What's an Environmentalist to do?

“but I had rather not choose to poison (with indiscriminate use of dangerous pesticides) the world of the children who are born

But you're ok if millions more die of malaria? And as we both know, proper use of DDT will not poison the children.”

“The proper use of DDT is very damaging to the world of children and other living things. I took entomolgy, plant pathology and several other like courses in college.”

“And so how does putting it in doorways destroy plants?

And, how many plants would die - does saving those plants justify letting MILLIONS of children die?”

“Dr. Phillip Landrigan of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City works with scientists around the country to understand how kids are affected by exposure to chemicals. Of the 3000 high production volume chemicals in use in this country today, only 43% have been even minimally tested. "Only about 10% have been thoroughly tested to examine their potential effects on children's health and development."

Children are potentially more vulnerable to chemicals than adults. "First of all they're more heavily exposed pound for pound," says Landrigan. "They eat more food, they drink more water, they breathe more air. Then, of course, kids play on the ground. They live low, they put their hands in their mouth and so they transfer more toxic chemicals into their body than we do."

In New York City, a groundbreaking study led by Dr. Frederica Perera at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, follows more than 500 expectant mothers. These women are wearing air quality monitors in backpacks to trap the environmental toxins they breathe. As their children are born and as they grow, Dr. Perera and her team will look for links between the chemicals that the mothers were exposed to while their babies were developing in the womb and asthma, cancer risk, and learning disabilities.


"Just because there are no smoke stacks visible around us, just because you live a long way from the source of these chemicals, doesn't mean that nature won't bring them to you in some way," she says. A mother who breast feeds her infant son, Dr. Steingraber also realizes that she passes toxins directly to her baby every time she nurses. "No woman has uncontaminated breast milk on this planet," she states. Dr. Steingraber tries to reduce her children's exposure at home by using non-toxic products.
last edited: 2/01/06 4:55:06 PM”

“Tango, are you going to tie that into the current discusion for us? It was about the proper use of DDT and how many millions more people would live if we had used it, or are you changing the subject (which is fine of course if you are - just clarifying).”

“My fiance saw the use of DDT in the 3rd World. The workers, of all ages, have these packs on their back and away they spray, creating a "nice" fog. No protective gear at all.

And anyone who thinks environmental issues or animal issues is for the left only, please read Dominion by Matthew Scully.

I believe he's one of "yours".

;)”

“but I had rather not choose to poison (with indiscriminate use of dangerous pesticides) the world of the children who are born

But you're ok if millions more die of malaria? And as we both know, proper use of DDT will not poison the children.”
Sarge
5:38:13 PM
2/01/06

Of the 3000 high production volume chemicals in use in this country today, only 43% have been even minimally tested. "Only about 10% have been thoroughly tested to examine their potential effects on children's health and development."



When 'we' don't test the chemicals before their use how do 'we' know WHAT their "proper" use is? Is there a proper use of DDT?”

“Here is a link to an interview with Matthew Scully:

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory120602.asp

Scully, a speech writer for Bush? Hmmmm.
last edited: 2/01/06 5:36:50 PM”

“Uh, Tango - How are you connecting these dots here?

* 3000 chemicals in use today - 43% minimally tested

* DDT hasn't been tested.

What makes you think DDT is in the 57%?

DDT has been tested - and even specifically for "proper" use. Apparently you don't follow this particular topic much.

Here ... read up - scientific sources included ... http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm
last edited: 2/01/06 6:16:47 PM”

“Are you being deliberatly obtuse?

I didn't say that DDT is in the 43%.

Again here is the quote:
"but I had rather not choose to poison (with indiscriminate use of dangerous pesticides) the world of the children who are born"

Then I brought up the 3,000 chemicals that have been barely tested with respect to their effects on children.

Then I asked what is "proper" and how do we know what is proper if there is little to no testing.

BTW this is NOT fuego!”

“Again, we're talking about DDT, and you're moving the discussion to be about chemicals in general.

DDT has been tested quite a bit. Why did you mention the 43% if you didn't think it was relevant to the discussion?

Then I asked what is "proper" and how do we know what is proper if there is little to no testing.

Once again, there has been a lot of testing. Why do you keep asking "if there is little or no testing"? What are you talking about?

Fuego is politics/religion. You came into the discussion the same as I did. Read the thread title. It's about "environmentalists". That's fuego, no matter how the person who started the thread categorized it.”

“Chemicals are not pesticides and pesticides are not chemicals? Just because I don't have a break down of how many of the chemicals of 3,000 are not pesticides, I guess none of them are?

Jeez, you're enough to make a saint swear!

So my question to you is I can't enlarge the argument I have to stay within some narrow parameter of discussion that you set? I was bringing something NEW that enhanced the discussion! I think it is on point, since at least some of those chemicals I bring up are pesticides!”

“LOL - Tango - I just changed by date range to "ALL" and looked at some of the initial posts on here.

Read yours (after the cyclops) ... and tell me this is NOT fuego!

LMAO!”

“Chemicals are not pesticides and pesticides are not chemicals? Just because I don't have a break down of how many of the chemicals of 3,000 are not pesticides, I guess none of them are?

What are you talking about????

We're talking about DDT! Dang dude. Read the discussion. This has to do with ONE chemical - DDT.

So my question to you is I can't enlarge the argument I have to stay within some narrow parameter of discussion that you set?I was bringing something NEW that enhanced the discussion! I think it is on point, since at least some of those chemicals I bring up are pesticides!

Tango - Seriously, are you reading the posts?

This is what I posted after your initial post:

“Tango, are you going to tie that into the current discusion for us? It was about the proper use of DDT and how many millions more people would live if we had used it, or are you changing the subject (which is fine of course if you are - just clarifying).”
Sarge
5:57:36 PM
2/01/06

Your response was:

Happy to Oblige Sgt.

...

When 'we' don't test the chemicals before their use how do 'we' know WHAT their "proper" use is? Is there a proper use of DDT?”
Tango
6:34:52 PM
2/01/06”

“Sarge, DDT has been extensively tested.

It has been proven that adult humans can eat tablets of pure DDT daily for years and apparently experience no ill effects.

Yet, it has also been substantially proven that chemicals such as DDT reduce the tensile strength and thickness of the eggs of many species of predator birds.

Maybe its not important to you, but I had rather maintain our 'biodiversity', a word which should really tear you up.

And besides, how did people in those malaria infested areas survive before the development of DDT?
last edited: 2/01/06 6:46:47 PM”

“#

VI. Egg-shell thinning

DDT was alleged to have thinned bird egg shells.

#

Many experiments on caged-birds demonstrate that DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) do not cause serious egg shell thinning, even at levels many hundreds of times greater than wild birds would ever accumulate.

[Cecil, HC et al. 1971. Poultry Science 50: 656-659 (No effects of DDT or DDE, if adequate calcium is in diet); Chang, ES & ELR Stokstad. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 3-10 1975. (No effects of DDT on shells); Edwards, JG. 1971. Chem Eng News p. 6 & 59 (August 16, 1971) (Summary of egg shell- thinning and refutations presented revealing all data); Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974); Jeffries, DJ. 1969. J Wildlife Management 32: 441-456 (Shells 7 percent thicker after two years on DDT diet); Robson, WA et al. 1976. Poultry Science 55:2222- 2227; Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatchability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites); Spears, G & P. Waibel. 1972. Minn. Science 28(3):4-5; Tucker, RK & HA Haegele. 1970. Bull Environ Contam. Toxicol 5:191-194 (Neither egg weight nor shell thickness affected by 300 parts per million DDT in daily diet);Edwards, JG. 1973. Statement and affidavit, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, 24 pages, October 24, 1973; Poult Sci 1979 Nov;58(6):1432-49 ("There was no correlation between concentrations of pesticides and egg shell thinning].") ]

#

Experiments associating DDT with egg shell thinning involve doses much higher than would ever be encountered in the wild.

[J Toxicol Environ Health 1977 Nov;3(4):699-704 (50 ppm for 6 months); Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 1978;7(3):359-67 ("acute" doses); Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenh) 1982 Feb;50(2):121-9 (40 mg/kg/day for 45 days); Fed Proc 1977 May;36(6):1888-93 ("In well-controlled experiments using white leghorn chickens and Japanese quail, dietary PCBs, DDT and related compounds produced no detrimental effects on eggshell quality. ... no detrimental effects on eggshell quality, egg production or hatchability were found with ... DDT up to 100 ppm)]

#

Laboratory egg shell thinning required massive doses of DDE far in excess of anything expected in nature, and massive laboratory doses produce much less thinning than is seen in many of the thin-shelled eggs collected in the wild.

[Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974)]

#

Years of carefully controlled feeding experiments involving levels of DDT as high as present in most wild birds resulted in no tremors, mortality, thinning of egg shells nor reproductive interference.

[Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatch ability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites)]

#

Egg shell thinning is not correlated with pesticide residues.

[Krantz WC. 1970 (No correlation between shell-thinning and pesticide residues in eggs) Pesticide Monitoring J 4(3): 136-141; Postupalsky, S. 1971. Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971 (No correlation between shell-thinning and DDE in eggs of bald eagles and cormorants); Anon. 1970. Oregon State University Health Sciences Conference, Annual report, p. 94. (Lowest DDT residues associated with thinnest shells in Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk and goshawk); Claus G and K Bolander. 1977. Ecological Sanity, David McKay Co., N.Y., p. 461. (Feeding thyreprotein causes hens to lay lighter eggs, with heavier, thicker shells)]

#

Among brown pelican egg shells examined there was no correlation between DDT residue and shell thickness.

[Switzer, B. 1972. Consolidated EPA hearings, Transcript pp. 8212-8336; and Hazeltine, WE. 1972. Why pelican eggshells are thin. Nature 239: 410-412]

#

Egg shells of red-tailed hawks were reported to be six percent thicker during years of heavy DDT usage than just before DDT use began. Golden eagle egg shells were 5 percent thicker than those produced before DDT use.

[Hickey, JJ and DW Anderson. 1968. Science 162: 271-273]

To the extent egg shell thinning occurred, many other substances and conditions could have been responsible.

#

Oil has been associated with egg shell thinning.

[Anon. National Wildlife Federation, Conservation News, pp. 6-10, October 15 1979. (Embryonic mortality from oil on feathers of adults birds) ; Hartung, R. 1965. J Wildlife Management 29:872-874 (Oil on eggs reduces hatch ability by 68 percent); Libby, EE. 1978. Fish, wildlife and oil. Ecolibrium 2(4):7-10; King, KA et al. 1979 Bull Environ Contam Tox 23:800-805 (Oil a probably cause of pelican mortality for six weeks after spill);Albers, PH. 1977. Fate and Effects of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Marine Ecosystems, Pergamon Press, N.Y. (Chapters 15 & 16; Dieter, MP. 1977. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development Program Report, pp. 35-42 (5 microliters of oil on fertile egg kills 76 to 98 percent of embryos within; birds ingesting oil produce 70 percent to 100 percent less eggs than normal; offspring failed to develop normal flight feathers); Szaro, RC. 1977. Proc 42nd N Amer Wildlife Nat Resources Conference, pp. 375-376]

#

Lead has been associated with egg shell thinning.

[Bellrose, RC. 1959. Ill Nat Hist Survey Bull 27:235-288 (Lead poisoning in wildlife)]

#

Mercury has been associated with egg shell thinning.

[D'Itri, FM & PB Trost. 1970. International Conference on Mercury Contamination, Ann Arbor, September 30, 1070; Scott, JL et al. 1975. Effects of PCBs, DDT and mercury upon egg production, hatch ability and shell quality. Poultry Sci 54:3350-368; Stoewssand, GS et al.. 1971. Shell- thinning in quail fed mercuric chloride. Science 173:1030-1031; Tucker, RK. 1971. Utah Science June 1971:47-49 (Effects of many chemicals on shell thickness).; Tucker, RK & HA Haegle. 1970. Bull Environ Contamin Toxicol 5:191-194]

#

Stress from noise, fear or excitement and disease are associated with egg shell thinning.

[Scott, HM et al.. 1944. (Physiological stress thins shells) Poultry Science 23:446-453; Draper, MH & PE Lake. 1967. Effects of stress and defensive responses. In Environmental Control in Poultry Production, Oliver and Boyd, London; Reid, BL. 1971. (Effects of stress on laying birds) Farm Technology, Fall 1971; Sykes, AH. 1955 (Adrenaline excess inhibits shell formation) Poultry Science 34: 622-628]

#

Older birds produce thinner shells.

[Sunde, ML. 1971 (Older birds produce thinner shells) Farm Technology, Fall 1971]

#

Normal egg shells become 5 percent thinner as developing embryos withdraw calcium for bone development.

[Romanoff, AL and AJ Romanoff. 1967. Biochemistry of the Avian Embryo, Wiley & Sons, N.Y.; Simkiss, K. 1967. (Shells thinned by embryo development within) In Calcium in Reproductive Physiology, Reinhold, NY, pp 198-213]

#

Larger birds tend to produce thicker-shelled eggs.

[Asmundson, VS et al. 1943. (Relations between the parts of birds' eggs) Auk 60:34-44]

#

Dehydration is associated with thinner egg shells.

[Tucker, RK and HA Haegle. 1970. (30 percent thinner shells formed after quail were kept from water for 36 hours) Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 5(3): 191-194]

#

Temperature extremes are associated with thinner egg shells.

[Romanoff, AL and AJ Romanoff, 1949. The Avian Egg, Wiley & Sons]

#

Decreased illumination is associated with thinner egg shells.

[Peakall, DB. 1970. (Shells not thinned even after illumination was abruptly reduced from 16 hours daily to 8 hours daily and high DDT dosage begun simultaneously) Science 168:592-594; Day, EJ. 1971. (Importance of even illumination on laying birds) Farm Technology, Fall 1971;Houser, EJ. 1962. Pacific Poultryman, August 1962; Morris, TR et al. 1964. (The most critical area of light duration is that between 16 hours and 8 hours daily) British Poultry Science 5: 133-147; Ward, P. 1972 (Physiological importance of photo period in bird experiments) Ibis 114: 275]

#

Human and predator intrusion is associated with thinner egg shells.

[Beatty, RG. 1973. The DDT Myth, John Day Co., N.Y. 201 pages; Anon. 1971. Hawk Chalk 10(3):47-57; Cade, TJ. 1960. Ecology of the peregrine and gyrfalcon populations in Alaska. Univ Calif Publ Zool 63(3): 151-290]

#

Simple restraint interferes with the transport of calcium throughout the body of birds, preventing adequate calcium from reaching the shell gland and forming good shells.

[Sykes, AH. 1955. Poultry Science 34:622-628]

#

Uncovering eggs after parent birds are removed or frightened off exposes eggs to potentially fatal chilling, especially in northern or high altitude locations.

[Cade, TJ. 1960. Ecology of the peregrine and gyrfalcon populations in Alaska. Uni Calif Publ Zool 63(3):151-290]

#

Phosphorus deficiency is associated with thinner shells.

[Crowley, TA et al. 1963. Poultry Science 54: 350-368]

#

Calcium deficiency is associated with thinner shells.

[Greely, F.. 196 (Effects of calcium deficiency) J Wildlife Management 70:149-153; Romanoff, AL and AJ Romanoff. 1949. The Avian Egg, Wiley & Sons; Scott, ML. 1975. Poultry Science 54:350-368; Taylor, TG. 1970. How and eggshell is formed. Scientific American 222:89-95; Tucker, RK and HA Tucker. 1970. Bull Environ Contamin Toxicol 5(3):1191-194]

#

Egg shell deficiencies were attributed to DDT and DDE by U.S. Fish and Wildlife researchers even though the birds had been placed on low-calcium diets.

[Bitman, J et al. 1969. Nature 224: 44-46; Bitman, J et al. 1970. Science 594-595. ]

#

Cutting illumination from 16 hours daily to 8 hours daily at the same time as DDT feeding began had no significant adverse effect on shell quality. Shell quality was only adversely impacted after large amounts of DDE were injected into birds.

[Peakall, DB. 1970. Science 168:592-594]

#

DDT was blamed for egg shell thinning even though a known egg shell thinner (dieldrin) was also added to the diet.

[Porter, RD and SN Wiemeyer. 1969. Science 165: 199-200]

#

No significant correlation between DDE and egg shell thinning in Canadian terns even though the eggs contained as much as 100 parts per million of DDE.

[Switzer, BG et al. 1971. Can J Zool 49:69-73]”

“In your link were in fact true, I'm certain our industry favorable government would allow or make an exception for DDT.

Wow, Sarge is now a biochemical researcher.
last edited: 2/01/06 6:49:24 PM”

“Our industry favorable government has been giving in to the loud whackos for decades thanks to (and now the circle is complete) "Silent Spring". I'm sure you knew that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#The_U.S._ban_of_DDT”

“It doesn't matter, Sarge.

Organic farming is the way to live.

Again, how did people survive malaria in those places before DDT? Very few did.

Chemical fixes do not work. There is no 'free lunch'.

So, 500 million contract malaria, they don't all die of it and all the chemicals that could possibly be produced might only prevent a small percentage of those from contract malaria from doing so.

A lot of people are trying to live where they probably should not.
last edited: 2/01/06 7:00:28 PM”

“I'm a chick!
last edited: 2/01/06 6:53:21 PM”

“LOL! Ok lonesurveyor.

I suppose that's your closing remarks. Here's mine.

"500 million people contract malaria every year."

Let's walk away .... just walk away ....

[edit] Dang it, you added to yours.
last edited: 2/01/06 6:57:17 PM”

“Oh, sorry for calling you a dude, Tango. My bad.”

“Penguins are playing so I'm not paying attention to this as I should. I'll be back later!”

“Oh yeah and no prob about the dude remark! ;-D”

“lonesurveyor - I bought 4 of these yesterday from Vitamin World.

http://www.chocolatebar.com/

2 bucks each for a stinking small chocolate bar!!





last edited: 2/01/06 7:02:55 PM”

“Good Morning America reported awhile back that the number of chimpanzees and larger apes living in the wild now is only about 5% of the number that was alive in the wild 300 years ago

mostly due to people and domestic livestock moving into or encroaching on their former habitats, a very unfortunate trend.
last edited: 2/02/06 7:29:53 AM”

“You know I love it when some pencil headed dweeb comes up with a study that he interprests to mean this or that...we all go bananas then a few years later they are shown to be inaccurate or worse intentionally flawed.
I am sorry but I take most "studies" of long term effects with a healthy dose of skepticisim. I have seen too damn many "Scientists" in court who would spout some wild ass theory and then demand I back up my findings with 100% fact.
Remember when the left convinced Ted Danson that the oceans would be dead in 10 years....that was what 1992?”

“Just because it hasn't happened yet obviously means it never will, right?”

“lonesurveyor, stay on topic please we are talking about DDT and ONLY DDT!!!!”

“Earlier in this thread, x1400236 stated that since construction of the Alaska pipeline was completed in 1977, he feels any predators run off or killed by construction workers would have either returned or had time to build their numbers up again.

Well, a yearround road with frequent traffic now exists parallel to the pipeline and numerous maintenance and reconstruction activities occur almost daily along the pipeline. Still, a good reason for the scarcity of predators along the pipeline route and maybe a reason there appears to be more caribou in that area than before the construction of the pipeline.”

“Actually um the road was there first....that is the Alaskan Highway (according to the Special I watched last night) and the name should be XL400236, but then we all know how these keyboards seem to print what they darn ....wellknonwadsoi "OSDJvba9udof ...”

“No sir. The Alaska Highway only reached to Fairbanks. There was no big road thru the 500 or so miles of the Brooks Range and Arctic Coastal Plain prior to the construction of the pipeline.
last edited: 2/02/06 8:20:24 AM”

“Here is what happened with the road situation:

At first

"Permanent gravel roads may not be used for exploration and activities must be supported by air service or an existing road system…. Except for approved off-road travel, exploration activities must be supported only by ice roads, winter trails, existing road systems, or air service…."

Oil and gas lease sale, North Slope
Foothills Areawide 2001: Final finding of
the Director. Alaska Department of Natural
Resources. February 2001.

And then,


"The Department has become aware that, in the southern portion of
the sale area, in certain limited circumstances, a gravel road or pad could be
the only feasible and prudent alternative to conduct certain exploration activities…the department is clarifying that…gravel roads and pads may be allowed for exploration in certain limited and site-specific circumstances."

Alaska Department of Natural
Resources.
. July 24, 2002. "Supplement to
North Slope Area-wide Best Interest
Finding. Use of Gravel Roads for
Exploration."

That wasn't enough so,


And in 2003, a broad exemption essentially allows the industry to build roads wherever it sees fit: Lease Stipulation #2: "Except for approved off-road travel, exploration activities must be supported only by ice roads, winter trails, existing road systems or air service…. Exceptions, including the use of gravel, may also be granted on a site-specific basis, if it is determined, after consulting with ADF&G, that no feasible and prudent alternatives exist for constructing an exploration road or pad.

Alaska Department of Natural
Resources. 2003. "Mitigation measures,
North Slope Foothills Areawide oil and gas
lease sale

Here's more,

The federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) attached stipulations to its leases in the Northeast corner of the NPR-A in 1999 that limit oil companies to "roadless development".

ConocoPhilips is now planning a 19-mile road that would violate the road ban

ConocoPhillips and Anadarko.
September 2002. Supporting
Documentation for Alpine Satellite
Development Program
last edited: 2/02/06 10:00:03 AM”

“Tango's post shows the continuing status of the construction (destruction) there.”

“An oil tanker has run aground at a port in Alaska, the US Coast Guard says.
The Seabulk Pride broke free from moorings while being loaded in Nikiski, south-west of Anchorage, and ran aground on silt.”

“LS & Tango - why do you like to argue with walls?”

“It's like watching the Berlin wall fall! Cause it's there!

Actually I didn't start out to, I thought I brought up a valid point. Oh well, live and learn (if you're smart).”

“Evidence shows a meat-based diet is bad for the environment, aggravates global hunger, brutalizes animals and compromises health. So why aren't more environmentalists vegetarians...

...All this comes at a time when meat consumption is reaching an all-time high around the world, quadrupling in the last 50 years. There are 20 billion head of livestock taking up space on the Earth, more than triple the number of people


Energy-intensive U.S. factory farms generated 1.4 billion tons of animal waste in 1996, which, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, pollutes American waterways more than all other industrial sources combined. Meat production has also been linked to severe erosion of billions of acres of once-productive farmland and to the destruction of rainforests.

http://www.alternet.org/story/12162”

“(sarcastically) : “lonesurveyor, stay on topic please we are talking about DDT and ONLY DDT!!!!” - Tango 8:56:13 AM 2/02/06

________________________________

“Tango, are you going to tie that into the current discusion for us? It was about the proper use of DDT and how many millions more people would live if we had used it, or are you changing the subject (which is fine of course if you are - just clarifying).” - Sarge 5:57:36 PM 2/01/06

Your response was:

Happy to Oblige Sgt.

...

When 'we' don't test the chemicals before their use how do 'we' know WHAT their "proper" use is? Is there a proper use of DDT?” - Tango 6:34:52 PM 2/01/06

________________________________

Tango, if you didn't mean it to be about DDT, you could have just said so instead of pretending like you were arguing against the DDT discussion.”

“The oil industry doesn't like a cut in oil R & D that Bush made in the latest budget. I laughed when I read this quote (full article in the link below):

"The IPAA, which represents companies that drill most of the oil and gas wells in the United States, said the Bush administration's focus on aiming research dollars toward alternative and cleaner fuels is misguided."

http://robots.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/06/budget.oil/index.html”

“BM - I only know one person who uses the environment as a reason for being vegetarian. Granted, I don't know many vegetrarians but I found the reason very interesting. I actually agree with the reasoning but don't have the willpower to follow through. This person did.”

“PS. I had a geology prof give the amount of water it takes to prodcue various things, orange, beer, cola, .... In the end, beer consumed the least amount of water to make it's product. His conclusion: don't drink OJ, drink beer!”

“January 7, 2006

Dear Carl,

Despite President Bush's announcement in last week's State of the Union address that “America is addicted to oil,” he is once again turning to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in hopes of a quick fix to our energy challenges. As we begin a new year, the Bush administration should remember the lessons we learned last year: that bending the rules to attach controversial issues, like Arctic drilling, to unrelated budget bills is unacceptable and unethical. This lesson was clearly illustrated when a coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats in the House forced powerful congressional leaders to remove Arctic drilling from the budget.

On February 15th, the House and Senate will meet in committee to discuss the budget for the first time. They will have an opportunity to incorporate last year's lesson by disregarding Bush's proposal and creating a budget that DOES NOT include Arctic drilling provisions. However, the only way to ensure that Congress does the right thing is to let them know between now and then that we are counting on them to keep Arctic out of the budget.

Please take action today to prevent another year of pointless debate and an endless number of Arctic budget votes. Tell your members it is time to put the Arctic debate behind us and move on to real, clean energy solutions.

CLICK HERE TO TAKE ACTION USING OUR CALL ALERT;-- here you will find more talking points and local phone numbers for your members.

In order for us to be successful, we need to receive as much feedback from the members as possible. So once you've made your call please be sure to fill out the report form at the end of the action alert and let us know what the member or their staff said.

Thank you for your continued support in protecting wild Alaska!

Best Regards,

Katie Little
Grassroots Campaigns Associate
Alaska Coalition

Visit www.alaskaaction.org; to get the latest news on issues related to Alaska's wild public lands and access grassroots tools so you can get active in your community.”

“screw Earth, dump more money into Space Exploration Research”

“WASHINGTON - The oil industry is welcoming, while environmentalists and some Florida lawmakers are opposing, a new Bush administration proposal to open a large area of the eastern Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas leasing.

The Interior Department’s leasing proposal, released Wednesday, would encompass more than two-thirds of an area known as Lease 181, while continuing to ban oil and gas development in waters within 100 miles of the Florida coast.

President Bush in 2001 assured Florida officials — including his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush — that the Lease 181 area would be protected at least through this year. The new proposal, expected to become final early next year, would cover the 2007-2012 leasing period.”

“I think I'll buy a horse to ride to work on.”

“President Bush in 2001 assured Florida officials — including his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush — that the Lease 181 area would be protected at least through this year. The new proposal, expected to become final early next year, would cover the 2007-2012 leasing period. - florida was an important potential swing state.”

“Relating to techntrek, I think that both oil companies and alternative energy companies should fund their own research. It would make the whole deal more competitive, and to the victor will go the spoils.”

“It is amazing how much money 'big oil' gets from the gov't. I just wish they alternative energies and oil would be on a level playing field. Biodiesel doesn't get anywhere near (if any) of the money breaks oil gets. It's sad! The American public doesn't know anything.

Did y'all hear the huge profits just announced for the gasoline companies for last year? Disgusting!!!!!!!!!!”