Join 3,424 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Pollution Linked to Birth Defects in Recent Study.
December 29, 2001 1:30 PM   Subscribe

Pollution Linked to Birth Defects in Recent Study. There is no better example of "terrorism" than maiming children simply to further bloat the wallets of the rich. Of course, our fearless right-wing leaders are right on top of the problem.
posted by fold_and_mutilate (32 comments total)

 
Now, now. As much as I resent the Bush administration's anti-environmentalism, let's not go muddying the meaning of "terrorist" any more than has already happened.
posted by D at 1:55 PM on December 29, 2001


Amen, D.


Anyway, this doesn't even come close to comparing with the terrorism this country has suffered as a result of the welfare state created by the left. Damn those liberal terrorists!


posted by mr_roboto at 1:59 PM on December 29, 2001


And let's not forget that this is one study, not multiple. Once a few more studies have come in with the same results I'll be a lot more willing to believe it. Any number of factors can affect the outcome of something like this.

The sky is not falling, despite all of the cries from the Chicken Little Brigade.
posted by hadashi at 2:05 PM on December 29, 2001


Yes, let's wait until we're sure everyone is dead before we start working on a cure.
posted by fleener at 2:09 PM on December 29, 2001


My neighbor's dog pooped in my lawn. Damn terrorist-dog. I'm organizing a military tribunal with the help of the neighborhood cats.

Hm, in an attempt to not hijack the thread, I read the article. The freeways and traffic jams are maiming the children, not rich people. Sheesh. Tell the poor people to stop driving around in their cars. There are more of them, so they must be the ones maiming our children.
posted by whatnotever at 2:10 PM on December 29, 2001


Is it news to anybody that pollution is unhealthy?
Is it news that the Bush adminstration doesn't prioritize environmental issues?

The idea that pollution is bad and the government isn't doing enough about it is old hat. The linked articles don't add significant information for us to discuss this issue.
posted by ktheory at 2:13 PM on December 29, 2001


Did you actually READ the article (or did someone's bloated wallet obscure your view)?

It says: "the two pollutants they measured were carbon monoxide and ozone -- produced by the city's well-known traffic jams"-- that's your neighbors trying to get to work. That's the trucks bringing the food and goods to the stores where you shop. That's your neighbor, Bubba. And that's me too, unfortunately. (But I drive a fairly efficient vehicle.)

So save your "big wallet" hand-wringing for the right stories.

Sorry, I am grumpy today.
posted by wiinga at 2:14 PM on December 29, 2001


A quick scan of your FPP posts to date reveals that you're perhaps a bit obsessed with this business of redefining terrorism to suit your personal ideology, f_and_m. I think you'd get more productive discussion around these topics and find that more people agree with your basic premises by adopting a less confrontational tone.

You could just be trolling too, of course...
posted by MrBaliHai at 2:16 PM on December 29, 2001


Shouldn't we still be worried about global cooling and cancer causing power lines. And, aren't we supposed to be out of oil by now?
posted by Real9 at 2:17 PM on December 29, 2001


" ... Yes, let's wait until we're sure everyone is dead before we start working on a cure ..."

As opposed to implementing sweeping new legislation that would raise the price of cars, gas, and electricity on the basis of a single academic study whose results the authors don't even claim to be conclusive?
posted by MidasMulligan at 2:20 PM on December 29, 2001


am I the only one that thinks Bush using the war as an excuse to push his own agendas is wrong? and furthermore, plenty of reason to hate his guts?

as far as pollution is concerned, I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss enviromentals and the issues they press. if not for their efforts in the past 50 years or so, do you realize how rotten life on earth would be? or are you resolved to join the angry lobbyists just before it's too late?
posted by mcsweetie at 3:06 PM on December 29, 2001


An opening salvo in this campaign may be Thomas J. Bray's latest column in the Wall Street Journal: "Smart Woman, Foolish Choices: Christie Whitman embraces Al Gore's agenda. And she's not alone." {sarcasm} I just love it when pundits use girlish nicknames to diminish women. {sarcasm}
posted by Carol Anne at 3:29 PM on December 29, 2001


" ... as far as pollution is concerned, I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss enviromentals and the issues they press. if not for their efforts in the past 50 years or so, do you realize how rotten life on earth would be? or are you resolved to join the angry lobbyists just before it's too late? ..."

It is rarely a matter of completely accepting or completely rejecting environmentalists. Most Americans do consider themselves environmentally aware. The difficulty is that the science is never as certain as environmentalists would like to claim it is. And the actual actions that are requested virtually always entail measures that cost money. Often serious amounts of money. It's quite easy to dimiss this as something that just hurts selfish capitalists, and those evil big corporations ... but ... well, their efforts over the last 50 years or so have added every bit as much (if not quite a bit more) quality of life as environmentalists have.
posted by MidasMulligan at 3:58 PM on December 29, 2001


am I the only one that thinks Bush using the war as an excuse to push his own agendas is wrong?
no, mcsweetie, you're not.
posted by quonsar at 4:10 PM on December 29, 2001


Speaking of misguided environmentalists. How 'bout that endangered Lynx hoax?
posted by Real9 at 4:17 PM on December 29, 2001


(Carol Anne, it's my impression that Whitman is often called Christie and has been for a long time.)

Midas, I think you have a point, but the "capitalists'" actions have both positive and negative consequences, and I think they often are allowed to benefit from the positives while being insulated from the negatives. Environmental cleanup is an example; the costs are largely borne by taxpayers rather than the "capitalists" themselves, unless some sort of exceptional action (like lawsuits) is taken. It seems to me that if environmental costs were somehow coupled to the benefits of capitalism we might be able to harness the economic engine of the market for the good of the environment (for instance, in requiring manufacturers to pay for disposal or recycling costs).
posted by rodii at 4:25 PM on December 29, 2001


Thank God the EPA is finally going to dredge the Hudson river and rid it of PCB's those nasty capitalists legally discharged into the river. Of course the local community is totally behind this effort. NOT
posted by Real9 at 4:40 PM on December 29, 2001


Yes, Carol Anne may wish to read the EPA's Message from the Administrator which features her photograph and the caption "EPA Administrator Christie Whitman". (You can't even find her given name on her biography page.)

In any case, the real "terrorism" around here is f_and_m's FPP abuse. Hey, let's weaken the word beyond all meaning!
posted by dhartung at 4:51 PM on December 29, 2001


California has the most stringent automobile pollution control standards in the country, exceeding Federal standards. It may turn out that no amount of emission controls will be sufficient. Can power be produced in sufficient quantities without side effects? Hydro power in the Northwest has turned rivers into lakes and destroyed our Salmon. There are no easy answers, and to expect solutions from politicians of either wing is an invitation to disappointment.
posted by Mack Twain at 5:25 PM on December 29, 2001


hey fold_and_mutilate:

The rich are screwing the poor and polluting the enviornment? Wow, you're the first person to figure that out. you impress me with your firm grasp of the obvious. And I'm even more impressed that you can sound self-righteous while pointing it out.

So, zip up up your pants, i can see your knee- jerking.
posted by jonmc at 7:12 PM on December 29, 2001


wiinga -
"(But I drive a fairly efficient vehicle.)"

Will someone pin a planet-saver award on this guy please. Seriously, all the wildlife called me and said please thank wiinga from the bottom of their hearts, they couldn't do it with out you.
posted by jonmc at 7:20 PM on December 29, 2001


"Will someone pin a planet-saver award on this guy please. Seriously, all the wildlife called me and said please thank wiinga from the bottom of their hearts, they couldn't do it with out you." -jonmc


*pins medal on wiingas' chest* WooHOOOO!! Contribute only a little bit and now you're self-righteous too? Pollution is pollution, we're all guilty so enjoy it while you can.
posted by JakeEXTREME at 7:23 PM on December 29, 2001


*shrug* what can I do, I'm just one person... *lights cigarette*
posted by Dark Messiah at 8:09 PM on December 29, 2001


their efforts over the last 50 years or so have added every bit as much (if not quite a bit more) quality of life as environmentalists have.

more often than not, it seems like the positive things the capitalists are responsible for are borne out of following legislation brought about by the enviromentalists. altough one big exception to this would be the catalytic converter, god bless it's soul!
posted by mcsweetie at 8:46 PM on December 29, 2001


as far as pollution is concerned, I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss enviromentals and the issues they press.

Because the environmental movement is fraught with just as much junk science and feelings-based Chicken Little-ism as the tobacco companies who say smoking doesn't cause cancer. What's Joe Blow on the street 'sposed to do when people have "good" intentions but are lying through their teeth?

Hop in his SUV and go camping, I say.
posted by owillis at 9:12 PM on December 29, 2001


Here's a recent example of an environmental flim-flam game.
posted by owillis at 9:14 PM on December 29, 2001


Because the environmental movement is fraught with just as much junk science and feelings-based Chicken Little-ism as the tobacco companies who say smoking doesn't cause cancer. What's Joe Blow on the street 'sposed to do when people have "good" intentions but are lying through their teeth?

the fallacy is in addressing any "movement" in general, as though any movement is uniform in its philosophies and executions. joe blow ought to focus on the individual issues rather than let the wankers on the extremes of the spectrum cloud his opinions of either side.
posted by moz at 9:34 PM on December 29, 2001


My environmental law professor advocated a market based system to limit air pollution. In many ways, it appeared to be a workable system - on paper. Trading Thin Air, a criticism of such a program from when Clinton proposed its use is still applicable today. One of the major criticisms is that: ...cost reduction for industry would replace public health as the driving force behind compliance strategies since markets, not EPA, set the standard for quality.

A slightly different approach, described in an article entitiled This is Not a Polish Joke, is based upon environmental actions taken in Poland, and sounds much more practical and effective. It's time to shut down some of the coal plants in the United States that were built before 1970, and haven't been updated since, and therefore don't have to come into compliance with the tougher 1970 clean air act requirements. If loans became available which rewarded the selection of lower emissions technology by halving the repayment of the loans, we could get rid of some of the really bad polluting power plants.

A utility that's a couple of years old, but eye opening, is the Electricity Label Generator. You input how much you spend on electricity each month, and choose the state that you live within, and the program tells you how much pollution your use of electricity causes annually. My $28.00 per month generated considerably more pollution than I expected.
posted by bragadocchio at 11:56 PM on December 29, 2001


Let's bring back asbestos...it does great job of fire prevention! Get big govt off our backs.
posted by Postroad at 4:24 AM on December 30, 2001


this friend of a friend's cousin's sister's uncle lived next to a petrol station and his girl was born with one blind eye.

i think that speaks for itself.
posted by Frasermoo at 4:38 AM on December 30, 2001


Does anyone believe air pollution is actually good for you? During the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, when cars were prohibited in the downtown area, acute asthma attacks in children decreased by 44%. (I think there was a thread about this, but I couldn't find it.) This page has more data about the impact of car-related air pollution in Atlanta. Please extrapolate and apply to your city of choice.
posted by D at 3:08 PM on December 30, 2001


Those links are messed, apologies. I meant here for the athsma and here for the other one.
posted by D at 4:48 PM on December 30, 2001


« Older African fantasy coffins...  |  No shopping, no presents, no g... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments