Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote: > > At 05:54 PM 12/22/03, Julia Thompson wrote: > >"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote: > > > > > > At 10:54 AM 12/22/03, Julia Thompson wrote: > > > >Sonja van Baardwijk wrote: > > > > > > > > > Personally I have noticed that my sensitivity to smoke has been heavily > > > > > increased the less I'm exposed to it. Nothing psychosomatic about it. > > > > > > > >There was one year that I managed to increase my tolerance for smoke, > > > >and that was done by longer and longer exposures to people smoking. My > > > >body just got used to it. I wasn't happy about it, but I could stand > > > >it. > > > > > > > >(This led to weird things like the time I washed my hair in a sink at > > > >2AM and to dry it before I went to sleep, spent awhile combing it out > > > >right next to a radiator) > > > > > > Hadn't blow dryers been invented then? > > > >Yes. And given the damage my hair took when I was about 7-10 years old > >from using one on a regular basis, I wasn't interested in using one. > > When you did use one, did you turn the stereo up loud enough to listen to > it while you dried your hair . . . and incidentally allow everyone within > several hundred feet to also listen to it? (I would be visiting a girl's > apartment in college and one of her roommates would be drying her hair > while listening to the stereo, making conversation difficult in the living > room . . . ) I don't think I've used one since sometime in high school, and I never used one at the same time I was trying to listen to music. I think maybe at some point, my mom used one on me in the den where the TV was, but if the TV was on, the volume wasn't turned up for *my* benefit. (Might have been turned up a bit for someone else's benefit.) > >Plus which, I didn't have one, and at 2AM I didn't feel like going to > >someone else's room to wake them up and ask if they'd brought one. :) > > I finally found a hairstyle that will dry naturally rather than having to > be blow-dried very carefully to keep the wave at least somewhat under > control. Of course, it does not meet Air Force or BYU standards . . . I think the last time I used a blow dryer, it had something to do with having used mousse to get my hair to stay in place. I only used that on special occasions, though. Now I use hairspray for the purpose, and that at most 4 times a year. > Cats Don't Like To Be Blow-Dried After Their Bath Maru Briana doesn't seem to mind at the groomer's, and we don't bother with that here. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
At 05:54 PM 12/22/03, Julia Thompson wrote: "Ronn!Blankenship" wrote: > > At 10:54 AM 12/22/03, Julia Thompson wrote: > >Sonja van Baardwijk wrote: > > > > > Personally I have noticed that my sensitivity to smoke has been heavily > > > increased the less I'm exposed to it. Nothing psychosomatic about it. > > > >There was one year that I managed to increase my tolerance for smoke, > >and that was done by longer and longer exposures to people smoking. My > >body just got used to it. I wasn't happy about it, but I could stand > >it. > > > >(This led to weird things like the time I washed my hair in a sink at > >2AM and to dry it before I went to sleep, spent awhile combing it out > >right next to a radiator) > > Hadn't blow dryers been invented then? Yes. And given the damage my hair took when I was about 7-10 years old from using one on a regular basis, I wasn't interested in using one. When you did use one, did you turn the stereo up loud enough to listen to it while you dried your hair . . . and incidentally allow everyone within several hundred feet to also listen to it? (I would be visiting a girl's apartment in college and one of her roommates would be drying her hair while listening to the stereo, making conversation difficult in the living room . . . ) Plus which, I didn't have one, and at 2AM I didn't feel like going to someone else's room to wake them up and ask if they'd brought one. :) I finally found a hairstyle that will dry naturally rather than having to be blow-dried very carefully to keep the wave at least somewhat under control. Of course, it does not meet Air Force or BYU standards . . . Cats Don't Like To Be Blow-Dried After Their Bath Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote: > > At 10:54 AM 12/22/03, Julia Thompson wrote: > >Sonja van Baardwijk wrote: > > > > > Personally I have noticed that my sensitivity to smoke has been heavily > > > increased the less I'm exposed to it. Nothing psychosomatic about it. > > > >There was one year that I managed to increase my tolerance for smoke, > >and that was done by longer and longer exposures to people smoking. My > >body just got used to it. I wasn't happy about it, but I could stand > >it. > > > >(This led to weird things like the time I washed my hair in a sink at > >2AM and to dry it before I went to sleep, spent awhile combing it out > >right next to a radiator) > > Hadn't blow dryers been invented then? Yes. And given the damage my hair took when I was about 7-10 years old from using one on a regular basis, I wasn't interested in using one. Plus which, I didn't have one, and at 2AM I didn't feel like going to someone else's room to wake them up and ask if they'd brought one. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
At 10:54 AM 12/22/03, Julia Thompson wrote: Sonja van Baardwijk wrote: > Personally I have noticed that my sensitivity to smoke has been heavily > increased the less I'm exposed to it. Nothing psychosomatic about it. There was one year that I managed to increase my tolerance for smoke, and that was done by longer and longer exposures to people smoking. My body just got used to it. I wasn't happy about it, but I could stand it. (This led to weird things like the time I washed my hair in a sink at 2AM and to dry it before I went to sleep, spent awhile combing it out right next to a radiator) Hadn't blow dryers been invented then? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
Sonja van Baardwijk wrote: > Personally I have noticed that my sensitivity to smoke has been heavily > increased the less I'm exposed to it. Nothing psychosomatic about it. There was one year that I managed to increase my tolerance for smoke, and that was done by longer and longer exposures to people smoking. My body just got used to it. I wasn't happy about it, but I could stand it. (This led to weird things like the time I washed my hair in a sink at 2AM and to dry it before I went to sleep, spent awhile combing it out right next to a radiator) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:36 AM Subject: Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed At 04:43 AM 12/20/03, Deborah Harrell wrote: --- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maybe second-hand smoke isn't as dangerous as professed, but I am sure as hell happy I don't have to breathe it anymore. Anecdotaly, I got bronchitis *every time* I was exposed to 2nd-hand tobacco smoke for more than 3 hours straight (as at a bar, or driving in a car with a smoker -- I avoid such exposure religiously now). ^^^ Pun intended? It takes a lot less time than that for me to become ill from it. Even being in a room where people have been smoking can do it. *Note: Not a defense of smoking* [You may now return to the discussion which is already in progress] Do any of you who get "ill" (Not sarcastic quote marks, I use them to mark the difference between actual sickness and the kind of illness I am positing) around tobacco smoke get ill around other types of smoke? How about on the freeway or on downtown streets? If not, I suggest that this kind of "illness" might be for the most part psychosomatic. You never used to hear people, with any regularity, make these claims before, say, 1980 (date pulled out of hat). Personally I have noticed that my sensitivity to smoke has been heavily increased the less I'm exposed to it. Nothing psychosomatic about it. When I was in college everybody around me smoked and only while in class I sometimes had a smoke free environment unless the teacher was a smoker in which case even there I was inhaling second hand smoke. My parents also smoked, all their friends smoked, so at home I never had a smoke free environment. Now a couple decades onwards I'm living virtually smoke free all the time, except for the few visits to my mom's house where there is just one person left that smokes all the time, her partner. My mom quit a long time ago. When I get back from one of those visits where I usually get smoked like a salmon, when I don't bring Tom around, I usually have no voice left, my head hurts, my eyes feel like they have been rubbed with sanding paper, my throat hurts and I can't seem to stop coughing. After a bad nights sleep the next day I invariably am unable to breathe through and as a result am very very tired. It usually takes me a couple of days to catch my breath after the experience. As you say, it could be psycosomatic but the burning in my throat, the lack of breath and the coughing 'till I almost black out after being exposed a bit longer to second hand smoke feel very frightening real to me. Rather then psychosomatic I'd think that now that we have more and more smoke free areas, peoples tolerance levels for smoke irritants have gone way down and that that is the main reason why we didn't hear many complaints in the 80ties whereass now a days where you can live your life almost smoke free without too big a heartship, most non-smokers feel that second hand smoke makes them feel unwell and sometimes even ill. Sonja GCU: Black lungs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
Gary Nunn wrote: > > > allergies started to clear up, and then they were almost > > entirely gone for > > the rest of the week. It was like the massive allergen > > exposure forced my > > body to quit complaining and just get over it. > > I probably read this suggestion on this list, but somewhere I read that > if you get unprocessed honey from a local source and eat a tablespoon > every day (or something like that) your body becomes immune to the > pollen that was used to make the honey. > > I mentioned this to a coworker and he tried it and was amazed at how > much better his allergies were after a few weeks. I have no idea if this > really worked or if it was simply the power of suggestion. I've heard the same thing, and had various people swear up and down that it worked for them. What I want to know, though, is what do you do if your body has problems with honey? (I.e., it does unpleasant things to your digestive system) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
> allergies started to clear up, and then they were almost > entirely gone for > the rest of the week. It was like the massive allergen > exposure forced my > body to quit complaining and just get over it. I probably read this suggestion on this list, but somewhere I read that if you get unprocessed honey from a local source and eat a tablespoon every day (or something like that) your body becomes immune to the pollen that was used to make the honey. I mentioned this to a coworker and he tried it and was amazed at how much better his allergies were after a few weeks. I have no idea if this really worked or if it was simply the power of suggestion. Gary ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> At 12:12 PM 12/21/03, Robert Seeberger wrote: >>I used to suffer seasonally from hay fever so bad that my face would swell >>and I had terrible headaches. >>The funny thing is, when I started smoking that all ceased. I never get >>"bad" allergies anymore. >>I suppose the smoke is keeping my system distracted. >I don't think I want to try it. LOL Not something I'd recommend, but I do find it an oddity. I wonder if what I experienced is very common at all? Along similar lines: I went to visit some friends in Charleston a few years back. They lived up against some woods, and had several cats, and my allergies went into overdrive. I felt like total crud the first two days I was there. Then, I went out in their boat, where we travelled down a rather swamp-like stream/river. I thought I was doomed, but not long into the boat trip, my allergies started to clear up, and then they were almost entirely gone for the rest of the week. It was like the massive allergen exposure forced my body to quit complaining and just get over it. _ Have fun customizing MSN Messenger learn how here! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_customize ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Michael Crichton is Evil and Must be Destroyed (was: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed)
--- Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, it would indeed be nice if someone could find > an alternative which was > nearly (90%+?) as effective as DDT at killing the > insects which spread > disease to humans while being much safer (<10% as > toxic?) as DDT, and also > be cheap enough that the people living in some of > the areas where diseases > like malaria and yellow fever are endemic can afford > it. There is also the possibility of gengineering mosquitoes (or was it a bacterium that enables the mosquito to be a host?) so that they can't vector the parasite - there were several posts on that last summer, IIRC. Of course, releasing a GM animal into the environment has its own hazards (the Law of Unintended Consequences!)...I think there was also something about how mosquito netting over children's beds would drastically reduce infection rates (b/c they feed at dawn/dusk?)... > FWIW, is it possible that much of the problem with > chemicals such as DDT > getting into the system where it is not wanted and > causes problems is due > to overuse, on the principle "if a little is good, a > lot is better"? Probably in some places; I think aerial application is fairly indiscriminant as well in many places. As the animals affected by DDT include frogs and other insectivore amphibians, as well as bats, there is reduction of the natural predators of mosquitos. Education re: not providing breeding grounds for the little blood-suckers is also important, as humans tend to create these without thinking. [What with West Nile here in force this past year, *every* news medium ran/played multiple articles on canging bird bath and pet water 2-3xweek, walking your property and picking up anything that could hold rainwater (buckets, cans, tires, etc.), checking your gutters for dips that would hold standing water, etc. At the stable we checked weekly for these.] Debbi who saw that bald eagle again yesterday by the resevoir; turns out a pair is wintering nearby -- a friend who's lived here for decades said that there was even a nesting pair there years ago! :) __ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > *Note: Not a defense of smoking* > Do any of you who get "ill" (Not sarcastic quote > marks, I use them to mark > the difference between actual sickness and the kind > of illness I am positing) > around tobacco smoke get ill around other types of > smoke? Yes - I think I posted about my problems with smoke from the Hayman fire here last summer; not only did I wake coughing and with burning eyes (despite keeping windows closed! and the fire being ~30 miles south of my home) during the worst of it, but I developed asthmatic-type shortness of breath afterward, such that I had difficulty walking beside a student and talking at the same time. I am almost back at my prior lung capacity, but not quite. At least one asthmatic patient died from Hayman smoke. I also avoid breathing in campfire smoke, and will develop a dry cough if I am around one for more than a couple of hours. > How about on the freeway or on downtown streets? No choking incidents, but I have pulled off when stuck in near-stand-still traffic with 18-wheelers around; I can easily tell if I'm following a diesel vs. unleaded gasoline-using car by smell and what I'll call "taste in the back of my throat." (That's a bizarre term, but a similar sensation occurred back when I was working in a chem lab and somebody'd left particular reagent bottles improperly capped.) I avoid driving behind or beside buses as well. > It makes me wonder if Tobacco is only a secondary > causative. It's well-known that some pollutants/irritants/allergens are synergistic or additive; it is also true that those with reactive airways, such as asthmatics and those with severe respiratory allergies, are more susceptible to such stimuli. One of the many possible contributors to the rise in asthma/allergies is the triggering of 'genetically vulnerable' persons by various environmental insults, including tobacco smoke and industrial pollutants. Tobacco smoke is directly toxic to the respiratory cilia, and they cease their proper functioning (to sweep mucus with its entrapped particles up to the throat where it is either swallowed or coughed out) after chronic exposure (I think "chronicity" can be quite variable, and there is again probably a genetic component to how much smoke will cause impairment of the 'ciliary elevator.'). After being smoke-free for days->weeks, some cilia will recover function and start sweeping again -- this is why moderate->heavy smokers who have quit recently will complain, "Now I cough more than when I was smoking!" Debbi Smoke Gets In My Eyes And Hair And Lungs And...Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
--- Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Deborah Harrell wrote: > >--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Maybe second-hand smoke isn't as dangerous as > > > professed, but I am sure as > > > hell happy I don't have to breathe it anymore. > > > >Anecdotaly, I got bronchitis *every time* I was > >exposed to 2nd-hand tobacco smoke for more than 3 > >hours straight (as at a bar, or driving in a car > with > >a smoker -- I avoid such exposure religiously now). > Pun intended? But of course! ;) > It takes a lot less time than that for me to become > ill from it. Even > being in a room where people have been smoking can > do it. Ugh...I have a friend with significant asthma who reports that she can get symptoms just from being confined next to (as in on the bus) a heavy smoker. Debbi who *does* occasionally intend a pun, in addition to the various subconscious (sp?) ones and completely-by-accident ones :) __ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
At 12:28 PM 12/21/2003, you wrote: - Original Message - From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:36 AM Subject: Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed > It takes a lot less time than that for me to become ill from it. Even > being in a room where people have been smoking can do it. > *Note: Not a defense of smoking* [You may now return to the discussion which is already in progress] Do any of you who get "ill" (Not sarcastic quote marks, I use them to mark the difference between actual sickness and the kind of illness I am positing) around tobacco smoke get ill around other types of smoke? rob I have a reaction to certain chemicals. My liver was damaged when I was a kid.* When I was unemployed I contracted with a placement agency. My first job was with a company that made inks. I had to make samples and run various tests. I loved the job, the owner had a nice daughter who was my age and very smart, but by the end of week three I was coughing and felt awful. The owner even said he was going to hire me full time but I had to quit. Around paint, gasoline, perfume and similar I have bad reactions.* Cigs can annoy me. People who sit them in an ashtray and let them burn down to the filter are the worst. Being around a campfire when you get a face full of smoke, no normal person can handle that. But I've been a bartender, our camp has an open fireplace so I can be in the environment and not get sick. Many times (like today) I cannot believe how bad my clothes smell the next day after being in a bar. But I don't have a reaction like I do around chemicals. Smell is a strong sense and tied into a lot of memories and emotions. I would agree that some people (no one here of course!) are only reacting to the idea of smoke, not having an actual physical reaction. *I cannot remember now if I reacted as badly to perfume before I was hurt as after. Perfume was the first thing I noticed. I only get sick when it's a heavy does. I can pump gasoline, get it on my hands. But just a month ago my boss was siphoning gas out of his truck, and my stomach turned over quickly. I didn't know he was doing it, the smell came into the store and I was sick. Kevin T. - VRWC back to the bars, go san fran! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote: > And FWIW, like Julia, different types of smoke do cause different levels of > reaction. Like her, pipe smoke doesn't bother me as much as cigarette > smoke. And I suppose it is indeed possible that different brands of > cigarettes do cause different levels of irritation: generally when those > symptoms start, all I can think about is getting out of there to some fresh > air, not asking the smoker(s) what brand they are smoking . . . especially > because sometimes¹ when you tell someone that their smoke is making you > ill, their response is to take a big draw on the cigarette and then blow > that smoke directly in your face . . . > > _ > ¹Not always. But sometimes. How rude! I know about brand differences because a) I got into the habit of looking at the pack as soon as it was pulled out, and then noting the smoke *after* I got the brand name (and I could get really good at identifying Marlboros from 20 feet away at one point!), and b) the Camels were smoked by co-workers and in that case I noticed it was less of a problem *after* they'd lit up, and they were nice enough not to be obnoxious with their smoke, but just answer the question "Which brand is that you're smoking?" Of course, in the case of the co-workers who smoked Camels, I was in charge of payroll, so they didn't want to piss me off. :) Julia but that doesn't explain why Ian wasn't obnoxious, unless maybe he just wasn't inclined to be obnoxious in that manner (he was certainly obnoxious to me in other, more easily handled ways) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
- Original Message - From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 12:23 PM Subject: Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed At 12:12 PM 12/21/03, Robert Seeberger wrote: >>I used to suffer seasonally from hay fever so bad that my face would swell >>and I had terrible headaches. >>The funny thing is, when I started smoking that all ceased. I never get >>"bad" allergies anymore. >>I suppose the smoke is keeping my system distracted. >I don't think I want to try it. LOL Not something I'd recommend, but I do find it an oddity. I wonder if what I experienced is very common at all? >And FWIW, like Julia, different types of smoke do cause different levels of >reaction. Like her, pipe smoke doesn't bother me as much as cigarette >smoke. And I suppose it is indeed possible that different brands of >cigarettes do cause different levels of irritation: generally when those >symptoms start, all I can think about is getting out of there to some fresh >air, not asking the smoker(s) what brand they are smoking That is perfectly understandable. I *know* some people have allergic reactions to tobacco. I accept it as factual. I just wonder that the growing prevalence of seemingly similar attitudes is not so much a symptom of the growth of allergies across the population as it is the spread of a powerful meme. In either case, something has changed greatly over 40 years or so. >. . . especially >because sometimes¹ when you tell someone that their smoke is making >you >ill, their response is to take a big draw on the cigarette and then blow >that smoke directly in your face . . . That is just plain crappy. There is no excuse for flaunting a disrespect for others in such a blatant manner. One does not have to like it, that their liberties are moderated for the sake of another's liberty, but that is what is necessary to preserve liberty in the main. xponent Limits Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
At 12:12 PM 12/21/03, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 11:47 AM Subject: Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed At 11:28 AM 12/21/03, Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > >*Note: Not a defense of smoking* >[You may now return to the discussion which is already in progress] > >Do any of you who get "ill" (Not sarcastic quote marks, I use them to mark >the difference between actual sickness and the kind of illness I am >positing) >around tobacco smoke get ill around other types of smoke? Yes. I had asthma as a child, though I eventually outgrew it. I still have allergies to various inhaled irritants. There have been numerous occasions when I went into a room and my nose and sinuses start running, my eyes start itching, swell, turn red, tear up, and close to the point I just about can't see at all, etc., and only then when I look for the cause do I discover that someone is or has been smoking in the room. The same thing happens _some_ cats, rabbits, and other furry animals: if I handled such an animal, I would get the above symptoms, plus itchy hives on my face and neck, and would have to take my allergy medication, then take a hot bath and put on clean clothes. Fortunately, I have gotten less sensitive to fur-Midnight was on my lap when I started typing this reply-though sometimes I still get a bit of irritation when I play with some cats (no obvious pattern as to whether they are mostly indoor or outdoor, long-haired or short-haired, etc.) Sometimes I have had a similar reaction when going into a fabric store. Some types of pollen and dust cause me misery as well. Other things do bother me as well, although it does seem that, like the furry animals, I have gotten less sensitive to some of them as I have gotten older. ___ Two of my younger brothers had serious allergies. And one of them seemed to be allergic to everything. When I had the "scratch test" as a child, just about everything produced a giant red welt. I used to suffer seasonally from hay fever so bad that my face would swell and I had terrible headaches. The funny thing is, when I started smoking that all ceased. I never get "bad" allergies anymore. I suppose the smoke is keeping my system distracted. I don't think I want to try it. And FWIW, like Julia, different types of smoke do cause different levels of reaction. Like her, pipe smoke doesn't bother me as much as cigarette smoke. And I suppose it is indeed possible that different brands of cigarettes do cause different levels of irritation: generally when those symptoms start, all I can think about is getting out of there to some fresh air, not asking the smoker(s) what brand they are smoking . . . especially because sometimes¹ when you tell someone that their smoke is making you ill, their response is to take a big draw on the cigarette and then blow that smoke directly in your face . . . _ ¹Not always. But sometimes. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
- Original Message - From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 11:47 AM Subject: Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed At 11:28 AM 12/21/03, Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > >*Note: Not a defense of smoking* >[You may now return to the discussion which is already in progress] > >Do any of you who get "ill" (Not sarcastic quote marks, I use them to mark >the difference between actual sickness and the kind of illness I am >positing) >around tobacco smoke get ill around other types of smoke? Yes. I had asthma as a child, though I eventually outgrew it. I still have allergies to various inhaled irritants. There have been numerous occasions when I went into a room and my nose and sinuses start running, my eyes start itching, swell, turn red, tear up, and close to the point I just about can't see at all, etc., and only then when I look for the cause do I discover that someone is or has been smoking in the room. The same thing happens _some_ cats, rabbits, and other furry animals: if I handled such an animal, I would get the above symptoms, plus itchy hives on my face and neck, and would have to take my allergy medication, then take a hot bath and put on clean clothes. Fortunately, I have gotten less sensitive to fur-Midnight was on my lap when I started typing this reply-though sometimes I still get a bit of irritation when I play with some cats (no obvious pattern as to whether they are mostly indoor or outdoor, long-haired or short-haired, etc.) Sometimes I have had a similar reaction when going into a fabric store. Some types of pollen and dust cause me misery as well. Other things do bother me as well, although it does seem that, like the furry animals, I have gotten less sensitive to some of them as I have gotten older. ___ Two of my younger brothers had serious allergies. And one of them seemed to be allergic to everything. I used to suffer seasonally from hay fever so bad that my face would swell and I had terrible headaches. The funny thing is, when I started smoking that all ceased. I never get "bad" allergies anymore. I suppose the smoke is keeping my system distracted. xponent Weird Science Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
Robert Seeberger wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:36 AM > Subject: Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed > > > At 04:43 AM 12/20/03, Deborah Harrell wrote: > > >--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Maybe second-hand smoke isn't as dangerous as > > > > professed, but I am sure as > > > > hell happy I don't have to breathe it anymore. > > > > > >Anecdotaly, I got bronchitis *every time* I was > > >exposed to 2nd-hand tobacco smoke for more than 3 > > >hours straight (as at a bar, or driving in a car with > > >a smoker -- I avoid such exposure religiously now). > >^^^ > > > > > > Pun intended? > > > > It takes a lot less time than that for me to become ill from it. Even > > being in a room where people have been smoking can do it. > > > > *Note: Not a defense of smoking* > [You may now return to the discussion which is already in progress] > > Do any of you who get "ill" (Not sarcastic quote marks, I use them to mark > the difference between actual sickness and the kind of illness I am > positing) > around tobacco smoke get ill around other types of smoke? > How about on the freeway or on downtown streets? Some other kinds of smoke, yes. Getting behind some vehicles ends up being less than pleasant for me. And cigarettes are worse than pipe tobacco for me, and certain *brands* of cigarettes are worse than others. I can hang around people smoking Camels a *lot* longer than I can hang around people smoking Marlboros. (Try "20-30 minutes" as opposed to "about 15 seconds".) I'm wondering if my personal problems with secondhand smoke are not the tobacco, but the @#$% additives. Given that there's a significant difference in how much smoke of one brand I can handle as opposed to smoke of another brand, I'm guessing that in *my* case, that is where the problem is. (And I have had some serious problems around cigarette smoke -- in the days when smoking was permitted in planes, I asked for a seat in non-smoking, got seated in the very last row of non-smoking, and I don't remember much between the time I started coughing and some point where I was in another seat a few rows forward of where I'd been originally seated -- thank goodness I was travelling with someone and the flight attendants were quick to help him. But usually there's enough air volume to dissipate stuff before it gets to that point with me.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
At 11:28 AM 12/21/03, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:36 AM Subject: Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed > At 04:43 AM 12/20/03, Deborah Harrell wrote: > >--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Maybe second-hand smoke isn't as dangerous as > > > professed, but I am sure as > > > hell happy I don't have to breathe it anymore. > > > >Anecdotaly, I got bronchitis *every time* I was > >exposed to 2nd-hand tobacco smoke for more than 3 > >hours straight (as at a bar, or driving in a car with > >a smoker -- I avoid such exposure religiously now). >^^^ > > > Pun intended? > > It takes a lot less time than that for me to become ill from it. Even > being in a room where people have been smoking can do it. > *Note: Not a defense of smoking* [You may now return to the discussion which is already in progress] Do any of you who get "ill" (Not sarcastic quote marks, I use them to mark the difference between actual sickness and the kind of illness I am positing) around tobacco smoke get ill around other types of smoke? Yes. I had asthma as a child, though I eventually outgrew it. I still have allergies to various inhaled irritants. There have been numerous occasions when I went into a room and my nose and sinuses start running, my eyes start itching, swell, turn red, tear up, and close to the point I just about can't see at all, etc., and only then when I look for the cause do I discover that someone is or has been smoking in the room. The same thing happens _some_ cats, rabbits, and other furry animals: if I handled such an animal, I would get the above symptoms, plus itchy hives on my face and neck, and would have to take my allergy medication, then take a hot bath and put on clean clothes. Fortunately, I have gotten less sensitive to furMidnight was on my lap when I started typing this replythough sometimes I still get a bit of irritation when I play with some cats (no obvious pattern as to whether they are mostly indoor or outdoor, long-haired or short-haired, etc.) Sometimes I have had a similar reaction when going into a fabric store. Some types of pollen and dust cause me misery as well. Other things do bother me as well, although it does seem that, like the furry animals, I have gotten less sensitive to some of them as I have gotten older. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
- Original Message - From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:36 AM Subject: Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed > At 04:43 AM 12/20/03, Deborah Harrell wrote: > >--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Maybe second-hand smoke isn't as dangerous as > > > professed, but I am sure as > > > hell happy I don't have to breathe it anymore. > > > >Anecdotaly, I got bronchitis *every time* I was > >exposed to 2nd-hand tobacco smoke for more than 3 > >hours straight (as at a bar, or driving in a car with > >a smoker -- I avoid such exposure religiously now). >^^^ > > > Pun intended? > > It takes a lot less time than that for me to become ill from it. Even > being in a room where people have been smoking can do it. > *Note: Not a defense of smoking* [You may now return to the discussion which is already in progress] Do any of you who get "ill" (Not sarcastic quote marks, I use them to mark the difference between actual sickness and the kind of illness I am positing) around tobacco smoke get ill around other types of smoke? How about on the freeway or on downtown streets? If not, I suggest that this kind of "illness" might be for the most part psychosomatic. You never used to hear people, with any regularity, make these claims before, say, 1980 (date pulled out of hat). I had bronchitis as a child and smoke *never* caused an attack with me the way it did with a kid down the street who had asthma. (For me it was always cold air in the evening) When I was a kid almost all the adults I knew smoked (indeed, smoking was much more prevalent in those days) yet the health problems associated with tobacco smoke are on the rise. It makes me wonder if Tobacco is only a secondary causative. * When someone says smoke makes them "ill", I assume it is the same kind of "ill" one might feel after eating maggots, grubs, or termites. Bugs that are nutritious and by some accounts tasty, yet to westerners they are yuck yuck yuck. Now I'm not suggesting that everyone should suddenly begin to enjoy the smell of tobacco smoke, but I am suggesting that there is an element of psychology in the anti-smoking campaign that exaggerates the negative effects of tobacco in the minds of many. * This has been on my mind lately because I have begun to notice smokers who complain about *other peoples smoke*. The irony is perverse to me. xponent The Power Of Memes Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Michael Crichton is Evil and Must be Destroyed (was: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed)
At 03:52 AM 12/21/2003, you wrote: At 02:37 AM 12/20/03, Deborah Harrell wrote: Yes, it would indeed be nice if someone could find an alternative which was nearly (90%+?) as effective as DDT at killing the insects which spread disease to humans while being much safer (<10% as toxic?) as DDT, and also be cheap enough that the people living in some of the areas where diseases like malaria and yellow fever are endemic can afford it. FWIW, is it possible that much of the problem with chemicals such as DDT getting into the system where it is not wanted and causes problems is due to overuse, on the principle "if a little is good, a lot is better"? -- Ronn! Except, there have been just as many studies showing that DDT is not dangerous when used normally. Most of the negative studies have been with doses that exceed by magnitudes the levels found in nature. Bald eagles and other bird populations were declined before DDT was introduced, yet it became the boogyman. Kevin T. - VRWC Flame on (joking) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Michael Crichton is Evil and Must be Destroyed (was: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed)
At 02:37 AM 12/20/03, Deborah Harrell wrote: --- Michael Harney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Regarding DDT: Banning DDT was not a mistake, as a > matter of fact, Mr. > Crichton's** insistance that it was a mistake, and > that DDT is safe, are mistakes on his part... > ...so an internet search of articles with many > sources cited will have to do for now: > http://www.seaweb.org/background/cetaceans.html > http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v375/n6532/abs/375581a0.html > http://www.nature.com/nsu/010719/010719-3.html Here is the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) site on DDT: (it is a joint venture of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization) http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc83.htm#SectionNumber:1.8 "The physicochemical properties of DDT and its metabolites enable these compounds to be taken up readily by organisms. High lipid solubility and low water solubility lead to the retention of DDT and its stable metabolites in fatty tissue. The rates of accumulation into organisms vary with the species, with the duration and concentration of exposure, and with environmental conditions. The high retention of DDT metabolites means that toxic effects can occur in organisms remote in time and geographical area from the point of exposure. "These compounds are resistant to breakdown and are readily adsorbed to sediments and soils that can act both as sinks and as long-term sources of exposure (e.g., for soil organisms). "Organisms can accumulate these chemicals from the surrounding medium and from food. In aquatic organisms, uptake from the water is generally more important, whereas, in terrestrial fauna, food provides the major source. "In general, organisms at higher trophic levels tend to contain more DDT-type compounds than those at lower trophic levels. [Raptors are particularly susceptible to DDT's thinning of their eggshells, while ducks and chickens are not. This is detailed in the article.] "Such compounds can be transported around the world in the bodies of migrant animals and in ocean and air currents" This is a very detailed article with summaries of many studies on microbes, fish, amphibians, and birds - also affected were bats. Our national bird, the bald eagle, was threatened with extinction in the lower 48 states by hunting, habitat destruction, and poisoning: "The greatest threat to the bald eagle's existence arose from the widespread use of DDT and other pesticides after World War II." (Lead poisoning from hunters birdshot was also a significant problem; its use was phased out by 1991.) http://www.usflag.org/bald.eagle.html "...With these and other recovery methods, as well as habitat improvement and the banning of DDT, the bald eagle has made a remarkable comeback. From fewer than 450 nesting pairs in the early 1960s, there are now more than 4,000 adult bald eagles nesting pairs and an unknown number of young and subadults in the conterminous United States. This represents a substantial breeding population..." There are groups who deny the toxicity of DDT; here is one site: http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html But women exposed prenatally to higher levels of DDT have decreased probability of pregnancy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12842376&dopt=Abstract "The decreased fecundability associated with prenatal p,p'-DDT remains unexplained." [OTOH, DDE exposure seemed to increase pregnancy rates -- these chemicals do have estrogenic +/or antiestrogenic activity; there is speculation that some herbicides, also found to have hormonal activity, may contribute to development of breast cancer.] In trout, DDT and its relatives/metabolites also have both estrogenic and anti- activity: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12167306&dopt=Abstract And DDT is merely one of the chemical soup contaminants found in the now-endangered Stellar sea lion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12826388&dopt=Abstract "..SSL tissues show accumulation of butyltins, mercury, PCBs, DDTs, chlordanes and hexachlorobenzene. SSL habitats and prey are contaminated with additional chemicals including mirex, endrin, dieldrin, hexachlorocyclohexanes, tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and related compounds, cadmium and lead. In addition, many SSL haulouts and rookeries are located near other hazards including radioactivity, solvents, ordnance and chemical weapon dumps..." Shrimp larvae exposed to DDT have DNA damage: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12568452&dopt=Abstract >In vitro< DDT exposure damages or induces apoptosis (cell death) in neural clone cells: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12523960&dopt=Abstract Yes, it wo
Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
At 04:43 AM 12/20/03, Deborah Harrell wrote: --- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe second-hand smoke isn't as dangerous as > professed, but I am sure as > hell happy I don't have to breathe it anymore. Anecdotaly, I got bronchitis *every time* I was exposed to 2nd-hand tobacco smoke for more than 3 hours straight (as at a bar, or driving in a car with a smoker -- I avoid such exposure religiously now). ^^^ Pun intended? It takes a lot less time than that for me to become ill from it. Even being in a room where people have been smoking can do it. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure that even a majority of > environmentalists believe in the idea > of a noble savage or that we need to save the planet > (as if we could kill it). Ah, but that weakens his argument of "Environmentalism as Religion."He also seems to think that all environmentalists (as if there weren't as much variety in them as in Democrats or Republicans or Catholics etc.) don't understand that "Nature is red in tooth and claw" frequently, and think all wild animals are cute Disneyesque figures, and believe in a Happy Golden Age When Man And Animal And Plant Lived In Peace And Harmony Together. How insulting. > Maybe second-hand smoke isn't as dangerous as > professed, but I am sure as > hell happy I don't have to breathe it anymore. Anecdotaly, I got bronchitis *every time* I was exposed to 2nd-hand tobacco smoke for more than 3 hours straight (as at a bar, or driving in a car with a smoker -- I avoid such exposure religiously now). But here are a few recent studies that do seem to find second-hand tobacco smoke a health problem, at least for some people: Children, blood lead levels, and second-hand smoke: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14569189&dopt=Abstract Second-hand smoke exposure and blood lead levels in U.S. children [N=5592] "...The adjusted linear regression model showed that geometric mean blood lead levels were 38% higher (95% confidence interval [CI] = 25-52%) in children with high cotinine levels compared with children who had low cotinine levels. The logistic regression models showed that children with high cotinine levels were more likely to have blood lead levels >/=10 mug/dL than were children with low cotinine levels (odds ratio [OR] = 4.4; CI = 1.9-10.5)..." [Cotinine is a metabolite of nicotine used to document tobacco exposure, as opposed to self-reported exposure.] This is a full article/statement from the AAoP, with over 50 studies cited: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/99/4/639#B9 "Results of epidemiologic studies provide strong evidence that exposure of children to environmental tobacco smoke is associated with increased rates of lower respiratory illness and increased rates of middle ear effusion, asthma, and sudden infant death syndrome. Exposure during childhood may also be associated with development of cancer during adulthood..." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14678338&dopt=Abstract "Passive smoking impairs the elasticity of the aorta in patients with coronary heart disease. We therefore studied the effect of passive smoking on wave reflection in the aorta, a marker of arterial stiffness, in healthy subjects. ...Acute exposure to passive smoking has a deleterious effect on the arterial pressure waveform in healthy young males but not in females, suggesting a possible protection of female gender from functional changes in arteries." OTOH, breast cancer seems to increase with smoke dose: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12244030&dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12641186&dopt=Abstract "Nitric oxide (NO) is produced and detected in the exhalate from the respiratory tract where it plays important regulatory functions. Exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) concentrations are reduced in active cigarette smokers between cigarettes and in nonsmoking subjects during short-term exposure to environmental tobacco smoke...Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke transiently--but consistently--decreased eNO concentration in healthy, nonsmoking subjects, suggesting that second-hand smoke can directly affect NO in the airway environment." [Nitric oxide is also important as a vasodilator, and level reduction in local microclimates, as in the coronary arteries, contributes to coronary artery spasm -> possible heart attack in a diseased or compromised vessel.] Second-hand tobacco smoke and heart disease: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12198272&dopt=Abstract "To investigate the association between environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure (at least 30 minutes a day) and the risk of developing acute coronary syndromes (ACS)...This study supports the hypothesis that exposure to ETS increases the risk of developing ACS. The consistency of these findings with the existing totality of evidence presented in the literature supports the role of ETS in the aetiology of ACS." [N~1900; figures reported in this abstract] The elderly and environmental tobacco smoke [that's the "in" phrase now, instead of "second-hand smoke," as you can see from most of the titles cited]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11852892&dopt=Abstract "...There is convincing evidence that ETS causes lung cancer and coronary heart disease, both of which are diseas
Re: Michael Crichton is Evil and Must be Destroyed (was: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed)
--- Michael Harney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Regarding DDT: Banning DDT was not a mistake, as a > matter of fact, Mr. > Crichton's** insistance that it was a mistake, and > that DDT is safe, are mistakes on his part... > ...so an internet search of articles with many > sources cited will have to do for now: > http://www.seaweb.org/background/cetaceans.html > http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v375/n6532/abs/375581a0.html > http://www.nature.com/nsu/010719/010719-3.html Here is the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) site on DDT: (it is a joint venture of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization) http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc83.htm#SectionNumber:1.8 "The physicochemical properties of DDT and its metabolites enable these compounds to be taken up readily by organisms. High lipid solubility and low water solubility lead to the retention of DDT and its stable metabolites in fatty tissue. The rates of accumulation into organisms vary with the species, with the duration and concentration of exposure, and with environmental conditions. The high retention of DDT metabolites means that toxic effects can occur in organisms remote in time and geographical area from the point of exposure. "These compounds are resistant to breakdown and are readily adsorbed to sediments and soils that can act both as sinks and as long-term sources of exposure (e.g., for soil organisms). "Organisms can accumulate these chemicals from the surrounding medium and from food. In aquatic organisms, uptake from the water is generally more important, whereas, in terrestrial fauna, food provides the major source. "In general, organisms at higher trophic levels tend to contain more DDT-type compounds than those at lower trophic levels. [Raptors are particularly susceptible to DDT's thinning of their eggshells, while ducks and chickens are not. This is detailed in the article.] "Such compounds can be transported around the world in the bodies of migrant animals and in ocean and air currents" This is a very detailed article with summaries of many studies on microbes, fish, amphibians, and birds - also affected were bats. Our national bird, the bald eagle, was threatened with extinction in the lower 48 states by hunting, habitat destruction, and poisoning: "The greatest threat to the bald eagle's existence arose from the widespread use of DDT and other pesticides after World War II." (Lead poisoning from hunters birdshot was also a significant problem; its use was phased out by 1991.) http://www.usflag.org/bald.eagle.html "...With these and other recovery methods, as well as habitat improvement and the banning of DDT, the bald eagle has made a remarkable comeback. From fewer than 450 nesting pairs in the early 1960s, there are now more than 4,000 adult bald eagles nesting pairs and an unknown number of young and subadults in the conterminous United States. This represents a substantial breeding population..." There are groups who deny the toxicity of DDT; here is one site: http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html But women exposed prenatally to higher levels of DDT have decreased probability of pregnancy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12842376&dopt=Abstract "The decreased fecundability associated with prenatal p,p'-DDT remains unexplained." [OTOH, DDE exposure seemed to increase pregnancy rates -- these chemicals do have estrogenic +/or antiestrogenic activity; there is speculation that some herbicides, also found to have hormonal activity, may contribute to development of breast cancer.] In trout, DDT and its relatives/metabolites also have both estrogenic and anti- activity: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12167306&dopt=Abstract And DDT is merely one of the chemical soup contaminants found in the now-endangered Stellar sea lion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12826388&dopt=Abstract "..SSL tissues show accumulation of butyltins, mercury, PCBs, DDTs, chlordanes and hexachlorobenzene. SSL habitats and prey are contaminated with additional chemicals including mirex, endrin, dieldrin, hexachlorocyclohexanes, tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and related compounds, cadmium and lead. In addition, many SSL haulouts and rookeries are located near other hazards including radioactivity, solvents, ordnance and chemical weapon dumps..." Shrimp larvae exposed to DDT have DNA damage: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12568452&dopt=Abstract >In vitro< DDT exposure damages or induces apoptosis (cell death) in neural clone cells: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12523960&dopt=Abstract Debbi Only The Ill
Re: Michael Crichton is Evil and Must be Destroyed (was: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed)
Doug Pensinger wrote: In any case I consider my self an environmentalist, but I don't think we're going to get much accomplished if the fringe groups are able to make it look like the whole movement is driven by pseudo-science. This is the crux of the matter, and the sad fact is that even the major groups are being run as fringe groups in a way that alienates the "silent majority" - the suburban families who care but who don't want to be protesting in the streets. I know the shame and indignation in the general population when Greenpeace runs blockades every time a US warship enters an Australian port (just in case it might be carrying nuclear weapons). Protesting in the middle of the city just pisses people off - lobby groups and PACs in boardrooms and cabinet rooms is what is needed. Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Michael Crichton is Evil and Must be Destroyed (was: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed)
Michael wrote: No worries, you didn't write it, you just posted it. Nor did you say where you stand on the topic. It was the people on-list agreeing with it that irked me more than the post itself. Since I'm the only one that said he agreed with anything Crichton wrote, let me modify my statement. I believe that his main point is correct; that we should approach environmentalism from a scientific rather than a religious direction. I don't know that much about DDT, I'm not at all convinced that second hand smoke is harmless and I think that global warming could very well be more disastrous than he does, but on the National Parks thing I think he may be referring to the fact that most of them have _not_ been subject to controlled burns and that is why fires like the one in Yellowstone a few years ago have occurred. In any case I consider my self an environmentalist, but I don't think we're going to get much accomplished if the fringe groups are able to make it look like the whole movement is driven by pseudo-science. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Michael Crichton is Evil and Must be Destroyed (was: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed)
From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > At 09:54 PM 12/16/03, Michael Harney wrote: > > >P.P.S. Never insult me or what I believe unless you are ready to face a > >challenge. > > > > It was not meant as an insult to you or what you believe. I feel rather > strongly about this subject, too, but I don't want to unnecessarily upset > anyone or risk disrupting the list. No worries, you didn't write it, you just posted it. Nor did you say where you stand on the topic. It was the people on-list agreeing with it that irked me more than the post itself. > >P.P.P.S. I've been in a particularly strange mood for a long while now (a > >few weeks), perhaps stress induced, and encourage others to keep a safe > >distance from topics I feel strongly about. > > > > I'm sorry you have not been feeling well. I hope you get better soon. As > a few here know, I have chronic health issues of my own, and sometimes when > I am not feeling well I too get stressed out, and far too frequently I let > myself become impatient and short-tempered. If I have offended anyone > while in one of those moods, I apologize. And if I do so in the future, > please forgive me and realize that I am likely to be in a better mood after > I have gotten some rest and get to feeling better. Well, for me, it's not so much an issue of physical health. I'm in the better physical health now than I have ever been in my life. It's more about mental health. I've just had a lot of concerns on my mind recently, concerns that I have little/no control over, and it becomes very easy to rub me the wrong way when I get in that frame of mind, especially on topics I feel strongly about. Regretably, I haven't been getting a full night's sleep for most of the last two weeks. Each day there was a different reason why my sleep was disrupted before I got a full night's rest, but it doesn't change the fact that I haven't slept enough. I just wish I had my own place rather than living in a house with my mother, brother, and all my brother's children. 80% of the time, that is the reason my sleep is disturbed. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Michael Crichton is Evil and Must be Destroyed (was: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed)
At 09:54 PM 12/16/03, Michael Harney wrote: P.P.S. Never insult me or what I believe unless you are ready to face a challenge. It was not meant as an insult to you or what you believe. I feel rather strongly about this subject, too, but I don't want to unnecessarily upset anyone or risk disrupting the list. P.P.P.S. I've been in a particularly strange mood for a long while now (a few weeks), perhaps stress induced, and encourage others to keep a safe distance from topics I feel strongly about. I'm sorry you have not been feeling well. I hope you get better soon. As a few here know, I have chronic health issues of my own, and sometimes when I am not feeling well I too get stressed out, and far too frequently I let myself become impatient and short-tempered. If I have offended anyone while in one of those moods, I apologize. And if I do so in the future, please forgive me and realize that I am likely to be in a better mood after I have gotten some rest and get to feeling better. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Michael Crichton is Evil and Must be Destroyed (was: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed)
Large tirade against environmentalism by Michael Crichton snipped. (snipped to save bandwidth and keep post length down, besides not much of it was particularly quote-worthy). Regarding environmentalists being faith-based beliefs: Not here, most of the environmental "beliefs" I have is based on compelling articles I have read through my years at college and thereafter. Perhaps surprisingly, before college, I was *not* an environmentalist, nor even remotely concerned with the environment. Addmitedly, when I first joined the environmentalist movement, I was more inclined to believe what was told to me without researching the topic myself. Honestly, though, how many among us really does research their beliefs? Certainly few voters really research the candidates that they vote for. Most people trust newpapers and TV news sources just as reliable sources of information, but much of what is presented in the news is skewed, biased, and/or having little basis in fact. It is a requirement of our life now. There is very little time for a person to research the topics, and so many contradicting sources that it is hard to know which sources are reliable and which aren't. Does that mean researching is pointless? No, just that, for most, it is impractical. The trick is to find a source that encompases your beliefs and whose facts upon examination, have reliable sources and data backing them. Regarding DDT: Banning DDT was not a mistake, as a matter of fact, Mr. Crichton's insistance that it was a mistake, and that DDT is safe, are mistakes on his part. It shows that his true bias in the situation and reveals that he is either ignorant of much of the facts or is ignoring them. DDT has been the primary culprit in repeated situations and multiple species in cases of immune supression (which has resulted in deaths of animals), reproductive failure (animals unable to reproduce), and premature births. Not just in birds, but in fish, marine mammals, and others as well (including humans). DDT is highly previlant in coastal areas this is the result of a quite natural process, the water cycle. DDT is sprayed on plants, DDT is then wash onto ground by rain. DDT is then washed into rivers by same rain. Rivers then carry DDT into the ocean, where it collects in the coastal areas and is absorbed into the ecosystem. But I will not do like Crichton and simply state that supporting articles exist, I will actually cite some sources: I don't have the time nor resources to research this in more depth right now, so an internet search of articles with many sources cited will have to do for now: http://www.seaweb.org/background/cetaceans.html Even Nature has articles that confirm some of these contentions (a publication refered to but not cited in Mr. Crichton's editorial). A search for "DDT" on the www.nature.com site revealed some abstracts that support the contentions that DDT acts as a factor in reproductive failure and premature births (I did not find support for the immune suppression, but did not have access to all the search results and did not spend a great deal of time searching). http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v375/n6532/abs/375581a0.html http://www.nature.com/nsu/010719/010719-3.html One of these articles is a cost/benefit analysis of DDT, even *it* doesn't say that DDT is safe, only that it may be the lesser of two evils when it comes to human lives. In my book, human lives are not the only ones that should enter the equation, especially since we don't know what kind of effects that the damage to coastal eco-systems can have on humans in the long run. Regarding Global Warming: Denial of global warming, a phenomenon that most of the scientific community now regards as not just theory, but fact, requres rather extraordinary proof, what are Mr. Crichton's sources on global warming that proves it is only fantasy? Regretably, Mr. Crichton provides no real sources for this or any other of his claims. Regarding Antarctic Ice Volume: Even if there is more Ice in Antarctica (Even NASA's site is painfully deficient in this regard, I have searched for good sources on this out of personal interest on the topic, and have found little), how much of the volume is free-floating ice and how much is on land? If the ammount of free-floating ice is increasing but the land-based ice is decreasing, then overall, the ice *on* antarctica is decreasing, and sea-level is rising. I have read documents on the NASA site stating in no uncertain terms that sea level *is* rising at a slow rate (about an inch per decade, IIRC). Surprisingly, the main contributor is not Antarctica, but Greenland, IIRC. A quick search revealed the following page on NASA's site, which talks not only about Sea-level rise but also global warming: http://gcmd4.gsfc.nasa.gov/Resources/Learning/sealevel.html In defence of Mr.Crichton's claims about Antarctica, my NASA search also revealed this: http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scie
Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:21:33 -0600, Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Remarks to the Commonwealth Club by Michael Crichton San Francisco September 15, 2003 I agree with a lot of what Crichton has to say, but have a few observations. Even if all the non-religious (in the traditional sense) were the kind of religious environmentalists Crichton says they are, there wouldnât be very many of them, so I'm guessing many environmentalists are religious in the traditional sense. Further, there are many non religious people that arenât the type of ideo-environmentalists that he describes. Personally, my environmentalism is based on these tenets: 1. Clean air, earth and water is healthy for humans and other animals. 2. Natural beauty is precious and should, inasmuch as it is practical, be preserved for the enrichment of future generations. 3. Humans don't have the right to wipe out other species of animals, and should, in fact work to keep them from being wiped out. I'm not sure that even a majority of environmentalists believe in the idea of a noble savage or that we need to save the planet (as if we could kill it). The closest I get to "getting back to nature" is my yearly Sierra backpack trip, and I think that that is closer to nature than 98% of the people in the country get to it. And while I enjoy my time in the wild, and would like to do it even more often, after four or five days of it, I'm ready for a hamburger fresh off the grill, a shower, and a place where I can sit down to take a dump, thank you. I challenge the idea that we live in a secular society. In a country where most people are aghast at the idea of removing religious references from the daily indoctrination of our children or from our legal tender; in a country wherein something like 80% of the people profess belief in a god, and most of those think that a judge shouldn't have to remove a religious sacrament from his courthouse; in a country where you have to sit though a hymn at a public sporting event*, the best that can be said is that we have aspirations for being secular. There are countries that have state religions that are more secular than we are. Maybe second-hand smoke isn't as dangerous as professed, but I am sure as hell happy I don't have to breathe it anymore. At least one of the reasons that the population explosion is no longer exploding is that we realized that it might be a problem and raised the alarm. A self negating prophesy. It seems to me that the statement "Our record in the past, for example managing national parks, is humiliating. Our fifty-year effort at forest-fire suppression is a well-intentioned disaster from which our forests will never recover." is exactly the kind of rhetoric he's arguing against for most of the rest of the speech. Never? Doug *This is a pet peeve. If I were a religious person I would pray every night before I went to a game that it was going to be _Take Me Out to the Ball Game_ and not _God Bless America_ at the seventh inning stretch. 8^) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
Makes more sense than the last few novels of his that I've read. (Insert rimshot here) Vilyehm Teighlore ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed
Remarks to the Commonwealth Club by Michael Crichton San Francisco September 15, 2003 I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance. We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears. As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment. I believe it is important to act in ways that are sympathetic to the environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the future. I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to know in advance. I think our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and face them squarely. And I think I know why. I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious. Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths. There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe. Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith. And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them. Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let's examine some of those beliefs.
