yellow stickers, shared with the Guardian, includes text that warns drivers the
burning of gasoline, diesel and ethanol has "major consequences on human health and the environment including contributing to
climate change". The stickers will be placed on all fuel pumps in Cambridge, which is situated near Boston and is home
to Harvard University, "fairly soon" once they are received from printers, a city spokesman confirmed.
The Editor says...
Hundreds of factors "contribut[e] to climate change." That's why the climate constantly changes, and has done so
for millennia — long before gasoline engines were invented. But the climate is changing so gradually, it's imperceptible.
If you'll turn off your television, you will find that for all practical purposes the climate is not changing at all.
The consequences of filling your gas tank are far smaller than the consequences of running out of gas. Think!
Socialist Dogma Replaces Real Science with "Settled Science". [Scroll down] Climatology and ecology have
turned from objective sciences into undersigners of party science. Instead of scientific debate, doomsday advocates
hysterically accuse political opponents of denying scientific facts and general ignorance. These dogmatic beliefs were
refuted not only from a theoretical point of view but also after the gloomy predictions did not come true: the ocean did not
flood the cities, and polar bears did not die out. But the emerging facts of manipulation in temperature measurements,
data processing, and data interpretation have only led to a change in the Left's terminology. Instead of global
warming, now we are dealing with climate change due to human activity. Scholars who question harmful carbon dioxide's
effect on the climate get ridiculed and silenced. Luckily, the Left still falls short of prosecuting dissident
scientists. Nevertheless, leftists clearly understand that peddling climate change and recruiting more believers will
bring them long-lasting political success. The Green New Deal, which is presented as a means to save humanity from the
consequences of climate change and is based on the false premises of socialist climatology, is as stupid as the fight against
sparrows in China during the Cultural Revolution.
and environmental experts are coming for your gas stove. Health experts are advising to use electric stoves
over glass flames. Electric coil and induction stoves run on electricity, with the potential for "green" energy sources
such as solar and wind power. Gas stoves, though decidedly easier to control for cooking, require the use of fossil
fuels, namely natural gas. Their carbon dioxide emissions, while lower than that of other oil or coal, are one of the
many factors contributing to climate change. But natural gas combustion isn't just bad for Earth's atmosphere.
Researchers at the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit advocacy organization for sustainability, have revealed that toxins,
such as carbon monoxide and formaldehyde, are collecting inside homes at levels considered unsafe by some outdoor standards.
The Editor says...
If you use natural gas appliances, you need adequate ventilation. This has been common knowledge for at least a
century. The carbon dioxide from your gas stove — or a million of them — is inconsequential.
You won't have carbon monoxide and formaldehyde accumulating in your house if your gas appliances are operating correctly.
I'm tired of left-wing busybodies ostensibly worrying about my health (and global warming) in an attempt to restrict my choices.
Pope Francis, the World Is Not in a Climate Emergency! We would be in a climate emergency if the changes in
climate were causing serious harm, or could credibly be predicted to cause serious harm, to ecosystems, food production, and
human survival. But the best evidence is that there is no ongoing manmade climate emergency. Contrary to the
claim, the climate in the past five decades has actually boosted people's livelihood. There have been record crop
outputs and tremendous agricultural success across the globe during the past few decades. Scientists credit this
agricultural success to optimum climatic conditions, including increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Yes,
the twin factors that led the Pope to declare an emergency are the very factors that have boosted plant growth not only in
agriculture — making food more abundant and affordable for everyone, especially the poor — but in all
ecosystems. Unprecedented improvement in the life expectancy rates — the average number of years a newborn
would go on to live — has been registered in almost every part of the world. Life expectancy continues to
increase in developing countries.
'Climate Clock' Tells Us How Long We Have Left to Save the Earth. What passes for thinking among climate
hysterics goes something like this: We only have seven years and change to take action to avoid catastrophic climate
change. The clock is based on an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report telling us we have to keep our CO2
footprint under a certain level or we're all doomed. [...] If the earth's atmosphere was a chart or a graph, they'd have it
down cold. Unfortunately for their "predictions," the atmosphere is slightly more dynamic than a piece of paper.
It's a living, breathing, churning, roiling thing affected by thousands of factors that no supercomputer or scientific genius
could possibly account for. To have the unmitigated arrogance to pretend to know how long we have left — or
that such a thing can even be measured — is breathtaking.
York 'Climate Clock' highlights decades of premature prophecies of global warming doomsday. In honor of
"Climate Week," New York City is playing host to a massive "Climate Clock" purporting to count down the years, days and
minutes until the world reaches a climate catastrophe point-of-no-return. [...] The "Climate Clock" generated headlines
across the world for its novelty and striking presentation of what activists claim is a final deadline before global
temperatures reach a point from which there is no turning back. Yet such prophecies are nothing new from climate
scientists and activists, who have repeatedly warned the world over recent decades that it was very near the point of no
return regarding carbon emissions. Among the earliest such warnings was one from Noel Brown, who in 1989 led the U.N.
Environment Program in New York. In that year, Brown warned that "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the
Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000," as a contemporary Associated Press
report put it.
Americans to Beat Trump. Democrat governors are not giving up their lockdowns no matter how much they hurt
people's lives. With a total lack of irony, they ignore the real science calling for reopening the economy and schools,
while at the same time they label "deniers" anyone who disagrees with fake climate change science. Science is defined
as "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical
and natural world through observation and experiment." Samples of science: Don't wear masks, wear masks; coffee
will kill you, coffee is good for you; chocolate will kill you, chocolate is good for you; fatty foods will kill you, carbs
will kill you; the world will freeze in a nuclear winter, the oceans will bubble away as "kettle's on the boil, [when] we're
so easily [led astray]." Even though science does not always live up to its reputation, a decision must be made
and when the preponderance of the science says open, you should open.
of Conspiracy. [Scroll down] "Like every successful con," Rupert Darwall writes in Green Tyranny,
"maintaining audience credulity depends on preventing the audience from noticing what the trickster is up to," a tactic known
in the trade as "defining the baseline" — that is, by deceptively touting how damaged the world would be minus
whatever transformation is envisioned. In all too many instances, there is no dispositive proof that such would be the
case. Much to the chagrin of our false prophets, the seas do not rise to engulf our cities and low-lying islands,
famine does not fall upon the land, populations do not grow extinct, the air is not becoming unbreathable, the spring does
not grow silent, and the world does not end on a given date — though it may on the next given date, or the
next. We can always hope. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on the media and the large digital platforms to enlighten
us since these, especially Google, have become manifestly, and often confessedly, manipulators of search results as well as
agents of disinformation, organs of censorship and propaganda outlets lobbying for one side of the political divide.
Six Months to Save the Planet! The International Energy Agency says we have only six months left to save the
world from global warming: [...] Is that a promise? Can we count on being left alone by climate scolds as of January 1,
2021? Will Greta Thunberg go back to high school? Just kidding. As long as money is being made by "green"
industrialists and climate hypesters, they will continue to harangue us. Only when the honeypot dries up will they move
on to other frauds. Count on it, by mid-2021 the greenies will tell us we have only X years left to save the
On Behalf Of
Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare. On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for
the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It's just not the end of the world. It's
not even our most serious environmental problem. I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate
activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30. [...] Here are some facts few people know:
• Humans are not causing a "sixth mass extinction"
• The Amazon is not "the lungs of the world"
• Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
• Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
• The amount of land we use for meat — humankind's biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska • The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
• Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s
• Netherlands became rich not poor while adapting to life below sea level
• We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
• Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
• Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
• Preventing future pandemics requires more not less "industrial" agriculture
Green Civil War. Green plans to raise energy prices, eliminate cars, and ban fossil fuel development also have
stirred fierce opposition from the working class, whether in pro-Trump middle America, or among France's gilets jaune.
But it's not just the proverbial angry white men. In California, some 200 local civil rights leaders have filed lawsuits
against the state's regulators, arguing that the state's climate policies are essentially discriminatory toward poor people and
minorities. [...] Contrary to environmentalist dogma from the 1970s, natural resources, including energy and food, did not
run out but became more available than anyone expected. So why the constant hyping and hysteria?
Fauci's recurring disease 'nightmares' often don't materialize. Nobody did more to kick off the U.S. AIDS alarm
than [Dr. Anthony] Fauci, who was sole author of a 1983 piece in the prestigious JAMA in which he declared the disease
might be transmissible by "routine close contact, as within a family household." Fauci shortly thereafter ascended to
the position he holds to this day as the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Fauci
continued to raise the AIDS alarm. In 1987, columnist George Will asserted on TV that the heterosexual AIDS threat was
overstated. "That's not correct," Fauci protested, followed by a prediction that the percentage of AIDS cases
contracted via heterosexual transmission (then at 4%) would rise to 10% by 1991. That rate never rose above 4%. [...]
More recently, Fauci sounded the threat of the Zika virus, demanding billions more in taxpayer funds. It barely touched
two U.S. states before burning out on its own.
About those Murder Hornets: Not so fast. We
were told that the Asian Murder Hornets had arrived in North America and they were going to finish wiping out the honeybees
and potentially a number of us as well. But was it all just a bunch of hype designed to generate hilarious memes on
social media? That's the opinion of at least some entomologists. These alleged "bug experts" are telling the
Washington Examiner that the insects aren't really murderous and they're "just another type of hornet." While they may
pose a threat to the honeybees, they really aren't any more dangerous to people than other stinging insects.
Science Project in Celebration of the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day. I challenge far left politician such as
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Joe Biden, Al Gore, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, all Democrats, journalists,
entertainers, professors and scientists to look at the scientific data from the last 140 years and show any correlation
between temperature and the other variables which are blamed for climate change. (There is none). For some reason
the incurious media will never ask questions to justify the Democrats radical policies. I would also challenge everyone
to look at the dire predictions from the last 100 years and find any that are true. I can't find any.
Repeated Failures, It's Time To Permanently Dump Epidemic Models. [Scroll down] Since the AIDS epidemic,
people have been pumping out such models with often incredible figures. For AIDS, the Public Health Service announced
(without documenting) there would be 450,000 cases by the end of 1993, with 100,000 in that year alone. The media
faithfully parroted it. There were 17,325 by the end of that year, with about 5,000 in 1993. SARS (2002-2003) was
supposed to kill perhaps "millions," based on analyses. It killed 744 before disappearing. Later, avian flu
strain A/H5N1, "even in the best-case scenarios" was to "cause 2 (million) to 7 million deaths" worldwide. A British
professor named Neil Ferguson scaled that up to 200 million. It killed 440. This same Ferguson in 2002 had projected
50-50,000 deaths from so-called "Mad Cow Disease." On its face, what possible good is a spread that large? But the
final toll was slightly over 200.
Sticks, Changing Goal Posts, and Hysteria. Last year, Glacier National Park in Montana began removing signs
that warned visitors the park's gigantic glaciers would start melting away by 2020 due to global warming. Park
officials altered other climate change flair such as brochures and displays to postpone the threat to sometime in "future
generations." Like so many claims about the catastrophic consequences of anthropogenic global warming, predictions about
disappearing glaciers were quickly memory-holed. And, as usual, the experts behind the flawed science that misled
millions of people to believe their actions would cause the destruction of one of nature's most awesome sights didn't
apologize. [...] Quite to the contrary — prophets of nonexistent doom are often cheered as heroes no matter how
many times they've been wrong.
on a Century of Junk Science. [Scroll down] The science establishment was just warming up. In the
decades ahead, they would serve up global cooling, nuclear winter, the alar scare, second-hand smoke, global warming, climate
change, and a host of other contrived doomsday scenarios. When the predicted doom failed to materialize, the prophets
of doom shifted the date of doom forward and bought more beachfront property. Never before, though, has a mania wreaked
so much havoc so quickly as the Covid-19 scare. Many of the predictions are as incredible as those for heterosexual
aids, and even if accurate, they do not justify the assault on our economy and our very freedoms.
Major Study That Fueled National Vape Panic Has Been Retracted. After months of pressure from the scientific
community, the American Heart Association's academic journal on Tuesday evening retracted a widely circulated vaping study,
which claimed that using e-cigarettes increased the likelihood of having a heart attack. Last June, the authors,
Stanton Glantz and Dharma Bhatta of the University of California San Francisco, stated in the original study that vaping and
smoking cigarettes posed a similar risk, while doing both at the same time was an even more dangerous option. Following
its publication in the summer, the peer-reviewed research was referenced by major news organizations, including CNN, Yahoo
News, and USA Today.
suffers most pollution-linked deaths in world, study finds. Among the 10 countries with the most pollution
deaths in 2017, the latest year for which data was available, were some of the world's largest and wealthiest nations, as
well as some poorer ones. India and China led in the number of pollution deaths, with about 2.3 million and
1.8 million respectively, followed by Nigeria, Indonesia and Pakistan. The US came seventh with almost 200,000 deaths.
The Editor says...
I challenge you to name one person who has died in the U.S. specifically due to pollution.
You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? I have repeatedly questioned the validity of medical journal claims in
regards to politically charged issues like air pollution and climate change, as well as global warming here at AT. More
recently, I showed how a major medical journal violates basic rules on scientific inquiry. There is another important
problem with medical research as reported in medical journals and then often expanded by the lay press as big news:
that medical journal articles are often proven wrong for unreliable results or promotion of treatments that are not beneficial
or not any more efficacious than treatments they propose to replace.
Climate Myths. Many
people say that we're destroying the Earth. It all sounds so scary. But I've been a consumer reporter for years,
and I've covered so many scares: plague, famine, overpopulation, SARS, West Nile virus, bird flu, radiation from cellphones,
flesh-eating bacteria, killer bees, etc. The list of terrible things that were going to get us is very long. Yet
we live longer than ever. Now I'm told global warming is different.
cholesterol associated with longer life. Highly educated "experts" rule today's advanced societies, but their
advice on how the rest of us should live — often enforced by government coercion — is increasingly
exposed as premature at best and mistaken, incomplete, ignorant, or fraudulent at worst. Yet another bit of diet advice
from "experts" is turning out to be an exploding cigar. High cholesterol, particularly LDL cholesterol, has been
demonized for allegedly bringing on heart attack deaths. But an intriguing analysis of data published at Medium.com
seems to show that total mortality risk is reduced by high cholesterol levels, even LDL cholesterol.
Proving a Negative.
Remember a few years ago during the Obama administration when oil/gas pricing was high? The popular line among the
Democrats — obsessed as they were about not offending their Green voting bloc — was, "We can't drill
our way out of this [high oil pricing]." Just like subsequent events in other areas have proven them wrong about so
many things ("The stock market will tank if Trump is elected!"), the Democrats were wrong about this too. Dead
wrong. As fracking and other drilling/extraction technologies (such as horizontal drilling and the capability to
rejuvenate old wells previously thought to be "unproductive") have improved, the oil output of the United States has
increased to its highest level in 50 years. In fact, U.S oil production is more than double what it
was as recently as just ten years ago, before the fracking revolution.
Predictions. In May 2014, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared during a joint appearance with
Secretary of State John Kerry that "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos." Peter Gunter, professor at North Texas
State University, predicted in the spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness: "Demographers agree almost unanimously
on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all
of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America
will exist under famine conditions. ... By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of
Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." Ecologist Kenneth Watt's 1970 prediction was, "If
present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven
degrees colder in the year 2000." He added, "This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."
famine' by 1975: Experts chart worst failures in 'eco-polcalyptic' predictions. While national leaders
participate in Climate Week in New York City and elsewhere, one organization reveals the follies of some past ideas about
environmental matters. "Wrong again: 50 years of failed eco-polcalyptic predictions," wrote Myron Ebell, director, of
the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Energy and Environment, and Steven J. Milloy, a "junk science" expert, and
climate scholar. "Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They
continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true," the pair said
in their analysis.
Is Damaging Children. [Scroll down] Those older remember when former Vice President Al Gore declared that
the North Pole would be ice-free by 2015. People were told that snow would be a thing of the past. Instead, the
Northern Hemisphere has seen record levels of snow. In recent years it has snowed in the Sahara, Saudi Arabia, and even
the Canary Islands, which is at the same latitude as Miami, FL. And don't forget the polar bears. The melting
Arctic was supposed to render this animal extinct. Of the population of 8,000-10,000 in the late 1960s, only
25,000-30,000 remain today. In 1988, climate scientist James Hansen scared the entire world by predicting that the
globe would warm 1 degree Celsius (1.8 F) by 2018. In fact, the warming was less than half of that, and
in the last two decades, the increase has ground to a halt, giving rise to the so-called "pause" or "hiatus" in global warming.
Those who are even older remember the acid rain scare. All the trees were going to die because of pollution from fossil
fuels. The opposite happened.
Are Vanishing From North America. The number of birds in the United States and Canada has fallen by 29 percent
since 1970, scientists reported on Thursday. There are 2.9 billion fewer birds taking wing now than there were 50 years
ago. The analysis, published in the journal Science, is the most exhaustive and ambitious attempt yet to learn what is happening
to avian populations. The results have shocked researchers and conservation organizations.
The Editor says...
I used to work with a guy who was sure that there weren't any more ants — anywhere — because the government
was doing high-altitude chemical spraying. But if there are fewer birds in the air, you can probably find parts and pieces
of them around windmills.
Press Fans Overblown Fears About Diet Soda — Again. Here's what the paper in JAMA Internal
Medicine actually found about drinks containing artificial sweeteners: People who consumed two or more per day were
slightly more likely than those who abstained from all soda to die from diseases related to circulatory problems. (Consuming
one or more sugar-sweetened soda per day, meanwhile, was associated with increase risk of dying from liver, appendix,
pancreas, and intestinal diseases.) Whether these circulatory problems are directly related to diet soda is
unknown — and there are good reasons to suspect they are not. "Researchers cautioned that elevated
soft-drink consumption may be a marker for an overall unhealthy lifestyle," the Post points out. That is, people who
consume sodas daily may also be more likely to eat out at restaurants, consume processed snacks, or engage in other
dietary habits that up their disease risk.
Food Labeling Follies.
California's Office of Administrative Law (OAL) recently made it official: Your morning cup of coffee won't give you
cancer. Next week's newsflash probably will be, swallowing an orange seed doesn't cause a tree to grow in your
stomach. After more than a year of legal wrangling, OAL signed off on a proposed rule exempting coffee from Proposition
65, a decades-old voter-approved measure that requires warning labels on products that contain chemicals the state has deemed
potentially carcinogenic. So that means cancer warning labels and the universally ignored coffee shop warnings can be
removed at long last.
paper is getting less sustainable, researchers warn. Toilet paper — the one product that the
majority of us use just once and flush away — is becoming less sustainable, according to research. Analysis
from Ethical Consumer magazine found that major brands were using less recycled paper than in 2011, while only five of the
nine major supermarkets (the Co-op, Morrisons, Sainsbury's, Tesco and Waitrose) offered an own-brand recycled toilet
paper. The large-scale use of virgin paper contributes to unnecessary deforestation.
The Editor says...
There's plenty of wood in California, but the hippies won't let anyone cut down the trees and thin out the forests,
which is why they eventually go up in smoke.
will Kill You, Until it Won't, and Other Fake Health News. Every week there is another health pronouncement
saying what is now good for you and what is going to kill you. Unfortunately, the "what" is often interchangeable —
what was supposed to kill you last week is now suddenly good for you or vice versa. Foods, supplements, and activities, all
studied extensively and determined to be either good or bad, then subject to a new study, with the opposite conclusion.
How can this be?
spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year. In
the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled
"Earth Day, Then and Now" to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article,
Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day, and in the years following, there was a "torrent of apocalyptic
predictions" and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it's now the 46th anniversary of
Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 16 years ago: How accurate were the predictions
made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: "The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but
spectacularly wrong," according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made
around 1970 when the "green holy day" (aka Earth Day) started: [...]
Luddites Are Coming for Your House, Car, and Freedom. Like so much coming from the corporate Left in America,
probably the most dangerous aspect of this column is the blithe presumption that its premises are beyond debate. The
climate will change catastrophically, and emissions from burning fossil fuel are the culprit. Low-density housing is
the reason fossil fuel emissions remain too high. Public transportation is a good thing. Just hold on.
Stop right there. Emissions of CO2 may not change the climate very much at all, and the cost of precipitously curtailing
them condemns billions of people around the world to prolonged poverty and misery. And in any case, high-density housing
is creating more CO2 emissions, because existing roads cannot handle the increased traffic. And no, public
transportation is not always a good thing.
Government Researchers Hijack Science for Political Purposes. [Scroll down] "In the last 15 years, EPA
has invented three bogus human carcinogens (chemicals that cause cancer), all for political reasons or with a political not a
scientific basis. The Carcinogens invented were, dioxin, because of the anti-Vietnam War crusade, formaldehyde because
of the hysterical reaction to the 'toxic' trailer homes for the refugees of Katrina, and the last one, trichloroethylene,
because of the noise about the contamination of water at Camp Lejeune." None of these three chemicals passed any real
scientific tests for proof of carcinogenicity, but politics is more important than science at the EPA. The complaints
and scares were typical of these enviro-scares and the wheelchair brigades that form, encouraged by lawyers and enviro-advocates.
Incompetence and Questionable Science. When a volcano erupted in Iceland in 2010, miles of black ash was thrown
into the atmosphere. Air transportation between America and Europe was impacted, and tens of thousands of people were
left to sit at airports. They would sit for a long time until the CEO of British Airways, which was losing many
millions of pounds a day, asked a reasonable question: can we fly through this ash? This curious man was told that the
results of a computer model showed dangerous levels of particular substances in the air. However, one research plane,
and then another, was sent to this "dangerous ash cloud" just in case, and it was discovered that no danger was found, and
air travel resumed.
Biggest Junk Science of 2018. [#5] In California, Coffee Is a Carcinogen. Coffee contains a tiny amount of
the chemical acrylamide (on average, a half a millionth of a gram in a cup of roasted coffee). Based mostly on animal
and in vitro studies, acrylamide has been found to be a potential risk factor for cancer in very high doses. Therefore
coffee causes cancer and requires a warning label. Such was the apparent logic of California Superior Court Judge
Elihu Berle in a ruling this past spring. Scientists and experts almost universally decried the move as a gross
overextension of the precautionary principle, but to no avail. Coffee is immensely unlikely to cause cancer, but in
California, the popular drink now comes accompanied by a scary and misleading warning label.
coffee study is nonsense — leave my morning ritual alone!. After an exhaustive study, scientists
tell us that the best time to drink coffee might NOT actually be first thing in the morning but actually an hour after you
wake up. This is because in the hour after you wake up, your body's production of cortisol is at one of its three daily
peaks. This mysterious cortisol is known as the "alertness hormone," so in order to achieve maximum alertness, we
should delay the intake of caffeine, according to researchers. Which researchers? The kind who like to tell us
what to do.
Science Has Become a Profitable Industry. Who Will Stop It? Should we believe the headline, "Drinking
four cups of coffee daily lowers risk of death"? How about, "Mouthwash May Trigger Diabetes..."? Should we really
eat more, not less, fat? And what should we make of data that suggest people with spouses live longer? These
sorts of conclusions, from supposedly scientific studies, seem to vary from month to month, leading to ever-shifting "expert"
recommendations. However, most of their admonitions are based on flawed research that produces results worthy of
daytime TV. Misleading research is costly to society directly because much of it is supported by the federal
government, and indirectly, when it gives rise to unwise, harmful public policy.
Research Confirms We Got Cholesterol All Wrong. A comprehensive new study on cholesterol, based on results from
more than a million patients, could help upend decades of government advice about diet, nutrition, health, prevention, and
medication. Just don't hold your breath. The study, published in the Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology,
centers on statins, a class of drugs used to lower levels of LDL-C, the so-called "bad" cholesterol, in the human body.
According to the study, statins are pointless for most people.
California, Human Breath Is [seen as] a Cancer Risk. Last Wednesday, the FDA threw its hat into California's
eternal does-or-doesn't-coffee-cause-cancer fight. "Requiring a cancer warning on coffee, based on the presence of
acrylamide, would be more likely to mislead consumers than to inform," the federal agency's statement read. That's
because scientists are in near uniform agreement that coffee doesn't cause cancer — its safety is reinforced by
some of the most comprehensive data available. But since coffee contains a chemical called acrylamide, California's
Proposition 65 law requires the beverages to bear a warning. The law is broken, and its inconsistency is just part of
the reason why Californians pay these warnings little mind. So in August's waning days, the rules governing Proposition 65
warnings changed to make them more informative. Now, rather than vague notices about cancer and reproductive harm, California
law requires manufacturers to identify which specific chemical on the state's list of roughly 900 carcinogens and reproductive
toxins an item might expose consumers to.
The Editor says...
There is exactly the same amount of water on the Earth today as there was 5,000 years ago. There
could be places around the world where the government at some level has mismanaged the water supplies,
but that doesn't make wetlands wetter and dry regions drier.
sunscreen be destroying our coral reefs? Hawaii lawmakers say yes. Hawaii is set to become the first
state to ban the sale of sunscreens containing chemicals believed to be harmful to the environment. State lawmakers
passed a bill Tuesday [5/1/2018] that prohibits the sale and distribution of over-the-counter sunscreens containing oxybenzone
or octinoxate, two chemicals that have been found to "cause genetic damage to coral and other marine organisms." "These
chemicals have also been shown to degrade corals' resiliency and ability to adjust to climate change factors and inhibit
recruitment of new corals," the bill reads.
The Editor says...
Consider for a moment the volume of the ocean, compared to the total volume of all the sunscreen that has ever been applied on the beach.
Consider also how far from the nearest coral reef the average beach visitor is. Then think about how many months it would take for the
sunscreen to drift from the beach-goer to the coral reef, and what infinitesimal fraction of the sunscreen would remain after the trip.
Sunscreen chemicals would have to be really toxic to have any effect on anything after such a voyage. And if they were so toxic, they
wouldn't be available in this country.
defective science harms public policy and damages our public schools. If a scientific study is to be
legitimate, it must be reproducible because replication allows examination of the data and the possibility of different
conclusions. If the study is not reproducible it is not really science, and as the authors show, that type of
non-science is now common. In June of 2016, Oona Lönnstedt and Peter Eklöv of Uppsala University published a
paper in Science warning of the dangers of microplastic particles in the ocean. The study got considerable media
attention but as it turned out, "Lönnstedt never performed the research that she and Eklöv reported." So in
philosophical terms, it had an existential problem, and veracity is also an issue.
Parade of Impending Catastrophes. Here is a short list of impending catastrophes: soil erosion, running out of
minerals, running out of oil, the ozone hole, biological diversity, radon, death of coral, acid rain, global warming, global cooling,
sea level rise, extreme weather, species extermination, air pollution, polar bear death, clear cutting forests, plutonium, dioxin,
nuclear power, coal power, mountaintop mining, the many supposed causes of cancer, food additives, genetically modified organisms,
water pollution, overpopulation, chickens in cages, cows fed grain, plastic bags, mid-ocean floating garbage, super-hurricanes,
droughts, floods, environmental refugees, pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers.
must carry cancer warning, California judge rules. Bad news, coffee drinkers: A California judge has
ruled that coffee companies across the state will have to carry a cancer warning label because of a carcinogen that is
present in the brewed beverage. Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle sided with a nonprofit's case against dozens of coffee
companies, including Starbucks, Peets and other chains, saying that businesses that sold coffee were in violation of a state
regulation requiring businesses with at least 10 employees to disclose the prevalence of carcinogens and toxic chemicals.
"While plaintiff offered evidence that consumption of coffee increases the risk of harm to the fetus, to infants, to children
and to adults, defendants' medical and epidemiology experts testified that they had no opinion on causation," Berle wrote.
"Defendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that consumption of coffee confers a benefit
to human health."
That Old Time Religion. The biggest albatross of environmentalism is its well-deserved reputation for
apocalypticism: the world is always going to come to and end because of... plastic bags! Bee colony collapse
disorder! Endocrine disruptors! Velociraptors! [...] Why, people often ask me, are environmentalists so gloomy
about the human prospect? I have a simple answer: it makes them happy. Seriously: if you point out to
environmentalists the data showing many environmental problems on the national and global scale are improving, they usually
go into a rage. Good news is bad news.
when we were told "Penguins Don't Migrate, they're dying!" ? — never mind. WUWT readers may remember
this story from last year, where Chris Turney, leader of the ill fated "ship of fools" Spirit of Mawson expedition that go
stuck in Antarctic sea ice said: "Penguins Don't Migrate, they're dying!" and of course blamed the dreaded "climate
change" as the reason. Of course three days later, Discover Magazine ran an article that suggested Turney was full of
Penguin Poop. Well, seems there's a surplus of Penguins now, in a place nobody thought to look, there's an extra
1.5 million Penguins.
when global warming was going to increase Malaria? Never mind. In the visualisations below we provide
estimates of the total number of deaths from the World Health Organization (WHO) from 2000 to 2015, and the Institute of
Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), Global Burden of Disease (GBD) from 1990 to 2016. These estimates are notably
different across various countries which affects the total number of reported deaths.
Science' Just Got Blown Up. For decades, the federal government has been telling people to cut fats and
increase carbs in their diet, relying on supposedly settled nutrition science. A new study shows that the advice has
been completely wrong.
could soon carry cancer warnings on packaging. Starbucks and a host of other coffee sellers are fighting a
lawsuit that alleges roasted coffee beans contain low levels of a carcinogen — and therefore coffee products sold
in California, from lattes to packaged beans, should carry Surgeon General-like warnings. A bench trial on the
7-year-old suit kicked off on Tuesday [9/5/2017]. A little-known public interest group, the Council for Education and
Research on Toxics, or CERT, sued roughly 70 companies, claiming the state's Proposition 65, which requires warning
labels on anything that contains materials that cause cancer, should apply to coffee.
Warming Hasn't Caused a Health Crisis. [T]he Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses inaccurate USGCRP data
on extreme heat to formulate wrong-headed regulations and provide useless advice to the American public. This nonsense
continues unabated despite independent scientific studies that show heat-related mortality going down due to adaptation,
particularly among the elderly. A study conducted by Jennifer Bobb, Roger Peng, Michelle Bell, and Francesca Dominici
of Harvard University's School of Public Health shows the risk of dying from excessive heat has dramatically declined in the
U.S. and Europe.
microplastics study to be retracted. The authors of a high-profile paper about the dangers of fish consuming
small particles of plastic say that they will retract their study, after an investigation found them "guilty of scientific
dishonesty" and raised the possibility that some of the research described "was not conducted". Limnologist Peter
Eklöv and marine biologist Oona Lönnstedt, both at Uppsala University in Sweden, continue to strongly defend
themselves against allegations made about their work, which was published in Science. But in a statement to
Nature's news team, Eklöv and Lönnstedt said that they have decided to retract the paper.
Are Dead Wrong. In 1970, when Earth Day was conceived, the late George Wald, a Nobel laureate biology professor
at Harvard University, predicted, "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against
problems facing mankind." Also in 1970, Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist and best-selling author of "The Population
Bomb," declared that the world's population would soon outstrip food supplies. In an article for The Progressive, he predicted,
"The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten
years." He gave this warning in 1969 to Britain's Institute of Biology: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money
that England will not exist in the year 2000."
13 Most Ridiculous Predictions Made on Earth Day, 1970.
[For example,] [#8] "In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution... by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of
sunlight reaching earth by one half." — Life magazine [#9] "At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered
out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." — Ecologist Kenneth Watt [#10] "Air pollution... is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands
of lives in the next few years alone." — Paul Ehrlich [#11] "By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate...
that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, 'Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, 'I am very sorry, there isn't
any.'" — Ecologist Kenneth Watt [#12] "[One] theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are
belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and
freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born." — Newsweek magazine
"permanent drought"? New all-time rainfall record set for California. Never in nearly a century of Department
of Water Resources (DWR) recordkeeping has so much precipitation fallen in the northern Sierra in a water year. DWR
reported today that 89.7 inches of precipitation — rain and snowmelt — has been recorded by the eight
weather stations it has monitored continuously since 1920 from Shasta Lake to the American River basin.
Again Say High-fat Diet Can Be Beneficial. Trimming the fat in government is great, but you may want to think
twice before cutting it out of your diet. For an increasing body of research indicates that a more traditional
menu — replete with foods such as butter and whole milk — is more healthful than the lean fare
prescribed during the last few decades. The latest study concerns one particular disease, cystic fibrosis (CF), and
finds that Canadians suffering from it live on average 10 years longer than their American counterparts. Among the
reasons for this difference, say researchers, is the "high fat diet, emphasizing cheeses, fish and nuts, recommended for
Canadians with cystic fibrosis since the 1970s," writes CBC News. The United States didn't prescribe the higher fat
diet for CS patients until the 1980s.
Handy Primer for Deluded Warmists. Similar dire climate predictions have been around since the late
1970s. And in all that time, none has come true. None at all. Undeterred, the climate soothsayers ignore
their failures and carry on as if nothing had happened. The fact that good science should produce good predictions, and
this is not happening, is also largely ignored. Instead, impending climate doom, and what must be done to avoid it, is
orthodox thought in much of government, academia and environmental groups everywhere. This thinking is much at odds
with key facts.
of the Climate: 10 years after Al Gore declared a 'planetary emergency' — top 10 reasons Gore was wrong. [#3] Despite all the
self-congratulatory international conferences and pseudo-agreements, the world has done nothing to "fight global warming." Mr. Gore cannot
claim that his deadline has been extended because some governments have forced their citizens to cut carbon dioxide emissions. CO2 levels keep
climbing and now exceed 401 parts per million in the atmosphere. It is simply not the dangerous greenhouse gas we've repeatedly been told
join forces, warn climate change is harming our health. "It's not only hurting polar bears, it's hurting us,"
said Dr. Mona Sarfaty, the director of the new consortium and a professor at George Mason University in Fairfax,
Virginia. [...] Carbon dioxide levels in the air are increasing and air and ocean temperatures are warming, contributing to more
frequent and extreme droughts, wildfires, and flooding, Sarfaty explained. In turn, she said doctors are seeing an uptick
in heat-related illnesses; worsening chronic conditions such as asthma; injuries and deaths from extreme weather like floods;
infectious diseases spread by increasing populations of mosquitoes and ticks (including those that spread Lyme disease); illnesses
stemming from contaminated food and water; and mental health problems like aggression and anxiety.
The Editor says...
The article immediately above reeks with left-wing bias.
First of all, mosquitoes and ticks are thriving because the leftists got DDT banned decades ago.
Second, the rate of global warming is currently zero, and even if it resumes its earlier pace of about
one degree per century, it's unlikely the numerous environmental problems listed above can be caused
or prevented by temperature changes of one degree. And in any event, mosquitoes and ticks are not
bothered by one-degree differences in temperature, obviously, since the ambient temperature often changes
25 or 30 degrees from day to night.
Dr. Rotunda's Testimony to House Science, Space & Technology
Committee. In 1991, the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified coffee as "possibly carcinogenic." IARC
warned us repeatedly about the potential cancer risks of coffee, but Americans kept drinking coffee. In fact, Starbucks added new coffee houses almost as fast as rabbits
multiply. In 2016, the IARC did an about-face and said it was wrong. Starbucks knew about the WHO study — everyone did — but the company sold coffee regardless.
cholesterol 'does not cause heart disease' new research finds. Cholesterol does not cause heart disease in the
elderly and trying to reduce it with drugs like statins is a waste of time, an international group of experts has
claimed. A review of research involving nearly 70,000 people found there was no link between what has traditionally
been considered "bad" cholesterol and the premature deaths of over 60-year-olds from cardiovascular disease. Published
in the BMJ Open journal, the new study found that 92 percent of people with a high cholesterol level lived longer.
Lakes Go from 'Climate Change-Induced' Low Water Levels to Record Highs in 3 Years. Between 2010 and 2013
residents of the states surrounding the Great Lakes were told that climate change was permanently altering their environment
and the record low water levels being recorded in the lakes may be the new normal. But now, only three years later,
news reports are worried about beach erosion because the lakes have rebounded to record high levels of water.
Stuff Greens Keep Getting Wrong. The real world tends to NOT cooperate with the Greens constant scream of
"DOOM, DOOM, The World Is Ending!!" I was ten when the first Earth Day came around and these predictions were made.
That was 45 years ago and somehow none of that stuff happened.
Earth Day predictions from 1970 never came true. Back in 1970, when the world celebrated the first Earth Day,
environmentalists were worried that without dramatic measures, the future would be catastrophic for the Earth and
civilization. But their grim predictions haven't come true, The Daily Caller News Foundation pointed out today,
assembling a list of seven incorrect predictions of doom regarding the planet and civilization.
casts doubt on SF-area breast cancer 'cluster'. Affluent white women in Northern California have been told for
decades that they face an elevated risk of breast cancer, but a new investigation of the reputed cluster — the
citing of which has stoked fears as well as fund-raising — shows it could all be a case of junk science.
Enviro Predictions From Earth Day 1970 That Were Just Dead Wrong. Environmentalists truly believed and
predicted during the first Earth Day in 1970 that the planet was doomed unless drastic actions were taken. Humanity
never quite got around to that drastic action, but environmentalists still recall the first Earth Day fondly and hold many of
the predictions in high regard. So this Earth Day, The Daily Caller News Foundation takes a look at predictions made by
environmentalists around the original Earth Day in 1970 to see how they've held up. Have any of these dire predictions
come true? No, but that hasn't stopped environmentalists from worrying.
study 40 years ago could have reshaped the American diet. But it was never fully published. The story
begins in the late 1960s and early '70s, when researchers in Minnesota engaged thousands of institutionalized mental patients
to compare the effects of two diets. One group of patients was fed a diet intended to lower blood cholesterol and
reduce heart disease. It contained less saturated fat, less cholesterol and more vegetable oil. The other group
was fed a more typical American diet. Just as researchers expected, the special diet reduced blood cholesterol in
patients. [... But] Patients who lowered their cholesterol, presumably because of the special diet, actually suffered
more heart-related deaths than those who did not.
Benefits of switch from
saturated fat to corn oil for longer life challenged. Despite years of claims that unsaturated fats like corn oil are
healthier, at the time the findings of a gold-standard randomized controlled trial weren't fully published. Now Christopher
Ramsden at the U.S. National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., and his team have analyzed data from the Minnesota coronary
experiment. [...] "We were able to find that actually those that lowered their cholesterol more actually had increased rather than
reduced risk of death," Ramsden said in an interview. "It was surprising."
non-disaster of 150,000 missing penguins? They just went somewhere else. Much fuss was made of 150,000 missing
penguins in Antarctica as if climate change had killed them. A monster iceberg had washed in, stopping the cute swimming
tuxedos from getting to dinner and the colony of 160,000 suddenly shrank to 10,000. Where did all those penguins go? In
previous tough times, when they could be tracked they just split up and went to different colonies. Given that the penguins
have survived repeated ice ages and warming for millions of years who would have thought that they would have a strategy for
dealing with the odd big iceberg?
out scientists really aren't sure if global warming causes droughts. Climate alarmists claim that among global warming's
parade of horrors are increased droughts of worsening severity, particularly in the U.S. — except now scientists aren't so
sure. New research suggests that global warming may not be as big of a factor as previously thought and that scientists don't
really understand as much about the climate as they thought they did.
Ice Capades. He who lives by the crystal ball must expect occasional bits of ground glass in his pudding, and the false
prophets of global warming and their cheerleaders in the media are learning that lesson the hard way. After years of predicting
that man-made global warming would melt the planet's glaciers and drown coastal towns beneath rising oceans, the threat itself is melting
like ice in April. That's cause for both celebration and a little humility in the face of the many mysteries of nature still to be
unraveled. Data from two NASA satellites, employed in the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment between 2002 and 2014, enabled
researchers to analyze the effects of glacier loss. They found to their surprise that trillions of tons of water wound up
not in the sea but spread across the planet's land mass. In fact, 3.2 trillion tons of water, equal to the volume of Lake
Huron, soaked into thirsty soil or were collected in lakes and underground aquifers.
Food Stockpiles Confound Climate Alarmist Predictions. Good news on the food front: Global food prices declined dramatically in 2015 as
bumper crops continued to defy some scientists' claims human-caused climate change would cause widespread crop failures. The United Nations' Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports international food prices dipped by 19 percent in the past year, the fourth consecutive annual decline.
FAO cites abundant supplies and an appreciating U.S. dollar as the main reasons for the general decline in food prices in 2015.
food is healthy. Not even kale. In the 1970s, no one questioned whether eggs really were the heart-attack
risk nutritionists warned us about. Now, of course, eggs have become such a cherished food that many people raise their
own laying hens. Such examples of food confusion and misinformation abound.
revises Dietary Guidelines for Americans: Go ahead and have some eggs. The federal government on Thursday
[1/7/2016] told Americans not to worry so much about cholesterol in their diets, that lots of coffee is fine and that
skipping breakfast is no longer considered a health hazard. The recommendations were part of a new "Dietary Guidelines
for Americans," the influential nutrition advice book that, updated every five years, expresses official thinking about what
constitutes a nutritious meal. In what may be the most striking change, the new version drops the strict limit on dietary
cholesterol, stepping back from one of most prominent public health messages since the '60s.
Federal Gov't Has Misled Public About Milk For Decades. If you look up "whole milk" in the government's official Dietary
Guidelines, it states pretty definitively that people should only drink skim or 1% milk. "If you currently drink whole milk," it
says, "gradually switch to lower fat versions." This is the same advice the government has been issuing for many years. And
it's wrong. Research published in recent years shows that people "might have been better off had they stuck with whole milk,"
according to a front-page story in the Washington Post on Wednesday [10/7/2015]. "People who consumed more milk fat had lower
incidence of heart disease."
decades, the government steered millions away from whole milk. Was that wrong? U.S. dietary guidelines have
long recommended that people steer clear of whole milk, and for decades, Americans have obeyed. Whole milk sales shrunk.
It was banned from school lunch programs. Purchases of low-fat dairy climbed. "Replace whole milk and full-fat milk products
with fat-free or low-fat choices," says the the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the federal government's influential advice book, citing
the role of dairy fat in heart disease. Whether this massive shift in eating habits has made anyone healthier is an open question
among scientists, however. In fact, research published in recent years indicates that the opposite might be true: millions
might have been better off had they stuck with whole milk.
The Government's War On Trans-Fat Misguided, Too? Later this year, the federal government is expected to remove
dietary cholesterol from its list of bad foods. The expert panel that advises the government on these guidelines concluded
there's no reason to be concerned about "overconsumption." In other words, all those federal warnings stretching over the
past four decades about how eating eggs and other cholesterol-rich food would clog your arteries were wrong. Now the
federal government could be making the same mistake with trans-fat.
'Settled Science' Is a Myth. Never
trust a politician who quotes "settled science." It used to be "settled science" that the universe was eternal and static, that
fat makes you fat, and that the sun revolves around the earth. Before "global warming," the scare was "global cooling" —
a new Ice Age would end life on earth as we know it. Recent events have confirmed that science is rarely settled.
Wildlife Lives In Harmony With 'All Of The Above' Energy Production. Our energy requirements and love of wild
things are not only not mutually exclusive, they are mutually beneficial. From the lichen enhancing heat from
Alaska pipelines benefitting caribou, to the game rich biodiversity of reclaimed coal mines in the east, the great fishing
around oil platforms in the oceans, wildlife populations actually increase and expand as a result of energy development.
No, You Do Not Have to Drink 8 Glasses
of Water a Day. If there is one health myth that will not die, it is this: You should drink eight glasses of water a day.
It's just not true. There is no science behind it. And yet every summer we are inundated with news media reports warning that dehydration
is dangerous and also ubiquitous. These reports work up a fear that otherwise healthy adults and children are walking around dehydrated,
even that dehydration has reached epidemic proportions. Let's put these claims under scrutiny.
Earth may hold more helium than we
thought. Don't mourn the loss of your humorously high-pitched voices quite yet. Despite years of warnings from
scientists that Earth's supply of helium is quickly running out, the results of a study announced Wednesday [8/19/2015] in Prague
show there could still be large deposits of the element hidden underground, the Guardian reports. Helium, as important to the
nuclear industry as the birthday party industry, is essential to everything from MRIs to the Large Hadron Collider, according to
Phys.org. But as PhD student Diveena Danabalan explains, "Helium is the second lightest element in nature, it is so light
that it leaks away into space." That makes it a finite resource, and most of the helium we've used so far has come as a
byproduct of natural gas extraction.
Tip: The Next Time Government Gives You Dietary Advice, Do the Opposite. We already know that government recommendations
regarding health are often driven by a bunch of Chicken Littles. The leading organ of American scaremongering, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, has gotten so much wrong over the years. There was the outrageous contention that 400,000
Americans were dropping dead from obesity every year. (They weren't.) And then there were all the over-the-top warnings
about the alleged risks of secondhand smoke. (They don't really exist.)
Will 2016 Be A Climate
Hysteria Election? Will the climate campaign ever reach its "sell-by" date? Probably not: the deep need
for belief in catastrophism — and the expansion of political power that is always deemed necessary to "solve" the
problem — will persist even if we run out of witches to drown. Perhaps the most damaging trope of climate
catastrophism is that "we only have X years left" before it will be too late. James Hansen said it was 2010.
Al Gore thought the Arctic would be ice-free by last year. I'm pretty sure if I look I can find someone who said that
Obama was our last hope.
Alarmism [is] Unfounded. Fear is a powerful emotion, and it is being used by environmental
activists to try and manipulate the public conscience and political discourse. However, just as many
other past doomsday predictions about impending environmental collapse have proven false, so shall the
current climate alarmism likely prove unfounded, as is already being borne out by recent decades of
unremarkable climate data.
Change: Where is the Science? In 1999 they said that warming would wipe out the Great
Barrier Reef. In 2000 they said that Britain would no longer see snow during winter. In 2001 they
predicted starvation from failing grain crops in India. From 2003 to 2005 they concluded that the drought
then occurring in Australia would be permanent and Sydney dwellers would have nothing to drink. In 2006
they predicted unprecedented severe cyclones and hurricanes. In 2008 they said that by 2013 there would
be no more arctic ice cap; that we would be swimming with the otters at the North Pole. None of these
predictions have come to pass.
Worrywart Generation. Apparently a large fraction of America's creative talent is being used
for the creation of imaginary anxieties. These faux phobias are doing great damage to our abilities
to live our lives to the fullest. A partial list of bogus anxieties would include sustainability, GMOs,
glutens, pesticides, running out of resources, CO2, fossil fuels, insufficient diversity, climate change,
endangered species, landfills, loss of wet lands, carbon footprints, fracking, plastic bags, renewability,
sugary soft drinks, and "white privilege."
Climate Doom Comes and Goes. The nice thing about making predictions of doom is that
they really grab people's attention. Just make sure you don't use specific dates.
Otherwise, people will laugh at you when the predictions don't come true.
and Envy. Environmentalists subscribe to continually changing prophecies of apocalyptic disaster.
Our topsoil is being washed into the ocean (The Road to Survival — 1948). DDT is
exterminating birds (The Silent Spring — 1962). Overpopulation will result in starvation
(The Population Bomb — 1968). We will run out of resources and strangle on pollution
(The Limits to Growth — 1972). Acid rain from burning coal will destroy our forests and
crops (circa 1985). Hairspray will destroy the ozone layer and cause cancer (1980s). Burning fossil
fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere that will cause disastrous global warming (1988-2015). These prophecies
and many others were claimed to be scientifically justified. The science is always secondary and almost always
poor science. What's important is the thrill of impending doom and the call to activists to engineer a rescue.
The "Food Babe"
Blogger Is [In Error]. How many companies or products do you think it would make sense
to crusade against in the course of a career? One? Three? A dozen? Hari has
declared, to date, more than 610 products and companies to be unsafe over the course of four years.
According to Hari, the problem with most of them, including Girl Scout Cookies: GMOs and
pesticides. She's even alleged that an apple can be worse for you than a hot fudge sundae, if
it's not organic. And is there even a shred of truth to this? Not in the least. Hari
claims going organic will save you from pesticides, but organic farming uses pesticides too. Some
of them are far more toxic than conventional pesticides.
glorious return of the egg: Why Uncle Sam is a horrible nutritionist. Put down that
egg-white omelet. Whole eggs aren't going to give you a heart attack. So says the government now,
after 40 years of warning that eggs are killing you, and funding bad research to "confirm" that they
do, and employing experts to shout down nutritionists who say they don't.
Are In After Nutrition Panel Lifts Cholesterol Warning. Something many of us have been
trying to avoid is now okay to eat. The nation's top nutrition panel is dropping its guidelines
about avoiding foods that are high in cholesterol. The new finding by the Dietary Guidelines
Advisory Committee means that cholesterol is no longer listed as a "nutrient of concern."
butter is good for you. Just like global warming, then. The big story in all the
papers this week is that butter is good for you, after all. I say "after all" because for most of
my life butter has been widely touted by the Health Establishment as the dietary equivalent of
Polonium-210. That's why, when you go to the supermarket, every other product on the shelves screams
at you about how healthily "low fat" it is; why, at some high-street coffee chains, you can't get
your latte made with full-fat milk even if you ask because they only do "skimmed" or "semi-skimmed";
and why, perhaps most damningly, we're currently experiencing an epidemic of obesity and type 2
diabetes. It all goes back to some now discredited 'research' conducted in the 1950s by an American
dietician called Ancel Keys.
U.S. government is poised to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol. The
nation's top nutrition advisory panel has decided to drop its caution about eating cholesterol-laden
food, a move that could undo almost 40 years of government warnings about its consumption. The
group's finding that cholesterol in the diet need no longer be considered a "nutrient of concern"
stands in contrast to the committee's findings five years ago, the last time it convened. During
those proceedings, as in previous years, the panel deemed the issue of excess cholesterol in the
American diet a public health concern. The finding follows an evolution of thinking among many
nutritionists who now believe that, for healthy adults, eating foods high in cholesterol may not
significantly affect the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease.
What else are the "experts" wrong about? Butter
ISN'T bad for you after all: Major study says 80s advice on dairy fats was flawed.
Guidelines that told millions of people to avoid butter and full-fat milk should never have been
introduced, say experts. The startling assertion challenges advice that has been followed by the
medical profession for 30 years. The experts say the advice from 1983, aimed at reducing
deaths from heart disease, lacked any solid trial evidence to back it up.
Five Ways Liberals
Ignore Science. We don't need to get into the catalogue of preposterous studies that
have been uncritically thrown around by Nanny State liberals over the past few decades — including
debunked scaremongering about obesity and second-hand smoke. The same goes for all brands of
localism, organic farming, irrational fears about DDT and trade — all positions that undermine
progress. Let's chalk this up to an innate impulse most people have to bolster their
worldview. Believe whatever makes you feel good. Then again, what are we to make of
people who mock religion as imaginary but believe a sun sign should determine whom you date or are
concerned that they will be wisked away in a flying saucer?
Feds To Regulate
Fake Fireplaces To Stop Global Warming. Better go out and buy a gas fireplace and stove soon
before federal regulations make them more expensive. Federal officials are looking to regulate the
energy usage of fake fireplaces as part of the Obama administration's effort to fight global warming.
Coffee pods: The
new eco-villain. Canadians are big fans of single-serve brewers; 20 percent of
households own one, compared to 12 percent of Americans. But with massive growth comes massive
garbage: Since they're largely unrecyclable, almost all coffee pods end up in a landfill. They
have not yet taken on the bad rap of the plastic water bottle, the eco-villain of our times, but mounting
garbage piles of pods are becoming increasingly hard to ignore.
jumps the shark, banning — ARGON. Its hard to imagine a more inoffensive
substance than Argon. As a noble gas, Argon is chemically inert — it participates in no
chemical reactions whatsoever, except under exotic conditions — there are no known chemical
compounds which can survive at room temperature which include Argon. Argon is not a greenhouse gas.
But Argon is incredibly useful to industry — among other things, is used as a "shield" gas.
Anyone who welds Aluminium or Stainless Steel will be familiar with Argon, which is used with MIG and TIG welders,
to blow oxygen away from the electric welding arc, to prevent oxidative damage to the weld joint.
of Science in Texas. This example of government scientists hiding information for
years while simultaneously issuing press releases, giving interviews, testifying to county boards
and state legislatures and briefing members of Congress is just one example of the "secret science"
of government conducted by unelected bureaucrats that an industry comprised mostly of small
family-owned businesses, such as the pavement maintenance industry, must grapple with.
Hysterical Media Tell Us to Calm Down.
In the past week, The New York Times has ridiculed Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Gov. Chris Christie for
having "fed panic" by ordering quarantines for health workers arriving from Ebola-plagued countries.
[...] I haven't noticed any panic. If you want panic, review media coverage of the police shooting
in Ferguson, Missouri. That hair-on-fire coverage was based entirely, it turns out, on the media's
gullibly swallowing inaccurate accounts of the incident. For decades liberals have terrified
soccer moms about a slew of imaginary terrors: global warming, Alar on apples, breast implants,
heterosexual AIDS, nuclear war, and Republicans taking away their birth control.
Garbage Philosophy Behind The Great Pacific Garbage Patch Myth. Why should we all be skeptical of doomsday
claims about global warming? Well, there are a lot of reasons. But from now on, I can sum it all up in one simple
phrase: the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. This was an environmentalist scare that became a bit of a trend from the late
1990s through the mid-2000s. The idea was that there is a giant floating raft of consumer trash in the middle of the
Pacific where ocean currents created a kind of dead spot and all the flotsam and jetsam of the ocean gathered together.
It was supposed to be a vast floating indictment — twice the size of Texas! the size of a continent! —
of our wicked, wasteful lifestyles. The problem is that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch never existed.
Great Pacific Garbage Patch Hoax. A new study published in Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences could mean bad news for environmental doomsayers. Forget all those warnings
about the million tons of plastic debris floating in the ocean. Ignore the photos that you think
show the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Andres Cozar of the University of Cadiz in Spain is the man
who once extrapolated the 1 million-ton estimate. Since then, however, he has led research that
collected samples at 141 ocean sites. Cozar's new estimate: Between 7,000 and 35,000 tons of plastic
are floating in the ocean. Cozar's team didn't find country-sized islands of plastic bags
strangling baby birds and sea turtles. It found "micro plastics." What people think of as a dump
doesn't look like floating junk. Instead, ocean current "convergence zones" are swirling with flecks
of plastic — like a snow globe a half-minute after you shake it — and with
considerably less plastic trash than expected.
'Great Pacific Garbage Patch' myth. Many, perhaps most, Americans believe that a vast accumulation of (mostly
plastic) garbage is floating somewhere out in the Pacific Ocean, a non-biodegradable stain on humanity, choking and deforming
fish. But apparently, that is just a myth.
An Ocean of Plastic. There is
a lot of plastic trash and debris going to the world's oceans. It used to be dumped intentionally — New York City barged
its municipal trash out to sea and tipped it in for years and years, as recently as 1992. There is no longer any country or
municipality known to be disposing of municipal trash and garbage at sea today. Most trash and garbage is fairly readily decomposed
in the natural environment and in modern landfills. [...] Jenna Jambeck summarizes it saying that the amount of plastic estimated to be
washing into the oceans is "one to three orders of magnitude greater than the reported mass of plastic in high-concentration ocean
gyres". That means that 10 to 1,000 times more plastic is going into the oceans than can be found. So, the Big
Question about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch — all the Garbage Patches — is: "Where is all that plastic?"
PETA Needs to [Shut Up} About Autism and Dairy.
If I were to survey my patients' refrigerators, odds are I'd find milk in almost all of them. With
the exception of those with a diagnosed medical problem related to dairy consumption, just about
every parent reports that their kids drink at least some milk. I commonly pass along the
recommendation that children have 2-3 cups of dairy during the day, and my own kids certainly put
away their share of it. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is trying to scare
people into changing all that. As recently reported by The Daily Beast, PETA has launched a
campaign that tries to link milk consumption and autism.
Are butter, cheese and meat
that bad? For the past four decades, we've been told to stay away from red meat,
dairy and cheese — foods high in saturated fats — because saturated fat is
bad for the heart. But investigative reporter Nina Teicholz says that isn't the case. "When the
dietary recommendations came out in 1961 saying that saturated fat causes heart disease, that was
based on total cholesterol," Teicholz said. "But our understanding of heart disease has evolved
The Editor says...
Brominated vegetable oil was "generally recognized as safe" as far
back as 1958.
That's what chlorine is for. Teen
urinates in reservoir; officials to flush 38M gallons; L.A. weeps. Shortly after 1 a.m.
Wednesday [4/16/2014], a 19-year-old in a hoodie and baggy jeans was captured on a grainy black-and-white
surveillance video urinating into a reservoir that slakes the thirst of Portland, Ore.'s 600,000 or so
residents. But really, Portland Water Bureau officials, do you have to flush 38 million gallons
of potable water for the sake of a cup or two of human urine? That's how much the bladder comfortably
holds, although the bladder in question obviously wasn't comfortable.
would take a lot more urine] in the Portland Reservoir to Make It Unsafe to Drink. A teenager urinated into
one of the city's drinking water reservoirs the other day. That's gross, sure, and aggravating — what a
brat! But in one of the most spectacularly stupid decisions in years, the city is going to drain the reservoir.
The most spectacularly stupid decision in about three years, anyway — if this sounds familiar, that's because
Portland did the same thing in 2011.
The Editor says...
Ask yourself these questions: Is every gallon in that open outdoor reservoir a gallon of pure potable water?
Do birds fly over and poop in it occasionally? Do ducks spend the night in that water? Are there any fish in
that water? Doesn't the city add chlorine to that water before pumping it to the city's distribution system?
Have you ever considered where drinking water comes from on the International Space Station?
reservoir as a latrine? It'll be moot once EPA rule kicks in. Portland's now-infamous teenager who was
caught on camera urinating into a reservoir there apparently told an online news site that he was relieving himself on
a wall. Although tests on the open-air reservoir came back clean, the ick factor was enough for officials to go
ahead with their plan to drain all 38 million gallons of drinking water and send it into the sea.
the 'pee' in Portland. Tragedy struck Portland again last week at Reservoir No. 5,
this time by a teenage terrorist armed with a bladder of death and destruction, or at least 8 ounces
of annoying but harmless urine. It was shock and awe all over again at the Portland water
department. What happened next is a textbook case of what can happen anywhere when bureaucrats are
left loose and unsupervised. [...] David Shaff, the administrator of the Portland Water Bureau, quickly
ordered the reservoir drained, all 38 million gallons of the stuff the San Joaquin Valley hundreds
of miles south would kill for. Tests showed the water was actually clear and clean, with no
traces of urine, but Mr. Shaff was not thinking about public safety. It was all about marketing.
High-Fructose Corn Syrup: Separating Myths from
Facts. Since the 1970s, the use of high-fructose corn syrup in the U.S. food supply has increased dramatically — typically
as a replacement for sucrose (table sugar) in soft drinks and many food products. The prevalence of obesity has also increased substantially
between the 1970s and the early 2000s. Because of this coincidental timing, HFCS has been erroneously demonized as a unique cause of the
obesity epidemic in the United States. Sucrose and HFCS have essentially the same composition, and thus it would be highly unlikely for
them to have different effects on body weight or metabolism.
The Top 10 Unfounded Health Scares of 2012. [#6] Caramel
coloring in Coke: A caramel coloring ingredient found in sodas, 4-methylimidazole (4-MI or 4-MEI), was labeled as a carcinogen under California's
ridiculous Proposition 65. This chemical has been under attack previously by the same Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI),
which is bringing it to the forefront again. [...] The doses of 4-MI necessary to kill rodents are so high, that this chemical should not have been
attacked in the first place. Although the soda industry is reformulating products, the previous recipe with 4-MI does not pose a risk to
humans and this scare was simply blown out of proportion by the "food police" at CSPI.
obscure new rule on microwaves can tell us a lot about Obama's climate policies. Last week, the Department of Energy
announced a little-noticed update to its energy-efficiency standards for microwaves, requiring newer models to use less power in
stand-by mode. But there was a surprise buried in the fine print: The agency is now using a higher figure for the "social
cost of carbon" in calculating the benefits of the rule.
The Editor says...
Outside your house, there is a big power transformer that consumes power 24 hours a day (if you're lucky), and dissipates more power than all the idle
appliances you own. And the power company
knows about it, and can't do anything to fix it, and nobody
cares. And that problem doesn't cause global warming, either. Once again, in case you have just tuned in, global
warming stopped — all by itself — in 1998.
'Crack baby' scare
overblown, teen research says. Research in teens adds fresh evidence that the 1980s "crack baby" scare was overblown,
finding little proof of any major long-term ill effects in children whose mothers used cocaine during pregnancy.
The Top Ten Unfounded Health Scares of 2006. [#2]
Benzene in Soft Drinks Cause Cancer: Yes, benzene is a carcinogen — at high doses — and has been linked to leukemia in
workers exposed over years. The current EPA limit on benzene in water is 5 parts per billion (ppb), and levels found in soft drinks were
over that amount. But what the scaremongers don't tell us is that even levels above that are not necessarily going to present a problem.
The amounts found in soft drinks are extraordinarily small — one ppb is analogous to one second in 32 years. Back in 1990,
when there was a similar scare about benzene in Perrier (naturally present in the spring the water came from), the FDA counseled that the levels
(12-20 ppb) should not be of concern.
Bees, pesticides, more green
lies. [Scroll down] Various neonicotinoids are widely used in Canada to protect its vast canola fields, and Canadian
bee populations are thriving, notes science writer Jon Entine. Varroa-free Australia is likewise one of the world's prime users of
these pesticides, and its bee colonies are among the planet's healthiest. By contrast, bee populations have been severely impacted
by Varroa mites in areas of Switzerland where neonics are not used. Multiple studies point to still other factors that explain why
bees are struggling. They include bees developing resistance to antibiotics, funguses like Nosema, multiple bee viruses and parasites,
bacterial infections like foulbrood, exposure to commonly used organophosphates, bee habitat loss, and even long-term bee inbreeding and
resultant lack of genetic diversity.
Rachel Was Wrong. This year marks the 50th anniversary of biologist
Rachel Carson's 1962 book, Silent Spring, which argued that man-made chemicals represented a grave threat to human health and the environment.
[...] History has proven Carson's claims wrong. Contrary to her admonitions, a chemically caused cancer epidemic never came to pass.
Researchers who identified environmental factors did not simply target trace chemical exposures as significant, but instead focused on major
cancer causes such as tobacco and poor diets. In fact, people are living longer and healthier lives, cancer rates have declined even as
chemical use has increased, and chemicals are not among the key causes of cancer.
Representative Declares State of Emergency over Frying Pan Grease. State Rep. Kathy Webb is seeking to have Arkansas declare
a state of emergency due to people failing to scrape grease from their dishes or trap the grease in special grease collectors before washing
the dishes in dishwashers or the kitchen sink. Webb has submitted Interim Study Proposal 2011-201, an act "to declare an emergency"
over the alleged crisis.
Mobile phone use
'not linked to brain tumours', say experts. After decades of fear, using a mobile phone may not
cause cancer after all, scientific research has claimed. An independent panel of experts has found "no
convincing evidence of a link" between the technology and brain tumours. But the panel, from a
leading cancer research centre, admitted the possibility of small or long-term repercussions could
not be ruled out.
Government Just Put Formaldehyde On The Cancer List. The 12th list of the chemicals that give you
cancer to be published by the toxicology program at the National Institutes at Health was released on June 10th.
The bad news: Formaldehyde is one of the eight chemicals listed on it. Formaldehyde has been
expected to join this list for many years and unfortunately, it's already in everything, to the point that it's
safe to say you've definitely been exposed to it at some point in your life. Especially if you've ever
been inside a nail or hair salon, worn a wrinkle-free shirt, or smelled the "new house" smell.
farms: Britain is 'running out of wind'. According to government figures, 13 of the past
16 months have been calmer than normal — while 2010 was the "stillest" year of the past
decade. Meteorologists believe that changes to the Atlantic jet stream could alter the pattern of
winds over the next 40 years and leave much of the nation's growing army of power-generating turbines
has me incensed. How many times in our own lifetime have the doomsayers, confusing their own
mortality with that of mankind, falsely warned we were at the end of days? Wasn't humanity supposed to
have already been cut down by nuclear war? Global pandemics? The "population bomb"? The
hole in the ozone layer? A new ice age? Acid rain? Genetically modified food? Toxic
waste? A catastrophic extinction caused by pollution and pesticides? Pick your poison. None
of it happened.
Sticky or Non-Stick? Senate
Bill 1313 ... [outlaws] PFOS, PFOA, higher homologues, or precursors to these chemicals, in any concentration
exceeding 10 parts per billion. ... [But it] Seems there is little evidence that the chemicals cause any harm;
it's found everywhere, yet there's been ZERO reported incidence of health problems caused by the chemicals, even in
A New Cigarette Hazard: 'Third-Hand
Smoke'. Parents who smoke often open a window or turn on a fan to clear the air of second-hand smoke, but
experts now have identified another smoking-related threat to children's health that isn't as easy to get rid of:
third-hand smoke. That's the term being used to describe the invisible yet toxic brew of gases and particles clinging
to smokers' hair and clothing, not to mention cushions and carpeting, that lingers long after smoke has cleared from a room.
Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the
same as today. Why we are told otherwise? Proponents of human induced warming and
climate change told us that an increase in CO2 precedes and causes temperature increases. They were
wrong. They told us the late 20th century was the warmest on record. They were wrong. They told us,
using the infamous "hockey stick" graph, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) did not exist. They were wrong. They
told us global temperatures would increase through 2008 as CO2 increased. They were wrong. They told us
Arctic ice would continue to decrease in area through 2008. They were wrong. They told us October 2008
was the second warmest on record. They were wrong.
Making city streets safer for criminals.
In a commentary in Nature magazine (Jan. 1) presaging the 2009 International Year of Astronomy, astronomer Malcolm
Smith says that it's time for cities to "turn off the lights" so we can better see the Milky Way, conserve energy,
protect wildlife and benefit human health. ... "A fifth of the world's population cannot see the Milky Way," is Smith's
headline argument. "This has a subtle cultural impact. Without a direct view of the stars, mankind is cut off
from most of the Universe, deprived of any direct sense of its huge scale and our tiny place within it," he asserts.
That fuzzy mix of cosmology, sociology and psychology would seem to be an odd argument coming from someone who holds
himself out to be a scientist.
for frogs' legs harming wild populations. Are frogs being eaten to extinction? We're used
to hearing about how disease, climate change, and habitat degradation are endangering amphibians, but
conservationists are warning that frogs could be going the same way as the cod. Gastronomic demand, they
report, is depleting regional populations to the point of no return. David Bickford of the National
University of Singapore and colleagues have called for more regulation and monitoring in the global frog
meat market in order to avoid species being "eaten to extinction".
Legless frogs mystery solved.
Around the world, frogs are found with missing or misshaped limbs, a striking deformity that many researchers
believe is caused by chemical pollution. However, tests on frogs and toads have revealed a more natural,
benign cause. The deformed frogs are actually victims of the predatory habits of dragonfly nymphs, which
eat the legs of tadpoles.
Frogs bounce back,
contradicting warmist doomsayers. Just a few years ago, we were told that frogs were disappearing
because of global warming. We were told that there was no further time to waste, that soon the world
would be frog-bereft, so we had no choice but to limit crabon [sic] emissions or all would be lost.
Now it turns out that this prediction was as valid as the prediction that snow would vanish from Britain,
and that Australia was doomed to extreme drought. As the UK digs out of record snowfall, and Australia
copes with extreme floods, the frogs are bouncing back.
Ecologists warn the planet
is running short of water. A swelling global population, changing diets and mankind's expanding
"water footprint" could be bringing an end to the era of cheap water. The warnings, in an annual report
by the Pacific Institute in California, come as ecologists have begun adopting the term "peak ecological
water" — the point where, like the concept of "peak oil", the world has to confront a natural limit
on something once considered virtually infinite.
MMR doctor Andrew
Wakefield fixed data on autism. The doctor who sparked the scare over the safety of the MMR
vaccine for children changed and misreported results in his research, creating the appearance of a possible
link with autism, a Sunday Times investigation has found. Confidential medical documents and interviews
with witnesses have established that Andrew Wakefield manipulated patients' data, which triggered fears that
the MMR triple vaccine to protect against measles, mumps and rubella was linked to the condition.
Deadly Toll Of Vaccine Hysteria. The idea that a preservative once used in vaccines is to blame for
rising autism rates has just been authoritatively debunked — again. Indeed, some of the key
early "evidence" now stands exposed as fake. Sadly, none of this will kill this myth — because
it was never based on good science.
CDC Can't Link Human Health to Great Lakes Water Pollution.
The best available scientific data show no firm connection between Great Lakes water pollution and human
health effects, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has
concluded after an eight-year study.
Overheated White House
Environmental Campaigns. [President Obama] has said on global warming, "The science is beyond
dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We've seen
record drought, spreading famine and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season."
Fortunately for the world, not a single one of those claims is accurate.
gas is biggest threat to ozone. Nitrous oxide, better known as the dental anaesthetic "laughing
gas", has replaced CFCs as the most potent destroyer of ozone in the upper atmosphere, a study has shown.
Unlike CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons), once extensively used in refrigerators, emissions of the gas are not
limited by any international agreement.
The Editor says...
The total mass of stratospheric ozone is estimated as
3x10^12 kg.* That's
30 billion metric tons of ozone. There must be a lot more dentists than I had thought.
Creating a Drug Crisis:
A rather obscure theory, dear to the hearts of many environmental groups, holds that over-the-counter drugs,
prescription drugs and pesticides are wreaking havoc on human health and the environment because they act as
"endocrine disruptors." ... Such claims are nothing more than nonsense of the sort that environmental groups
routinely spout in order to create non-existent crises that their supporters are urged to address. Not
coincidentally, these manufactured crises are used by environmental groups to drum up contributions in order
to battle evil corporations bent on destroying the planet.
Radicals + Environmental Regulations = Lost Jobs. In California, the SRC [Scientific Review
Committee] is now focused on overturning the state's decision to approve a new chemical called methyl
iodide, which is harmless and does not pose a threat when deployed correctly. Long story short,
methyl iodide is used as a soil disinfectant, and naturally emitted by rice plantations. The decision
to not use methyl iodide seriously threatens a $2 billion dollar a year strawberry industry that employs
over 10,000 people alone in California.