Observations From the Back Row: 6-20-11

...

More Enviro-Anomalies
Some recent news reports shed light onto anomalies in the environmentalist weltanschauung, a peculiar form of paganism I have characterized elsewhere as driven by self-loathing hominids. The first report brings us more news about the downside of wind power. The believers in eco-faith who form the core of the environmentalist movement have been pushing "renewable energy" sources (paradigmatically wind and solar power) while waging a jihad against all forms of fossil fuel……But amazingly, not one wind farm operator has been sued by the gazillion federal agencies that supposedly enforce laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Act. Contrast this with the treatment of fossil fuel companies: should they ...... Indeed, nationwide, wind farms kill an estimated 440,000 birds a year -- and again, because that estimate is based on counts of the bodies of shredded birds, the estimate is very likely too low. But amazingly, not one wind farm operator has been sued by the gazillion federal agencies that supposedly enforce laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Act.

More Enviro-Anomalies
To those enviros who dream of dramatic reductions in what we gluttonous materialists produce and consume, Monbiot notes that the enviros don't really tell us what is essential to living reasonably and what is not. He says, "An honest environmentalism needs to explain needs to explain which products should continue to be manufactured and which should not be, and what the energy sources for these manufactures should be." Curiously, it doesn't occur to Monbiot that the phrase "an honest environmentalism" is an oxymoron if ever there was one.

Then there are enviros who predict (nay, yearn for!) an imminent economic collapse because we are running out of fossil fuels. They feel that such a collapse will both punish wicked humanity and cut the number of homo sapiens down to size. (Some enviros have put their dream number of people on the planet at 400,000 -- meaning that their dream is the nightmare scenario in which 99.99% of all humans just die.).....What causes this strange behavior in this admittedly deviant community? Well, what is the environmental community? It is the first well-organized and funded group of self-loathing hominids -- that is, humans who detest humanity -- in history. That explains why they prefer the uneconomical forms of power: they know that any society that replaced economically feasible forms of power with uneconomical ones would soon economically collapse, and, being self-loathing hominids, they seek precisely that.

My ESA Picks for Today
Fremont rockress candidate for federal protection
Protect threatened salmon, not plentiful sea lions
Federal government rules Oregon coastal coho salmon still threatened
Turtle and other wildlife keep phones ringing at Center for Wildlife


###

Thirteen Days of ESA

By Rich Kozlovich

These aren’t the only articles that have appeared in the last 13 days; in fact….this is merely a tip of the iceberg. I am listing all of this stuff to make everyone aware as to how pervasive, intrusive and irrational this stuff is, and this is only a few that have appeared in the last 13 days.

I have tried to organize them somewhat based on subject. Also, I have not listed stuff about wolves, blue fin tuna and salmon….which I have linked a lot in the past. I would like to point out some things I have stated in the past. Over 95 percent of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct. Every species alive today will eventually go extinct. Life on this planet apparently does not require that every species survive for life to continue. Habitats and eco-systems are always changing and those species that are so biologically incompetent that they cannot survive except in a very exclusive environment deserve to go extinct. I have no desire to deliberately eliminate any species, but I also don’t wish to place the needs of plants and animals over the needs of humanity.

Here is the crux of the issue. Was the Earth created for mankind or is mankind just another biological organism created by the Earth and merits no special consideration? From my perspective, I don’t care either way….I am pulling for mankind because mankind can explore, mankind can think beyond his own immediate needs, mankind can search out information and plan future endeavors. Mankind can conserve as well as conceive. Mankind has insights that become reality and ideas that make the world a better place to live. Mankind can save the whales, but the whales can’t even save themselves. Do we wish to save the whales….I’m ok with that, but not just because they exist. I am all for conservation for future and continued use. The greenies are for preservation in an attempt to eliminate any use whatsoever. They want pristine! What does that mean? Basically….it means untouched by man. That is irrational. If mankind can’t alter his environment mankind can’t survive….and the greenies know this.

Are there acts of selfishness and unjustifiable cruelty?  Of course!  All of the wars we have fought throughout history is testimony to the level of stupidity mankind is capable of heaping on himself, and the ESA is another one.  The fact of the matter is that mankind can and has acted to the best interests of society and the environment over the long haul, and personal property rights have played an important role because people take care of what is theirs. And to give them their due, in the early years the environmental movement played an important role in this undertaking, at least until they all became socialists attempting to eliminate personal and property rights. The best areas of the world where environmental concern has been translated into action has been the most advanced and developed areas of the world. Why? Because they can afford it! The least developed are too poor to concern themselves with environmental issues because they are just trying to survive.

Striped Newt a Candidate for Listing under the Endangered Species Act
WCTV
These agreements can be developed to provide regulatory certainty for landowners should the species become listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Service will review the progress and status of the species annually, as it does with all ...

Taxpayers Pay People to Sue the US
For example, Lummis says, the Dept. of the Interior must answer petitions to list species as protected wildlife. The Interior Department must respond within 90 days to petitions to list species under the Endangered Species Act. If they don't, ...

More on environmental litigation factories: "Taxpayer-funded job security"
The settlement between the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and WildEarth Guardians could open the flood gates of new listings under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The amount of radical environmental litigation in the United States is staggering ...

My Take - We need to get this! Big Green is Big Business!

Record fine for illegal land clearing
"Scientists evaluating the impact of the clearing have warned a number of threatened or endangered species may have lost key habitat, making them even more vulnerable. "This is exactly why our government introduced tough vegetation management laws - to ...

Habitat Protection to Increase for Nebraska's Vanishing Salt Creek Tiger Beetle
Center for Biological Diversity (press release)
On Oct. 6, 2005, the Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Salt Creek tiger beetle as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Only three small populations of the beetle remain within a single drainage — Little Salt Creek — near Lincoln, Neb. ... “The Salt Creek tiger beetle needs extensive critical habitat protection to survive,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “There’s just no way to recover species like this beetle without protecting their homes.”

Puerto Rican groups work to save the tinglar, the leatherback sea turtle
Do you think that enough is being done around the world to protect endangered species? Yes, there are many effective programs already in place. No, more needs to be done to protect these animals. Four times a week for the past decade, ...

Pumps' fish slaughter alarms conservationists
The killings are also renewing calls to relist the splittail - a native California species in the minnow family - as officially threatened under the Endangered Species Act. In addition to the splittail, the pumps have killed tens of thousands of ..

Snow, rain and regulatory drought
Most of the regulatory restrictions are part of a misguided federal scheme to help fish on the Endangered Species Act list. Cutbacks in water pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California were based on ...

California water wars: DOI's pumping cutbacks prompt lawsuit
But that species has not been listed under the Endangered Species Act. And other federal fisheries experts have repeatedly pointed out that the recent increase in the number of fish taken at the pumps simply reflect a large, healthy increase in fish ..

Fresh Water Snails Get More Critical Habitat
The Roswell springsnail, the Koster's springsnail, Noel's amphipod and the Pecos assiminea were listed under the Endangered Species Act by the agency in August 2005. The four species now have 521 acres designated a critical habitat in Chaves County, ...

30 bird species from state fly into endangered list
Experts are worried that almost a whooping 1253 bird species that amounts to nearly 13% of the total number are threatened. "It is an indication that we need to act now, before they become extinct," said Jathar. The IUCN Red List evaluation considers ...

Biologists Use the Web to Save Amphibians
The mountain yellow-legged frog is just one species among many that has teetered on the brink of extinction. An amphibian local to the southland, it is listed on the Federal Endangered Species Act. Once abundant in southern California streams, ...

Deschutes reintroduced steelhead could get special designation
The reintroduction of juvenile sea-run rainbow trout to the upper Deschutes River is an effort to help recover middle Columbia River steelhead, which since 1999 have been listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act throughout the ...

Endangered Wild Mint Will Become Two Separate Species
The willowy monardella will retain the endangered status granted to the species under the Endangered Species Act in 1973, while the new species will not be protected under the act because it is more widespread than previously thought. ...

Judge rules that US Fish and Wildlife acted "capriciously" in claiming threats ...
Yesterday, US District Court judge Walker D. Miller sided with conservation groups and ordered the US Interior Department to reconsider a decision denying Endangered Species Act protection to a wildflower found only in parts of Utah and ...

REGION: SB County solar project gets go-ahead
The company is capturing all tortoises found at the site for relocation, but critics of allowing the work to proceed say the Endangered Species Act is not being used as it should. Last year, using the company' surveys, the wildlife service estimated

Sturgeon: Should they be listed under the Endangered Species Act?
Conservation groups want the fish listed under the Endangered Species Act. But researchers and multiple state agencies oppose the effort. They favor a less strict designation, which

Federal legislation pits environment vs. security
It lists nearly three dozen laws that would be waived along the border, including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Wilderness Act. It would also allow the federal government to waive those laws within a ...

Feds considering comments on proposed E. Idaho phosphate mine
Officials with the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management say they need to make sure their final decision complies with the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and the Groundwater Protection Rule. Monsanto Co. officials tell the Idaho ...

"Catastrophic Wildfires? Thank the Greenies and Forest Service":
Excessive Forest Service regulation , Endangered Species Act regulations, clean water regulations and more, prevent the salvaging of dead trees and cleanup of excess dead vegetation. This has resulted in a dangerous and large build up of extremely dry ..

Reptile Roils Oil Patch
Politicians suggest dire consequences if the lizard is subject to the Endangered Species Act. In New Mexico, Republican Gov. Susana Martinez warned Fish and Wildlife officials in a May letter that "the future of our state's economy and livelihood of so ...

USFWS: Small Wyoming plant needs protection
Recently the US Fish and Wildlife Service recommended the plant as a candidate for protection under the Endangered Species Act. Little is known about the plant native to Fremont County, said Genevieve Skora, a biologist with Fish and Wildlife. ...A judge found that the Bush administration’s ruling that this plant didn’t need protection “arbitrary and capricious”. Imagine that….a judge that finally finds a judgment arbitrary and capricious. What does that mean anyway, and by whom to whom?

Prairie chicken status changing -6/17/2011, 9:41 AM
Last week, he offered an amendment on a bill -- the Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011 -- that would prohibit adding the lesser prairie chicken to the endangered species list. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, offered a similar amendment ...

WIND FARMS MUST BE PROSECUTED FOR KILLING ENDANGERED SPECIES
The Federal Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act. The bald eagle will continue to be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act even though it has been delisted under the Endangered Species Act. This law, originally passed in 1940, ...

My take – So why should we listen to these people? Once again. It isn’t long before some greenie organizations starts protesting their own ideas. All that it takes is for some idiotic businessman to attempt to put their ideas into effect. The greenies are only good at finding fault; they are clueless when it comes to finding solutions….especially when they are to non-problems, such a adequate energy. One of the reasons is that they have never done anything except be activists. Congressman Weiner is an excellent example. He never did anything except government and yet presented himself as an expert on economic and social issues.

Flying squirrel protections restored
CHARLESTON, W.Va., June 17 (UPI) -- The US Fish and Wildlife Service issued a final order that reinstated protection for the Virginia northern flying squirrel under the Endangered Species Act. The final rule complies with a court order that reinstated ...

Technique protested in sheep recovery efforts
The move is required by the US Endangered Species Act as part of the plan to revive the species, they said. The historic ranges include two regions in the southern part of Sequoia called Laurel Creek and Big Arroyo, where the sheep have not been seen ...

Fed may remove honu from "threatened" list
The Hawaiian Green Turtle, or Honu, has recovered so well since being classified as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act in 1978 that its federal protection may be removed. ...

In Oregon's Willamette Valley, the race to save the endangered Fender's blue butterfly
Other species don't really depend on the butterfly to survive, as its population size is too low, says Schultz, an associate professor at WSU. When the butterfly was listed in 2000 under the US Endangered Species Act, it became a target species for the ...

No Federal Help for a Species of One
The Wild Equity Institute and other groups that year filed an emergency petition for listing under the Endangered Species Act. But the US Fish and Wildlife Service, a creature of the Interior Department, said there was no emergency, despite the fact ...
My Take - All of this fuss over a plant. This is madness.

Sucker listing up for review
Laurie Sada, Klamath Falls field supervisor for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, said Endangered Species Act reviews are required every five years. The public is invited to submit new information produced since 2007. “We get a lot of comments, ...

Wind-power project for Merricourt area stalls 
Whooping cranes and piping plovers are classified as endangered species and covered by the Endangered Species Act. Towner said enXco is in the process of developing a habitat conservation plan. The plan is prepared and funded by the project developer ...

Fuel Fix » Cornyn amendment would halt Permian Basin lizard listing
John Cornyn, R-Texas, filed an amendment to the Economic Development Administration reauthorization bill that would exempt the lizard from the Endangered Species Act. Industry leaders are concerned that such a listing could greatly ...

Inhofe Introduces Amendments to Help Protect Jobs
“I have also introduced an amendment that would protect jobs and economic development in Oklahoma by preventing the listing of the Lesser Prairie Chicken under the Endangered Species Act. Instead of restricting the rights of private property owners and ..

Final Thougts - Needless to say, this action is being opposed by the activists. All of these amendments are fine, except it doesn’t deal with the real issue. The ESA needs repealed as it currently exists, and I have misgivings as to whether it could be replaced with anything sane because sooner or later some group will go into court and demand that it be applied in some way that Congress never anticipated.

If you look closely you will find that the EPA, the Wildlife Service and almost all government agencies has gained enormous legislative authority through the courts that Congress never anticipated they would get nor intended for them to have. The goal of the ESA is now, and has always been, to eliminate property rights, although members of Congress never did get that in the beginning, and now that they do they are afraid of the greenies, especially since they specifically defeated a member of Congress from California over this issue.

Please take a look at my three part series on this subject starting with ESA Outrages, Part I. This is an issue that I wished I had spent more time on because there is so much more that most aren’t aware of, including the arbitrariness of the Wildlife Service’s determination of constitutes a different “species”.

 As an example; let’s suppose we find a prairie dog colony has black spots on it that other prairie dogs don’t have; does that justify classifying it separately? This would be considered a sub-species and could receive special protection in an area filled with other prairie dogs that they would be more than capable of interbreeding with. There is so much information that one could write extensively every week on the ESA.

###

How Chemicals Are Tested

Presented by the American Council on Science and Health in a booklet called, “Scared to Death, How Chemophobia Threatens Public Health”, based on a book by Jon Entine.

I would like to thank the ACSH for allowing me to republish this information. I have also added some additional information regarding the science behind using rodent testing as the determining factor in claims of carcinogenicity. RK

Until the 1960’s the standards used by the government to determine safety levels and manage risk were hopelessly imprecise and subjective.

To establish safe levels for substances in the air, water or soil, regulators needed to move from the black/white qualitative approach of either allowing or banning a substance to a quantitative approach of determining how much of each substance might be allowable in each environmental situation. As the health focus on cancer and the fears associated with chemicals escalated, noted University of California at Berkeley chemist Bruce Ames invented a quick, inexpensive test (now known as the Ames test) to evaluate toxicity. His test determines if any chemical of interest might cause mutations in the DNA of bacteria in vitro (in a controlled environment, such as in a test tube or Petri dish). If mutations were observed then that particular chemical was considered likely to be a carcinogen in lab animals.

The Ames test and the development of rodents modified to be cancer-prone led to an ultra-cautions toxicological evaluation and chemical regulatory process. Over the years, what many scientists believe is a convoluted multi-stage model has been developed to extrapolate animal risk to people:

1. Scientists do a biological assay (the Ames test) on some pesticide, food additive, preservative or other chemical to find out if it is mutagenic. It shows whether the DNA of the bacteria is altered in a significant way.

2. If the chemical is confirmed as mutagenic, studies are then undertaken to determine what is called the “maximum tolerated dose” (MTD) of this chemical in rats of mice. The MTD is the amount of the chemical that almost kills a rodent (or almost achieves another parameter, such as suppressing body weight.) It is a dose that, depending on the particular chemical, can be thousands to millions of times higher than a human could ever ingest in a lifetime.

3. Next, the rodents are fed just 10 percent less than the maximum tolerated dose daily for their entire one to two year lifetime.

4. However, many chemicals cannot be fed to rodents because the substances are so noxious at the dosages given. So scientist often use gavage (forced feeding into the animal’s gut per day, often by injection), which is not how humans are exposed to the chemical, compromising the meaningfulness of the test.

5. After a year or two, the rodents are sacrificed and scientists count up the tumors the animals accumulated in various organs. Most of the rodents in the control group, fed a normal diet, will have tumors anyway because type have been bred to be cancer prone. So, if the test group of rodents fed-or more likely injected with-some chemical at the highest dose has an average of, say, four tumors per animal in a particular organ, and the control group has an average of only one tumor per animal, then the chemical being tested is said to increase cancer incidence by 300 percent. This does not mean that such a study proves a chemical will cause adverse effects in rats, let alone in humans exposed under more realistic conditions. Yet, this finding, designed as a first step in testing a hypotheses, often ends up in a headline or in a media release from one advocacy group or another attempting to use preliminary research to support a cause or movement.

6. Next and often under pressure from the energized media and environmental NGO’s, a political body, such as the European Parliament or the U.S. Congress, or a regulatory body, such as the EPA, will classify and/or confirm this chemical is a likely human carcinogen, as if rodents were nothing more than miniature humans.

7. These agencies then establish an “acceptable” level of the chemical – the EPA calls it “an upper estimate of the risk”- using what’s known as the “dose response curve”, which included a large margin of safety factor based on mathematical models. In moving to this new quantitative approach, government scientists began employing high-dose animal results and low exposure levels experienced by humans.

Underscoring the relative arbitrariness of this process, the cutoff level is set differently by different agencies from country to country and even sometimes within a country. As in the case of the pesticide atrazine, these levels can vary as much as 100 times. (The European safety cutoff level is 1 part per billion, while the World Health Organization sets it at 100 ppb.)

The result is that the scientific convention of setting one number to represent risk exaggerates the media and public perception of risk. Because only one number results for the assessment process, it is not surprising that, ignoring cautionary guidance by regulators, NGOs and the media select the country or agency with the tightest cutoff and then portray this number as exact, as the best estimate of risk and as predictive of cancer incidence. But that misstates what a cutoff number means. As the EPA notes,

“The actual risk [from exposure to a chemical] may be significantly lower and may indeed actually be zero. It is important to recognize that the use of this model results in risk estimates that are protective, but no predictive of cancer incidence.”

Employing this model, a range of chemicals, including aminotriazole, DDT, cyclamates and Alar, at one time or another, have been in the crosshairs of environmental groups because of supposed cancer-causing effects on humans. Toxicology studies are important in public health because epidemiology is not very sensitive as you cannot conduct experiments on humans. They serve as a basis for potency estimates and offer the opportunity to compare risks. However, the advantages of these studies must be balanced with their potential to exaggerate risk. High-dose effects do not necessarily occur at low doses and effects that occur in test species do not necessarily occur in humans exposed to the same agents. Fear of the unknown and exaggerated precautions shouldn’t be invoked to impede scientific progress.

Editor’s notes: On August 23, 2005 the American Council on Science and Health petitioned the “Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to eliminate "junk science" from the process by which it determines whether a substance is likely to cause cancer in humans.” Their petition “argues that current EPA guidelines violate the Information Quality Act (IQA) -- the law that requires the federal government to ensure the "equality, objectivity, utility, and integrity" of information it dispenses to the public.”

“Specifically, EPA routinely declares chemicals "carcinogens" -- implying a likelihood of a health threat to humans -- based solely on the creation of tumors in lab rodents by the administration of super high doses irrelevant to ordinary human exposure levels. Furthermore, effects in a single species may not be applicable to another species (rat tests do not even reliably predict effects in mice, which are closely related to rats, let alone effects in humans), though similar effects in multiple species might be an indicator of a genuine problem.”

Finally, after stalling for months the EPA responded by saying; “their Risk Assessment Guidelines are not statements of scientific fact -- and thus not covered by the IQA -- but merely statements of EPA policy.

I watched this as it played out and when they finally responded I had to ask; if EPA policy isn’t based on science what is it based on? The answer? The EPA is not now, nor has it ever been an agency based on science. It is a political entity created by Richard M. Nixon to carry out his political mandate to eliminate DDT, irrespective of the facts. Since then they have become filled with environmental activists who embrace an irrational misanthropic green concept whose goal is the elimination of pesticides, along with a host of other things that given us longer and healtheir lives than any time in history.   This greenie philosophy is a secular religion that places mankind lower than the lowest species of plant or animal life.  

We need to get that!

###

American Council on Science and Health, 2011: Week 23

...

Dr. Gil Ross has allowed me to reproduce articles from the ASCH in the past, and as a result I have taken the liberty of reproducing this article in its entirety because I consider this issue so overwhelmingly important.

It must really difficult for those who actually know what is going on to hear the words of a quack and an ex-Playboy Bunny being touted and promoted by the likes of Oprah and her ilk as scientific fact.  So many believe this nonsense because we have been without the old plagues for so long we have come to believe that life without them is a right; well…..it isn’t.

I feel like a broken record on this issue, but this is an issue on which we must never remain silent because the lives of so many children are at stake. I often wonder at the heartbreak parents must feel when a child dies from some affliction that could have been prevented by a simple vaccination. Parents are natually concerned about their children’s health and yet they listened to quacks and celebrities who must be insane to tout the things they promote. Why? Because the main stream media, who promote all of this horsepucky, are corrupt, stupid and unaccountable for their actions.

Although Ex-Dr. Wakefield was stripped of his medical license, did he ever get prosecuted for his fraudulent science? Children have died as a result of his claims. Why hasn’t he been prosecuted for crimes against humanity? At the very least he should be prosecuted for fraud! I have been led to believe that it is still considered a crime. These people don’t even seem to get sued over this. Where are all the ambulance chasing attorney’s when you need them?

Life without these plagues have come into being because dedicated doctors and researches created products that gave us this largely plague free existence.  At least in advanced societies. What is it like in those societies that do not vaccinate their population? These afflictions are common. We need to get this….everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going in reality. Virtually everything we have done in the modern world to extend and protect human life (and it has worked) is under attack by the activists; whether it is chlorine in our water, pesticides, or vaccination. Why? Because to be green is to be irrational and misanthropic, and these characters are all part and parcel of that same philosophical "back to nature" mentality. Well….that is a suicide pact. RK

Parents, have no fear: Vaccines are here (to save the day)!

A series of studies published in the journal Health Affairs offers both hopeful and discouraging news on the vaccine front. In one study by the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) and the Results for Development Institute, public health experts and scientists predict that 6.4 million lives could be saved over the next ten years if 90 percent of the children in 72 of the world’s poorest nations are vaccinated against diseases such as pneumococcal pneumonia, diphtheria, pertussis, measles, and rotavirus. The study, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, also found that such a program would save over $151 billion in treatment costs and lost productivity over the next decade.

“This is a case where an investment in health care pays off huge dividends for those with the foresight to look down the road and see the vast benefits that vaccines have to offer,” adds ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross.

But just as things are looking up, another study published in Health Affairs finds that out of 376 parents with young children surveyed, 77 percent still have concerns about vaccines. As part of a special series in The Lancet, lead author Heidi Larson from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine confirms these results, as she and her co-authors write that vaccines are “losing public confidence.”

What are some of the reasons people gave to justify their unfounded fears? One was attributed to the lack of familiarity with the diseases that vaccines protect against since most of those epidemics have basically disappeared. And that, Dr. Ross points out, is thanks to vaccines.

Others believe that the vaccine schedule may be too complex and are afraid that kids receive too many shots at once, but this has no basis in science or immunology, says Dr. Ross. “Kids are exposed to greater numbers of antigens on a daily basis,” he explains, “and their immune systems are not overwhelmed, nor would they be by a few concurrent inoculations.”

And, as the Health Affairs survey conducted by the CDC pointed out, 30 percent of parents still worry about a potential link between autism and the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine infamously proposed by Dr. Andrew Wakefield in a Lancet study the journal later retracted (ironic, perhaps, that now the same publication is underscoring the importance of vaccines in their most recent issue).

Of course, such a survey is fraught with potential biases and confounders, notes ACSH’s Dr. Josh Bloom: “If the survey went out to 3,000 parents and 376 responded, you’re going to get a skewed response since those most averse to vaccines are far more likely to respond, while others will probably not bother.”

Again, this is a scientifically baseless fear of vaccines, says ACSH’s Dr. Elizabeth Whelan. “All credible scientists believe they’re major lifesaving tools, but sadly, facts are not always enough to allay people’s concerns. Indeed, the rise of social media and the Internet further exacerbates the situation since quacks all over the country can get on their soapbox to promote their anti-vaccine agendas.”

“Well,” adds Dr. Ross,“while we may wish there could be a scientist nearby every time this happens, most scientists don’t want to lower themselves by participating in such loaded debates with media-savvy quacks.”

_______________________________________________

The presence of linked articles here is merely a way of showing what is going on, whether I agree or disagree with the positions presented. I have placed what I think are "must read" articles here at the beginning. Rich Kozlovich


My Must Read Articles

CDC’s magical mystery tour: What’s the deal with the meningitis vaccine?The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) seems to be delaying its decision on whether to approve a new meningococcal (meningitis) vaccine for infants younger than nine months. ACIP - in an unprecedented move - has announced its intent to host four public meetings over the summer in order to gain feedback from parents and health care providers on this decision.

Autism screening may do more harm than good Hyper-awareness of autism leads many parents to screen their toddlers as soon as possible for behaviors associated with the disorder.

Re autism: the fault is in our genes, perhapsA series of studies published in the journal Neuron find that genetic mutations may be the underlying cause of a major portion of autism spectrum disorders (ASD).

Chemical-free humor For some comic relief applied with a dose of common sense, we recommend Deborah Blum's recent blog entry over at the Public Library of Science online.

My Take - This is worth the effort.

Dr. Ross’s media roundsWhen the Environmental Working Group this week declared much of American produce to be "tainted" with pesticides, ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross found more than a trace of irony in their latest, much publicized food scare. In his op-ed featured in yesterday's National Post, Dr. Ross observes that the source of a real public health threat - the E. coli outbreak in Europe - happened to come from an organic farm. Dr. Ross also speaks out against New York City Councilman Peter Vallone's (D-Queens)

Dr. Ross makes a “House Call”ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross made a guest appearance on Dr. Barry Dworkin's radio show, "Sunday House Call," which can be heard here.

Raw fear in the news: EWG still beating the organic drum — ignoring that nasty E. coli situation It's a shame that the The Wall Street Journal editors weren't tuning in to yesterday's "Sunday House Call," which featured ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross; otherwise the front page of Marketplace wouldn't have featured a chemophobic article on the Environmental Working Group's (EWG) annual Dirty Dozen publication.

The Times’ Kristof cultures another chemophobic theory on European E. coli outbreakSpeaking of organic sprouts, in his Sunday column for The New York Times, columnist Nicholas Kristof offers a strange alternative theory of how the E. coli outbreak occurred.

NYT spreads more fear of “carcinogens”The New York Times would have you believe that chemical industry lobbyists have been thwarting government efforts to reveal that formaldehyde is a carcinogen.

New FDA rules (sun) block chemophobia
As the sunny summer season gets into full swing, the FDA announced yesterday new rules that will help consumers to determine which sunscreens offer the best protection against harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays.

NSAIDs and heart complications revisitedPrevious studies have suggested that certain pain-relieving drugs, with the exception of aspirin and acetaminophen, may increase the risk of heart attack or death from a cardiovascular event.

My Take - All of this is well and good, but people with serious joint pain…are still in pain. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I would be willing to bet that most of them are older. Those who are realistic about this recognize that after 60 that life is much like a slide in a child’s playground set. They are getting to the end of the slide, they are moving faster, and in point of fact, aren’t going to get any better. It would be nice to be as pain free as possible allowing them to be as productive as possible until they reach the end of the slide.

Everyone will have their own picks, so here is the rest of the week

From East to West, laughable obesity “remedies” fatten the newsOn the eastern front, we have yet another example of Mayor Bloomberg's overreaching food bans - this time, he's targeting vending machines and concession stands in municipal buildings. Meanwhile, brown cows in California (as well as strawberry ones, we presume) must really be laughing, now that the board of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has voted almost unanimously to ban chocolate- and strawberry-flavored milk from school menus in the name of fighting childhood obesity.

Watch your weight, not the TVToo much time in front of the tube - as little as two hours a day - may increase your risk of developing type 2 diabetes or heart disease, according to a new meta-analysis (an analysis of previous studies) published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Epidemiologists now seeking Facebook friend requestsWhen it was discovered that an outbreak of Legionnaire's Disease at the Playboy Mansion was responsible for sickening at least 24 attendees of the Domain Fest Global Conference in February, it was thanks to Facebook, not the Los Angeles County health authorities.

My Take - I really think this is interesting. The internet has changed everything.

Diet in the prevention of age-related macular degenerationAge-related macular degeneration (AMD) affects approximately 6.5 percent of Americans ages 40 and older and is the leading cause of vision loss among those over 55.

A painful decision: When to use opiatesTo prescribe, or not to prescribe: That is the question that many physicians will now face in light of a recent report published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, which claims that doctors are too trigger-happy when it comes to prescribing potent painkillers, especially opioids.

Preventable deaths from overcrowded ERsAmbulance diversion, the rerouting of emergency vehicles from emergency rooms due to overcrowding, has been tied to an increased risk of patient death.

Too much smoke in China — and not from air pollutionNearly 30 percent of adults in China smoke, a number that just about equals the entire population of the United States.

Another benefit from breastfeeding: decrease in SIDSExisting guidelines suggest that new mothers breastfeed exclusively for at least the first six months, and a new study may persuade even more women to do so.

Study pumps relief into the heart disease and coffee discussionThe results of a new study should provide ample relief for coffee-loving women who are worried about heart disease.

FDA chickens out by removing arsenic from feed
3-Nitro may sound like the name of a formidable opponent on American Gladiator, but it's actually an animal drug given to pigs and poultry to promote their growth and has been in use since 1944.

If there is a health scare today, the American Council on Science and Health will most likely have the answer by tomorrow; and for members it will appear in your e-mail. No effort on your part, except to read the answer. All that the ACSH is interested in are the facts and they are prepared to follow them wherever they lead. Who can ask for more?  Please Donate Now!

###

Thought For the Day!

This appeared on GREEIE WATCH.

Simple-Simon question still stumps the Warmists

As I noted yesterday and the day before, there is a site which claims to have all the answers to "climate denier" arguments

But there is one question that was put to them 3 days ago now that they still have not even attempted to answer. It is a question perfectly well-grounded in fact but pushes them right off their mental tramtracks. The question reads as follows:

Hey guys!

I gather that the global temperature has risen by less than one degree Celsius in the last 150 years

That sounds to me like we live in an era of exceptional climate stability

What am I missing?

Wow! New Scientist is losing its religion

They have an article just up on the theme:: "Global warming not to blame for 2011 droughts". Excerpt:

While global warming is an obvious suspect, there's no evidence that it is to blame. Though climate change models predict extended droughts and periods of intense rainfall for the end of the 21st century, they don't explain the current droughts, says Martin Hoerling at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "A lot of these extreme conditions are natural variations of the climate. Extremes happen, heat waves happen, heavy rains happen," he says....

As for the apparent convergence of droughts worldwide, Mark Saunders of University College London says current conditions aren't that unusual. News media may simply be more tuned in to reporting extreme weather events.

The Unending Quest

By Rich Kozlovich

Over these many years I have noticed a pattern of activity that I find sort of fascinating. Scares will ebb and flow, but never really go away. Even after an issue has been raised and dealt with it is clear that the activists keep these issues on the back burner for future reference as if everyone will forget what the facts actually were. And to some extent they are right because there will always be a new crop of young misinformed and uninformed potential acolytes that they can gull into the green movement; young people in search of some sense of worth; searching for something in which they can believe.

Since environmentalism has become today’s secular religion they are susceptible to the Kyrie Eleison of environmentalism. Drinking the Kool Aid they soon become sickened in the fever swamps of that movement; they become filled with arrogance and a sense of self-righteous indignation at the rest of the world that no amount of valid scientific information or rational observation can cure.

I keep hearing all sorts of claims by activists and government grant chasing “scientists” that chemicals (especially pesticides) cause cancer, autism, low sperm count and a host of other unproven scares. This has been particularly true of DDT. More outrageous claims have been made against DDT than almost any product that has ever been developed, with the possible exception of bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates. Do chemicals really cause a drop in sperm count? Finally we can answer with a resounding NO!

In one of this week’s Daily Dispatches the American Council on Science and Health cited a study that clearly demonstrated that:

“the 1992 study by a group of Danish researchers that claimed sperm counts declined by 50 percent worldwide from 1938 to 1991”, was wrong! They point out that the study was “heavily criticized for its many flaws, methodological problems, and biases” at the time. “We know that the so-called decline in sperm count is just another myth promulgated by the ‘our stolen future’ crowd who say that environmental chemicals lead to infertility in men,” says ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross. “But now we have proof that’s simply not true.” 

This leads us to DDT, which was banned by the first administrator of the EPA, Bill Ruckelshaus in 1972. And yes….it was a ban. It is true that there were exceptions written into the ban, and yes, it is true that this ban in the U.S. was not incumbent on other nations, and yes it is true that it was not a worldwide ban…..on paper. However, so much economic pressure was placed on countries that didn’t ban it outright that it became a de facto ban in all but a few nations.

Lower sperm count was one of the claims, and yet the generation of parents who were most heavily exposed to DDT were the parents of the baby boomers. Even if there was a valid study that could show this today (which there isn’t), that study wasn’t available when the ban was imposed.

Most studies are filled with weasel word and phrases. Then there are the “conclusions in search of data” studies, much like the Hungarian studies of Trajan and Kemeny published in 1969. Using only 3 ppm in the food per day this dose was fed to five generations of inbred Balb/c mice. They claimed a higher incidence of leukemia in the test subjects over the control animals. They also claimed they started with a leukemia free strain, yet there were incidents of leukemia in the controls.

So what was disturbing about this study? Other researchers working with comparable dosages with animals of any species or strain showed no incidences of cancer of any type. The skepticism warranted an investigation into this puzzle. Although everyone agreed something went wrong in their study they couldn’t definitely point out what went wrong.  However it was shown that there were design problems in the study and there was a possibility of aflatoxin (an absolutely known carcinogen) contaminated food.

Modern studies seem to have much the same problem. Conclusions in search of data! The question I keep asking is this. If DDT was banned for scientific reasons that were obvious, factual and could be replicated; then why have they been studying it since 1972 to prove that it does________(fill in the blank). Millions have been spent on studies that have been conclusions in search of data. The mere fact that so much has been spent after the ban to prove that the ban was proper is a good indicator that everyone…. and I mean everyone........... on both sides of this issue, know that the science was weak or invalid, and the decision to ban DDT was a political one.

The real problem with the ban on DDT isn't the fact that we lost DDT. Why? Technically it didn’t matter (at least in the developed world) because we had a large arsenal of products to defend society’s health, food and property. Philosophically it was devastating because it became the basis for all that has come into being since then. All those tools have come under attack, and as a result we have lost important chemistry. First it was the chlorinated hydrocarbons, then it was the organophosphates and carbamates and now the pyrethroids and rodenticides are under attack. All of this goes back to the ban on DDT. That ban laid the foundation for the financial and legislative power of the environmental movement. The ban on DDT needs to be overturned for that reason alone.

American Council on Science and Health 2011: Week 22

 ...

The presence of linked articles here are merely a way of showing what is going on, whether I agree or disagree with the positions presented. I have highlighted what I think are "must read" articles with asterisks.  Rich Kozlovich


New melanoma drug illustrates shift in cancer research as treatments get personal Results from a large international phase III clinical trial conducted at 104 centers in 12 countries brings exciting news to some melanoma patients, and to medical progress as well.

***Prostate cancer treatment: Still more questions than answers How to appropriately treat early-stage prostate cancer still remains a hotbed of controversy, with various studies often suggesting conflicting recommendations.

Short-term smoking not safe either, increases risk for peripheral artery disease 
The list of reasons why no one should take up smoking is endless, and a new study from the Annals of Internal Medicine, led by Dr. Eruna Pradham, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, should provide us with yet another such disincentive.

Teenagers listen when doctors talk about smoking — but doctors have to talk! The June issue of Pediatrics confirms that physicians truly can be a significant influence on their teenage patients' attitudes toward tobacco use.

Chemicals not the culprit: Sperm counts stable, not declining Radical environmentalists have pointed to chemicals such as bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates as "toxins" responsible for causing obesity, cancer, and even male infertility due to decreased sperm counts.

***Meningitis vaccines save infants’ lives Haven't heard much about bacterial meningitis in the past few years?

New influenza vaccine formula not a flu-ke: Don’t skip the shot! The CDC has determined that the 2011-12 flu vaccine formula will remain the same as last season's. But that doesn't mean that folks who were vaccinated last year can skip the shot this year.

***A planet hungry for GM food Over the weekend, Justin Gillis of The New York Times published his extensive article underscoring a serious and growing global health problem: food shortages and undernourishment.

***NY Times’ slanted agenda once again refuted In yesterday's Dispatch, ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross expressed skepticism toward claims made by Justin Gillis in The New York Times that man-made climate change has already manifested in the form of decreased agricultural output. Well, Dr. Ross wasn't the only one critical of these assertions.

Don’t be a baby: Bottle after one year may only feed obesity A new study may offer parents a fat incentive to wean their children off baby bottles before they reach their first birthday.

Highest simvastatin dose unnecessary and risky Statin drugs have been notably free of serious side effects, despite being used by millions of patients since the late 1980s. However, a new FDA safety advisory announced Wednesday should result in a decreased dosage of the cholesterol-lowering drug simvastatin (Zocor)

***E. coli outbreak in Europe: Was it preventable? Media coverage of the disastrous E. coli outbreak in Europe has become a source of both anxiety and relief for Americans: In Germany, nearly 3,000 have fallen ill thus far - 700 with acute kidney failure - and 27 have died, but there's been no sign that this highly virulent form of E. coli has caused any illness in the U.S.

***Big news (not): Atrazine never caused cancer, and it still doesn’t  Atrazine, the herbicide most responsible for the well being of the cornfields across so much of the U.S. countryside, has once again been deemed a non-threat to human health.

***Are we now a third-world country? Can we really be running out of cancer drugs? Recent shortages of cancer medicines have brought to light an often problematic disconnect between the financial incentives of drug manufacturers and the needs of patients.

Teenagers listen when doctors talk about smoking — but doctors have to talk!
The June issue of Pediatrics confirms that physicians truly can be a significant influence on their teenage patients' attitudes toward tobacco use.

NSAIDs and heart complications revisited
Previous studies have suggested that certain pain-relieving drugs, with the exception of aspirin and acetaminophen, may increase the risk of heart attack or death from a cardiovascular event.

***Parents, have no fear: Vaccines are here (to save the day)!
A series of studies published in the journal Health Affairs offers both hopeful and discouraging news on the vaccine front.

***FDA chickens out by removing arsenic from feed
3-Nitro may sound like the name of a formidable opponent on American Gladiator, but it's actually an animal drug given to pigs and poultry to promote their growth and has been in use since 1944.

***Re autism: the fault is in our genes, perhaps
A series of studies published in the journal Neuron find that genetic mutations may be the underlying cause of a major portion of autism spectrum disorders (ASD).

You gotta protect your eyes!
While we should all be spreading on the sun block to protect our skin against harmful ultraviolet (UV) light this summer, it's easy to forget about this equally vulnerable organ when you're out in the sun: your eyes!


If there is a health scare today, the American Council on Science and Health will most likely have the answer by tomorrow; and for members it will appear in your e-mail. No effort on your part, except to read the answer. All that the ACSH is interested in are the facts and they are prepared to follow them wherever they lead. Who can ask for more?  Please Donate Now!



###

The Insanity Continues

By Dr. Jay Lehr and Rich Kozlovich

Whenever the EPA or the green movement uses the term, “it’s for the children” as a justification for their legislative and regulatory actions, it is time to look deeper. First, the EPA banned DDT. And yes….it was a ban. It is true that there were exceptions written into the ban, and yes, it is true that this ban in the U.S. was not incumbent on other nations, and yes it is true that it was not a worldwide ban…..on paper. However, so much economic pressure was placed on countries that didn’t ban it outright that it became a de facto ban in all but a few nations.

The cost to humanity has been staggering as a result. It is estimated that there are up to one million deaths from malaria each year. But that is the tip of the iceberg. Each year approximately 500 million people (some believe this number is underestimated by WHO) are infected each year with up to “365 million cases of malaria in Africa alone in 2002”. As a result the cost in diminished lives has been far reaching. Children, who are impacted by malaria the most, will have serious development problems that will affect them for the rest of their lives, the lives of their family members and their societies as a whole. This is an economic burden that is not easily overcome when the numbers are so high. In many areas of the world there isn’t a family that hasn’t lost loved ones to malaria.

Now the EPA has decided on a program of rodenticide elimination. I know that it will mostly prevent unlicensed consumers from using the most effective rodenticides, but do we really believe this is the end of their meddling? The green activist’s ultimate goal is the elimination of rodenticides. Can any knowledgeable reasonable person believe this will end here?

They cite poison control figures of 12 to 15 thousand “reports” about rodenticides. What does that mean? Does that mean that up to 15 thousand people were sickened or died from rodenticides? No, it doesn’t. If you just call a poison control center and ask about rodenticides you go on the list. The fact that there are no figures listing anyone being sickened or dying from accidental exposures indicates that the actual number is amazingly small or they would have cited it. In a nation of three hundred million people where millions of rodenticide applications are being made each year by licensed applicators and homeowners that is an amazing safety record.

What about the number of “reports” regarding household cleaners? Fifteen years ago or so when this was first becoming a major issue it was noted that “reports” about bleach was far greater. True, there is a per ratio issue here, but the fact that “reports” are recorded by the poison control center doesn’t justify these actions by the EPA.

At pest control conferences I have heard it said that most human poisonings from rodenticides were self induced in failed attempts to commit suicide. They usually fail because it takes a lot of rodenticide to kill a person.

This will definitely impact those at the lower end of the economic scale. Just as the EPA has created the regulatory nightmare that has caused this plague of bed bugs that is spreading around the nation; especially for the lowest income groups and their children, they are now potentially creating a situation where this same group will not be able to defend their children from rats and mice easily, effectively or inexpensively.

As for claims that this will cause the Black Death to return; well, right now, at this moment in time, a statement such as that might be viewed as overkill, but it isn’t irrational nor is it unreasonable to state it. We have cases of the plague every year in the American Southwest. There is a difference between the bubonic plague and the Black Death.

The Black Death is a more virulent strain of the bubonic plague. Is it possible for this less virulent strain to become more virulent? Yes.

About twenty years ago or so researchers noted that there was only a slight genetic difference between these two strains, and it was possible to induce the more virulent Black Death strain in the modern strain. Did they believe it was possible for the plague to become more virulent on its own? Yes…they did! Rodenticides and their extensive use have been one of the great success stories for humanity.

Let’s hope that the EPA stops doing things “for the children”, because much of what they have done hasn’t been so much “for the children” as it has been “to the children”, because it has been the children who have suffered the most.

Observations From the Back Row: 6-11-11

GOP candidate: Global warming is 'patently absurd'

Republican takes opposite view of Mitt Romney, who thinks mankind is responsible - Former Congressman and current Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is turning up the heat on the issue of man-made global warming, calling it "patently absurd," a stance putting him at odds with perceived frontrunner Mitt Romney.

New Ethanol Mandates From Washington
Many have regarded ethanol to be the proverbial “fuel of the future,”….The Department of Energy began releasing data in 1997 determining that some of the benefits derived from ethanol don’t outweigh the costs, as researchers had previously believed. Ethanol may emit less pollution when burned in place of gasoline, but the Environmental Protection Agency reports that it releases carcinogens at far higher levels than they predicted when it’s created. Despite the abundance of new testimonies and information, however, both the federal and state government continue to support ethanol ardently, as our country’s energy messiah…..So, do the advantages of ethanol outweigh the costs? The answer, simply, is no. So, do the advantages of ethanol outweigh the costs? The answer, simply, is no. Aside from its counterproductive environmental effects and proven efficiency loss for each mile to the gallon, ethanol is a precarious investment for the government to force on us for several reasons:

The answer, my friend, ain't blowing' in the wind
Following the revelation that we’re all paying a secret stealth tax to subsidise so-called renewable energy sources, it seems like a good time to check out exactly what we are getting for our money.

At midday yesterday, wind power was contributing just 2.2 per cent of all the electricity in the National Grid. You might think that’s a pretty poor return on the billions of pounds spent already on Britain’s standing army of windmills. But it’s actually a significant improvement on the last time I checked the wholesale electricity industry’s official website. At the turn of the year, the figure was 1.6 per cent. During the cold snap the turbines had to be heated to stop them freezing and were actually consuming more electricity than they generated. Worth it? Wind power contributes just 2.2 per cent to the overall electricity of the National Grid

Even on a good day, they rarely work above a quarter of their theoretical capacity. And in high winds they have to be turned off altogether to prevent damage. Britain’s 3,426 wind turbines produce no more electricity than a single, medium-sized gas-fired power station. Any sane individual would conclude that wind generation is hopelessly inefficient and horribly expensive and stop throwing good money after bad. But when did sanity ever have anything to do with government policy?

Ministers are planning to install another 12,500 of these worse-than-useless windmills, some of them up to three times the size of existing monstrosities.

My Take - This whole thing has to strike those who have been following Anthropogenic Global Warming, or as it is called now, Climate Change, a bit strange. I read all of this stuff and I have to shake my head and laugh…only it isn’t laughter of humor….it is laughter of disgust.  Perhaps laughter is the wrong word to describe the sound I make.  I think perhaps a snort of disgust would be more appropriate.

It is clear that those who have been the biggest proponents of AGW have been bought and paid for by government grant money. It is also clear that they have outright lied, twisted the facts, hidden data to avoid exposure and conspired to promote fallacious conclusions about climate change. Yet we are still debating whether it is a valid concern or not.

Yes the climate warmed. How much in the last 150 years? Less than a degree! Yes, the climate appears to be cooling. How much…no one knows, but it is immaterial either way. The issue is this; is mankind responsible? It is clear that gasses...green house or otherwise....don't hold heat. Gasses can be warmed by the surrounding environment, but they don't hold heat. Water vapor does....and it can hold a lot of heat.....but water vapor isn't produced by mankind through industrialization so no one makes a fuss about that.  To show that man had done irreparable damage the planet they have lied…..get over it….they have lied and they have been exposed. So why in the world would a man who would be President not come right out and say so?

Anyone who has been at the center of information for so much of their life and still doesn’t get this properly is either too stupid to be President or too dishonest to be President…. although I doubt that you could hit that honesty button too hard on any of them.

So why are we demanding that everyone continue down this road of irrationality regarding “alternative” energy sources? The driving force for this idiocy is AGW right now. The issue of diminishing resources for carbon energy sources has shown to be blatant nonsense….which a great number of us have known for years. We have more oil, natural gas and coal than we can use in 200 years. We also know that in order to have a stable and vibrant economy, and to revive today's economy we need energy….CHEAP ENERGY. Yet we follow maniacs who rave about the evils of carbon based energy, especially oil.

Make no mistake about this; we have plenty of oil right in the jurisdiction of the U.S., so energy self sufficiency is absolutely possible….if we drill. Furthermore without oil our lives would dramatically change for the worse. Oil is the basis for our modern society with all the benefits we enjoy, including an average life span that has doubled in the last 150 years.

I hear these politicos make the excuse that they aren’t scientists so they have to go along with the scientific community. Great…except that is horsepucky. There is no consensus on climate change….that is a lie and even if there really was absolute consensus in the scientific community it has nothing to do with this one reality; the AGW scare failed the history test. The climate has changed unendingly throughout the history of the planet. We have had global cooling and global warming forever, and at a higher level than anything we are experiencing right now, or in the foreseeable future.

During the Medieval Warming Period it was substantially warmer than it is now.  It was also warmer than the temperatures (which are based on computer models) the scare mongers are predicting for the future. Did all the terrible things they are predicting for today happen then? NO! Why should we believe that it will happen now? We shouldn’t! Furthermore it has been demonstrated that warmer is better; better for animals, plants and people.

So why are these people promoting nonsense that is easily seen to be junk science, damaging to the economy and detrimental to the societies they would lead? Good questions don’t you think? Well, I keep hearing the old Einstein quote about doing over and over again things that don’t work and expecting a different outcome is insanity. I think that must be the answer. They must insane; what other explanation fits the facts?

###

Observations From the Back Row: 6-7-11

...

Will “natural” repellents actually kill bugs dead?
During a season when insect repellent is, of necessity, many people's signature fragrance, consumers may be drawn to sprays with more benign-sounding names and scents. An array of these “natural” repellents is widely available — there’s everything from citronella to soybean oil — but their effectiveness at actually keeping the bugs away is still in question.

Scott Carroll, director of Carroll-Loye Biological Research Consulting, an independent company that tests insect repellents, notes…..“To me,” he says, “[minimum risk pesticides] is code for: ‘They don’t work very well.’” Indeed, companies that market such “minimum-risk” repellents are not actually required to demonstrate how well they work.……..The EPA has deemed both their active and inert ingredients safe for the intended use, mainly because they’ve been used long enough in consumer products without incident, says Carroll.   There is more in this article worth reading.  RK

FDA sends US marshals to seize elderberry juice concentrate, deems it 'unapproved drug' (NaturalNews) Wyldewood Cellars, a Kansas-based producer and distributor of elderberry juice, is the latest raid target of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which recently sent US marshals to the company's winery in Mulvane to confiscate the "unapproved drug." According to the rogue agency, Wyldewood had violated provisions in the US Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) that restrict health claims for food items, warranting the sudden invasion.

My Take - I don't know if elderberry juice even tastes good let alone improve the health of those who do drink it, but I posted these two articles to show how strange the federal government is. On one hand the product is "natural" and it's OK with no testing because it has been around for a long time. On the other hand the product is "natural" and has been around for a long time but isn’t being described properly.

A couple of weeks ago I posted a couple of articles about the government wanting to fine some poor family $90,000 for selling a few thousand rabbits over a couple of years. The profit on this was meaningless, but it allowed them to go out to some place special for dinner once in a while, like Red Lobster. And if they didn't come up with that money right now they intended to push it to over four million.

But to actually have a "raid" and "seize" their products as if this is a powerful drug lord and his cartel selling harmful illegal drugs is....well....a bit insane. In Ohio this same tactic was used against a co-op that sold things like unpasteurized milk products to its members when an "undercover" agriculture agent convinced them to sell him some small amount (the story is contested by the way). They were then raided with swat personnel and held in custody for some time, scaring the family, including the small children. This is nuts. Have we lost our minds allowing these petty but powerful bureaucrats to dominate us in this way? Yes...we have! The other question I have is this. If this is all they have to do then do we need them at all?


###

Observations From the Back Row: 6-4-11

...

We have all been lied to by a shameless confederation of scientists, their professional publications, their formal organizations, and politicians seeking to use this big scare to advance their careers and agendas. The problem for all of them is that the real science does not support global warming and never did. Real scientists, branded dissenters, skeptics, and deniers, held true to the principles of science, knowing that it would eventually end this vast and terrible hoax. - Alan Caruba

Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Jun 2nd 2011

Part One: Hippie of the Week
Part Two: Warmists & Scaremongers
Part Three: Inconvenient Truths
Part Four: AGW in the News
Part Five: Global Hottie

Obama Commerce Nominee is a Warmist nut John Bryson, President Barack Obama's nominee to be secretary of commerce, said it was “incredibly important” that the United States pass cap and trade legislation and that America needed to be a global leader in combating man-made global warming.

“I regard it as incredibly important that the United States comes forth in this year with federal climate change legislation as a foundation for moving ahead,” Bryson told the U.N. International Energy Conference in late August 2009. “I think we in the U.S. have an obligation to assist in significant ways in providing leadership in this community of nations that you represent and addressing energy and climate change.”….. Bryson, a co-founder of the liberal environmentalist group Natural Resources Defense Council, was most recently a member of the United Nations’ Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change, a panel of scientific and industry experts tasked with providing advice on combating global warming.

Obama wants John Bryson to lead an agency that is responsible for promoting and fostering business and industry. Why Obama would choose to put an anti-business anti-jobs and anti-economic growth nut in charge of our economic recovery - who was a co-founder of the wildly anti-everything Natural Resources Defense Council - is quite insane! -John Ray

TAYLOR: Don’t look behind the green curtain Global warming alarmists are throwing a temper tantrum this week after a Virginia judge affirmed that scientists who receive public funds to study global warming are subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests regarding their taxpayer-funded research. The alarmists’ outrage at being required to divulge and justify the data and theories that lead to their predictions of doom and gloom stands in stark contrast to the often-vilified skeptics who welcome scientific transparency with open arms.

A Virginia state judge issued a May 24 order requiring the University of Virginia to produce by Aug. 22 documents the university acknowledges are subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. A separate order sets the stage for the American Tradition Institute to review and challenge the withholding of documents the university claims are exempt from disclosure owing to asserted academic freedom or proprietary research claims….. While alarmists like Mr. Mann fear the disclosure of their methods and data, skeptics have long championed transparency and openness. What does that tell you about who is and who is not confident the data back them up?

Gore-monism: Romney believes in manmade global warming Before a town hall meeting in Mancester, New Hampshire today, Romney said, I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that. It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors. This statement obviously doesn’t bode well for the prospect that Romney would rein in the EPA and its endangerment finding and economy-killing greenhouse gas regulations.

MILLOY: Do GOP hopefuls trust Al Gore? What would Al Gore do? Could that really be New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s thought process? The GOP’s darling and “please-run-for-president-now” governor earned national attention last week for pulling New Jersey out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the cap-and-trade program set up by Northeast states. But in doing so, Mr. Christie revealed a serious lapse in political instinct and judgment that should cause Republicans to ask whether he and others like him are ready for the White House….Mitt Romney has expressed reservations about taking unilateral action on greenhouse gases, but his broader view on climate science is, at best, unknown. Tim Pawlenty has renounced his support for cap-and-trade. But has he embraced climate skepticism?

The EPA: Economic ‘Savior’ or Jolly Green Tyrant? Rest easy America, for not only is the EPA busy saving the planet, it’s taken on a new responsibility: saving the economy. The Departments of Commerce and Energy can close up shop and Treasury Department better start investing in some new equipment to count all of the riches that are going to flood into America’s coffers now that EPA is on the job…..Forget all that rubbish you may have heard that suggests that piling more and more regulations on American industry inhibits economic growth. It’s actually quite the opposite, and we know this because Ms. Jackson assures us it is so: the more environmental regulations, the more money we’ll all make. Don’t you worry for a moment about abandoning the use of the cheapest, most abundant energy resource we have, for example. America will be far better off burning less coal and generating electricity by using… er… uh… Well, we’re still working that out, but the less coal we use the more money we’ll make and we’ll also reduce our dependence on foreign oil – or something like that. They’re still working up the figures summarizing coal imports from Saudi Arabia, apparently …..All the EPA is trying to do is to right the ship before it’s too late. Another dozen or so major new regulations and happy days will be here again. Just you wait and see America – just wait and see.

Overruled Ever wonder if anyone in government gives a thought to costs when one of its labyrinthine laws is put into effect? Turns out at least one federal agency says it's prohibited from doing so. Which explains a lot. In a town where the government is accustomed to doing whatever it wants, one member of Congress has challenged the system. Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., asked the Environmental Protection Agency about its rule-making process. What she learned is breathtaking, but not surprising.

Market Speaks: Impacts of EPA Train Wreck Will Be Much Higher Than Anticipated Reality has interceded in EPA’s attempt to play down the impact of its train wreck regulations on the electric utility industry. First came the widely reported news that Louisville Gas & Electric had filed for a 19% rate increase by 2016 to pay for the upgrades that the regulations will require.

Senators Stand Up to EPA’s Assault on Private Property On April 27, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a Clean Water Act jurisdictional guidance document that would drastically expand the EPA’s ability to regulate private land and water. Just as the EPA used regulation to get around Congress’s rejection of cap-and-trade legislation to tax carbon dioxide, the agency is again ignoring Congress after policymakers failed to move legislation forward.

Terence Corcoran: Green Jobs Agenda Is A Threat To Economic Recovery The G8 economic model of government spending and intervention across the economies of the developed world may well be the reason that banks and others are holding on to their assets and wealth. If you want to know why the U.S. economy and much of the developed world appeared Wednesday to be sliding sideways or even declining — weak job markets, slow growth, sagging production, falling housing markets, soaring commodity prices, plunging stock values — a reasonable starting point would be the economic policy musings in the final declaration from last week’s G8 Summit in Deauville, France. In addition to being flush with the usual generalized econo-blather of summit communiqués, it is also an instructive checklist of Obamanomics and the interventionist extremism that now guides economic policymaking around the world.

The Chopping Block: William Watson on Green Growth Painting all buildings green would boost jobs too — at a cost. The latest trendy justification for higher government spending is “Green Growth.” Last month, the OECD put out a major report heralding a big, new Green Growth initiative. Last week, the G8 devoted a section of its communiqué to the subject. The table at right, borrowed from an earlier column by Financial Post Editor Terence Corcoran, suggests we’ve already skipped ourselves pretty far down this green-brick road….. The trouble is, Green just doesn’t do anything special for the economy. Except when it hurts it.

Is it time for a crime of ecocide? Most now accept that the Earth is fragile, but can the legal system help to secure its future? Among the ideas currently gaining currency is adding a crime of ecocide to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). If this idea is accepted, ecocide would join war crimes, aggression, crimes against humanity and genocide as a fifth crime against peace….. It reflects a redefinition of the ‘rights’ debate away towards the idea that ‘planetary rights’ merit as much protection as their human counterparts. The aim is for the law to treat the earth not as an inert commodity, but as a living being with intrinsic value.

10 Reasons You Shouldn’t Steer Toward Ethanol The ongoing turmoil in the Middle East has resulted in higher gas prices, inconveniencing Americans who are already attempting to pick up the pieces following the recent economic downturn. In recent years, ethanol has become a popular alternative to gasoline because of its low cost and ability to burn cleanly. However, with the government's quest to increase ethanol production and reduce our dependence on oil, the latter of which is a necessary goal, many of ethanol's flaws have been overlooked. Whether you're concerned for the environment or just a college kid on a budget, you should first consider the following 10 reasons to steer away from the corn-based fuel before making it a regular purchase.

Atrazine not a carcinogen, study says Who didn’t know that the Environmental Working Group was wrong about atrazine being a carcinogen? The herbicide atrazine was not associated with cancer in a study of 36,357 applicators (i.e., a relatively highly-exposed population), according to a new study published in Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP).

Woman with bed bugs denied medical treatment Christine Lewis said she was just being honest with the nurse at Colorado's Aurora Medical Center when she showed her the festering bites on her arms just before she was to have a spinal injection for her back pain. But when the doctor arrived, instead of showing compassion, Lewis alleges he refused to do the procedure, telling her, "it could be in your hair, it could be in your clothes and we can't have you bring that into our operating room," and then just "ran out the door." ………"I had been bitten a lot and they were red and inflamed and weepy," said Lewis. "The doctor gave me a perfectly good medical explanation why he didn't want to do the procedure. But then he went on to show ignorance, telling me I could bring the bugs into the hospital on my hair and clothes. They could come in on a delivery truck or anyone who walks in to the hospital. I am not a dirty person. He went too far."

Find way to fund aquifer species protection Through the creation of Edwards Aquifer Authority in 1993, the Legislature brought a temporary end to the federal Endangered Species Act litigation over the aquifer by giving the region a deadline to assure that certain endangered aquatic species would ...

My Take - This is insanity and a good reason to dumping the ESA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service along with the EPA.

Center for Biological Diversity seeks to destroy Fort Huachuca to save the San ...…. Calling the Army's reliance on this 2007 opinion “arbitrary and capricious,” the judge said the Army has violated its duty under the Endangered Species Act to ensure that its operations don't jeopardize the two species' existence. ...

My Take – Another good reason to dump the EPA and to pass laws that forbid greenie lawsuits.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,

"To talk of many things:

Of shoes, and ships, and sealing wax -

Of cabbages and kings,

And why the sea is boiling hot,

And whether pigs have wings."

###