RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 525
- 155
Climate zones are shifting as temperatures warm. They are not abruptly changing from 'alpine' to 'tropical' as your idiotic strawman argument would presume.Which climate zone has changed? Has the alpine climate of the Rockies suddenly become tropical, desert, or arctic?
Apparently, there is no such thing as a brain cell inside your skull. You have got to be one of the most severely brain damaged retards on this forum and that is not an easy distinction to achieve.There is no such thing as climate change!
And you are definitely one of those suckers, Katzhitbrainz. "Global cooling" was the subject of some speculation by a few scientists and a few national news magazines in the 1970's but nobody was "convinced" about it and in fact most scientists at the time were more concerned with global warming, you poor confused retard.I sometimes have to remember that there were a lot of people convinced of global cooling in the 70s and were convinced that ALAR would kill you too. There's a sucker born every minute.
As far as ALAR goes, it is one of your braindead pro-corporate rightwingnut myths that ALAR wasn't a problem.
One Bad Apple? Facts and Myths Behind the "Alar Scare"
(excerpts)
Symbolically, at least, the "great Alar apple scare" marks a watershed in industry thinking about the "problem" of free speech. The industry and its PR conduits have endlessly repeated the story of the Alar scare, portraying it as an unscrupulous and unfair attack by environmentalists against apple growers which destroyed farmers' livelihoods by stirring up unfounded consumer fears about a chemical which later turned out to be harmless. Today, even many journalists believe this myth, even though the facts tell a somewhat different story. Alar was a chemical, first marketed in 1968, that growers sprayed on trees to make their apples ripen longer before falling off. In use, however, Alar breaks down to a byproduct called "unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine" or UDMH. The first study showing that UDMH can cause cancer was published in 1973. Further studies published in 1977 and 1978 confirmed that Alar and UDMH caused tumors in laboratory animals.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opened an investigation of Alar's hazards in 1980, but shelved the investigation after a closed meeting with Alar's manufacturer. In 1984, EPA re-opened its investigation, concluding in 1985 that both Alar and UDMH were "probable human carcinogens," capable of causing as many as 100 cancers per million people exposed to it in their diet for a lifetime--in other words, 100 times the human health hazard considered "acceptable" by EPA standards. Under pressure from the manufacturer, however, EPA allowed Alar to stay on the market. Its use continued, even after tests by the National Food Processors Association and Gerber Baby Foods repeatedly detected Alar in samples of apple sauce and apple juice, including formulations for infants. The states of Massachusetts and New York had banned the chemical, and the American Academy of Pediatrics was urging a similar ban at the federal level. "Risk estimates based on the best available information at this time raise serious concern about the safety of continued, long-term exposure," stated an EPA letter to apple growers which estimated that 50 out of every million adults would get cancer from long-term exposure to Alar and that the danger to children was even greater. Aside from these urgings, however, federal agencies continued to avoid regulatory action.
On February 26, 1989, the public at large first heard about Alar's dangers when CBS-TV's 60 Minutes aired an exposé titled "A is for Apple," which became the opening salvo in a carefully-planned publicity campaign developed for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) by the Fenton Communications PR firm. The industry, its back to the wall, hastily abandoned its use of Alar, and the market for apples quickly rebounded. Within five years, in fact, apple industry profits were 50 percent higher than they had been at the time of the 60 Minutes broadcast. Apple growers claimed that the scare had cost them $100 million and sent dozens of family-owned orchards into bankruptcy. On November 28, 1990, apple growers in the Washington state filed a libel lawsuit against CBS, NRDC and Fenton Communications. In court, the apple growers lost their lawsuit. The apple growers were able to show that the scientific evidence of Alar's dangers was inconclusive, but they were not able to prove that it was wrong. In dismissing the lawsuit, the presiding judge pointed to failures in the federal government's own food safety policies, noting that "governmental methodology fails to take into consideration the distinct hazards faced by preschoolers. The government is in grievous error when allowable exposures are calculated . . . without regard for the age at which exposure occurs." Notwithstanding years of industry efforts to disprove the merits of NRDC's warning, the National Academy of Sciences in 1993 confirmed the central message of the Alar case, which is that infants and young children need greater protection from pesticides in foods. NAS called for an overhaul of regulatory procedures specifically to protect kids, finding that federal calculations for allowable levels of chemicals do not account for increased childhood consumption of fruit, lower body weight, or for their heightened sensitivity.