Comments VTpowderhound has made

  • "phantom" vaccine-autism connection????

    OK, now y'all have got my Irish up.

    For as much problem I have with his/his family's selfish opposition to Cape Wind, I cannot believe the criticism he is getting for the tremendous work he has done to highlight the dangers of vaccines laced with thimerosal (mercury).

    If you want to shoot your kids up w/mercury, you go right ahead, but don't you dare belittle those of us who refuse to believe the denials of a pharmaceutical industry which is known for blatantly lying (Vioxx, anyone?)

    We don't know for sure why autism rates have skyrocketed, but to discount a possible link between environmental toxins and neurological disorders is completely idiotic.

    Remember, industry groups insisted DDT was safe, too. How'd that work out?On Obama considers RFK Jr. for EPA posted 1 year ago 34 Responses

  • big agra

    This strikes me as a sop to big food manufacturers & processors, who aren't big into organics. Isn't Kellogg based in Michigan?

    As always...follow the money.On Evidently, women, infants, and children in need don't deserve organic posted 1 year, 6 months ago 8 Responses

  • 60 MPH???

    He was going 60 MPH in Lower Manhattan? How is that even possible?

    If found guilty (i.e. assuming the deceased woman didn't just wander out into traffic), I hope they throw the book at him.On Reflections on death by SUV posted 1 year, 9 months ago 25 Responses

  • When in California....

    When he wants to win California, he will say things that Californians agree with (i.e. the right to get the waiver to enfornce tougher GHG standards).

    When he was campaigning in MI, it was all about sucking up to the auto workers.

    Romney is like the weather in New England: if you don't like his views, just wait a minute, he'll change!

    By the way, as someone who respects Ron Paul, I must admit I have no idea what he's talking about with the "GHGs are property rights". Feel free to educate me. As much as I like his candor about getting out of Iraq, he's awfully opaque on this one.On All four Republican candidates support California's right to a waiver from the Bush EPA posted 1 year, 10 months ago 4 Responses

  • it will be rescued

    Let me go on record here in suggesting that this thing will get built. Here are my reasons:

    1. As was noted earlier, since when does the US Gov't worry about costs? Heck, we're spending a zillion$$/second in Iraq, and are about to start sending tax rebate checks (a.k.a. hush $$) by borrowing money from the Saudis, the Chinese, and whoever else wants to buy our treasury bonds.

    2. I'm wondering which presidential candidate of the Big 4 (Obama, Hillary, McCain, Romney) is going to come out against "clean coal" in an election year, for a project in an important state like Illinois. I'd say none of them. Even if Bush wants to kick this can down the road, I don't see any of the Big 4 not grabbing that can w/both hands.

    I'm actually pulling for this thing to get built for the following reason: it will - hopefully - put to rest this carbon sequestration business. Carbon sequestration sounds OK in theory, but we simply don't have the technology right now to pull it off. If it gets built and turns out to be a failure, maybe it will force everyone to stop this pie-in-the-sky mentality that we can have our cake (coal) and eat (burn) it, too!!

    In the meantime, conservation and a true, dedicated effort to renewables might be a good idea. It's the lowest lying fruit out there.On Breaking: Dept. of Energy pulls support for FutureGen posted 1 year, 10 months ago 20 Responses

  • Earth to Shaman

    Mr. Shaman,

    Forgive me, I'll be brief here as I need to get back to work.

    While it certainly is possible that solar activity may be repsonsible for a percentage in the global rise in temps over the past 30 years, it is implausible that solar activity alone could account for the most extraordinary rise in temps the world has ever seen (when I say this, I mean biggest increase in temps in such a short period of time. I'm sure this is a statistical term for what I'm referring to, I just can't think of it off hand).

    This same rise in temps over the past 30 years has coincided with a huge increase in carbon and other GHG's in the global atmosphere, in part fueled by globalization and the exploding economies of India and China, as well as other factors.

    No natural phenomena in history can explain what has ocurred since  the 70's.  Certainly, enhanced solar activity and other natural processes may be exacerbating the problem, but it is wishful thinking to imply that anthropogenic warming is not the main driver of the problem.

    I appeal to your senses that all successful organizations and organisms employ various forms of risk management.  At a minimum, we must deploy mitigation strategies immediately.  If all us hippies are wrong, we can go back to business as usual.  But we must plan for unfortunate outcomes now, or else we will be completely unprepared for negative consequences.On Rebuttal ad nauseum posted 2 years, 7 months ago 9 Responses

  • nice article

    I think many envrio's do accept the 10 year timeframe the author mentions. I think we get discouraged because of a few things, including:

    -other people don't even believe climate change is occurring, despite a mountain of evidence

    -if they do believe it, they don't think it's a big problem at the moment.

    -they think it (big time problems) won't happen until 50 - 100 years from now.

    -they think those problems will affect the other guys (3rd world coutries in Asia & Africa, not us), not "us"

    -they think technology will save us, somehow.

    -they are not willing to give up their lifestyle to fix the problems.

    While this list is incomplete, it's a reason that I personally have come to the conclusion that we're screwed.  Our "leaders" (cough cough) won't do anything until a critical mass of people demand change, and most folks are just not ready for the massive paradigm shift and sacrifice this effort requires.

    Jesus, I hate humans. On It's time to accept dire climate realities posted 2 years, 7 months ago 16 Responses

  • from Bill himself

    I should make a quick qualifier here concerning my observation that the Step It Up activities received little or no coverage from the MSM.

    I just read a report/thank you letter from Bill McKibben, the Step it Up guru...he said that ABC news did have good coverage on its news broadcast (sat nite?), including reports from 4 different rallies, if I read correctly.

    That's encouraging. If anyone else saw national coverage on a major network and cable outlet, please feel free to correct me. I hope I'm proven wrong, although I sense ABC was the exception, not the rule.On Mostly in the local papers posted 2 years, 7 months ago 15 Responses

  • intentional lack of coverage from mainstream media

    File this under the : "I'm not surprised" category.

    Considering that Step It Up events took place all over the country (49 of 50 states, roughly?), I am thoroughly unimpressed with the coverage provided by both major newspapers and national cable outlets...not that I expect much from them.

    Heck, even my local major paper, the Boston Globe, had a short article about the events on Sunday, and that was it. But I find the placement and emphasis quite revealing: it was on the front page of the "City/Region" section, and it focused on the events that took place within New England.

    I find that attitude indicative: the mainstream press considered the Step It Up events small, localized things attended by Greenies as opposed to a national movement. The underlying theme is: these are events by and for special interest groups, and climate change does not affect us real Americans.

    Of course, climate change affects all of us, and folks will find out one way or the other, whether it's flooding in the Northeast, hurricanes down South, drought in the Southwest, or wildfires in the Intermountain West.

    And it's entirely possible that the diminishing of these events is a conscious decision not to piss off the newspapers' and cable co's big advertisers, be they oil & gas firms, defense contractors, automakers, the military, all the usual suspects who fear a loss in revenues or an increase in cost due to widespread recognition and action conerning climate change.On Mostly in the local papers posted 2 years, 7 months ago 15 Responses

  • tax is the way to go

    Count me among the carbon tax proponents. Increasing the cost/price of a product or service is almost always the best way to discourage its consumption. As for the argument that says, "but those added costs will be passed on the consumer!", I say, bring it on. It is a fallacy to suggest our energy-intensive lifestyles are not part of the problem. Our knee-jerk aversion to any kind of sacrifice is quite dispiriting, and speaks to the fact that, as a society, we still view CO2 emissions and climate change as a problem for future generations, not our own.

    I also hold the cynical view that industry would water down a cap & trade system so much as to render it largely ineffective.On Some signs point to yes posted 2 years, 8 months ago 9 Responses

  • Whoa, Nellie

    Jabailo, you are throwing some very invalid or undocumented stuff out there along with you valid points.

    1st, I agree that you can't necessarily say that just because candy bars & soda are less expensive than veggies, that's why veggie consumption is way down, etc. That's part of it, but not the whole story.

    But 1st of all, you suggest that demand for fruit was low, and that's part of the reason for the price increase. That's wrong; low demand leads to lower prices, not higher prices. Although you are correct that higher transport & energy costs do raise the costs of distributing fruit, and those costs get passed on to the consumer.

    2nd, your assertion that fructose from fruit is (possibly) just as bad as refined sugar/high fructose corn syrup is waaaay out there. You can;t throw that assertion out there without a link to something that backs that up, and I'm guessing that study is highly suspect.  People are not getting Type II diabetes from eating too much fruit, that's for damn sure.On Er, food data that is posted 2 years, 8 months ago 9 Responses