White House Dirty Work
White House Dirty Work
The latest victims of White House environmental policies: American newborns.
According to a new study released by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), babies today “enter the world with hundreds of industrial chemicals, solvents and pesticides in their veins.” In fact, newborn babies today have an average of a whopping 200 contaminants in their blood at birth. “The pollutants included mercury, fire retardants, pesticides and the Teflon chemical PFOA. ”
You can point your fingers directly at the current Environmental Protection agency. The allowed a group of eight power plants to submit a “wish list” of changes to weaken existing mercury regulations. In a side-by-side comparison of the rules and the power-plant memo, at least “a dozen paragraphs were lifted, sometimes verbatim, from the industry suggestions.”
Earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office slammed the EPA for succumbing to White House pressure. The EPA was caught playing politics with scientific fact, disregarding evidence in order to “find” the pre-determined industry-friendly results the Bush administration needed to justify its polluter-friendly cap-and-trade plan.
Protecting industry polluters is dirty work. And now American kids are paying the price.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The EPA will now call mercury an important dietary supplement and suggest that industires who put more out should get tax deductions to do so.
Long live 1984 & Animal Farm.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:08 amThe negative effects of environmental deterioration are being felt most severely by the poorest people on our planet. So, if we are to promote a culture of life, shouldn’t we care about the conditions under which people live and try to improve those conditions when it makes a difference?
There are those who are adverse to science, either because they “don’t get it,” or, because it makes them uncomfortable by revealing truths they don’t like. The Bush administration has been actively distorting scientific data. The NOAA scientists report political interference with scientific determinations. The government-funded agency is directed to keep silent if the facts don’t fit the White House policy. Morale is low, and funding is cut. In other words, the conservatives are not for conservation and long-term stewardship of our common treasures like the environment.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:09 amI am a Pest Management Consultant. When I try to assure my customers that our chemicals are regulated by the E.P.A. they say thats what they are afraid of.
I’ve learned to no longer use the E.P.A. for credibilty. It backfires every single time.
If anyone is interested in non-chemical treatments for pests, I do know of a few effective methods.
Just ask.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:12 amI truly don’t believe that the current administration is conservative. It often feels more like it is by the corporations for the corporations.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:13 amOn the upside, a nonflammable, pest resistant,non-stick baby, that you can tell the temperature with,would be a bonus.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:20 amDon’t have an abortion, just kill em with pesticides!
July 19th, 2005 at 11:24 am“You can point your fingers directly at the current Environmental Protection agency. ”
Though you would be a complete and total ignoramus if you did.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:27 amOkay wallace I will bite, why would I be a total ignoramus if I did?
July 19th, 2005 at 11:34 amI suppose you believe the F.D.A. is doing a great job too huh Wallace?
Thats why folks like you do not speak for the American People.
Summer break is over for you Wallace, get back on the bus and see if this time you can pass the 3rd grade.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:36 amI am a Pest Management Consultant.
Susan, please use something stronger on the trolls. They keep coming back.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:42 amI’ve got some 565 in aerosol cans. You stick it into the entrance “hole” of the “nest” and set it off as a “bomb”.
Think that will work?
July 19th, 2005 at 11:56 amYes, kids are worse off today than they were on Franklin D. Roosevelt. Please smart lawyer people stop with the silliness.
Bush is not against kids and claiming he is is just dumb.
July 19th, 2005 at 1:52 pmKyle, Ignoring the fact that Bush is the worst environmental president in history, and ignoring the fact that he has caved to industry is just dumb. The record is clear, environmental laws are less strict under his administration. Clean air and water is a responsibility he has chosen to ignore. The hypocracy pointed out here is that he claims to be pro life, blah, blah, blah, when it comes to embryo’s/fetuses yet doesn’t seem to have much regard when it comes to the lives of 25000 Iraqis, 2000 soldiers, and all the people who’s lives will be damaged by irrisponsible industry polluting our air and water. THAT, my friend, is stupid.
July 19th, 2005 at 2:11 pmMikey, Bush is the worst environmental president in history? What do you base that conclusion on? What facts?
July 19th, 2005 at 2:23 pmHere’s a list for you Steed.
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/water_pollution.asp
July 19th, 2005 at 2:27 pmRead the whole site. Not much good news in there. And strangely, most of it would have a positive effect on the bottom line of various industries. THAT is selling out.
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/
Don’t waste your time telling me that that site is a wacko liberal biased blah, blah, blah. That defense is tired. Instead, try offering data to show that that the claim is incorrect.
July 19th, 2005 at 2:33 pmLabeling Bush as a kid hater is asinine.
“Look American people Bush’s eviromental policies are hurting kids. Why? Cause Bush hates kids cause he’s a very mean man who likes hurting people. Just look at him. He’s just another white man in a suit who worked for the evil misanthropic corporations.”
Bush is no worse on the enviroment or kids than any other Presdient, except for maybe Nixon who passed just about all of America’s strong eviroment regulations (none of which have been overturned by Bush).
And if you won’t to know about what it really means to pollute, go to China.
July 19th, 2005 at 4:02 pm“And if you won’t to know about what it really means to pollute, go to China”
What? So its ok if our environmental policy sucks ’cause China’s policy is worse? What does that have to do with anything? We’re the greatest, richest industrialized nation on earth, shouldn’t we be setting the standards? Leading by example?
Maybe Bush doesn’t wake up in the morning thinking, ‘Gee, I really hate kids’, but his policies sure don’t do anything to expand opportunities for our youth, preserve their future, or keep them from ingesting toxins even prior to birth.
July 19th, 2005 at 4:33 pmBushie is a failure at every thing he attempts.
He is the worst public servant to date.
July 19th, 2005 at 5:22 pmMikey,
The point is that we already live at high standards. I’m not arguing that because China pollutes like 19th century England, we don’t have to do anything. But most Americans and Europeans have forgoten what real pollution is. If you need a reminder, go to China.
Bush also has gotten the rest of the international community to not forget about China and India among others, as major polluters.
The reality is these toxins you speak of are not hurting kids and they are definitely hurting kids like kids were hurt in the past. How? Because these kids will are bigger, stronger and living longer lives.
Making mountains out of mole hills is all you people have. Bush does not hurt the enviroment no more than any other President. It sucks that he doesn’t do a little bit more to get serious about cutting CO2 with forced standards, but that has more to go along with the rest of the world on “global warming” than helping kids.
Bottomoline: Bush policies do not hurt kids.
This is a very weak argument you people are promulgating and it is supremely stupid.
“Hey America: Bush is hurting kids because he won’t increase enviromental standards and they’re dying and living shorter lives because of it. Boo hoo.”
Exercising and eating healthier is what American kids need and George Bush leads by example on this matter.
July 19th, 2005 at 5:51 pmGee your right, we’ve done enough. We’re already better than China, what more can we do? He’s no worse than any other President. Yes, he is. He is worse than ALL other presidents. Do you really believe what you’re saying?
I grew up in Pittsburgh when the skies were regularly black from industry pollution. I don’t need to regress polution control laws back to a period when you could see the garbage in the air. I don’t have to see it to know that I don’t want to breath it.
You say, toxins aren’t hurting kids?
http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/azhealthtopics/a/envtoxrephealth.htm
http://www.cehn.org/cehn/WhatisPEH.html
http://www.epa.gov/lead/leadinfo.htm
Like I said, we’re the greatest, richest industrialized nation on earth, we should be leading by example. We can do more, and we had been doing more until Bush backed off the effectiveness of the policies in place when he took office. His administration changes the findings of scientists to fit his policies. The G8 looks at us in disbelief. I think we can do better, much better.
July 19th, 2005 at 6:34 pmDid I say we should stop where we’re at? I in fact said it is a shame that Bush doesn’t do more. However, that is not the point of this thread. The point of the thread is to smear Bush as a kid hater and hurter, which isn’t true by any objective standard.
Bush’s policies simply do not hurt kids and trying to say that they do is asinine.
July 19th, 2005 at 6:59 pmMikey,
You’re right. The NRDC is a liberal biased organization (Robert F Kennedy, Jr.) who’s agenda is to attack Bush. Can’t you source something a little less biased? I’ve revealed several lies about Bush’s environmental record in Kennedy’s interview with NPR. This post is going to move on, but your argument would have more credibility if weren’t parroting what your favorite liberal source was feeding you. But where are your metrics that you use for comparison with other presidents? Or are you just repeating what John Kerry and Kennedy, Jr. said?
I would love to address Pennsylvania with actual data. Oh, well. Maybe some other time. I’m sure thinkparanoid is more concerned about that evil Karl Rove.
July 19th, 2005 at 7:26 pmLyle, I don’t think the point of the thread was to say that Bush hates kids. It was to smear Bush for his irresponsible environmental policy. It was to say that the EPA succumbed to WH pressure, and pointed out that kids suffer for it. We all suffer for it.
Steed, thank you. You answered just as I expected, with more deflection and NO information. Of course, from your perspective, any site I reference with criticism of Bush’s policy will be biased, won’t it? Problem is, I couldn’t find any sites praising his policies. Look up the facts cited in the references within the articles on the NRDC pages. If there are lies there, and his policy is good for the environment, then I stand corrected. But you won’t do that, you’ll just do what all tactful righties do and simply deflect or change the subject.
July 19th, 2005 at 10:17 pmWhat’s wrong with hating Bush? Not a damn thing.
July 20th, 2005 at 5:08 amNothing is wrong with hating Bush, just like there’s nothing wrong with criticizing those who criticize Bush, especially when they exaggerate reality for chump change political gains.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:41 pmTwo Questions:
(1) Are chemical levels in newborns higher or lower than they were in 1965?
(2) Is there any correlation between changes in newborn chemical levels and changes in the incidence of particular diseases?
Of course, the answers are only important if we all agree that policy should be based on science – not the other way around. We do agree on that, right?
July 27th, 2005 at 8:16 pmShakira
Shakira
December 19th, 2005 at 3:57 pmhip hop ringtones…
hip hop ringtones…
January 18th, 2006 at 5:21 pm