So now we're talking rice and vegetable protein as well. [expletive!]
We can only hope that they can actually do something before we all start
looking like Alf. This is the Congressional new release:

<http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_110/110nr30.shtml>


And this is some pointed commentary on FireDogLake:

<http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/0...f-government-c
ontinues/>

Emma Thackery > wrote:

>So now we're talking rice and vegetable protein as well.

The entire list (so far as I can tell at this stage) of foods
and food ingredients to avoid is now the following:

wheat gluten
rice gluten
rice protein
rice protein concentrate
corn gluten
corn gluten meal
corn byproducts
soy protein
soy gluten proteins
mung bean protein
meat and poultry

Steve

On Thu, 03 May 2007 00:52:07 -0500, Emma Thackery > wrote:

>So now we're talking rice and vegetable protein as well. [expletive!]
>We can only hope that they can actually do something before we all start
>looking like Alf. This is the Congressional new release:
>
><http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_110/110nr30.shtml>
>
>
>And this is some pointed commentary on FireDogLake:
>
><http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/0...f-government-c
>ontinues/>


Oh lovely. About 35 years ago there was a congressional committee to discover why
children fall off tricycles. After 9 months and spending 75,000 dollars it was
determined that they lost their ballance. Brilliant.

Just the kind of investigation we need.

Ob food reference:

Pancake Mix

2 cups flour
2 eggs
1 Tbsp baking powder
3/4 tsp salt
3 Tbsp melted butter
enough milk to make it pourable ( the thicker the batter the thicker the pancakes, at
least that's how it seems to me)

Emma Thackery wrote:
> So now we're talking rice and vegetable protein as well. [expletive!]
> We can only hope that they can actually do something before we all start
> looking like Alf. This is the Congressional new release:
>
> <http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_110/110nr30.shtml>
>
>
> And this is some pointed commentary on FireDogLake:
>
> <http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/0...f-government-c
> ontinues/>
>
>
.... and arsenic in chicken feed may prove hazardous to human health:

<http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=67500>

excerpt:

<begin quote>

Roxarsone, the most common arsenic-based additive used in chicken feed,
is used to promote growth, kill parasites and improve pigmentation of
chicken meat. In its original form, roxarsone is relatively benign. But
under certain anaerobic conditions, within live chickens and on farm
land, the compound is converted into more toxic forms of inorganic
arsenic. Arsenic has been linked to bladder, lung, skin, kidney and
colon cancer, while low-level exposures can lead to partial paralysis
and diabetes, the article notes.

<end quote>

"Larry LaMere" > wrote:
> Oh lovely. About 35 years ago there was a congressional committee to discover
> why
> children fall off tricycles. After 9 months and spending 75,000 dollars it was
> determined that they lost their ballance. Brilliant.
>
> Just the kind of investigation we need.

I guess you'd rather see it handled the way the British government handled BSE
(Mad Cow) by sweeping the issue under the rug. It only took them a decade to
acknowledge the risk and the scale of the problem.

You must be a true believer of that old saying:

"What you don't know can't hurt you."

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

In article >,
Larry LaMere > wrote:

> Oh lovely. About 35 years ago there was a congressional committee to
> discover why children fall off tricycles. After 9 months and spending
> 75,000 dollars it was determined that they lost their ballance.
> Brilliant.

So because one Congressional study 35 years ago was flawed, Congress
should refrain from investigating anything? With that kind of logic,
I'm surprised you're not working in the Bush White House.

Steve Pope > wrote:

> The entire list (so far as I can tell at this stage) of foods
> and food ingredients to avoid is now the following:

<snip part of list>
> corn gluten
> corn gluten meal
> corn byproducts
> soy protein
> soy gluten proteins

I find it hard to believe that anyone imports any serious
quantities of either corn or soybean products into the USA.
Talk about carrying coals to Newcastle . . .

I suppose someone must be doing it, but it seems odd.
I'm pretty sure the US is the worlds largest producer
of both.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

Emma Thackery wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Larry LaMere > wrote:
>
> > Oh lovely. About 35 years ago there was a congressional committee to
> > discover why children fall off tricycles. After 9 months and spending
> > 75,000 dollars it was determined that they lost their ballance.
> > Brilliant.
>
> So because one Congressional study 35 years ago was flawed, Congress
> should refrain from investigating anything? With that kind of logic,
> I'm surprised you're not working in the Bush White House.

Care to find an example of a congressional committee study that isn't
flawed? They are flawed by their very nature since they are designed to
produce the results desired to match the political bias.

In article >, > wrote:

>Steve Pope > wrote:

>> The entire list (so far as I can tell at this stage) of foods
>> and food ingredients to avoid is now the following:

><snip part of list>
>> corn gluten
>> corn gluten meal
>> corn byproducts
>> soy protein
>> soy gluten proteins

>I find it hard to believe that anyone imports any serious
>quantities of either corn or soybean products into the USA.
>Talk about carrying coals to Newcastle . . .

>I suppose someone must be doing it, but it seems odd.
>I'm pretty sure the US is the worlds largest producer
>of both.

Since these are processed food ingredients, there are labor and capital
costs and that tips the economics in favor of Chinese production.
Corn and soybeans as raw commodities are probably not imported into
the U.S.

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:
> Emma Thackery > wrote:
>
>> So now we're talking rice and vegetable protein as well.
>
> The entire list (so far as I can tell at this stage) of foods
> and food ingredients to avoid is now the following:
>
> wheat gluten

We've been eating seitan our normal two-to-three times a week, and
we're still alive. Hope that continues.

Serene

Serene > wrote:

>We've been eating seitan our normal two-to-three times a week, and
>we're still alive. Hope that continues.

Hopefully you have a trusted source for it.

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:
> Serene > wrote:
>
>> We've been eating seitan our normal two-to-three times a week, and
>> we're still alive. Hope that continues.
>
> Hopefully you have a trusted source for it.

Well, we bought it recently from the Berkeley Bowl, so I assume they
feel confident selling it. Also, I read somewhere (I can go try to
find a cite if anyone wants) that it's not fatal to humans, so I
guess I'm just trusting our luck.

Another option would be for me to go back a step and make seitan
from my own flour (either already ground or that I grind myself),
and I may do that at some point.

Serene

Serene > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> Serene > wrote:

>>> We've been eating seitan our normal two-to-three times a week, and
>>> we're still alive. Hope that continues.

>> Hopefully you have a trusted source for it.

>Well, we bought it recently from the Berkeley Bowl, so I assume they
>feel confident selling it. Also, I read somewhere (I can go try to
>find a cite if anyone wants) that it's not fatal to humans, so I
>guess I'm just trusting our luck.

Melamine is not fatal to humans, but it's also not fatal to
dogs or cats, so there are clearly some pieces of the puzzle
still missing.

80% of the wheat gluten consumed in the U.S. is imported
(http://www.purina.com/WheatGluten.aspx)

Researchers suspect a mixture of melamine and cyanuric acid
(which can be produced by the action of some bacteria on
melamine[*]) produce the fatal crystals
(http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/01/rec...le/index.html).

Excerpt:

"What we've done is experiments that show if you take
cat urine and you add melamine to it and cyanuric
acid, the crystals will form in the cat urine in
a test tube as we're watching them, so it happens
within a matter of hours," said Alan Wildeman, vice
president of Canada's University of Guelph, which is
renowned for its veterinary research center.

The crystals are suspected of contributing to kidney failure in pets.

"I think we've identified what we feel is an important
and likely underlying positive agent of why the
animals are getting sick," Wildeman said.

Crystals blocked the tubes leading from the kidneys
to the bladder in one cat operated on recently at the
Bergh Memorial Animal Hospital inside the ASPCA's New
York headquarters, according to Dr. Louise Murray,
the group's director of medicine.

"The cat's kidneys were completely obstructed, and
when we went to surgery to relieve the obstruction,
there was no normal stone. Instead, the ureters were
completely full of these melamine-type crystals,"
she said.


Steve
[*] http://www.newscientist.com/article/...f-us-pets.html )

"Serene" > wrote:
> Steve Pope wrote:
>> Serene > wrote:
>>
>>> We've been eating seitan our normal two-to-three times a week, and we're
>>> still alive. Hope that continues.
>>
>> Hopefully you have a trusted source for it.
>
> Well, we bought it recently from the Berkeley Bowl, so I assume they feel
> confident selling it. Also, I read somewhere (I can go try to find a cite if
> anyone wants) that it's not fatal to humans, so I guess I'm just trusting our
> luck.

It wasn't supposed to be fatal in pets either and that really baffled the
investigators. There was a news segment on CBS this evening that indicated the
mechanism may have been identified. What it comes down to is the wheat gluten
was contaminated with more that just melamine. It also contained cyanuric acid.
The researchers found that these two chemicals react and form the strange
crystals that were found in the pet's kidneys and caused death by kidney
failure. The reason both chemicals are believed to be present is that the
adulteration was not done with pure melamine, but with melamine industrial scrap
(this aspect is not noted in the following link).

This whole episode is far more complex than initially believed. The amount of
deviousness on the part of some players almost boggles the mind. One of the
things they did to avoid detection was ship the wheat gluten through a textile
company as a nonfood export. That kind of thing certainly reinforces the belief
that the whole thing was deliberate and calculated.

Here's the CBS News article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2758089.shtml

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

wff_ng_7 > wrote:

> What it comes down to is the wheat gluten was contaminated
> with more that just melamine. It also contained cyanuric acid.
> The researchers found that these two chemicals react and form
> the strange crystals that were found in the pet's kidneys and
> caused death by kidney failure.

Yes, that seems to be the leading theory du jour.

> The reason both chemicals are believed to be present is that
> the adulteration was not done with pure melamine, but with
> melamine industrial scrap

That part I haven't heard. There's also the bacteria theory.
In any case the two chemicals are closely related and they
crystallize together into huge, damaging crystals.

Steve

On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:19:06 -0500, Emma Thackery > wrote:

>In article >,
> Larry LaMere > wrote:
>
>> Oh lovely. About 35 years ago there was a congressional committee to
>> discover why children fall off tricycles. After 9 months and spending
>> 75,000 dollars it was determined that they lost their ballance.
>> Brilliant.
>
>So because one Congressional study 35 years ago was flawed, Congress
>should refrain from investigating anything? With that kind of logic,
>I'm surprised you're not working in the Bush White House.


What I'm saying is that I would expect that after a 2 year investigation costing 100
million dollars they would come up with a finding like " The reason there is melamine
in the gluten products is that the chinese suppliers put melamine in the flour."

The most seriously flawed investigative commission was the Warren Commission which if
you remember was the one that investigated the John F. Kennedy assasination

Bush should have been impeached the day he was sworn in. He should be indighted for
war crimes in Iraq.

I love my country but you can blow its government to hell with my blessing.


--
The Democrats say the glass is half full
The Republicans say the glass is half theirs
--

--
Lucy Van Pelt: Your ignorance is appaling!
Linus Van Pelt: Most ignorance is.
--

"Steve Pope" > wrote:
> wff_ng_7 > wrote:
>> The reason both chemicals are believed to be present is that
>> the adulteration was not done with pure melamine, but with
>> melamine industrial scrap
>
> That part I haven't heard. There's also the bacteria theory.
> In any case the two chemicals are closely related and they
> crystallize together into huge, damaging crystals.

I've read the melamine scrap connection in several articles now. It has made its
way into the Wikipedia entry for melamine
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melamine):
--
On May 2, Richard Goldstein of the Cornell University College of Veterinary
Medicine, in response to reports that the contaminant might be "melamine scrap",
hypothesized: "It's possible the other stuff they were left with was the
bottom-of-the-barrel stuff, leftover melamine and possibly cyanuric acid. I
think it's this melamine with other compounds that is toxic."
--

In addition, I've read (probably on the NY Times web site) that the company that
shipped the contaminated wheat gluten to the USA has many times advertised on a
Chinese business web site requesting supplies of scrap melamine. One comes to
the conclusion that the request for melamine scrap is directly related to the
melamine being in the wheat gluten.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

In article <94I_h.10$wy2.4@trnddc03>, wff_ng_7 > wrote:

>"Steve Pope" > wrote:

>> wff_ng_7 > wrote:

>>> The reason both chemicals are believed to be present is that
>>> the adulteration was not done with pure melamine, but with
>>> melamine industrial scrap

>> That part I haven't heard. There's also the bacteria theory.
>> In any case the two chemicals are closely related and they
>> crystallize together into huge, damaging crystals.

>I've read the melamine scrap connection in several articles now. It has
>made its
>way into the Wikipedia entry for melamine
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melamine):

>On May 2, Richard Goldstein of the Cornell University College of Veterinary
>Medicine, in response to reports that the contaminant might be "melamine
>scrap",
>hypothesized: "It's possible the other stuff they were left with was the
>bottom-of-the-barrel stuff, leftover melamine and possibly cyanuric acid. I
>think it's this melamine with other compounds that is toxic."

>
>In addition, I've read (probably on the NY Times web site) that the
>company that
>shipped the contaminated wheat gluten to the USA has many times advertised on a
>Chinese business web site requesting supplies of scrap melamine. One comes to
>the conclusion that the request for melamine scrap is directly related to the
>melamine being in the wheat gluten.

I think the difference here is that scrap melamine is speculated
to contain cyanuric acid, but nobody has done a chemical analysis
on it to prove this. Whereas cyanuric acid has been directly
identified as the result of bacterial action on melamine.

Steve

"Emma Thackery" > wrote:
> So now we're talking rice and vegetable protein as well. [expletive!]
> We can only hope that they can actually do something before we all start
> looking like Alf.

First it was just some pets. Then it was just some hogs. And later yet is was
just 2.5 million chickens. Now today it's 20 million chickens. The scope of this
problem gets bigger every day.

Here's what the federal government is saying now:
--
"Currently, USDA is requesting that the chickens be held on farms until the
government can complete a risk assessment to rule out any threat to humans from
eating the meat before the birds can be processed."
--

Which is a little less reassuring than what they said on Monday (five days ago):
--
"Because there is no evidence of harm to humans associated with consumption of
chicken fed the contaminated product, no recall of poultry products processed
from these animals is being issued."
--

Here's the latest from Reuters as posted on the Washington Post web site:
http://tinyurl.com/374hq3

For all those who claim this is just a "chicken little" reaction to the issue,
perhaps you should read the very good book "Silent Spring" and look into how the
author Rachel Carson was branded as an alarmist at the time. It might seem like
ancient history to some (being over 40 years ago), but her concerns turned out
to be quite prophetic. Obviously the immediate topic is a bit different, but the
reactions to warnings of a public threat are quite similar.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

In article <cl%_h.807$Q96.567@trnddc04>,
"wff_ng_7" > wrote:

> First it was just some pets. Then it was just some hogs. And later
> yet is was just 2.5 million chickens. Now today it's 20 million
> chickens. The scope of this problem gets bigger every day.

While I realize that poultry is under USDA authority, the gluten is
under FDA authority and I fear that the chickens have come home to roost
there as well. I wonder if one agency has the slightest clue what the
other is doing or if the Administration even cares. I recently heard
Diane Rehm interview Andrew Von Eschenbach, FDA Director,...

<http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/07/04/16.php#13066>

....who is the latest appointee in Bush's Brownification* of Federal
agencies. Note that Von Eschenbach is not merely a sleazocon crony;
he's a longtime personal friend of Dubya. Von Eschenbach insists that
the FDA is the "Gold Standard" in the protecting consumer safety. Given
the long string of recent FDA failures under his authority, I'd have to
say that Von Eschenbach's characterization of his agency's performance
is preposterous. While Bush pursues his disastrous Iraq agenda, our US
infrastructure is falling apart.

> Here's what the federal government is saying now...
[brevity snip]
> http://tinyurl.com/374hq3
>
> For all those who claim this is just a "chicken little" reaction to
> the issue, perhaps you should read the very good book "Silent Spring"
> and look into how the author Rachel Carson was branded as an alarmist
> at the time. It might seem like ancient history to some (being over
> 40 years ago), but her concerns turned out to be quite prophetic.
> Obviously the immediate topic is a bit different, but the reactions
> to warnings of a public threat are quite similar.

Absolutely. What scares me the most is what might happen in the long
term after all the lies that this crap has no harmful effect. The
notion that you can feed garbage to animals and have healthy animals and
then feed them to humans is insane. I can't understand why the American
public tolerates it. Out of sight, out of mind I guess.

* Brownification is a term, coined by Jane Hamsher IIRC, alluding to
incompetent Bush appointees like Michael Brown, former FEMA director.

Emma Thackery > wrote:

>What scares me the most is what might happen in the long
>term after all the lies that this crap has no harmful effect. The
>notion that you can feed garbage to animals and have healthy animals and
>then feed them to humans is insane. I can't understand why the American
>public tolerates it.

For me this is a no-brainer. There are plenty of foods that
are not on the list of suspect products. Fresh fruit/vegetables,
wild-caught fish (salmon season has just started here), tofu, beans,
whole grains, breads made from whole grains without gluten or other
protein additives. Lots and lots of others.

So why eat any of the suspect foods until this thing is nailed down
and the problem is firmly in the past?

Steve

"Steve Pope" > wrote:
> Emma Thackery > wrote:
>
>>What scares me the most is what might happen in the long
>>term after all the lies that this crap has no harmful effect. The
>>notion that you can feed garbage to animals and have healthy animals and
>>then feed them to humans is insane. I can't understand why the American
>>public tolerates it.
>
> For me this is a no-brainer. There are plenty of foods that
> are not on the list of suspect products. Fresh fruit/vegetables,
> wild-caught fish (salmon season has just started here), tofu, beans,
> whole grains, breads made from whole grains without gluten or other
> protein additives. Lots and lots of others.
>
> So why eat any of the suspect foods until this thing is nailed down
> and the problem is firmly in the past?

First, one has to be made aware that there is even an issue. When the people who
bring the issue forward are ridiculed and silenced, it makes it a lot harder for
others to become aware. That was one of the most significant aspects of the
campaign by the chemical industry to discredit Rachel Carson and her book Silent
Spring.

Aside from that, people seem okay with being fat, dumb and happy. What they
don't know can't hurt them. But boy does the public get upset when they feel
they've been lied to. You can see this on many issues, the Iraq war being a
great example. Most everyone was so gung-ho about invading the place in early
2003. They were glad to hear the "misson accomplished". They loved Dubya feeding
the display only turkey to the troops on Thanksgiving 2003. But as things turned
out to be not as rosy as they had been led to believe, they have gotten very
angry. Sad thing is most of the problems we have gotten ourselves into were
predicted by senior military and diplomats well beforehand, but no one seemed to
be listening.

As to eating plenty of foods that aren't suspect, that can be a lot harder than
you suggest. Wild caught fish are not so easy to come by in many areas, and is
quite expensive. People might be eating chicken or pork to avoid red meats. And
maybe beans aren't such a good idea for other health reasons. I was recently
diagnosed with gout and some lists put beans in the foods to avoid. The issues
are really far too complex for it to be a "no-brainer" for most people. It might
be for you, but it isn't for the general public.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

In article <Gp3%h.91$LJ3.57@trnddc02>, wff_ng_7 > wrote:

> As to eating plenty of foods that aren't suspect, that can
> be a lot harder than you suggest. Wild caught fish are not so
> easy to come by in many areas, and is quite expensive.

Canned salmon and canned tuna is all wild-caught, if that is
what is available/affordable.

> People might be eating chicken or pork to avoid red meats. And
> maybe beans aren't such a good idea for other health reasons. I
> was recently diagnosed with gout and some lists put beans in
> the foods to avoid. The issues are really far too complex for
> it to be a "no-brainer" for most people.

It obviously becomes more complex for those with dietary restrictions,
but I think for most people it's still pretty straightforward --
except for when you're forced to eat out. But even in such cases,
a person could readily reduce the amount of suspect items consumed.

I think the biggest barrier is psychological -- the overriding
assumption that all foods on offer in the U.S. are safe is the
main barrier. It's hard to break from habit and preconceived
notions, even when your intellect tells you they are wrong.

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:
> In article <Gp3%h.91$LJ3.57@trnddc02>, wff_ng_7 > wrote:
>
>> As to eating plenty of foods that aren't suspect, that can
>> be a lot harder than you suggest. Wild caught fish are not so
>> easy to come by in many areas, and is quite expensive.
>
> Canned salmon and canned tuna is all wild-caught, if that is
> what is available/affordable.
>
>> People might be eating chicken or pork to avoid red meats. And
>> maybe beans aren't such a good idea for other health reasons. I
>> was recently diagnosed with gout and some lists put beans in
>> the foods to avoid. The issues are really far too complex for
>> it to be a "no-brainer" for most people.
>
> It obviously becomes more complex for those with dietary restrictions,
> but I think for most people it's still pretty straightforward --
> except for when you're forced to eat out. But even in such cases,
> a person could readily reduce the amount of suspect items consumed.
>
> I think the biggest barrier is psychological -- the overriding
> assumption that all foods on offer in the U.S. are safe is the
> main barrier. It's hard to break from habit and preconceived
> notions, even when your intellect tells you they are wrong.
>
> Steve
>
>
You've nailed it: people assume that all the food available is safe
because if it weren't, it wouldn't be available ; ) The fact that it
isn't always true doesn't even cross their minds.

"flitterbit" > wrote:
> Steve Pope wrote:
>> I think the biggest barrier is psychological -- the overriding
>> assumption that all foods on offer in the U.S. are safe is the
>> main barrier. It's hard to break from habit and preconceived
>> notions, even when your intellect tells you they are wrong.
>
> You've nailed it: people assume that all the food available is safe because
> if it weren't, it wouldn't be available ; ) The fact that it isn't always
> true doesn't even cross their minds.

That just shows how much times have changed. There was a default assumption for
a long time in the USA that foods were safe. That came about for several
reasons. First there were major food and drug scandals in the early part of the
20th century, and regulations and inspection procedures were created to deal
with the problem. It was believed that anyone that violated the standards would
be investigated and charged, and that there were actually penalties expected as
a result. In addition to that, there was a value system (much different than in
China) that discouraged that kind of behavior to begin with.

This all started to change when the "government is bad" and "competition will
solve all problems (capitalism)" mantras were advanced by one of the major
political parties in the USA and started to become public policy. I'd say it
started about 26 years ago. Now you've got people who only seem to know that way
of thinking, who consider it a a sign of stupidity to think "all food is safe".
We are back to "caveat emptor" being the operational principle.

Just as a matter of curiosity, how old are Steve Pope and flitterbit? Perhaps
that might indicate why they have the viewpoints they do. For reference, my age
is 53.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

wff_ng_7 > wrote:

> This all started to change when the "government is bad" and
> "competition will solve all problems (capitalism)" mantras were
> advanced by one of the major political parties in the USA and
> started to become public policy. I'd say it started about 26
> years ago.

Yes, I'd say exactly 26 years ago. With the deregulation of
say airlines and S&L's.

> Just as a matter of curiosity, how old are Steve Pope and flitterbit?

I'm 51.

Steve

"Steve Pope" > wrote:
> wff_ng_7 > wrote:
>
>> This all started to change when the "government is bad" and
>> "competition will solve all problems (capitalism)" mantras were
>> advanced by one of the major political parties in the USA and
>> started to become public policy. I'd say it started about 26
>> years ago.
>
> Yes, I'd say exactly 26 years ago. With the deregulation of
> say airlines and S&L's.

I'd bet there are a lot of people who haven't the vaguest idea what we're
talking about! ;-)
What's a S&L? What's PATCO? (hint, it's not the transit line in South Jersey)

And what in the world do these images have to do with deregulation?
http://www.matchcovers.com/ebay/air751b.jpg

>> Just as a matter of curiosity, how old are Steve Pope and flitterbit?
>
> I'm 51.

Thanks, that confirms my research. You can find an awful lot out about people on
the net. Even though I'm using a somewhat anonymous account here, I have
uniquely identified myself solely through my rfc postings. I wonder if the CIA
would be able to "connect the dots"! ;-)

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

Steve Pope wrote:
> wff_ng_7 > wrote:
>
>> This all started to change when the "government is bad" and
>> "competition will solve all problems (capitalism)" mantras were
>> advanced by one of the major political parties in the USA and
>> started to become public policy. I'd say it started about 26
>> years ago.
>
> Yes, I'd say exactly 26 years ago. With the deregulation of
> say airlines and S&L's.
>
>> Just as a matter of curiosity, how old are Steve Pope and flitterbit?
>
> I'm 51.
>
> Steve
>
>So am I.

wff_ng_7 wrote:

> For all those who claim this is just a "chicken little" reaction to the
> issue, perhaps you should read the very good book "Silent Spring" and
> look into how the author Rachel Carson was branded as an alarmist at the
> time. It might seem like ancient history to some (being over 40 years
> ago), but her concerns turned out to be quite prophetic.

Well, sort of.

Rachel Carson is the one single person responsible for the largest number of deaths
of children in the history of mankind. Estimates are between 80 and
200 million children dead because of her. Even the most conservative possible is
about 20 million. The ideas in her book lead to these deaths, directly. They are only
today being corrected.

That's a lot of dead children, dying painful deaths from malaria, because
she got the most useful (effective and cheap) chemical for fighting
mosquitos banned. No other method has proven effective in poor countries.

Doug MCDonald

"Doug McDonald" > wrote:
> wff_ng_7 wrote:
>
>> For all those who claim this is just a "chicken little" reaction to the
>> issue, perhaps you should read the very good book "Silent Spring" and look
>> into how the author Rachel Carson was branded as an alarmist at the time. It
>> might seem like ancient history to some (being over 40 years ago), but her
>> concerns turned out to be quite prophetic.
>
> Well, sort of.
>
> Rachel Carson is the one single person responsible for the largest number of
> deaths
> of children in the history of mankind. Estimates are between 80 and
> 200 million children dead because of her. Even the most conservative possible
> is
> about 20 million. The ideas in her book lead to these deaths, directly. They
> are only
> today being corrected.
>
> That's a lot of dead children, dying painful deaths from malaria, because
> she got the most useful (effective and cheap) chemical for fighting
> mosquitos banned. No other method has proven effective in poor countries.

You really ought to get your facts straight. I think you've been listening to
the American Enterprise Institute and other right wing groups a bit too much.
There is just so much wrong with your little story I wouldn't know where to
begin. And I know you wouldn't listen. You probably still believe in the Saddam
Hussein/Al Queda connection fairy tale too.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

In article >,
Doug McDonald > wrote:

> wff_ng_7 wrote:
>
> > For all those who claim this is just a "chicken little" reaction to
> > the issue, perhaps you should read the very good book "Silent
> > Spring" and look into how the author Rachel Carson was branded as
> > an alarmist at the time. It might seem like ancient history to some
> > (being over 40 years ago), but her concerns turned out to be quite
> > prophetic.
>
> Well, sort of.
>
> Rachel Carson is the one single person responsible for the largest
> number of deaths of children in the history of mankind.

Hogwash. I wonder what interest it serves to make up a whopper like
that. Not difficult to guess, really.

Carson did not advocate stopping the use of DDT for malaria; she
recommended using it with more discretion. The use of DDT declined
because: governments lacked money, other pesticides were developed and
used, insects became resistant to it, it was transmitted through
mother's milk to nursing infants, indiscriminate and improper usage, and
because of a host of harmful effects to healthy humans and other animals.

"Emma Thackery" > wrote:
> Hogwash. I wonder what interest it serves to make up a whopper like
> that. Not difficult to guess, really.

Especially not when he's a chemistry professor at the University of Illinois.

"Better Things for Better Living...Through Chemistry" - Things like DDT.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

In article <6_K%h.1684$py5.19@trnddc06>,
"wff_ng_7" > wrote:

> "Doug McDonald" > wrote:
> > wff_ng_7 wrote:
> >
> >> For all those who claim this is just a "chicken little" reaction
> >> to the issue, perhaps you should read the very good book "Silent
> >> Spring"....

> > Rachel Carson is the one single person responsible for the largest
> > number of deaths of children in the history of mankind........
>
> You really ought to get your facts straight. I think you've been
> listening to the American Enterprise Institute and other right wing
> groups a bit too much. There is just so much wrong with your little
> story I wouldn't know where to begin. And I know you wouldn't listen.
> You probably still believe in the Saddam Hussein/Al Queda connection
> fairy tale too.

One can easily see why the Flat Earth Society is growing by leaps and
bounds these days.

Steve Pope > wrote:

>For me this is a no-brainer. There are plenty of foods that
>are not on the list of suspect products. Fresh fruit/vegetables,
>wild-caught fish (salmon season has just started here)

Just to amplify on the above, farmed fish has now been found
to be contaminated (I knew this was just a matter of time).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070508/..._contamination

Steve

Steve Pope > wrote:

>Just to amplify on the above, farmed fish has now been found
>to be contaminated (I knew this was just a matter of time).

>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070508/..._contamination

Additional reporting says that the feed supplier Westaqua is
involved. (see
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...050804092.html ).
Vancouver-based Westaqua on their website claim that their main
business is feed for farmed salmon, trout, and yellowtail.

Steve