Posts
All I have to say is this: Happy endings do not happen in real life.
Read the whole article here:
http://www.cancer-healing.com/cancer_pollutants.php
In April of 2000, Pharmacia/Upjohn acquired Monsanto chemical's Searle pharmaceutical unit, nominally spinning off the chemical products division. But Pharmacia retained an 85% controlling interest making the separation little more than a ruse to hide the connection between the drug giant and one of the most notorious industrial polluters in history. In the 1970s and 1980s, Monsanto had been a major manufacturer of phenoxy herbicides and has numerous toxic waste sites on its properties around the nation. It has also been accused of exposing its workers to high levels of the cancer causing compound dioxin. By 2002, Pharmacia decided it had to divest its interest in Monsanto completely, but it chose a unique method of accomplishing this objective. It divested the company by distributing its shares to Pharmacia's stockholders - in other words, the same people owned both companies! So while there was no longer a direct connection between the two manufacturers, there really was no change in ownership! So the same people could continue to benefit from the sale of cancer-causing pesticides and the sale of drugs to treat cancer!
(And Monsanto owns pretty much all the food, so our only recourse is to not eat? Man, we are FUCKED.)
The Impact
While on the surface it may appear that the largesse of Big Pharma is based in nothing more than a desire to be good corporate citizens, the reality is much more sinister. Establishment non-profit organizations like the American Cancer Society and Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation exercise an enormous influence over opinion leaders both inside and outside official circles. This is in part due to the perception that they have no financial stake in established cancer treatments and pharmaceuticals. This perception is false. But that doesn't diminish their influence.In myriad ways, large and small, the cancer establishment's non-profit sector exercises an enormous influence over legislation before Congress. They are listened to on issues of treatment, research funding and prevention - all because legislators believe they have no vested financial interest.
The truth is that with a national board whose membership is substantially comprised of oncologists, radiologists and others who derive their income from conventional therapies to treat cancer, these organizations have a vested financial interest in maintaining the status quo. For organizations like the American Cancer Society Foundation whose board includes senior executives of major pharmaceutical/chemical firms, the conflict is even more evident.
The impact of their influence is apparent. Why else would the established anticancer organizations only advocate the therapies that benefit Big Pharma and Organized Medicine while attacking alternatives? Why else would these same groups ignore the increasingly apparent link between environmental contamination and cancer? Why else would they virtually ignore prevention? The simple truth is that they don't want to jeopardize their power, position and privilege. Of course, with salary and benefit packages in excess of half a million dollars, like the one the president of the American Cancer So
August 2004 http://www.cancercoverup.com/newsletter/08-2004/
There's a breast cancer epidemic in the United States. Between 180,000 and 200,000 women will fall victim to the disease this year. For about 20% of them, 40,000, the disease will prove fatal. If doubt that the situation is out of control and has reached crisis proportions, consider the following:
- Three decades ago, the odds of a woman getting breast cancer were 1 in 20.
- Ten years ago, the odds of a woman getting breast cancer were 1 in 13.
- Today, the odds of a woman getting breast cancer are 1 in 7!
In other words, today you are three times as likely to get breast cancer as you were in the 1970s.
But that's not all.
According to the National Cancer Institute's SEER data, the rate of occurrence for breast cancer among women under the age of 40 increased by 55% between 1951 and 1995, and continues to rise at around 2% per year!
Why is this happening?
Researchers will argue that determining the cause of a disease as complex as breast cancer is an illusive goal. Yet, a simple calculus points a clear finger of blame:
- Fully 70% of the women who contract breast cancer have NONE of the known risk factors.
- Non-industrialized countries have far lower rates of breast cancer than industrialized countries.
- North America and Northern Europe have the highest breast cancer rates.
- Asia and Africa have the lowest breast cancer rates.
- Women who live in non-industrialized countries and then move to industrialized countries develop breast cancer at the same rate as women who have always lived in industrialized countries.
In short, something is happening in the industrialized world that is causing the breast cancer epidemic!
But what is it?
But you don't have to work around toxic chemicals to develop an increased breast cancer risk.
On Long Island, the New York Department of Health found that women who had lived near large chemical plants located there experienced a sharply increased risk of breast cancer. Another study, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that breast cancer mortality among white women increased in direct proportion to how close they lived to one of that state's 111 Superfund toxic waste sites. The closer they were, the greater the risk.
Further, it's not just epidemiological studies that suggest the link between chemical pollution and breast cancer.
In a recent study, researchers at the Sart Tilman Hospital in Liege Belgium have concluded that women with breast cancer have higher residues of the chemicals DDT and HCB in their tissue. The study included 159 women with breast cancer and 250 healthy women.
(Thanks Tom, Thanks Republicans, thanks Business assholes. Oh, and the economy really improved, too. Way to go, Dickheads.)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071009082406.htm
High levels of p,p’- DDT, the primary component of DDT, in women exposed before mid-adolescence, were found to be predict a five-fold increase in breast cancer risk. Many American women heavily exposed to DDT in childhood have not yet reached 50 years of age, therefore the public health significance of DDT exposure in early life may be large. This is the first study to examine how exposure in early life affects later life risk for breast cancer.Based on these findings, researchers from the California-based Public Health Institute and Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York conclude that it is too soon to decide that DDT exposure is unrelated to breast cancer.Previous studies of DDT and breast cancer assessed exposure later in life, after the time that animal studies indicate the window of maximum vulnerability may have passed.The study, led by Barbara Cohn, was the first to obtain blood samples from young women. It included 133 women who developed breast cancer before age 50 and 133 women who did not. These women had donated blood samples between 1959 and 1967, at an average age of 26 years as part of a child health and development study.
DDT, dichlorodiphenyltrichlorethane, was widely used as a pesticide in the United States and other countries starting in the mid-1940s. The harmful impact of DDT on wildlife was the subject of "Silent Spring" (1962) by Rachel Carson. In 1972, DDT was banned for almost all uses in the United States.
http://development.thinkaboutit.eu/think3/post/sniffing_out_excellent_white_powder/
... whilst others relentlessly defend its use. That some claim will give you breast cancer, whilst others say you can drink and inhale it without any harm. That some claim will destroy our environment, whilst others oppose by saying it will save millions of lives.Here’s the story of DDT: Mankind’s most controversial chemical ever. Discovered in 1874 by a chemistry student named Otmar Zeidler. Found to be a superb bug killing chemical in the late 1930s by Swiss chemist Paul Muller. For which he got a Nobel Prize in 1948.If you read this and live in the Southern USA, Europe, Russia, Australia, Taiwan, or the Carribean, say ‘Thank You’. Millions of houses in these parts of the world were sprayed with DDT between 1940-1960, resulting in the disappearance of malaria. Because of DDT, when you go to sleep tonight you don’t need to worry about malaria anymore.But hold on. Didn’t we hear about DDT in school as the chemical that led to the (almost) extinction of the American bald eagle? The US national symbol with its white-feathered head? Because of thinning egg shells and loss of reproductive capacity? Yes we did. And weren’t we told that DDT was accumulating in the food chain and causing endless harm to the environment? Yes we were. And was it not thanks to biologist Rachel Carson that published the book Silent Spring in 1962, that the world opened its eyes making the stuff banned in the early 1970s? Indeed. So?...The net result: The disease that no longer bears on us is killing a million kids in Africa each year. And that’s our fault, thanks to the greenies, says Roberts.
Another comment…
How many malaria deaths are due to socio-economic hardship generated by the public health reforms (SAPs) in Sub-Saharan Africa or in Central and South America?What would it cost to favour the development and use of efficient and environmentally friendly methods?
(Vaccine package inserts say the same BS. We didn't bother to study the effects. Hmmm...when something is safe it's been studied. When something might cause cancer, or brain damage, or a lack of elbows, they didn't bother? yeah, right.)In America;G.O.P. Hit Men - New York Times
www.nytimes.com › COLLECTIONS › PESTICIDESApr 19, 1996 – The return of DDT, banned since the early 70's, would be A-O.K. with Tom DeLay. He doesn't think DDT is harmful. Chlorofluorocarbons?- Free-associate on these fellows and "life-affirming" is the last term that comes to mind.The exterminator is Tom DeLay, the majority whip, from Sugar Land, Tex. A profile of him in The Wall Street Journal began, "Rep. Tom DeLay once made his living killing roaches. Now he kills regulations."Mr. DeLay is the enforcer and chief fund-raiser in the G.O.P.'s legislative assault on environmental and other safeguards. He has never met a regulation he could abide. To him, the Environmental Protection Agency is the "Gestapo of the Government."....
Mr. DeLay sold his extermination business, but his hypersensitivity to certain issues, shaped by his immersion in the peculiarities of pest control, has remained intact. He is driven to a near-frenzy by government bans on pesticides and other dangerous chemicals. The return of DDT, banned since the early 70's, would be A-O.K. with Tom DeLay. He doesn't think DDT is harmful. Chlorofluorocarbons? No problem. If you're worried about the ozone layer, slap on a little more sunscreen.
Mr. DeLay is pushing a proposal to repeal all of the ozone protection in the Clean Air Act. When the Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to the discoverers of the link between chlorofluorocarbons and ozone depletion, Mr. DeLay mocked the award as the "Nobel Appeasement Prize."
The undertaker is Thomas J. Bliley Jr. of Richmond, Va. Mr. Bliley, chairman of the Commerce Committee, ran his family's funeral home business until he was elected to the House in 1980.
A close ally of Mr. DeLay, Mr. Bliley has drafted legislation that would weaken both the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Philip Clapp, executive director of the Environmental Information Center in Washington, described the legislation as "a wish list for the entire pesticide industry."
The bill would replace the existing health-based standard for pesticides in food with a cost-benefit standard. Among other things, it would make it much easier to bring pesticides to market, and much more difficult for the E.P.A. to challenge a pesticide as dangerous.
Mr. Bliley, who is nothing if not brazen, has titled his legislation the "Food Quality Protection Act."
(Page 2 of 2)
Now, with your food you sometimes want a little water. Mr. Bliley is taking care of that, too. He is hard at work on legislation that would undermine the Safe Drinking Water Act by easing the pollution monitoring requirements on water systems that serve 90 percent of the nation's population.
The legislation would make it much more difficult to get at every kind of filth that is contaminating the water supply. Mr. Bliley and his powerful corporate backers (he has been the number one House recipient of contributions from the pesticide industry for the past three years) think that is terrific. Fecal matter and disease-carrying microbes? Cancer-causing chemicals? Arsenic? Lead? Don't worry about it. If the water supply becomes too foul, consumers can always buy bottled water.
The trophy-collecting big-game hunter (and former trapper) is Representative Don Young of Fort Yukon, Alaska, chairman of the Committee on Resources. With the heads of past kills mounted proudly on his office walls, Mr. Young set about crafting legislation that ultimately would cripple the Endangered Species Act. The result was the Young-Pombo bill, written with Richard Pombo, Republican of California.
 Tom DeLay: "Democrats have no class?" | johncoby2 | May-15-05 07:27 PM | #0 |
  Tom DeLay and DDT | eleny | May-15-05 07:31 PM | #1 |
| DeLay has no ethics | stellanoir | May-15-05 07:40 PM | #2 |
| What a great post. | mahina | May-15-05 07:46 PM | #3 |
| I agree Democrats have no class.. | kaos | May-15-05 07:48 PM | #4 |
 The difference is: | jedr | May-15-05 07:58 PM | #5 |
 I don't get it. What's your point? | johncoby2 | May-15-05 08:31 PM | #6 |
| Democrats have no class. | kaos | May-15-05 10:39 PM | #7 |
| Republican's idea of class..... | johncoby2 | May-16-05 06:56 AM | #9 |
| PURPLE HEART BANDAIDS!!! PURPLE HEART BANDAIDS!!! | LynnTheDem | May-15-05 10:50 PM | #8 |
| Tom DeLay eats cockroaches | Swamp Rat | May-16-05 07:05 AM | #10 |
| lol | sandnsea | May-16-05 07:13 AM | #11 |
May 14, 2011 – Tom Delay was a small business owner. He did pest control. When the government required he stop using DDT he was outraged, and went to ...
What Dean said is the truth, what DeLay said is slander.
At the center of the takeover was Tom DeLay. ...Tom DeLay hates the government ... imagine how angry Tom was when the federal government bannedDDT.
Congressman Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), a former exterminator, has told reporters DDT is “not harmful,” and that banning it “drove up the cost of doing business.
“The reason for the banning of DDT was its persistence in the environment,” says a spokesman for the EPA in Washington. “That idea has really proven itself because many of the foods grown in the U.S. still have low levels of DDT in them. It’s in the soil—and it’s still there.”
But the prohibition started out as a very local action, prompted in large part by Puleston’s observations.
But the prohibition started out as a very local action, prompted in large part by Puleston’s observations.
Despite overwhelming evidence of the damage it causes, some want to allow DDT’s use again, however.
Congressman Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), a former exterminator, has told reporters DDT is “not harmful,” and that banning it “drove up the cost of doing business.” He favors ending the ban.
That, says the EPA spokesman, would be a bad idea. “Good stewardship of the American people’s environment would not allow this kind of chemical to come back on the market.”
Puleston, now 91, says old war injuries keep him from getting around as well as he once did, but he still loves watching ospreys, his favorite birds.
“I certainly am happy to see them back,” he says.
http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13428
Pierce artfully explains the demagoguery that is today's political surround sound, and why it is do difficult for Obama to effectively communicate with many Americans, when he states:
The worst thing you can do, is to know what you're talking about. If you know what you're talking about, you're not going to speak in sound bites. You are very rarely going to speak in sound bites if you know what you're talking about. If you know what you're talking about, most problems are very nuanced and very complicated.
Charles P. Pierce: I think that she's enormously sincere in her concern. And you're right. She's misappropriating the slogan. But you have to understand, one of the great sales jobs that was done over the last twenty or thirty years began with the Ronald Reagan campaign in 1980, which I covered when I was starting out. So I saw the dynamic beginning to work. It was to sell a specific idea to people that the government is an alien entity over which they have no control, and in which they have no say, demolishing the idea of a political commonwealth.
And that is what we are left with, a mass media that reports on perceptions and propaganda as if they were competitive with reality and facts.
Dan Lee · Top Commenter
The dumbed down electorate is a reflection of some of the candidates and their ideology. I give you Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and others as examples. And what could be dumber than attacking over half of the electorate to appease knuckle draggers aka tea baggers?
I never minded DeLay being a tough guy — it was his syrupy claims to carry the banner for Christianity that I found offensive, as he frog-marched the House toward being a cash-operated special-interest machine. The idea of putting pressure on lobbyists to give only to Republicans, pressuring lobbying firms into hiring only Republicans and then letting lobbyists sit at the table during committee meetings where legislation was written — it was just screaming overt corruption.
(I thought it was just me.)
http://www.buzzflash.com
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
By fascART
"Absolute Truth; Tom DeLay is certain that Christian family values will solve America's problems."
"...he stopped attending DeLay family gatherings. He has not seen or talked to his mother, Maxine, in two years, even though she lives about 10 miles away from Sugar Land; nor did he invite any of them to his daughter's 1999 wedding or even mention his mother in the published wedding announcement."
All through his roomy home are many photographs of his wife, his daughter and his in-laws -- but not a single one of the DeLays. Throughout our conversations, this rift is the only subject that he adamantly will not discuss.
...And we could go into the story about his paid-for lobbying junkets, including one that included his daughter indulging in a champagne bubble bath with Tom DeLay's Gucci-heeled groupies. He's already been the subject of investigations of three ethical violations in the House, and an indictment is allegedly nipping at this heels in Texas.
Indeed, a closer examination of his company, Albo Pest Control, suggests it was at best a struggling operation, and the public record raises questions about DeLay's business ethics, truthfulness and the lengths to which he will go when someone crosses him.
His first job out of college was at a pesticide company, mixing, among other things, large batches of rat poison. He went solo in 1973 and purchased Albo, which quickly ran into problems in Houston's boom-bust economy, says Christine DeLay, who helped run it then. "He was borrowing money to make payroll, which was a stupid business decision. Tommy said his five technicians were loyal, honest men and should not be laid off, so he borrowed money to keep from layoffs," she says. "So he got behind on payroll taxes."
Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich turned the U.S. House of Representatives, "the people's House," into a pay-for-play machine for corporations. Put in enough money, get your special tax exemption, get your earmarked government contract, get your trade legislation and your environmental exemption, get rid of safety regulation.
(Deregulation means SAFETY REGULATIONS. Did people not know that?)
The Northern Marianas Islands are a U.S. protectorate (so it can label goods "Made in the USA") in the Pacific being used as a sort of labor gulag, with workers imported from China and elsewhere and paid pitiful wages. Jack Abramoff had a contract with the government of the Marianas to lobby against stopping the flow of immigrant labor to the islands and to prevent a minimum-wage bill from getting to the floor of the House.
The islands are home to classic sweatshops.
(That means slave labor)
In 1996 and 1997, Abramoff billed the Marianas for 187 contacts with DeLay's office, including 16 meetings with DeLay. In December 1997, DeLay, his wife and their daughter went on an Abramoff-arranged jaunt to the Marianas. DeLay brunched with the Marianas' largest private employer, textile magnate Willie Tan.
Tan had to settle a U.S. Labor Department lawsuit alleging workplace violations. According to the book "The Hammer" by Lou Dubose and Jan Reid, among the violations common on the islands is forbidding women to work when they are pregnant, thus leading to a high abortion rate.
Evidently, DeLay didn't have time to look into such allegations, since he was busy playing golf and attending a dinner in his honor, sponsored by Tan's holding company. According to The Washington Post, it was at this dinner that DeLay called Abramoff "one of my closest and dearest friends." He also reminded those present of his promise that no minimum wage or immigration legislation affecting the Marianas would be passed.
"Stand firm," he added. "Resist evil. Remember that all truth and blessings emanate from our Creator." He then went with Tan to see a cockfight.
(?)
http://www.commondreams.org
CommonDreams.org
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
DeLay was hit with tax liens three times by the Internal Revenue Service, in 1979, 1980 and 1983, because he was not paying payroll and income taxes. In addition, he paid court settlements twice to business associates who claimed he'd cheated them.
DeLay, while still in the state legislature, had signed a deal to buy out a small exterminator, Robert Bartnett, for about $ 40,000, but only paid him an initial $ 8,000, Bartnett recalls. DeLay claimed he stopped paying because Bartnett sold him a failing business. "When I was able to go look at his records," Bartnett says, "I learned that a great number of customers had quit because they didn't feel they were being serviced properly." The court ordered DeLay to pay Bartnett the $ 32,000 he was owed.
http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/05/03/ana05006.html
To reiterate the conclusions of the Pine River Statement by 15 scientists based on 494 refereed studies. You be the judge.
“Use restrictions have been successful in lowering human exposure to DDT, but blood concentrations of DDT and DDE are high in countries where DDT is currently being used or was more recently restricted. The recent literature shows a growing body of evidence that exposure
to DDT and its breakdown product DDE may be associated with adverse health outcomes such as breast cancer, diabetes, decreased semen quality, spontaneous abortion, and impaired neurodevelopment in children.
CONCLUSONS: Although we provide evidence to suggest that DDT and DDE may pose a risk to human health, we also highlight the lack of knowledge about human exposure and health effects in communities where DDT is currently being sprayed for malaria control. We recommend research to address this gap and to develop safe and effective alternatives to DDT.