Nixon was even more important for the environment back in the late 60's when he said that we need to be 100% nuclear energy by 2000, or close to saying that. If we were we would not be in all the oil wars and in control of our country much better. They got rid of Nixon, and he wasn't that bad of a president. But the neo-cons didn't like his EPA, knowing to much about Cuba and Fidel, nuclear stance and his wanting to get out of Vietnam which he eventually led us to and championed. But the neo-cons got him booted out. Eventually got their guy put in - Ronnie Reagan.
One problem. Rachel Carson lied about the effect of DDT on humans. You can drink the stuff. She wasn't getting traction with the impact on birds so she falsified research. You want to talk to people who really hate her, try malaria research scientists.
While drinking a low dose of DDT won't instantly kill you, calling it harmless or drinkable ignores bioaccumulation, persistence in fatty tissues, endocrine disruption, and the long-term carcinogenic risks that science has confirmed.
The fact that you "can drink the stuff" tells is an irrelevant distraction. The problem is that drinking it often, or just being exposed to it over a long period of time, will have severe consequences.
Do a favor for those of us who love to see bald eagles, hawks, and other forms of wildlife a favor and drink a pint of DDT yourself.
I note that since the 1960s, the chemical industry (which I generally support as being essential for modern pest control) has developed alternatives to DDT that are less obviously damaging to parts of the environment that contribute to the quality of life of people like me.
And another of Rachel Carson's contributions to a healthy environment for people and animals was her opposition to atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. I say this as a supporter of the U.S. having nuclear weapons as a credible deterrent to its adversaries. But just how many thousands of "tests" generating radioactive fallout are required to verify that the weapons work?
As I say about the eternal desire of "progressives" to have ever more socialistic control by government over people's lives and finances, enough is enough.
I'm curious about the polls that Pinkoski mentions, to claim that concerns about climate change have receded in a majority of the general populace. It also would be interesting to read about what he would consider a conservative approach to climate change, instead of ignoring it or pretending there aren't any risks, because "polls" say so.
The fact that any particular issue's ranking as "most important" declines relative to other issues tells you nothing about the people's absolute ranking of the issue;s importance. It is entirely possible that people are actually more concerned, on a absolute scale, even though relative concern for other issues has increased.
Check it out: RE: the attending, associated "brou-ha-ha"--it has become abundantly clear to many, if not most-> the relatively obscure preponderance of "generic" ippum soap has, or WILL have had little, if any, impact (at least at that especially inconclusive stage) on the dubious, yet ever-increas-ing selectivity, as it were, of just how much of it should necessarily be distributed 'forthwith'--or AT ALL for that matter, given the near-universally anticipated (future) conditions currently being ever so cautiously examined via multiple experts' professional-IF somewhat occasionally downright unwieldy analyses....(a bit harsh, but there it is).
I, for one, happen to wholeheartedly agree-at least for the present-that to substantially interfere, or even vaguely object to the (presumed) myriad solutions 'on the table', well...THAT notion indeed may also potentially influence the resulting final outcome in one or more clearly unintended ways... NONE of which will be forthcoming until ANY portion of this preposterous (if misdirected) invective might clearly be understood..as if THAT in itself were indeed WHATSOEVER possible! I have my doubts...
I REST my case, such as it is, or at the VERY least as it "appears" to be...(and aren't you glad)?
Nixon was even more important for the environment back in the late 60's when he said that we need to be 100% nuclear energy by 2000, or close to saying that. If we were we would not be in all the oil wars and in control of our country much better. They got rid of Nixon, and he wasn't that bad of a president. But the neo-cons didn't like his EPA, knowing to much about Cuba and Fidel, nuclear stance and his wanting to get out of Vietnam which he eventually led us to and championed. But the neo-cons got him booted out. Eventually got their guy put in - Ronnie Reagan.
One problem. Rachel Carson lied about the effect of DDT on humans. You can drink the stuff. She wasn't getting traction with the impact on birds so she falsified research. You want to talk to people who really hate her, try malaria research scientists.
While drinking a low dose of DDT won't instantly kill you, calling it harmless or drinkable ignores bioaccumulation, persistence in fatty tissues, endocrine disruption, and the long-term carcinogenic risks that science has confirmed.
The fact that you "can drink the stuff" tells is an irrelevant distraction. The problem is that drinking it often, or just being exposed to it over a long period of time, will have severe consequences.
You're wrong. Her claims were examined very closely, and they held. Where are these "malaria research scientists" you're talking about?
Do a favor for those of us who love to see bald eagles, hawks, and other forms of wildlife a favor and drink a pint of DDT yourself.
I note that since the 1960s, the chemical industry (which I generally support as being essential for modern pest control) has developed alternatives to DDT that are less obviously damaging to parts of the environment that contribute to the quality of life of people like me.
And another of Rachel Carson's contributions to a healthy environment for people and animals was her opposition to atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. I say this as a supporter of the U.S. having nuclear weapons as a credible deterrent to its adversaries. But just how many thousands of "tests" generating radioactive fallout are required to verify that the weapons work?
As I say about the eternal desire of "progressives" to have ever more socialistic control by government over people's lives and finances, enough is enough.
I'm curious about the polls that Pinkoski mentions, to claim that concerns about climate change have receded in a majority of the general populace. It also would be interesting to read about what he would consider a conservative approach to climate change, instead of ignoring it or pretending there aren't any risks, because "polls" say so.
The fact that any particular issue's ranking as "most important" declines relative to other issues tells you nothing about the people's absolute ranking of the issue;s importance. It is entirely possible that people are actually more concerned, on a absolute scale, even though relative concern for other issues has increased.
Check it out: RE: the attending, associated "brou-ha-ha"--it has become abundantly clear to many, if not most-> the relatively obscure preponderance of "generic" ippum soap has, or WILL have had little, if any, impact (at least at that especially inconclusive stage) on the dubious, yet ever-increas-ing selectivity, as it were, of just how much of it should necessarily be distributed 'forthwith'--or AT ALL for that matter, given the near-universally anticipated (future) conditions currently being ever so cautiously examined via multiple experts' professional-IF somewhat occasionally downright unwieldy analyses....(a bit harsh, but there it is).
I, for one, happen to wholeheartedly agree-at least for the present-that to substantially interfere, or even vaguely object to the (presumed) myriad solutions 'on the table', well...THAT notion indeed may also potentially influence the resulting final outcome in one or more clearly unintended ways... NONE of which will be forthcoming until ANY portion of this preposterous (if misdirected) invective might clearly be understood..as if THAT in itself were indeed WHATSOEVER possible! I have my doubts...
I REST my case, such as it is, or at the VERY least as it "appears" to be...(and aren't you glad)?
GLAD, Ben? FER-SURE! Overwhelmingly so! (Nonsensical, outrageous crappy crap-oh-la here). You must be SO proud...
Which young conservatives are these ideas “alive and well with”?