Yes, and lets not forget treating the falls (River) like it was their own personal sewer.... dumping their waste chemicals into the water. Another thing the environmentalists and after pushing them.... the government put a stop to.
I call BS on this one. Aren't we going just a bit over the top with these kind of statements. Hmmmm?
I tend to believe a bit in the Ying/Yang theory, so here's a slight, albeit a tad creepy, humorous poster I found to counter a bit of the liberal ones just for some semblance of balance here.
Actually, I was a member of the NRA myself at one time. I also own guns, a few of them sinister to some people. These days, apart from my mention of guns, I keep things to myself. Better that way!
You've got to keep in mind now that just about everyone back in the day was suspected of being a communist. It was a bit ridiculous. Hell, these days, we have KNOWN isis people in our country and they don't even so much as grill them until they explode or shoot someone and then there's no one to hang afterwards. Heck, we can't even get into their phones! It's obsurd. Anyway, commie or not, Bernie won't get there from here.
I call BS on this one. Aren't we going just a bit over the top with these kind of statements. Hmmmm?
Which part and how you figure?
They did pollute rather openly back then. Right?
It was people like Rachel Carson that brought attention to the effects of chemicals such as DDT to the environment.
I'm not allowed to post links, so here's copy from WIKI. Note the part about the chemical companies fighting her tooth and nail.
Rachel Louise Carson (May 27, 1907 – April 14, 1964) was an American marine biologist and conservationist whose book Silent Spring and other writings are credited with advancing the global environmental movement.
Carson began her career as an aquatic biologist in the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, and became a full-time nature writer in the 1950s. Her widely praised 1951 bestseller The Sea Around Us won her a U.S. National Book Award,[2] recognition as a gifted writer, and financial security. Her next book, The Edge of the Sea, and the reissued version of her first book, Under the Sea Wind, were also bestsellers. This sea trilogy explores the whole of ocean life from the shores to the depths.
Late in the 1950s, Carson turned her attention to conservation, especially some environmental problems that she believed were caused by synthetic pesticides. The result was the book Silent Spring (1962), which brought environmental concerns to an unprecedented share of the American people. Although Silent Spring was met with fierce opposition by chemical companies, it spurred a reversal in national pesticide policy, which led to a nationwide ban on DDT and other pesticides, and it inspired a grassroots environmental movement that led to the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.[3] Carson was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Jimmy Carter.
John Muir, another early pioneer of preservation who pushed the government to create what is now Muir Woods National monument. I could go on, but you get my point. In other words, it wasn't corporate America that suddenly started getting right with the planet!
Corporate America provides jobs, Carson and Muir did not. So I guess it's not as evil in practice as it is in your mind. The computers we spar on are made in China, one of the big polluters.
A doctor missionary friend made me aware of this situation
Quote:
Isn’t DDT so dangerous to health that it outweighs any benefit in malaria control?
There is no doubt that there are health risks associated with DDT use. For this reason, some condemn DDT outright. This is inappropriate, because the relevant question is not whether DDT can pose health risks (it can), but whether these risks outweigh the tremendous public health benefits of DDT for malaria control (they do not).
Of all the criticisms one can make about DDT for which there is evidence, the worst is that it possibly causes cancer. This is the conclusion of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (a branch of the WHO), which classifies DDT in the lowest category of substances for which there is a definable cancer risk: DDT is "possibly carcinogenic to humans". The IARC rates DDT as being "possibly carcinogenic" because it found that there was sufficient evidence of risk in animals, but inadequate evidence in humans.
While it sounds worrisome that DDT is "possibly carcinogenic", we emphasize that this risk must be balanced against the public health benefits. It is only if the health risks of DDT outweigh the benefits of DDT for malaria control that we should consider not using it. Balancing health risks and benefits like this is not unusual. For instance, several prescription drugs are classified by the IARC as "possibly carcinogenic", "probably carcinogenic", and even "carcinogenic in humans" — but these drugs are still used to treat life-threatening diseases because the health benefits of a cure far outweigh the cancer risk . The same is true of DDT.
Another possible risk of DDT is that it may shorten the duration of lactation in women. This is the view of one group of scientists who found that DDE (a product of DDT decay in the environment) reduced lactation time in Mexican women. As of today, this conclusion has yet to be confirmed by a second or third group of scientists, as is necessary to have confidence in this result. This is especially so because experiments in rats contradict the human studies, and fail to show that DDE affects lactation time.
But even if DDT shortens lactation time, this too must balanced against the benefits of DDT for malaria control. The same scientists who found reduced lactation in Mexican women also noted an "absence of any apparent effect on the health of the children" . That is, either DDT made no difference to childhood health, or made so little difference that the scientists overlooked it. Such a risk is insignificant alongside the 2 million childhood deaths caused by malaria yearly.
Finally, some critics, notably the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), suggest that DDT may disrupt hormones in the human body and adversely affect our immune and nervous systems. But the scientific evidence of such harm is scanty, if there is any harm at all. WWF itself admits that "the magnitude of immune suppression...is largely unknown", and that "direct effects to humans [nervous system] are difficult to assess".
It would be ironic indeed if in running from the bogeyman of these speculative health risks, we banned DDT and ran directly into the familiar and deadly hands of malaria. Wisdom demands that one first study and prove that risks of hormonal disruption outweigh the benefits of malaria control. Until this is done, the only sensible conclusion is that all the health risks of DDT are outweighed by the concrete, demonstrable health benefits of DDT use in malaria control.
Sure T, Sure! They provide jobs.....in China! Mexico and India too. I think that Rachel and John provided something a bit more valuable than money. But of course that should be reserved for the wealthy folks, since the workers of those American corporate jobs live in places like this!
Linear Mode
