------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Peregrin Subject: Definition Date: Wed Jan 18 04:06:20 CST 1995 Message number: 1 Reply to message number: unavailable To All: This is a base to discuss environmental issues. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Tbob Subject: Re: boycott Date: Tue Apr 23 01:12:49 CDT 1996 Message number: 2 Reply to message number: -1 T> but I hope the info isn't used to boycott T> foreign food (like Chile) -- China is a One *definite* reason I boycott Chilean produce when I can is that they blatantly use pesticides that are banned for use in this country and then send us the produce created with it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Captain Teebo Subject: Re: boycotting corps.. Date: Fri Apr 26 18:32:59 CDT 1996 Message number: 3 Reply to message number: -2 DR> Me either; but you forgot to mention that they have their own county in DR> Florida, where they can avoid paying taxes for frivolities like schools and DR> education. CT> CT> Could you elaborate on this, I haven't heard about it at all..? Sounds pre CT> damn interesting.. Not much to elaborate on: Blockbuster has their own county in Florida, the same way that Disney does. Since the corporation is the only "citizen" of the county, there are no pesky citizens trying to tell them what to do with the tax revenues. CT> I wanted to get into Walmart, I'm glad you brought it up. The general CT> opposition to it is is that it goes into small towns, and they set there CT> prices so low that it ruins all the other buisnesses then they jack them ba CT> up again. While that's not exactly a nice thing to do, it is, by definitio Besides that, WalMart tends to locate on the outside of town. That forces the city to extend roads and sewer lines to it, and also ruins the local development patterns. The downtown becomes less central to the city, and local shoppers head to WalMart to save a nickel on their underwear. CT> capitalism. What I'm interested in is why don't the residents of these to CT> realize this and just refuse to buy from them? If they don't, isn't the CT> end result just a product of their own greed? A lot of people don't care to see the big picture, of how it will affect the small town's economy if they buy at WalMart. They don't see how the money will leave the city, along with the jobs. The big picture is too far away and too hard to understand; what really matters in the short-run is that a parent can save a few dollars on underwear and apply it towards milk and bread. Why I boycott WalMart, and not Target and Kmart is simple: they have a habit of building stores where the local community does not want them, and tend to use predatory pricing to hard the local competittion once they're there. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Captain Teebo Subject: Re: boycotting corps.. Date: Fri Apr 26 18:35:11 CDT 1996 Message number: 4 Reply to message number: -3 CT> Why Hormel? I remember seeing a sticker in the, ehhum, "little boys room" CT> telling me not to buy Hormel, but I was seven and didn't quite understand. CT> guess now would be a good time to find out. :) Date: 11:04 pm Sun Jun 25, 1995 Number : 115 of 256 From: Daedalus Rising Base : Minnesota Polit/X To : All Refer #: None Subj: Local P-9 Replies: None Stat: Normal Origin : Local Excerpts from the "Business" section of today's Strib A timeline of the events at the Austin plant in Hormel in 1984 Summer 1984: Union leaders for workers in seven Hormel plants meet with management to discuss a proposed wage cut October 1984: Six of the local unions agree to a wage cut from $10.69 to $9 an hour. Local P-9 in Austin refuses ... Hormel imposes wages of $8.25 per hour. Aug 11, 1985: P-9 rejects Hormel's final offer Aug 17, 1985: Contract talks collapse; 1,422 workers walk in P-9's first strike since 1933. Jan. 13, 1986: ... Hormel reopens the Austin plant and invites the P-9ers back to work on company terms. Jan. 20: Gov. Rudy Perpich sends nearly 500 National Guardsmen to Austin. Using replacement workers and P-9ers who crossed the picket line, the plant reopens the next day. Jan. 21: P-9 demonstrators block plant gates with a barricade. March 14: Calling the walkout a lost cause, the parent union withdraws its sanction for the strike. Despite the loss of support, P-9 members vote to continue the strike. June 2: With the support of a Federal court order, P-9's parent union is allowed to put the local in trusteeship, ousting its leaders. Sept. 15: Austin plant workers ratify a new contract. 1987: Trusteeship ends ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: boycotting corps.. Date: Sat Apr 27 01:54:42 CDT 1996 Message number: 5 Reply to message number: 3 DR> Why I boycott WalMart, and not Target and Kmart is simple: they have a hab DR> of building stores where the local community does not want them, and tend t DR> use predatory pricing to hard the local competittion once they're there. DR> Besides that, WalMart tends to locate on the outside of town. That forces DR> city to extend roads and sewer lines to it, and also ruins the local DR> development patterns. The downtown becomes less central to the city, and lo There have been two netwo new Walmart stores built here. One was built in Forest Lake, in town, but right next door to the new K-Mart. Because of its location, all the oil and salt residue from the parking lot drains into protected wetland, and although they raised hell about it, environmentalists couldn't stop it because the drainage is into the next county and out of the jurisdiction of the zoning officials who approved the Walmart. The other one is exactly as you described -- halfway between Cambridge and North Branch. Besides competing with the small local stores, they are also competing with the new Tanger Mall. And of course, Cambridge had to provide them with water, sewer, and police. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: boycotting corps.. Date: Sat Apr 27 01:57:51 CDT 1996 Message number: 6 Reply to message number: 4 DR> March 14: Calling the walkout a lost cause, the parent union withdraws its DR> sanction for the strike. Despite the loss of support, P-9 members vote to DR> continue the strike. DR> DR> June 2: With the support of a Federal court order, P-9's parent union is DR> allowed to put the local in trusteeship, ousting its leaders. DR> Sept. 15: Austin plant workers ratify a new contract. DR> DR> 1987: Trusteeship ends ... It is a sad day when a parent union busts its own local. Grrrrr. Can you say, "Wildcat?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BRIAREOS HECATONCHIRES To: Froggy Subject: Re: boycotting corps.. Date: Mon Apr 29 16:03:53 CDT 1996 Message number: 7 Reply to message number: -7 F> To answer your question -- yes. I have been boycotting Nestle for F> about 15 years now, because of their ruthless and sleazy marketing methods i F> the third world. I have been boycotting Hormel for about 10 years, and this Like what? F> buying a GM car. They are still using dogs and other animals in crash tests That's just stupid. What kind of information would that provide? Info about the effects of a crash on your pet on the way to vet? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Briareos Hecatonchires Subject: Re: boycotting corps.. Date: Mon Apr 29 20:06:39 CDT 1996 Message number: 8 Reply to message number: 7 F> To answer your question -- yes. I have been boycotting Nestle for F> about 15 years now, because of their ruthless and sleazy marketing methods i F> the third world. I have been boycotting Hormel for about 10 years, and this BH> BH> Like what? BH> I assume that you are asking what sleazy techniques Nettle used. They aremselling their infant formula to mothers in the third world by sending in saleswomen dressed as nurses to tell them that it is better for their babies than breast milk. A single can of the formula costs as much as many families earn in a whole month, so the mothers dilute it more and more to stretch it. They do not realize that this is starving the baby. The "nurses" also do not tell them that most of the water that they use to mix it is contaminated and makes the babies sick in its own right. There are other things, but this is the worst. F> buying a GM car. They are still using dogs and other animals in crash tests BH> BH> That's just stupid. What kind of information would that provide? Info BH> about the effects of a crash on your pet on the way to vet? I would like to see their lab reports on this to see myself. The only thing I can think of that makes any sense at all is to test how children of the same weight become projectiles in a moving car. But they could still find this out by using robots. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Froggy Subject: Re: boycotting corps.. Date: Wed May 01 09:48:17 CDT 1996 Message number: 9 Reply to message number: 5 F> There have been two netwo new Walmart stores built here. One was F> built in Forest Lake, in town, but right next door to the new K-Mart. Becau F> of its location, all the oil and salt residue from the parking lot drains in What makes these city councils and zoning boards think that having a WalMart in town will do anything but hurt the local economy? They bring crime, pollution and traffic ... and return a trickle of property taxes, low-paying jobs and a stream of money out of the state and into Arkansas. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: boycotting corps.. Date: Wed May 01 12:49:25 CDT 1996 Message number: 10 Reply to message number: 9 F> There have been two netwo new Walmart stores built here. One was F> built in Forest Lake, in town, but right next door to the new K-Mart. Becau F> of its location, all the oil and salt residue from the parking lot drains in DR> DR> What makes these city councils and zoning boards think that having a WalMa DR> in town will do anything but hurt the local economy? They bring crime, DR> pollution and traffic ... and return a trickle of property taxes, low-payin DR> jobs and a stream of money out of the state and into Arkansas. Forest Lake has a Republican mayor and Board, as well as a very active Chamber of Commerce. I can't figure out why, but the CC strongly supported this. The others -- well, we all know that business can do no wrong. Cambridge desperately needs even those low-paying jobs because so many farms are failing here and being sold off for suburban style homesteads. They even tried to put in a medical waste incinerator because Fairview was waving 3! minimum wage jobs under their noses. Community activistists managed to trounce that idea. I told the hospital rep that I lived downwind of Cambridge, whipped out a list of predicted burning products from that type of plant, and asked them if they would guarantee lifetime medical care to me and all of my family to be sure we are not injured by these products. Dioxin was one of them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BRIAREOS HECATONCHIRES To: Froggy Subject: Re: boycotting corps.. Date: Thu May 02 16:23:20 CDT 1996 Message number: 11 Reply to message number: 8 F> I assume that you are asking what sleazy techniques Nettle used. Th Yeah, and that's repugnant. I'm not buying any of their products any more. F> I would like to see their lab reports on this to see myself. The F> only thing I can think of that makes any sense at all is to test how childre F> of the same weight become projectiles in a moving car. But they could still F> find this out by using robots. Exactly. If people have the prescence of mind to use shorter dummies to gather data on shorter people, then they should be able to do the same for animals. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Briareos Hecatonchires Subject: Re: boycotting corps.. Date: Thu May 02 17:16:41 CDT 1996 Message number: 12 Reply to message number: 11 F> of the same weight become projectiles in a moving car. But they could still F> find this out by using robots. BH> BH> Exactly. If people have the prescence of mind to use shorter dummies t BH> gather data on shorter people, then they should be able to do the same for BH> animals. Makes you wonder if their engineers are too inept to figure this out, how good their automobile design is. Well, I'm on my way over to visit with my neighbors and their sled dog team and their new FORD truck. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARING DIANE J. To: All Subject: Attitude question on land Date: Wed May 08 12:43:01 CDT 1996 Message number: 13 Reply to message number: unavailable I am responsible for a discussion workshop among Quakers on May 26 about "Rethinking Inherited Attitudes about the Environment." In examining my own destructive ideas which I inherited from my parents and public schooling, I came up with a list of ideas regarding hunting, fishing, land development and ownership, and changing the landscape like the Dutch did when they "reclaimed" land from the sea. I am curious what input Dissenters can give me about ideas they have regarding the environment, since you tend to be a very critically thinking bunch. Have you acquired new attitudes lately? Have you trashed old ones, and, if so, what are they? I think a provocative question to get folks thinking about this is: Who should be allowed to own land and who should not be allowed to own it? Looking forward to your comments... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: CAPTAIN TEEBO To: Daring Diane J. Subject: Re: Attitude question on land Date: Wed May 08 15:03:07 CDT 1996 Message number: 14 Reply to message number: 13 DD> I am curious what input Dissenters can give me about ideas they have regard DD> the environment, since you tend to be a very critically thinking bunch. Ha DD> you acquired new attitudes lately? Have you trashed old ones, and, if so, DD> what are they? DD> DD> I think a provocative question to get folks thinking about this is: DD> Who should be allowed to own land and who should not be allowed to own it? (This is why I like totalitarian communist regimes, the subjects being ruled don't have to think as much. ) *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MAILER DAEMON To: All Subject: We want our nukes Date: Mon May 13 07:27:13 CDT 1996 Message number: 15 Reply to message number: unavailable ------------------------- Via Workers World News Service Reprinted from the May 16, 1996 issue of Workers World newspaper ------------------------- PLUTONIUM MENACE: WEAPONS UPGRADE THREATENS PLAINS STATES By Stephanie Hedgecoke U.S. Department of Energy war hawks are quietly planning a $30-billion upgrade of the nuclear arsenal over the next five to 10 years, says a coalition called Save Texas Agriculture and Resources. Almost no national media have covered these plans, which include moving tons of deadly plutonium to the agricultural Great Plains for processing and storage. The plans threaten a major water supply for eight states. But it is difficult for the opposition to organize as the site chosen to process the plutonium, a plant called Pantex outside Amarillo, Texas, is hundreds of miles from other urban areas. Fifty environmental activists and farmers from the anti- Pantex coalition, known by its initials as STAR, protested DOE hearings there April 22-23. Rally organizer Mavis Belisle explained the plans to WW: "The government's `Stockpile Stewardship and Management' statement continues design and production capability of nuclear weapons." SSM projections include "staggering rates of nuclear waste generation." Belisle, director of the group Peace Camp, added, "Plans called `Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials'--meaning plutonium processing--dissolve the illusion of a barrier between civilian and military use." DOE functions as the Pentagon's civilian nuclear arm. DOE shut down Rocky Flats, Colo., plutonium processing in 1992 and converted Pantex to disassembling retired warheads and storing plutonium pits. The U.S. has produced 100 metric tons of plutonium since the mid-1950s at its Hanford, Wash., and Savannah River, S.C., plants. DOE has already transported 21 tons to Pantex. It will endanger the country moving the rest from Rocky Flats, Hanford, Savannah River, Los Alamos, the Nevada Test Site and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Amarillo's water well-fields, near Pantex, are part of the Ogallala Aquifer, a vast natural underground reservoir that serves Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota and Wyoming. Belisle said, "DOE knows plutonium storage could begin to contaminate the aquifer in 50 years." The Texas Panhandle produces 25 percent of U.S. beef, and ships meat and cereal grains around the world. A substantial portion of U.S. organic grains is produced at nearby Arrowhead Mills. Plutonium processing creates risks of nuclear accidents, but DOE makes no provisions to protect or compensate Plains residents in the event of accident or aquifer contamination. STAR asks activists to call or fax protests to DOE at 1- 800-820-5156 about the "Stockpile and Stewardship" and the storage and disposition statements. While all this is going on, the Clinton administration and the Pentagon give the impression that they are downsizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal. There is an ongoing public relations campaign against "nuclear proliferation," as though the nuclear danger comes from other countries. But the continued huge U.S. military budgets make a mockery of this so-called era of peace, and so does the processing of materials for nuclear bombs. - END - (Copyright Workers World Service: Permission to reprint granted if source is cited. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: ww@wwpublish.com. For subscription info send message to: ww-info@wwpublish.com. Web: http://www.workers.org) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Mailer Daemon Subject: Re: We want our nukes Date: Mon May 13 11:12:46 CDT 1996 Message number: 16 Reply to message number: 15 MD> U.S. Department of Energy war hawks are quietly planning a MD> $30-billion upgrade of the nuclear arsenal over the next MD> five to 10 years, says a coalition called Save Texas MD> Agriculture and Resources. MD> So much for the Cold War being over. :( MD> nuclear weapons." SSM projections include "staggering rates MD> of nuclear waste generation." MD> MD> Belisle said, "DOE knows plutonium storage could begin to MD> contaminate the aquifer in 50 years." MD> MD> Plutonium processing creates risks of nuclear accidents, MD> but DOE makes no provisions to protect or compensate Plains MD> residents in the event of accident or aquifer contamination. MD> Regardless of what political party is in power, this seems to always be the case -- someone's desire to stockpile these lethal substances always seems to be more important than people and the environment. MD> Materials'--meaning plutonium processing--dissolve the MD> illusion of a barrier between civilian and military use." MD> DOE functions as the Pentagon's civilian nuclear arm. MD> They always were combined. To begin with, the military alsays controlled nuclear power and nuclear fuel/waste. Then, I think in the 70s, The DOE was established and set aside as a civilian arm to replace the NRC. The only problem is thatthe NRC never disappeared and the military has always retained control of nuclear plants because of the military threat of stolen plutonium. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Daring Diane J. Subject: Re: Attitude question on land Date: Fri May 17 06:07:10 CDT 1996 Message number: 17 Reply to message number: 13 DD> I think a provocative question to get folks thinking about this is: DD> Who should be allowed to own land and who should not be allowed to own it? It all goes back to "land rights", I think. Despite conservative protests to the contrary, land rights have never been highly respected by the courts. Thus, local cities can pass zoning ordinances and require permits; states can prevent the loss of wetlands; and the national government can prevent people from insulating with asbestos. These laws only have to pass the weakest form of constitutional muster: the regulation in question must serve a legitimate government interest, and not be intentionally discriminatory towards one group or another. However, if land is outright taken away or its value reduced severely then the bill of rights comes into play; the property owner must be compensated for their loss. Which gets to the question of what "owning" the land really means. In the applied sense of the word, no one "owns" land. If I own a television, I can smash the picture tube in. I can take it apart, throw it own the stairs or even plug it in and watch NBC. Any law to the contrary would likely be struck down by the courts, because the laws would serve no legitimate government interest. If I own a piece of land, I can't necesasarily drain the swamps and cut down all the trees. Any laws limiting this would likely be upheld, because limiting the use of the land is a legitimate government interest. "Why is land different?" is an interesting question worth exploring a bit, though I'm somewhat pressed for time right now. Anyone else care to jump in? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Attitude question on land Date: Fri May 17 07:45:26 CDT 1996 Message number: 18 Reply to message number: 17 DR> If I own a piece of land, I can't necesasarily drain the swamps and cut do DR> all the trees. Any laws limiting this would likely be upheld, because limit DR> the use of the land is a legitimate government interest. DR> DR> If I own a television, I can smash the picture tube in. I can take it apar DR> throw it own the stairs or even plug it in and watch NBC. Any law to the DR> contrary would likely be struck down by the courts, because the laws would But you can't put it into the landfill, because that is a violation of the first statement. DR> "Why is land different?" is an interesting question worth exploring a bit, DR> though I'm somewhat pressed for time right now. Anyone else care to jump in I think that there are 2 main issues. One is that use and alteration of land does not affect jost the "owner." If he builds a factory on "his" land and drains aoo the effluent into his neighbors' yards. the neighbors are affected. If the effluent soaks into tha groundwater, the whole community is affected. The other issue is the issue of perpetuity. Whatever is done to the land alters if and is usually not immediately resolved. It is transferred downward and following generations have to live with the changes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Dolphin Hunt Date: Tue Jun 25 06:59:21 CDT 1996 Message number: 19 Reply to message number: unavailable From: kenyarb@earthisland.org (Ken Yarborough- Earth Island Institute) Subject: Dolphin Tuna Call-in Week Organization: http://www.earthisland.org/ DOLPHION SAFE / FAIR TRADE CAMPAIGN SAVE THE DOLPHINS! NATIONAL CALL-IN WEEK JUNE 17-21 Mark you calendars to make these important calls. Efforts by the Mexican government, the Clinton Administration, and five so-called conservation groups have resulted in DOLPHIN-DEADLY legislation that may BE VOTED ON ANY DAY. H.R.2823 AND S.1420 are bad bills that would redefine "dolphin-Safe" to allow chase, capture and encirclement in mile-long purse sein nets. Tuna cans would deceptively display the dolphin-safe label even if dolphins were severely injured or died as a result of tuna fishing. U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Joe Biden (D-DE), introduced a good bill S.1460 to counter the above bills. In the House H.R. 2856 is the counterpart to the good senate bill. These good bills won't allow a change in the definition, or a return to chase and encirclement. * Please call your U.S. Senators at the U.S. Capitol Switchboard 202-224-3121 and tell them to OPPOSE S.1420 and support S.1460 * Call your Congressperson at 202-225-3121 and tell them to reject H.R, 2823 and support H.R. 2856 * Call Newt Gingrich, House Speaker at 202-225-0600 and tell him the same thing, he can stop H.R. 2823 * Call the President at 202-456-1111 and tell him to withdraw his support for the dolphin-death bills S.1420/H.R. 2823. If you don't know your U.S. Rep, call local library or the board of elections. For more information: contact Humane Society of the U.S. 2100 L Street, NW Washington D.C. tel.: 202-452-1100 International Marine Mammal Project Earth Island Institute 300 Broadway, Suite 28 San Francisco, CA 94133 tel.: (415) 788-3666 fax: (415) 788-7324 email: marinemammal@igc.apc.org WWW: http://www.earthisland.org/ This effort is backed by 85 environmental, trade, consumer and animal protection groups nationwide. -- Earth Island Institute Ken Yarborough http://www.earthisland.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BADLANDS To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: boycotting corps.. Date: Sun Jul 14 21:01:56 CDT 1996 Message number: 20 Reply to message number: 9 DR> What makes these city councils and zoning boards think that having a WalMa DR> in town will do anything but hurt the local economy? They bring crime, DR> pollution and traffic ... and return a trickle of property taxes, low-payin DR> jobs and a stream of money out of the state and into Arkansas. That's why I endorse shoplifting from Wal-Mart... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Badlands Subject: Re: boycotting corps.. Date: Mon Jul 15 04:09:43 CDT 1996 Message number: 21 Reply to message number: 20 B> That's why I endorse shoplifting from Wal-Mart... But is it really Wal-Marts fault? It's up to the community to decide if they should or shouldn't allow that kind of store there, if they allow it why should Wal-Mart reject? *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: boycotting corps.. Date: Mon Jul 15 13:54:44 CDT 1996 Message number: 22 Reply to message number: 21 B> That's why I endorse shoplifting from Wal-Mart... BT> BT> But is it really Wal-Marts fault? It's up to the community to decide if th BT> should or shouldn't allow that kind of store there, if they allow it why BT> should Wal-Mart reject? BT> Well, the community makes those decisions based on the quality of traffic that store brings into the community. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: BADLANDS Subject: Re: boycotting corps.. Date: Wed Jul 17 01:40:04 CDT 1996 Message number: 23 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Badlands to Daedalus Rising <=- DR> What makes these city councils and zoning boards think that having a Wal DR> in town will do anything but hurt the local economy? They bring crime, DR> pollution and traffic ... and return a trickle of property taxes, low-pay DR> jobs and a stream of money out of the state and into Arkansas. Ba> That's why I endorse shoplifting from Wal-Mart... What good does that do, though? It just gives WalMart an excuse to raise prices once their local monopoly has been established ... ... Eat the rich. The poor are tough and stringy. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: BIG TEEBO Subject: Re: boycotting corps.. Date: Wed Jul 17 01:40:05 CDT 1996 Message number: 24 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Big Teebo to Badlands <=- B> That's why I endorse shoplifting from Wal-Mart... BT> But is it really Wal-Marts fault? It's up to the community to decide BT> if they should or shouldn't allow that kind of store there, if they BT> allow it why should Wal-Mart reject? Actually, no - they can't. :) Local cities have very little to do with what specific company comes to roost in their town. They have control over zoning (commercial, industrial, residential), but once an area is zoned they cannot prohibit WalMart from building there - they'd be sued, and would lose badly. Community groups often try to stop WalMart from coming into town, but unfortunately it's not as simple as erecting a `no WalMart' barrier outside of town. I don't know much more than that though, as zoning is a really complex tool that doesn't get much publicity. ... Money can't buy happiness, but allows a choice of misery. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: boycotting corps.. Date: Wed Jul 17 04:24:20 CDT 1996 Message number: 25 Reply to message number: 24 DR> Community groups often try to stop WalMart from coming into town, but DR> unfortunately it's not as simple as erecting a `no WalMart' barrier outside DR> of town. I don't know much more than that though, as zoning is a really DR> complex tool that doesn't get much publicity. Okay, now I think I get it: 1. Community zones for commercial. 2. WalMart sets up shop. 3. Community members ban WalMart for infringing on their economics. 4. This has no effect since it's the out-of-towners that brings in the buisness. Correct? *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: boycotting corps.. Date: Wed Jul 17 06:23:16 CDT 1996 Message number: 26 Reply to message number: 25 BT> Okay, now I think I get it: BT> BT> 1. Community zones for commercial. BT> 2. WalMart sets up shop. BT> 3. Community members ban WalMart for infringing on their economics. BT> 4. This has no effect since it's the out-of-towners that brings in the BT> buisness. BT> BT> Correct? BT> Not exactly. Change #4 to: 4. Because it buys in volume and in special deals from manufacturers, Walmart buys products very cheaply. Walmart sets prices lower than community businesses can, in fact, sometimes lower than small business'wholesale costs. 5. Unable to compete, small business owners go bankrupt, close businesses, and get jobs as clerks at Walmart. Got it? The solution to the problem is for everyone to buy a bicycle at Coast to Coast foe $200, when they can get the same bicycle at Walmart for $140. I don't see folks rushing to do this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Froggy Subject: Re: boycotting corps.. Date: Wed Jul 17 17:16:39 CDT 1996 Message number: 27 Reply to message number: 26 BT> 4. This has no effect since it's the out-of-towners that brings in the BT> buisness. F> Not exactly. Change #4 to: F> 4. Because it buys in volume and in special deals from F> manufacturers, Walmart buys products very cheaply. Walmart sets prices lowe F> than community businesses can, in fact, sometimes lower than small F> business'wholesale costs. F> F> 5. Unable to compete, small business owners go bankrupt, close F> businesses, and get jobs as clerks at Walmart. Yep, that's what I meant, the protesting doesn't have an affect. I would hope that at least the community members would have the decency not to buy from WalMart for at least a little while.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: FROGGY Subject: Re: boycotting corps.. Date: Thu Jul 18 08:43:28 CDT 1996 Message number: 28 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy to Big Teebo <=- Fr> Got it? The solution to the problem is for everyone to Fr> buy a bicycle at Coast to Coast foe $200, when they can get the same Fr> bicycle at Walmart for $140. I don't see folks rushing to do this. It's usually not that large of a gap, though - and in this case, the scale of the difference is pretty significant. Even a few cents will drive some customers to the store, not to mention their other advantages like excellent name recognition, larger selection and weekly full-color ads. As for the rpices, there is a certain advantage in killing he competittion. But that's only in the short term - in the medium to long run, WalMart is not dull enough to have more than 1 5-10% price difference on most items, simply because there's extra profit to be had in pricing as high as the market will bear. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: boycotting corps.. Date: Thu Jul 18 10:13:39 CDT 1996 Message number: 29 Reply to message number: 28 DR> like excellent name recognition, larger selection and weekly full-color DR> ads. Off subject But, Have you ever noticed that software companys like 3Drealms, and ID, and so on, blame the inflation of Video games (3d ones.. of course) on pirating.. But did you also notice the Full color manuals, and so on.. the detail on the CD it'self? Hmm sounds fishey to me.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Starfox Subject: Re: boycotting corps.. Date: Thu Jul 18 16:17:50 CDT 1996 Message number: 30 Reply to message number: 29 S> Off subject But, Have you ever noticed that software companys like 3Drealms, S> and ID, and so on, blame the inflation of Video games (3d ones.. of course) S> pirating.. But did you also notice the Full color manuals, and so on.. the S> detail on the CD it'self? Hmm sounds fishey to me.. The Pirate's Manifesto for 1994 -* RELEASED ON MAY 22 1994 *- - Read this and learn the only real facts - about the police, software companies, and the hidden agenda of phone companies Dear Fellow Pirates : Well... it certainly is beginning to get kind of tiresome about all the wienies that are trying to fuck up the pirate scene around the world. But I think the time has come to spell out some simple info to try to clue some folks into the big picture. Let us first begin by talking about all the supposed rats that think a phone call to SPA, CAAST, BSA or FAAST are going to bring about the instant death of some bulletin board - YOU ARE SO FUCKING MISTAKEN. These coalitions of software publishers are like a company. They make money from all the software publishers who lamely join them hoping it will make some form of difference to the amount of warez being spread. They are wrong. Each of these lame organizations exist solely to make money from the software publishers - think about it - if there were no pirates than these organizations would have no reason to exist. Ok so you ask how come we hear of them when a big bust occurs - well that is exactly the only time you ever hear of them - when it is a major bust that occurs. These organizations only bust bulletin boards where it will make them money to do so. Look at the Rusty & Edie bust, do you think they went after them because they were 'elite' ? No, they went after them because they could sue their asses off and make money off them. Look at any other genuine bust in the last four years and you will find that the targets they decided to eliminate all had a solid financial base against which to sue for $$$$$ Remember the pirate system in California run by a doctor... lots of money there. Each time there has been a real raid by the feds it has always turned out that the system raided was worth $$$$$ to them. Face reality, court cost are expensive. These organizations don't raid anyone just for the hell of it. They pick their targets carefully so that when they win in court they will get back $$$$$ from the targets. When was the last time you ever heard of any 14 year old zit headed sysop with a 20 line BBS being busted - it just never happens - cuz they know they can't sue him or his parents. So there is simply no point trying to drag him into court. Now what about these supposed anonymous callers who try to rat on a BBS by calling these organizations and providing information. Well in most cases the organizations simply take the information, act polite and than never do anything with the info. After all, anonymous info is not worth shit to them. It simply serves to keep sysops scared - and fear is the only weapon they have to keep pirate systems in check. Let's face it dudes - with over 10,000 pirate BBS's in the United States alone there is no way they could ever hope to kill all of them. So by means of fear they try to control the pirate epidemic. But for every elite system that goes down 10 new ones appear - so the organizations simply cannot win against the pirates overwhelming numbers. One of the problems that face the users who take time to try to rat on a BBS is that things are not as anonymous for them as they thought. All phones at SPA, CAAST, FAAST, BSA and others are monitored. All incoming phone numbers are recorded. If some fools think that 1-800 phone numbers do not record the incoming phone number than they are seriously mistaken. All calls are tape recorded - they like maintaining the information they receive on tape. Think about it for a sec. What is the value of voice recordings ? A voice recording is like a fingerprint. With the use of voice analysis they can accurately identify the caller if they should ever want to check up on him/her and take them to court. A text file like this is truly anonymous - no one will ever know who typed it. A voice recording of this same information would absolutely identify myself. So the point of this little paragraph is to simply mention that people who get into the habit of making calls to these organizations usually find that information about themselves has been passed to the Secret Service or FBI or RCMP or New Scotland Yard. After all... if you have information to give about a pirate system, than indirectly you have implicated yourself as being a pirate as well. The cops are only too interested in investigating the informers to see if they can use the information that they gain on the rats to subvert the rats to do their bidding. Trust a cop - yah - they will burn anyone if if fits their agenda. Now let us go further into the strange relationship that pirates have with the software publishers to find out why they do not take a greater level of interest in the zillions of warez that are spread throughout the world each year by pirates. I believe gentleman that we have been the unwitting dupes of the software companies. Over the past ten years the software publishers have found that by allowing pirates to run wild it has helped them sale more of their products than they would have sold if we did not exist. Face it dudes - we spread their warez, it gets into the hands of hundreds of thousands of users, and eventually people do go and pay for the software after analyzing all the different packages. For some companies this is the only way their product would have ever made it into the hands of prospective clients. If the pirates had not helped distribute those files many of the software companies would have died a long time ago. Another benefit the pirates provide to the software companies is an excuse for the massive overcharging they do on software products. They blame the pirates for them having to charge 10 times what the damn stuff is actually worth. Convenient to have the pirates as a scapegoat for their bloated profits. We all know that a $ 59 game is really marketable for $ 6 - but because of pirates they can cry that they are not making sufficient profit margins to cover their losses and so the lamers blindly accept this crap and pay the higher markup. But let us face another fact of reality and that is that pirates may indeed steal software - but NONE OF US would have bought it in the first place, we simply steal it to steal it. Most of us spend ten minutes looking at the particular piece of software and then we delete it cuz it was crap. So it lets a lot of steam out of the software publishers claims that we stole anything or that they lost anything - nothing was lost cuz they would never have sold it to us in the first place. You can't lose profits that would never have existed in the first place. So why do some software companies really hate pirates. In most cases it is the software company that produces inferior products that hates us the most. You know which companies I mean - the ones who usually have the most spectacular advertisements in the trade magazines - the ones who spend more on their advertising campaigns than on the development of the software. The ones who by glossy advertisements suck the unsuspecting public into buying their product - only to find out that the game/util was vastly inferior or useless compared to other software products out there. The pirates analyze all the warez that pass by them. In a way we become specialist at detecting inferior and superior products. We make recommendations everyday amongst ourselves and with outsiders about which software product rulez and which one sucks. We analyze warez upto 3 months before a review shows up in the magazines - they have 3 month lead times for publication, we operate in less than 24 hours from the time we receive the warez. Pirates expose inferior warez for what they are - rip offs - and this pisses off the low life software publishers whose only existence is based on selling inferior products to the uninformed. Now let us take a moment to look at the telephone companies as they also operate on a hidden agenda that is not too well known. Pirates make extensive use of telecommunications and long distance phone calls. In some cases pirates actually pay for their long distance - this benefits the phone companies who make $$$$$ on each of those phone calls. In some cases pirates use calling cards and hacked PBX's to make their phone calls - this also benefits the phone company because in most cases THEY MAKE THE OWNER of those cards or PBX's pay even though it was not them who made the calls. Does anyone not remember how the phone company held Kodak to ransom for over 1 million dollars worth of hacked phone calls made on their phone system. Or what about the $ 500,000 worth of phone calls made against the Digital phone systems. The phone companies have a really simple approach to this - if a companies phone system is hacked and a ton of illegal calls are made on it - it is not the phone companies fault - they hold the company that owns the phones liable for all long distance charges made against their phone system. It is the responsibility of the phones owners to safeguard their calling card number or PBX passwords and if some luckless pirate happens to gain access to it than it is not the phone companies fault - the owner of the phone number has to pay. So you can see that we help greatly to boost the profits of the phone companies. In Canada for example, Bell Telephone is that countries highest profit company. Statistics taken from Bell Canada's own annual report show that their biggest area of profit is long distance charges that occur during the off peak hours. These are the prime times that pirates operate... overnight express. But if you think about it, what would that phone companies phone lines be doing from midnight until 6:00am the next morning - does anyone really believe that there are zillions of legitimate phone calls occurring during those off hours - NO those calls are almost exclusively being made by pirates. So by pumping through those calls in the wee hours of the morning we are helping to put profit into what would otherwise be totally dead time on their networks. If we weren't there - there would be only 5% of the call traffic that they presently enjoy. And so for that reason I say the existence of pirates have helped profit the pockets of the phone companies. And if you need further convincing about the crooked motives of the phone companies than consider this simple fact. When a long distance call goes from one country to another, or from one phone company to another the destination phone company receives COMPENSATION directly from the originating phone company. Between the two companies they split the profit of the phone call - this is because it took their two networks to complete the one call - and for that both deserve a percentage of the $$$$$ made on that phone call. Now think about this for a second - a pirate system in the 201 exchange receives 10,000 illegal calls per month. This represents quite a few dollars for which the destination phone company is going to make $$$$$$$ no matter what happens - it is going to be paid by the phone company where the calls originated from. I think you can see that the destination phone company has absolutely no motivation to assist the police or anyone to kill that pirate system that is bringing in these long distance phone calls. But how about one final stab at the scum that manage the phone companies - just to expose how crooked they are - Like the software (continued) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: All Subject: part 2 Date: Thu Jul 18 16:21:22 CDT 1996 Message number: 31 Reply to message number: 30 make $$$$$$$ no matter what happens - it is going to be paid by the phone company where the calls originated from. I think you can see that the destination phone company has absolutely no motivation to assist the police or anyone to kill that pirate system that is bringing in these long distance phone calls. But how about one final stab at the scum that manage the phone companies - just to expose how crooked they are - Like the software companies, the phone companies use the pirates as scapegoats when they go to seek higher phone rates. Yes, they use us to extract higher rates from the regulators who control how much they can charge. They cry that they are being burned to the tune of millions of dollars and have to charge the honest law abiding phone callers higher rates to make up for all the losses they suffer at the hands of telecomm pirates. Well I think you can see now that they never loss anything in the first place because Bell always makes money - even on a pirated phone call. I will not bother to discuss how the modem manufacturers have gotten a free ride on the backs of pirates. But let's face it - without pirates the world would still be limping around with 2400 baud modems. It is the pirates - NOT BIG BUSINESS - that demanded and got faster and faster modems. Our needs for the movement of files are far greater than all of that of Big Business. In a way you could say that the demands of the pirate world have helped Big Business. We force cutting edge technology to do our job and the modem companies are glad to supply us AT A COST. Who do you think will make up the majority of purchasers of the new 28.8 baud modems ? I laugh if you thought it was the government or some big companies. We all know it is the pirates. It sure as hell isn't going to be Henry PD Dickwad who calls CompuSlave or Genyuk. Let's face it dudes - pirates made US Robotics the leader in the industry by making it the modem of choice of the underworld !! And I believe you can rest assured that they know that all to well ! Have you ever wondered why US Robotics never gave to the cops a list of all the sysops who have bought their high speed modems ? Course they wouldn't - without us John Q Pirate would have no need to keep upgrading to the latest product offering coming from them. Lastly, let us share a few fast words about the police. The cops do not even have enough money to eradicate drugs, illegal weapons or prostitutes. Do the lamers of the world really think that in these tough economic times that the cops would dedicate the ever shrinking budgets that they have to use it up chasing pirates. Get real. The cops are FORCED to spend their ever shrinking budgets fighting real crime - ones where there are victims - and as I have already shown software piracy is a victimless crime. So to the lamers of the world who operate under some mistaken impression that there are thousands of police out there with nothing better to do than chase pirates, I simply say to you to 'Wake up and smell the coffee you uninformed dickwad' Now that I have exposed the hidden agenda of the phone companies, the software companies, and the supposed anti-piracy organizations I will now slip comfortably back into my silent mode again and smile knowing that after 13 years in this pirate business I will still have at least another 13 years of this fun to enjoy. The wienies that attempt to scare pirate boards with their idle threats of bust simply do not know the big picture, the hidden agendas or how their lame actions simply do not matter. The only people their lame actions hurt are themselves as they find themselves kicked out of all the pirate circles and they are removed from the elite world that we know as piracy. It is too bad that a few lamers surface in our underground world trying to act tough by speaking of bust and betrayal. Grow up kiddies and learn to play the game or leave it.... because you will never change it. In closing I extend special greets to all the groups that are out there bringing warez to the masses. Your efforts are greatly appreciated by all, including the software companies, telephone companies and yes even the anti-piracy organizations. For without your excellent efforts they would never have continued to exist either.....or made such profits !! --* TC *-- May 22 1994 PS : Hey... you didn't really expect me to put my full handle here ( believe me... they will be pissed to learn this info is out ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Screw the Lake Date: Tue Jul 23 11:59:30 CDT 1996 Message number: 32 Reply to message number: unavailable From: Alice McCombs Subject: STOP ACID THREAT TO LAKE SUPERIOR ACTION ALERT! Stop Acid Threat to Lake Superior Walt Bresette Lake Superior Alliance Route 1, Box 117 Bayfield, WI 54814 PH: 715-779-5071 / FX: 715-779-3465 Email: bresette@win.bright.net On July 1, 1996 the U.S. EPA (Region V, Chicago Office) authorized the injection of sulfuric acid solution into an abandoned copper mine five miles from Lake Superior near Ontonagon, Michigan. The White Pine Mine is owned by INMET, a Canadian firm which had to cease smelting operations at White Pine after being found in gross violations of the Clean Air Act. The White Pine Mine, operated by the Copper Range Corporation (CRC), then filed for a Michigan permit to recover the remaining copper ore from the pillars of the abandoned mine. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), after one hearingt in January of 1996, gave CRC the go-ahead in May. The regional EPA authorization was expected within a week of MDEQ's permit. NEJAC Puts Temporary Hold on Project However EPA authorization was withheld temporarily following complaints by the Red Cliff Chippewa tribe before the U.S. EPA's National Environmental Justice Environmental Justice Advisory Council on May 30 in Detroit; a resolution was passed calling on EPA Administrator Carol Browner to overturn the regional decision until a full Environmental Impact Statement was completed, until an Environmental Justice Analysis was done, and until the treaty rights of the Lake Superior Chippewa were taken into account. In a meager attempt at satisfying the tribe's concerns, Region V EPA arranged a meeting at the White Pine between tribal officials and the INMET officials. While none of those who attended the mine tour were satisfied, the EPA immediately authorized the acid injection, arguing that the tribe's interests were being met. They have further stated that they will meet once more with the tribes in the future but have refused to stop the operations. Sulfuric Acid Trains Move North Over Unsafe Tracks The MDEQ permit was issued the last week of May and sulfuric acid began moving by rail tanker from Texas to the White Pine Mine. A total of 100 tankers are expected during 1996. The Bad River Chippewa tribe temporarily stopped the trains when they complained that the tracks across the Bad River Reservation were unsafe. Following a series of meetings in early June the acid train continued across Bad River lands. Federal Rail inspectors said that the tracks were safe despite video evidence to the contrary showing broken beams in trestles, trees growing on the tracks, bent and wavering tracks, and an old 900 foot trestle across the Bad River. Federal inspectors have used Bad River as a stop and go light. Unfortunately, there were no inspections west and south of Bad River, where similar problems were videotaped. And, people from Michigan's U.P. say the tracks are even worse east of the Bad River Chippewa Reservation. Acid Dump Will Be 1000 Times the Volume of Exxon Valdez Spill So, despite only one state hearing and no federal hearing, both the state and the federal government are allowing a foreign company to begin the process of pouring sulfuric acid solution which eventually will total 11,000,000,000 (Yes, that's BILLION - 1,000 times the volume of the Exxon Valdez spill) gallons National Environmental Protection Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and numerous other acts which should be invoked. Tribal officials also met with Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit and expressed their concern and the need for federal oversight. As a consequence of this inaction, both the Mineral River, eventually Lake Superior, and probably the groundwater will be irreparably harmed by this operation. All for profits by a foreign company which after 15 years will disappear, having exploited our resources, our labor, exported huge profits and left a mess. And all because the relevant state and federal agencies who are supposed to look out for the environment and rights have looked the other way. Pre-Acid Solution Damages The White Pine Mine had been doing conventional mining operations between the early 1950s and 1994 - about forty years. In the process they have created a hole in the earth about eleven square miles comprised of shafts which are held up by pillars of earth not yet disturbed. The pillars are about 30 to 30 feet. It is these pillars that they now wish to mine and mation meetings, write letters to the editors and to: U.S. EPA Region V Administrator Val Adamkus 77 W. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604 PH: 312-353-2000 / FX: 312-353-1120 U.S. EPA Office of Environmental Justice 401 M Street SW Washington, DC 20460 PH: 202-564-2515 / FX: 202-501-0740 Environmental Justice National Headquarters 800-962-6215 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: part 2 Date: Thu Aug 01 08:24:10 CDT 1996 Message number: 33 Reply to message number: 31 BT> PS : Hey... you didn't really expect me to put my full handle here BT> ( believe me... they will be pissed to learn this info is out ) I already downloaded it from here. But my initial statment was, in fact, correct. Damn losers. SEE! THE WHOLE WORLD IS COLLECTIVELY GAINING ON US! Death is near. You still sit there like a show is going on. Run fool. Get the hell out of here. the collective is comming to the end, and slaming down like a rock on pavement! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: Newsletter Date: Mon Aug 12 17:20:17 CDT 1996 Message number: 34 Reply to message number: unavailable 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴 =======================Electronic Edition======================== . . . RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #505 . . ---August 1, 1996--- . . HEADLINES: . . THE IJC'S 8TH REPORT . . ========== . . Environmental Research Foundation . . P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 . . Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net . . ========== . . Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send . . E-mail to INFO@rachel.clark.net with the single word HELP . . in the message; back issues also available via ftp from . . ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel and from gopher.std.com. . . Permission to repost, reprint or quote is hereby granted. . . Subscribe: send E-mail to rachel-weekly-request@world.std.com . . with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It's free. . ================================================================= THE IJC'S EIGHTH REPORT The IJC (International Joint Commission) has released its 8th biennial report on water quality in the Great Lakes.[1] The IJC is an international body created by the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty between the U.S. and Canada, responsible for water quality in the Great Lakes. In its 1990, 1992, and 1994 reports, the IJC codified an important new approach to the control of toxics, calling for zero discharge and the ELIMINATION of persistent toxic substances. (See REHW #284 and #378.) The new, 8th report confirms the IJC's commitment to zero discharge and the elimination of toxics from the Great Lakes ecosystem. A New Departure: The IJC's Approach to Toxics In a joint 1978 Water Quality Agreement, the U.S. and Canada defined a "toxic substance" as "a substance which can cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological or reproductive malfunctions or physical deformities in any organism or its offspring, or which can become poisonous after concentration in the food chain or in combination with other substances." The IJC in 1992 recommended defining a class of chemicals called "persistent toxic substances," which should then be ELIMINATED because they cannot be managed safely. The IJC recommended that a persistent toxic substance be defined as any toxic chemical that bioaccumulates, or any toxic chemical that has a half-life greater than eight weeks in any medium (water, air, sediment, soil, or living things). Substances with either of these characteristics should be ELIMINATED, the IJC said. The "half life" of a substance is the time it takes for half of it to disappear. For example, DDT has a "half-life" of about 20 years in soil; if a pound of DDT is released into soil today, half of it will still exist 20 years from now. The IJC recommends that any toxic substance with a half-life greater than 8 weeks be considered too dangerous to be released and should be ELIMINATED. A substance bioaccumulates if its concentration increases as it moves through the food chain. For example, DDT may be found at one ppm (part per million) in fish and at 10 ppm in fish-eating birds. Thus DDT bioaccumulates. The IJC says any toxic substance that bioaccumulates should be ELIMINATED. The IJC is recommending a completely new approach to chemical regulation. The standard way of managing toxics, used today by all federal and state agencies in the U.S. and Canada, is chemical-by-chemical risk assessment. This standard approach never bans, or even regulates, a chemical because of its inherent properties such as toxicity, persistence, or ability to bioaccumulate. Instead, each chemical is subjected to a "risk assessment." In a risk assessment, various assumptions are made about: ** the way the chemical will move through the environment after it has been released; ** which people and wildlife might become exposed to the chemical; ** and, finally, what sorts of toxic effects the chemical might cause in those exposed to it. Such "risk assessments" are based on little more than sophisticated guesswork because so little is known about the ways in which chemicals move through the environment, the characteristics of the wildlife and humans that might be exposed, and the mechanisms of toxicity. (As one U.S. government risk assessor said recently: "Quantitative risk assessment to a large extent is still based on assumptions. There are a lot of critical assumptions that go into it that have yet to be verified biologically." --Ralph L. Kodell, U.S. Food and Drug Administration.[2]) Furthermore, risk assessments can never be scientific because all humans and all wildlife are constantly exposed to several (perhaps several hundred) chemicals simultaneously, and science has no way to predict the effects of multiple exposures. Thus risk assessment is a kind of highly-paid intellectual monkey business, a game played by polluters and government regulators for their mutual benefit, at great cost to the public and to wildlife. Because the results of risk assessment SEEM scientific, yet are ALWAYS subject to challenge, debate and revision (leaving plenty of room for political needs to be satisfied), risk assessment has become the main way that "business as usual" is justified, and allowed to proceed. Politically powerful polluters claim that their "risk assessment" shows that no harm will result from dumping billions of pounds of toxic chemicals and products directly into public air and water. Risk assessments by politically-sensitive government regulators typically conclude that the polluters cannot be proven grossly wrong, so must be given a license to proceed with their dumping. Everyone involved claims his or her work is based on "sound science." In the U.S., this is what passes for "chemical regulation" at the end of the 20th century. This system was devised by Congress with the willing participation of most of the big environmental groups, so almost everyone has a stake in keeping the system intact, even though no one actually believes it works. Corporate lawyers and lobbyists spend their lives complaining that this system stifles creativity, innovation, and the entrepreneurial spirit, but in reality corporations are able to do pretty much anything they want (though they DO have to tolerate the ankle-biting of environmental lobbyists, the way bears eating honey have to tolerate bees), so long as they file the necessary paperwork with the regulatory bureaucrats who apply the necessary rubber stamp. The system amounts to little more than a job-creation program for corporate lawyers, government bureaucrats and environmental lobbyists. The IJC's proposal is a new departure, would definitely work, and would prevent harm. It is clear, simple, and well-defined. Toxic is defined. Persistent is defined. Bioaccumulative is defined. If a chemical is toxic and either persistent or bioaccumulative, it should be eliminated, based on its intrinsic properties. No risk assessment needed. This is a new direction for environmental management, one that offers hope that the world can be cleaned up, and that massive pollution can be PREVENTED at reasonable cost and with minimum bureaucracy. The 8th IJC report, just released, reaffirms the IJC's commitment to this new way of doing business: "Protracted legal battles to remove DDT from use foreshadowed the continued struggles to reduce environmental contaminants. The time and resources required to document contamination and injury to establish linkages between cause and effect has [sic] inhibited action in a public health policy. A comprehensive approach to all persistent toxic chemicals is not only the preferred way to protect the integrity of the ecosystem and public health, but the only effective way," the new report says (pg. 8). The 8th report goes on, "New studies are continuing to find various effects from exposure to persistent toxic substances on fish, wildlife and humans. Some effects are quite dramatic. Earlier studies are being re-examined based on new evidence. For example, a recent retrospective risk assessment suggested that dioxin in Lake Ontario may have caused complete reproductive failure in native lake trout populations by the early 1940s. This important fishery has required artificial stocking to this, day, with mixed results." (pg. 10) And: "Mounting published evidence indicates that harm to humans from persistent toxic substances is similar to that caused in wildlife. Since our last Biennial Report, published studies indicate such harm is being caused, at least in part, by IN UTERO [in the womb] exposure to elevated levels of environmental estrogens. A synopsis of research on endocrinal (hormonal) effects conducted in 1994 by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency showed that several aspects of human male reproductive health have declined over the past 30 to 50 years, including dramatic declines in sperm counts in otherwise healthy men to levels where fertility may be impaired. (See REHW #438.) Other cited problems are increased testicular cancer, undescended testis and genital tract disorders. The authors conclude that disorders seen today originated 20 to 40 years ago, during fetal and childhood development. Similarly, chemical influences on male reproductive health in today's babies may not become apparent for decades." (pg. 10) "...[t]he emerging picture is not encouraging. The U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is completing studies of potentially at-risk human populations in the Great Lakes Region, with fish consumption as the primary route of exposure to chemical contaminants. One study involved human infants in upper New York State whose mothers ate Lake Ontario salmon prior to pregnancy. The findings (preliminarily reported at our 1995 Biennial Meeting) support data of behavioral abnormalities found 15 years ago in progeny [offspring] of a similar group of mothers who ate Lake Michigan fish. The higher exposed infants in New York State were unable to adapt to mild frustration compared to a less exposed group. These new findings require us to ask again, what is the wisdom of exposing another generation of human infants to such toxins?" (pg. 11) The 8th Report then returns to the subject of chemical-by-chemical, risk-assessment-based regulation: "The practice of addressing one chemical at a time is a lengthy and resource-intensive process. The analysis, debate and negotiation over the risks, impacts and the restrictions for each chemical has effectively blocked regulation for years. This has been the case for dioxin, PCBs, DDT, various pesticides and a number of other chemicals.... "As a society, we cannot continue protracted debate while the actual or even suspected injury to living species continues to occur. Yet, this is precisely what occurs and will continue to occur until Governments address classes of chemicals rather than a few specific chemicals at a time.... "Approximately 72,000 chemicals are on U.S. EPA's TSCA [Toxic Substances Control Act] chemicals list, but regulations have been issued to control only nine new chemicals in 20 years, and the Act's provisions have not been used to control any existing substances other than PCBs.... "While proposed changes to the [Canadian Environmental Protection] Act are promising, the most restrictive procedures would be applied to a relatively small number of listed substances, based in part on risk assessment rather than their INHERENT TOXICITY.... "Reversing the onus, whereby the proponent manufacturer, importer or user would have to prove that suspected persistent toxic substances are not and will not be harmful, is a more reasonable and logical approach," the 8th IJC report says. (pgs. 15-17) No doubt about it. This IS a new way of looking at things. --Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO) =============== [1] International Joint Commission, EIGHTH BIENNIAL REPORT ON GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY (Ottawa, Canada, and Washington, DC: International Joint Commission, July, 1996). Both reports are available free from the IJC. Telephone (in Detroit, Michigan): (313) 226-2170. In Canada, phone (519) 257-6700; fax: (519) 257-6740. [2] Kodell quoted in Leslie Lang, "Strange Brew: Assessing Risk of Chemical Mixtures," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 103, No. 2 (February, 1995), pg. 144. Kodell is deputy director of the FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research in Jefferson, Arkansas. Descriptor terms: ijc; regulation; reverse onus; toxic substances; zero discharge; persistent toxic substances; bioaccumulation; risk assessment; ralph kodell; ddt; hormone disrupters; great lakes; water pollution; wildlife; human health; danish environmental protection agency; sperm count; central nervous system; pesticides; dioxin; pcbs; tsca; burden of proof; ################################################################ NOTICE Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge even though it costs our organization considerable time and money to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send your contribution to: Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. --Peter Montague, Editor ################################################################ -!- NetMgr 0.99+ ! Origin: EnviroNews (1:102/125.9) ... Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (S)lap nearest innocent bystander. ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: Newsletter Date: Mon Aug 12 17:20:18 CDT 1996 Message number: 35 Reply to message number: unavailable 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴 =======================Electronic Edition======================== . . . RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #506 . . ---August 8, 1996--- . . HEADLINES: . . SCIENCE AGAINST THE ENVIRONMENT . . ========== . . Environmental Research Foundation . . P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 . . Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net . . ========== . . Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send . . E-mail to INFO@rachel.clark.net with the single word HELP . . in the message; back issues also available via ftp from . . ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel and from gopher.std.com. . . Permission to repost, reprint or quote is hereby granted. . . Subscribe: send E-mail to rachel-weekly-request@world.std.com . . with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It's free. . ================================================================= SCIENCE AGAINST THE ENVIRONMENT The latest report from the International Joint Commission (IJC) reveals that industry and government officials have a new strategy for rolling back environmental protection in the 1990s.[1] Created in 1909 by treaty between the U.S. and Canada, the IJC has responsibility for water quality in the Great Lakes. Every two years, the IJC issues a formal report on its progress against pollution in the Great Lakes. The eighth such report was published last month. (See REHW #505.) The new report makes clear that environmental protection programs in the Great Lakes are being eroded. About a third of the new report is spent explaining how existing programs are being threatened and why they should be maintained. Although couched in non-political language, the report makes it clear that a combination of libertarians in Congress (and in state governments), funded by corporate polluters, have hit upon a formula for crippling environmental protections in the Great Lakes (and elsewhere). The formula has two parts: require scientific standards of proof for all decision-making, and at the same time cut funding for scientific research. Because the mass media do not regularly (if ever) report on science funding, or on the uses of science in decision-making, these assaults on environmental protection are invisible to the general public. The IJC does not say so, but this coordinated effort by libertarians and corporate polluters serves two purposes: for the libertarians, it diminishes the size of government (which is the main ideological goal of libertarians), and for the corporate polluters it provides increased independence because it diminishes government's ability to monitor their activities, identify environmental harms, and enforce the law. The new-found formula for crippling environmental protection is being used successfully everywhere. But let's look at how it is working in the Great Lakes: The IJC reports that it surveyed all of the major scientific research institutions responsible for conducting programs related to water quality in the Great Lakes. Responses came back from 31 organizations with combined budgets totaling $88 million, which represents 80% of all scientific funding for Great Lakes research. Those 31 organizations reported that they expect their total operating budgets to be cut anywhere from 23% to 53% this next year. Salaries within those organizations are expected to be cut anywhere from 31% to 45%. The number of researchers in the 31 organizations is expected to decline by anywhere from 47% to 62%. In other words, in round numbers, scientific research in the Great Lakes is slated to be cut roughly by half. (pg. 5) While science funding is being cut at the federal and state levels, polluters and libertarians are simultaneously insisting that scientific certainty must be established before chemicals can be banned or even regulated. They are working hard to substitute a scientific standard for decision-making in place of the "reasonable person" standard. Science is a very conservative enterprise. Before scientists will change their minds about the nature of reality and agree that something new is happening, they require 95% probability or in some cases 99% probability. For example, scientists must be 95% (or 99%) sure that a chemical is causing harm before they will say, "Harm is occurring." Until they become 95% sure, they will only say, "I'm not sure. We need more studies to give us more data." In contrast, a jury in a civil trial makes a decision based on "the preponderance of the evidence" or "the weight of the evidence." This is the normal, "reasonable person" standard for decision-making in our society. If most of us had to wait for 95% certainty before we could make a decision about anything, most of us would be paralyzed most of the time. Therefore, the incessant pressure to make decisions based only on "good science" is really an attempt to paralyze decision-making. How does this help the polluters? Corporate polluters and their representatives in government have made a national policy (unwritten, but real policy all the same) that says the burden of proof is on the public to prove harm, and not on the polluters to prove safety. Therefore, new chemicals can be put into commercial use without any safety testing. And chemicals can remain in use until it can be shown that they have caused substantial harm --a process that can take decades or longer. (The burden of proof is reversed in the case of pharmaceutical drugs at the Food and Drug Administration, but ONLY in the case of pharmaceutical drugs. Drugs must be proven safe and effective before they can be marketed. Now, however, the libertarians and corporate polluters have developed a concerted campaign to reverse even this FDA standard.[2]) Given the national policy that puts the burden of proof on the public, a scientific standard of proof helps keep chemicals on the market. A "reasonable person" might conclude that a chemical was causing harm after learning that several people or animals had been harmed, but a scientist insists on the 95% level of certainty. By substituting scientific certainty for the "reasonable person" standard in decisions, science is pressed into the service of the polluters. The use of a scientific standard of proof also greatly increases the importance of doubt. A reasonable person reading 3 scientific studies showing harm is probably ready to make a decision. When a fourth study comes in showing a different conclusion, the reasonable person weighs the evidence --three studies show one thing, one study shows another --and probably comes down on the side of the three studies. However, a scientist faced with conflicting studies is justified in being very cautious about drawing ANY conclusion. "The data are conflicting. We need more study," is the likely response from a scientist. Meanwhile harm continues. Thus, substituting a scientific standard for decisions, in place of a reasonable person standard, increases the importance of doubt and makes it easier for a determined group of scientists to prevent decisions from being made. Since paralyzing government is an ideological goal for both the libertarian AND the corporate polluter, substituting a scientific standard of proof serves both these interest-groups. "It is... ironic," says the IJC's Eighth Report, "that statements about a lack of 'sound science' in current policy discussions about toxic chemicals are heard concurrently with calls for financial cutbacks to the very programs that could provide additional, credible scientific information and contribute to responsible public policy in such areas as human health and persistent toxic substances." (pg. 17) The same dynamic can be seen in the debate over global warming. Some 250 scientists worldwide concluded last December that humans are changing the earth's climate. (See REHW #467 and #471.) But half a dozen industry-sponsored scientists are disputing the finding. These critics are focusing on the uncertainties, trying to prevent decisive action to curb global warming. The NEW YORK TIMES recently described a "systematic campaign of disinformation" by the "Global Climate Coalition, an industry lobbying group" and by others. The TIMES also reported that, in Congress, "conservative Republican allies" of these critics are threatening to cut funding for scientific research on global climate change.[3] Naturally, this is all being done in the name of "sound science." Unfortunately, we observe, traditional environmentalists have almost no way to combat this new initiative for 3 reasons: ** Whether they recognize it or not, most environmentalists are ideologically committed to REGULATING the behavior of polluters around the edges, rather than tackling the core issue of DEFINING what corporations can and cannot do. The regulatory arena was created by corporate polluters; it is a place where they control the terms of the debate and strictly limit the possible outcomes. In sum, regulation cannot solve environmental problems, yet it is the framework that we all grew up within, and it is the only way most environmentalists have so far been able to think. ** Many environmentalists believe that better science is the answer to pollution problems. They do not yet see that science CAN DESCRIBE BUT CANNOT REMEDY environmental crises brought on by the withering of democratic commitments and institutions. Pollution is caused by powerful polluters. It is their power that makes their pollution possible. The only feasible counterweight to their power is more democratic decision-making, yet many traditional environmentalists are not committed to democracy in this way. Rather they are committed to a traditional hierarchy in which they get invited to the White House periodically to sup and supplicate while the pollution continues. ** Many environmentalists are not committed to getting private money out of politics, which is the only way to break the stranglehold of polluters on Congress. (See REHW #426 and #427.) (Some environmentalists have endorsed limits on campaign contributions, but, perversely, such limits end up consolidating the power of corporations in the electoral process. Thus environmentalists who do not favor full public financing of elections end up protecting the status quo.) Because current laws and practices encourage private money in elections, corporations dump mountains of cash into campaigns to elect representatives who then minister to corporate needs while pursuing their own libertarian goals. It is a closed-loop system: "You scratch my back with a campaign contribution, and I'll scratch yours with legislation guaranteed not to make any difference in the way you do business." Environmentalists who remain indifferent to this distortion of the democratic electoral process (or who advocate the half-way reform of spending limits instead of full public financing) play directly into the hands of the libertarian/corporate-polluter axis that is rolling back environmental protections, using "good science" as its cover. --Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO) =============== [1] International Joint Commission, EIGHTH BIENNIAL REPORT ON GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY (Ottawa, Canada, and Washington, DC: International Joint Commission, July, 1996). Available free from the IJC. Telephone (in Detroit, Michigan): (313) 226-2170. In Canada, phone (519) 257-6700; fax: (519) 257-6740. [2] Eight libertarian think tanks have received millions of dollars to study ways to discredit the Food and Drug Administration and change its policies. See "Report Finds That Drug, Medical Device, Biotech and Tobacco Companies gave at Least $3.5 Million for Anti-FDA Campaign," CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER July 29, 1996, pgs. 5-6. And see Jeffrey Goldberg, "Next Target: Nicotine," NEW YORK TIMES August 4, 1996, pg. 23. And see Marian Burros," F.D.A. Chief Questions Safety of Proposals," NEW YORK TIMES, May 2, 1996, pg. 21. [3] William K. Stevens, "At Hot Center of Debate on Global Warming," NEW YORK TIMES August 6, 1996, pgs. C1, C10. Descriptor terms: ijc; science; libertarianism; corporations; burden of proof; global warming; global climate coalition; ################################################################ NOTICE Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge even though it costs our organization considerable time and money to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send your contribution to: Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. --Peter Montague, Editor ################################################################ -!- NetMgr 0.99+ ! Origin: EnviroNews (1:102/125.9) ... DisneyLand: A people trap operated by a mouse. ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: KRUSTY To: ALL Subject: Rachel's Weekly #514 1/2 Date: Tue Oct 08 05:49:35 CDT 1996 Message number: 36 Reply to message number: unavailable =======================Electronic Edition======================== . . . RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #514 . . ---October 3, 1996--- . . HEADLINES: . . CHEMICALS AND MALE REPRODUCTION . . ========== . . Environmental Research Foundation . . P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 . . Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net . . ========== . . Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send . . E-mail to INFO@rachel.clark.net with the single word HELP . . in the message; back issues also available via ftp from . . ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel and from gopher.std.com. . . Permission to repost, reprint or quote is hereby granted. . . Subscribe: send E-mail to rachel-weekly-request@world.std.com . . with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It's free. . ================================================================= CHEMICALS LINKED TO DECLINING MALE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH A lengthy new report from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [NIEHS], a federal agency, describes serious deterioration of the male reproductive system in many regions of the world and suggests it may be caused by environmental chemicals that interfere with hormones.[1] The report begins by describing negative trends in men's reproductive health, then describes similar findings among wildlife, and finally reviews evidence that certain chemicals could cause the observed problems. The report ends by describing a research agenda that would help scientists understand these problems better and would provide additional support for public health officials taking action to protect future generations. Here is part of the summary provided by the authors of the new study: "Male reproductive health has deteriorated in many countries during the last few decades. In the 1990s, declining semen quality has been reported from Belgium, Denmark, France, and Great Britain. The incidence of testicular cancer has increased during the same time. Incidences of hypospadias [a birth defect of the penis] and cryptorchidism [undescended testicles] also appear to be increasing. Similar reproductive problems occur in many wildlife species. There are marked geographic differences in the prevalence of male reproductive disorders. While the reasons for these differences are currently unknown, both clinical and laboratory research suggest that the adverse changes may be inter-related and have a common origin in fetal life or childhood." The authors say they strongly suspect that the common origin is exposure to environmental chemicals (pesticides, plastics, detergents, and others) that interfere with hormones. The authors emphasize that chemicals that interfere with hormones may not be the ONLY cause of the recent decline in male reproductive health. Other chemicals may poison men by a mechanism that does not involve hormones: "For example," they say, "some chemicals that are now known as occupational toxicants were shown to affect the semen quality of the workers through a toxic action on the gonads, without any apparent estrogenic effects." Estrogen is the main female sex hormone. [For a superb, clear, down-to-earth discussion of both male and female reproductive health, see GENERATIONS AT RISK; HOW ENVIRONMENTAL TOXINS MAY AFFECT REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH IN MASSACHUSETTS from Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility, which we will review in the next few weeks. Anyone concerned about these problems should own a copy of GENERATIONS AT RISK.[2]] Sperm Quality The authors review recent studies showing declining sperm quantity and quality among men in many countries, and a few studies that show no such declines. In general, they see declines in urban areas and no declines in rural areas. Rural France and Finland, in particular, seem not to be experiencing a sperm decline. Still, the authors summarize the situation as "decreasing sperm quality worldwide" (pg. 743) and they see an urgent need for understanding the causes: "Follow-up of semen quality is very important, since the sperm concentration has decreased drastically during the last two generations and the declining trend appears to be continuing." (pg. 760) Testicular Cancer Here, too, there are geographical differences. Increases in testicular cancer are apparent in the U.S., England and Wales, Scotland, the Nordic and Baltic countries, Australia, and New Zealand. Finland seems to be an exception. The authors suggest that good, steady sperm quality and the low testicular cancer rate in Finland, a mostly rural country, may be somehow linked. Within countries there are differences: whites in the U.S. are three times as susceptible to testicular cancer as are African Americans. Conclusion: "...it is obvious that there is a worldwide trend toward an increased incidence of testicular cancer...," the authors of the report conclude. (pg. 743) Conclusion: "Other disorders of the male reproductive tract may also be increasing in incidence, with several European countries reporting a progressive rise in hypospadias [a birth defect of the penis]... and an apparently emerging trend toward an increasing incidence of testicular maldescent [undescended testicles]." (pg. 768) Similarly, male reproductive problems can be observed among wildlife. Gastropods (periwinkles and whelks), best known for the sea shells they live inside, worldwide have shown sex reversal because of exposure to a compound of the metal tin. Tributyltin, widely used in paint to keep seaweed and barnacles from growing on the bottoms of boats and ships, is now known to change male gastropods into female gastropods. (pg. 748) Alligators and turtles have had their sex lives disrupted by exposure to pesticides in Florida and in laboratory experiments. The sex of turtles is normally determined by the temperature at which their eggs incubate. Eggs incubated at 26 degrees Celsius (78.8 Fahrenheit) turn out 100% male. However, eggs incubated at male-producing temperatures but painted with PCBs produce female turtles instead. (pg. 749) PCBs are industrial chemicals, banned in this country in 1976, but still found everywhere in the environment. The same PCB-induced sex reversal can be seen in alligator eggs. Furthermore, alligators in pesticide-contaminated lakes in Florida have such small penises that they are sexually incompetent --a result of exposure to hormone-disrupting pesticides. (pg. 749) Male fish exposed to hormone-disrupting chemicals discharged by sewage treatment plants begin to produce a protein called vitellogenin, which is normally only produced by female fish as a step toward making eggs. Male fish normally produce no vitellogenin but in England and Wales male fish produce vitellogenin when they are caged in river waters below sewage treatment plants. (pg. 750) The river water has become estrogenic. Florida panthers, which get a large dose of hormone-disrupting chemicals by eating raccoons (who get these chemicals from the fish they eat), have undescended testicles, poor sperm production, and other reproductive problems. (pg. 751) >>> Continued to next message --- � OLX 2.1 TD � Welcome to 1984 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: KRUSTY To: ALL Subject: Rachel's Weekly #514 2/2 Date: Tue Oct 08 05:49:36 CDT 1996 Message number: 37 Reply to message number: unavailable >>> Continued from previous message The NIEHS report then reviews the experience of male children whose mothers were exposed to DES (diethylstilbestrol). DES is a synthetic sex hormone. Between the late 1940s and the early 1970s, DES was given to 5 million pregnant women to prevent abortion and pregnancy complications. The sons of these women thus became a "natural experiment," offering an opportunity to study the effects of human exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals while in the womb. Here is the authors' summary: "Exposure to DES during pregnancy results in increased risk for several male reproductive disorders, such as cryptorchidism [undescended testicles], urethral abnormalities [including hypospadias, pg. 753], epididymal cysts [cysts in the sperm reservoir of the testicle], and testicular hypoplasia [lack of growth of the testicles, i.e., small testicles]. In addition, the semen quality of DES sons is worse than that of controls. Incidence of testicular cancer is approximately doubled among DES sons compared to the general population but whether this represents a true increase of the cancer risk is equivocal [i.e., not certain]." (pg. 754) In sum, the authors say, "Reproduction is a major concern because disturbances of this process rapidly threaten populations as a whole. The male reproductive system is very sensitive to the influence of an excess of estrogen; therefore, estrogenlike effects in the environment are a primary suspect for causing the increased reproductive disorders of men and wildlife animals." (pg. 760) And: "Male reproductive health has received remarkably little attention considering that subfertility affects 5% or more of men and that prostatic hypertrophy [enlargement of the prostate gland] or cancer is a major problem for older men. It is now evident that several aspects of male reproductive health have changed dramatically for the worse over the past 30 to 50 years. The most fundamental change has been the striking decline in sperm counts in the ejaculate of normal men; recent evidence from Paris indicates that this decrease amounts to about 2% per year over the last two decades. The result is that many otherwise normal men now have sperm counts so low that their fertility is likely to be impaired.... "These observations suggest that male reproductive health has declined progressively since the Second World War as a result of changes in environmental or lifestyle factors. While the etiologies [causes] underlying these apparent changes are currently unclear, both clinical [i.e., human] and laboratory [i.e., animal] research suggests that all of the described changes in male reproductive health appear interrelated and may have a common origin in fetal life or childhood. This means that the increase in some of the disorders seen today originated 20 to 40 years ago, and the prevalence of such defects in male babies born today will not become manifest for another 20 to 40 years or more. "Trends in the reproductive health of species other than man also raise the possibility of environmental factors as partial etiologic [causal] contributions in a decline noted in male reproductive health of wildlife." The report then mentions the Florida panther, the male fish in England and Wales producing vitellogenin, "fish-eating birds in the United States" whose "male hatchlings were apparently feminized," and the male turtles turning into female turtles because of PCB exposure of their eggs in the laboratory. And: "A recent report of lactating male fruit bats suggested that the males were, in some way, exposed to a female sex hormone." In sum, "Taken together, this growing body of evidence suggests that environmental factors that resemble female sex hormones may be having an adverse effect on the reproductive capacity and well being of diverse species...." "The reproductive health trends in men are consistent with this hypothesis. While exposure levels to estrogenic chemicals are not at all well known for humans, the large number of chemicals in numerous environmental categories suggests adequate availability. For example, environmental chemicals reported to be estrogenic include, but are not limited to, some ubiquitous [i.e., found everywhere] chlorinated hydrocarbons, such as PCBs and DDT; some products of detergent and surfactant manufacture, such as the alkylphenols; and some products released from plastics such as bisphenol-A and some phthalates. Many other compounds in our natural and synthetic [human-created] environment demonstrate estrogenic activities and more are being discovered as the search continues." (pgs. 768-769) --Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO) =============== [1] Jorma Toppari and others, "Male Reproductive Health and Environmental Xenoestrogens," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 104 SUPPLEMENT 4 (August 1996), pgs. 741-803. This new report is a revised and abridged version of a report originally commissioned by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency in Copenhagen; see REHW #438. [2] Ted Schettler, Gina Solomon, Paul Burns, and Maria Valenti, GENERATIONS AT RISK: HOW ENVIRONMENTAL TOXINS MAY AFFECT REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH IN MASSACHUSETTS (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility [11 Garden Street, Cambridge, Mass. 02138; telephone (617) 497-7440; fax: (617) 876-4277; E-mail: psrmabo@igc.apc.org], 1996). Available for $11.50. CORRECTION In the electronic edition of RACHEL'S #513, we wrote: "One set of nuclear long johns contained enough plutonium to provide one trillion (one million million million) 'maximum permissible lung burdens' of plutonium..." It should have said "...one trillion (one million million)..." Descriptor terms: niehs; male reproductive health; testicular cancer; hormone disrupters; wildlife; sperm count; sperm quality; hypospadias; cryptorchidism; undescended testicles; birth defects; teratogens; pesticides; plastics; detergents; estrogen; france; finland; gastropods; tributyltin; alligators; turtles; pcbs; penis size; vitellogenin; florida panthers; des; prostate cancer; children; alkylphenols; phthalates; bis-phenol-A; DDT; organochlorines; ################################################################ NOTICE Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge even though it costs our organization considerable time and money to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send your contribution to: Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. --Peter Montague, Editor ################################################################ --- � OLX 2.1 TD � Welcome to 1984 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Krusty Subject: Re: Rachel's Weekly #514 1/2 Date: Tue Oct 08 07:57:00 CDT 1996 Message number: 38 Reply to message number: 36 K> . RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #514 . Is this named for Rachel Carson, of Silent Spring fame? K> Sperm Quality K> K> The authors review recent studies showing declining sperm K> quantity and quality among men in many countries, and a few K> studies that show no such declines. In general, they see K> declines in urban areas and no declines in rural areas. Rural K> France and Finland, in particular, seem not to be experiencing a K> sperm decline. Still, the authors summarize the situation as K> "decreasing sperm quality worldwide" (pg. 743) and they see an K> urgent need for understanding the causes: "Follow-up of semen K> quality is very important, since the sperm concentration has K> decreased drastically during the last two generations and the K> declining trend appears to be continuing." (pg. 760) K> In areas of the United States low sperm counts and sperm motilities in sperm have been traced to exposure to organophosphate pesticides, which are the newest, most abused of them all. DURSBAN is one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Krusty Subject: Re: Rachel's Weekly #514 2/2 Date: Tue Oct 08 08:06:54 CDT 1996 Message number: 39 Reply to message number: 37 K> $500.00). Please send your contribution to: Environmental K> Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. K> --Peter Montague, Editor Looks like it is the group dedicated to Dr. Carson. She was a Marine Biologist, and much of here work was in the Baltimore/Martha's Vinyard area. For those who have not read *Silent Spring,* it is an eye-opener. It was published in 1963, and warned about the use of environmental toxins. Her treatise is "What if all the birds are poisoned and somedy there are no birds to sing? It will be a silent spring." Among other things, she warned about the use of DDT, and the damage it was doing to wildlife, especially bald eagles. She was reviled and called a quack at the time. Bald eagles became very endangered. Now, DDT is banned for use in this country, and eagles and other species are beginning to come back. But there is still a lot of work to do. DDT is still legally sold to be used in other countries. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: All Subject: Re: Rachel's Weekly #514 1/2 Date: Tue Oct 08 10:08:49 CDT 1996 Message number: 40 Reply to message number: 36 K> chemicals that interfere with hormones.[1] The report begins by K> describing negative trends in men's reproductive health, then K> describes similar findings among wildlife, and finally reviews Hellllooo population control. *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: Rachel's Weekly #514 1/2 Date: Tue Oct 08 10:29:25 CDT 1996 Message number: 41 Reply to message number: 40 K> chemicals that interfere with hormones.[1] The report begins by K> describing negative trends in men's reproductive health, then K> describes similar findings among wildlife, and finally reviews BT> BT> Hellllooo population control. BT> I was thinking about that, too. Except that it is a pretty ruthless way to control birth. Feminizing males. Zero reproduction. Cancers. Brrrr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Rachel's Weekly #514 1/2 Date: Tue Oct 08 15:20:55 CDT 1996 Message number: 42 Reply to message number: 41 F> I was thinking about that, too. Except that it is a pretty ruthles F> way to control birth. Feminizing males. Zero reproduction. Cancers. Brrr but ever so effective. No increase in population and everyone dies sooner, it's the perfect method of population control. Oh yeah. As long as I'm in the environmental section: I was reading some environmental magazines and one of the articles was on the importance of microorganisms, bugs, bacteria etc. in the ecosytem. I was quite interested, but it wasn't anything I hadn't heard to some extent before. in connection to that I read a statistic about how long it would take for all life to die if the microorganisms were all gone. 6 months for the end to all life. Reinforces the importance of all those little creatures that are so often missed in environmental protection. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Rachel's Weekly #514 1/2 Date: Tue Oct 08 17:29:15 CDT 1996 Message number: 43 Reply to message number: 42 S> the microorganisms were all gone. 6 months for the end to all life. S> Reinforces the importance of all those little creatures that are so often S> missed in environmental protection. And makes you wonder even more why people are so determined to use antibiotics, antiseptics, bleaches EVERYWHERE, including in dish soap and bath soap. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Rachel's Weekly #514 1/2 Date: Wed Oct 09 17:05:45 CDT 1996 Message number: 44 Reply to message number: 43 F> And makes you wonder even more why people are so determined to use F> antibiotics, antiseptics, bleaches EVERYWHERE, including in dish soap and ba F> soap. Soon someone will try to cleanse the bacteria out of the digestive system and no one will realize how bad that is until a few hundred people die of starvation. The cleanliness thing is getting way overdone in my opinion. I mean, most of the germs you clean off will be back there in about a minute unless you live in a germ free bubble. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Rachel's Weekly #514 1/2 Date: Wed Oct 09 18:50:02 CDT 1996 Message number: 45 Reply to message number: 44 S> Soon someone will try to cleanse the bacteria out of the digestive system an S> no one will realize how bad that is until a few hundred people die of S> starvation. The cleanliness thing is getting way overdone in my opinion. I S> mean, most of the germs you clean off will be back there in about a minute S> unless you live in a germ free bubble. Starvation, especially B vitamin deficiencies are definitely a problem. However, so are Candida and a number of other infections. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Rachel's Weekly #514 1/2 Date: Thu Oct 10 10:52:17 CDT 1996 Message number: 46 Reply to message number: 45 F> Starvation, especially B vitamin deficiencies are definitely a F> problem. However, so are Candida and a number of other infections. Either way, no bacteria, no life. We need those bacteria, we need microorganisms. People need to be more aware of that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Specter Subject: Re: Rachel's Weekly #514 1/2 Date: Thu Oct 10 11:19:33 CDT 1996 Message number: 47 Reply to message number: 46 S> Either way, no bacteria, no life. We need those bacteria, we need S> microorganisms. People need to be more aware of that. True, except that my point is that in the absence of some groups of bacteria, other like Candida are become pathogens and destroy life. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Froggy Subject: Re: Rachel's Weekly #514 1/2 Date: Thu Oct 10 14:58:55 CDT 1996 Message number: 48 Reply to message number: 47 F> True, except that my point is that in the absence of some groups of F> bacteria, other like Candida are become pathogens and destroy life. Ahh, Ok. I see what you were getting at. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: KRUSTY To: ALL Subject: RACHEL'S WEEKLY #517 1/3 Date: Thu Oct 24 16:29:33 CDT 1996 Message number: 49 Reply to message number: unavailable =======================Electronic Edition======================== . . . RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #517 . . ---October 24, 1996--- . . HEADLINES: . . THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT . . ========== . . Environmental Research Foundation . . P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 . . Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net . . ========== . . Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send . . E-mail to INFO@rachel.clark.net with the single word HELP . . in the message; back issues also available via ftp from . . ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel and from gopher.std.com. . . Subscribe: send E-mail to rachel-weekly-request@world.std.com . . with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It's free. . ================================================================= THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT The description of America is all too familiar: "The business class dominates government through its ability to fund political campaigns, purchase high-priced lobbyists, and reward former officials with lucrative jobs. Meanwhile, the working-class majority of the American people has felt its economic and political power diminish or disappear.... Many of the social institutions that should be the bulwark of grassroots democracy --stable neighborhoods, vigorous unions, independently-owned small farms and businesses --are rapidly disappearing. Fewer than half of eligible Americans even bother to vote, and those who do vote have little faith that good will come of it, telling pollsters they are often voting for the 'lesser of two evils.' Both major parties have become wholly dependent upon the same corporate dollars to pay a new professional class of PR consultants, marketers and social scientists who manage and promote causes and candidates in essentially the same manner that advertising campaigns sell cars, fashions, drugs, and other wares.... "This degraded political environment has created a rich bed of business opportunity for the public relations industry. As citizens remove themselves in disgust from the political process, the PR industry is moving in to take their place, turning the definition of 'grassroots politics' upside down by using rapidly-evolving high-tech data and communications systems to custom-design 'grassroots citizen movements' that serve the interests of their elite clients." This description of contemporary America, which probably rings true to nearly everyone who is paying attention, is taken from the recent book, TOXIC SLUDGE IS GOOD FOR YOU (subtitled, Lies, Damn Lies, and the Public Relations Industry) by John C. Stauber and Sheldon Rampton.[1] If you think you are already about as cynical as it is possible to be, this book will jolt you: the situation is worse than anything you could have imagined. If you want to know how American-style "democracy" works in the late 20th century, you simply MUST read this short book. In recent years, Stauber and Rampton have made it their business to describe the PR industry, which manipulates the media, public opinion, and elections to control public debate and public policy. Since publishing their riveting little book, Stauber and Rampton have kept up a steady stream of eye-opening reports in their quarterly journal PR WATCH. The current PR WATCH (available on the world wide web at http://users.aol.com/srampton/center.html) reveals a typical instance of democracy subverted by PR corporations who engineer consent for the Fortune 500 using "dirty tricks." In this instance, PR WATCH reveals that the Philip Morris Company ---the tobacco and food giant with 1991 earnings of $39.1 billion --has paid a PR firm to create a phony "public interest" organization called Contributions Watch which is masquerading as an "independent nonprofit" group, supposedly gathering unbiased data on campaign contributions in all 50 states.[2] In reality, Contributions Watch is doing something quite different. According to internal company documents leaked to Stauber and Rampton, Contributions Watch was created with bundles of Philip Morris money for the specific purpose of influencing the Presidential election, creating massive pressure on Congress for "tort reform," and tarnishing the reputations of legitimate consumer advocacy groups such as Consumer's Union, publishers of CONSUMER REPORTS, and the public-interest law firm, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice. Tort reform was a key piece of the Republican Party's "Contract With America" when Newt Gingrich became speaker of the House of Representatives in 1994. The goal of "tort reform" is to shield corporations by limiting the amount of money that juries can award to plaintiffs injured by medical malpractice or by harmful consumer products, such as cigarettes. Both the House and the Senate --for the first time in our history --passed tort reform legislation in March, 1996, but President Clinton vetoed it, saying such a law would encourage "misconduct" by "irresponsible companies willing to put profits above all else."[3] Until PR WATCH blew the whistle on Contributions Watch, the Philip Morris plan was succeeding. Wittingly or not, newspapers like the WALL STREET JOURNAL were regurgitating stories served up by Contributions Watch.[4,5] Contributions Watch was creating support for "tort reform" using the argument that rich plaintiffs' lawyers are distorting the democratic process with their money, supporting Bill Clinton for President. This is in fact true, but the proper public policy to restore democracy would be far-reaching campaign finance reform, including full public financing of elections, not tort reform. (See REHW426 and REHW427.) Tort reform would merely shield corporations from liability while de-funding the Democratic Party, to the delight of Republicans. What Contributions Watch --and the WALL STREET JOURNAL --failed to mention is that Philip Morris itself is the largest single campaign contributor in America --having spent a total of $2.7 million during the past 18 months trying to influence elections --$2.1 million of it to elect Republicans.[6] The PR industry and dirty tricks are not new. What's new is that they have grown out of control. The PR industry traces its roots to the work of Edward Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud. Bernays frankly discussed his public relations discoveries --using science to manipulate the public from behind the scenes --in several books. For example, in PROPAGANDA in 1928, Bernays said, "If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it." And: "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."[1,pgs.23-24] He proudly called his scientific techniques of opinion-molding "the engineering of consent." Bernays in his later years claimed to be morally motivated. He had spent a good part of his life nefariously promoting tobacco products, yet he said, "No reputable public relations organization would today accept a cigarette account, since their cancer-causing effects have been proven." However, in a 1994 survey of 38 PR firms, 29 said they would accept a tobacco account if they had the chance.[1,pg.32] >>> Continued to next message --- � OLX 2.1 TD � First rule IS the laws of Germany ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: KRUSTY To: ALL Subject: RACHEL'S WEEKLY #517 2/3 Date: Thu Oct 24 16:29:34 CDT 1996 Message number: 50 Reply to message number: unavailable >>> Continued from previous message Even in the early days, it should have been obvious to anyone who thought about it that a group of corporations with large budgets dedicated to subverting democracy would succeed. Computers, fax machines, and overflowing corporate treasuries have simply made it much easier. Now in the U.S. there are more than 150,000 individuals employed as "PR specialists." To put this number into perspective, there are only 130,000 journalists in America and the number is shrinking steadily as news organizations jettison reporters and rely more and more on "news" manufactured by PR firms. (In 1991, 38% OF 2432 JOURNALISTS SURVEYED SAID THEY GET HALF THEIR STORIES FROM PR FLACKS; 31% said they relied on PR people for 5 to 10 stories a week; 15% said they relied on them for more than 10 stories; 17 PERCENT SAID THEY USED PR PEOPLE FOR EVERY STORY. Local news reporters said they get only 15% of their stories from PR people; editors of lifestyle pages put the figure at 60%, and among entertainment editors, the figure is 75%. REPORTERS CREDITED PR PEOPLE AS THE SOURCE FOR 90% OF ALL STORIES ON HEALTH. The environment, of course, is part of the "health" beat.[7]) As Mark Dowie observes, "A single public relations professional with access to media, a basic understanding of mass psychology, and a fistful of dollars can unleash in society forces that make permanent winners out of otherwise-evident losers --whether they be products, politicians, corporations or ideas."[1,pg.4] Stauber and Rampton document the dirty tricks that are routinely used by the PR industry, such as: ** Spying on legitimate citizen groups to learn their strategies, and in some instances publishing phony documents on the letterhead of legitimate groups to discredit them; ** Manufacturing phony "grass-roots" groups to create the impression that there is a groundswell of "real people" supporting a particular corporate agenda. Michael Dunn of the Washington PR firm Michael E. Dunn says, "The purpose of the grass-roots program is NOT to get more Americans involved in the political system. The purpose of a grassroots program is one purpose period, and that is to influence legislative policy."[1,pg.88] ** Conducting smear campaigns against books before they are published to intimidate editors into not reviewing them; ** Manufacturing gobs of phony news for TV and newspapers; ** Infiltrating groups to urge activists to resort to violence, even including murder.[1,pgs.61-64] ** Calling every registered voter in a particular district to find out what issue they care about most, then writing a letter to each one saying that Candidate X is the champion of their favorite issue (whether it is true or not). Such "grass-roots" campaigns are only possible for those with immense budgets. The NEW YORK TIMES reports that some phony grass-roots campaigns cost upwards of $3 million per month --pocket change for a corporation that nets billions each year.[8] What is the larger meaning of these realities for the republic? Here is Lewis Lapham, editor of HARPER'S MAGAZINE: "The permanent government, a secular oligarchy... comprises the Fortune 500 companies and their attendant lobbyists, the big media and entertainment syndicates, the civil and military services, the larger research universities and law firms. It is this government that hires the country's politicians and sets the terms and conditions under which the country's citizens can exercise their right --God-given but increasingly expensive --to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Obedient to the rule of men, not laws, the permanent government oversees the production of wealth, builds cities, manufactures goods, raises capital, fixes prices, shapes the landscape, and reserves the right to assume debt, poison rivers, cheat the customers, receive the gifts of federal subsidy, and speak to the American people in the language of low motive and base emotion."[9] Such descriptions of our homeland have become troublingly familiar. For people who care about America, it is time to bring back outrage. Time to remember our history; it hasn't always been this way. Time once again for the people to define what corporations can be, can become, and can do.[10] --Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO) ============== [1] John C. Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, TOXIC SLUDGE IS GOOD FOR YOU (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995). Contact: Common Courage Press, Box 702, Monroe, Maine 04951; telephone (207) 525-0900. Our opening quote is taken from pages 78-79. And be sure to check out the quarterly PR WATCH available for $35 per year; edited by Stauber and Rampton. Contact: Center for Media and Democracy, 3318 Gregory Street, Madison, WI 53711; telephone (608) 233-3345. [2] See PR WATCH Vol. 3 No. 3 (Third Quarter 1996), pgs. 1-12. And see Douglas Frantz, "Trial Lawyers, Their Money and Their Influence Have Become issues in the Campaign," NEW YORK TIMES October 13, 1996, pg. A18. [3] "Congress Passes Liability-Suit Provisions," FACTS ON FILE WORLD NEWS DIGEST April 4, 1996, pg. 216B1. [4] Glenn R. Simpson, "Trial Lawyers, After Flirting With GOP in 1995, Are Sitting at Democratic Party's Table Again," WALL STREET JOURNAL July 16, 1996, pg. A12. [5] Max Boot, "Guardian of the Lawyers' Honey Pot," WALL STREET JOURNAL September 19, 1996, pg. A22, which is an assault on Consumer's Union, publisher of CONSUMER REPORTS. [6] Election data from the Center for Responsive Politics [Washington, D.C.], "Financial Sector leads Political Spending, Business PACs Slash Democrats as Election Fundraising Shatters Records," a press release dated October 17, 1996. [7] Associated Press, "Poll finds PR 'weasels' needed," ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT, September 11, 1991, pg. 2D. The survey was done by Jericho Promotions, a PR firm in New York City [(212) 260-3744]. [8] Stephen Engelberg, "A New Breed of Hired Hands Cultivates Grass-Roots Anger," NEW YORK TIMES March 17, 1993, pg. A1. See also, Janet Fritsch, "Friend or Foe? Nature Groups Say names Lie," NEW YORK TIMES March 25, 1996, pg. A1. And Elizabeth Kolbert, "Special Interests' Special Weapon," NEW YORK TIMES March 26, 1995, pg. A20. And see "Public Interest Pretenders," CONSUMER REPORTS Vol. 59 No. 5 (May 1994), pgs. 316-320. [9] Lewis H. Lapham, "Lights, Camera, Democracy!" HARPER'S MAGAZINE August 1996, pgs. 33-38, quoted with permission. [10] See REHW488 and REHW489. Descriptor terms: pr industry; public relations industry; elections; campaign finance reform; corporations; philip morris; astroturf; sheldon rampton; john stauber; mark dowie; consumer's union; trial lawyers for public justice; tlpj; contract with america; toxic sludge is good for you; pr watch; contributions watch; tort reform; bill clinton; wall street journal; edward bernays; >>> Continued to next message --- � OLX 2.1 TD � First rule IS the laws of Germany ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: KRUSTY To: ALL Subject: RACHEL'S WEEKLY #517 3/3 Date: Thu Oct 24 16:29:35 CDT 1996 Message number: 51 Reply to message number: unavailable >>> Continued from previous message ################################################################ NOTICE Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge even though it costs our organization considerable time and money to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send your contribution to: Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. --Peter Montague, Editor ################################################################ --- � OLX 2.1 TD � First rule IS the laws of Germany ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Happy Joyful Toxins 1/2 Date: Thu Mar 06 11:05:40 CST 1997 Message number: 52 Reply to message number: unavailable From peter@rachel.clark.net Thu Mar 6 08:17:59 1997 Date: Wed, 5 Mar 97 19:42:34 -0500 From: Peter Montague To: rachel-weekly@world.std.com Subject: Rachel #536: Immune System Toxins =======================Electronic Edition======================== . . . RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #536 . . ---March 6, 1997--- . . HEADLINES: . . IMMUNE SYSTEM TOXINS . . ========== . . Environmental Research Foundation . . P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 . . Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net . . ========== . . Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send . . E-mail to INFO@rachel.clark.net with the single word HELP . . in the message; back issues also available via ftp from . . ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel and from gopher.std.com . . and from http://www.monitor.net/rachel/ . . Subscribe: send E-mail to rachel-weekly-request@world.std.com . . with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It's free. . ================================================================= IMMUNE SYSTEM TOXINS In 1987, about 45% of Americans were living with one or more chronic conditions (a term that includes chronic diseases and impairments). In 1935, the proportion was 22%, so chronic conditions have approximately doubled during the last 60 years. The majority of people with chronic conditions are not disabled, nor are they elderly. In fact, one out of every four children in the U.S. (25%) now lives with a chronic condition.[1] Chronic conditions can often be "managed" (helping people to live with the condition), but they usually cannot be cured. The cost of chronic conditions in 1990 was estimated to be $659 billion --nearly three quarters of all U.S. health care costs. (To get this huge number into perspective, it may help to know that the entire U.S. military budget is $250 billion per year.) Perhaps it is time we looked seriously at prevention as an approach to chronic conditions. Humans and other vertebrates (animals with a backbone) come equipped with a complicated "immune system" which PREVENTS diseases that might be caused by pathogens (bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites) or cancerous cells. We are constantly exposed to hundreds of pathogens in daily life, but our immune system recognizes them as dangerous and swiftly isolates them and removes them from our bodies. The immune system is a built-in disease-prevention mechanism that works hard to keep us healthy so long as we keep our immune system healthy. If the immune system is damaged in certain ways, it can allow pathogens to overwhelm our defenses and make us sick. Under other circumstances (which are poorly understood), the immune system goes haywire and attacks its host, causing major damage of a different kind, known as "autoimmune" diseases. These "autoimmune" diseases include insulin-dependent diabetes, multiple sclerosis, lupus erythematosus, schleroderma, rheumatoid arthritis, and about a dozen others.[2] In these diseases, the immune system attacks and breaks down the host organism, causing prolonged misery and death. A third class of immune disorders is "hypersensitivity reactions," or allergic reactions, such as asthma, hay fever (allergic rhinitis), and food allergies (to milk, egg whites, peanuts, fish, soy and other foods), some of which may be minor, others of which may be fatal. As early as 1984, the U.S. National Toxicology Program [NTP] (within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) observed that chemical damage to the immune system could result in "hypersensitivity or allergy" to specific chemicals or to chemicals in general. NTP said damage to the immune system can have far-reaching consequences for an individual, leaving him or her vulnerable to attack by bacteria and viruses, at heightened risk of cancer, and even predisposed to develop AIDS.[3] Unfortunately, during the past 50 years, corporations have been permitted to release more and more industrial chemicals and consumer products that damage the immune systems of birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish, and mammals, including humans. The immune system itself has only been fully recognized since the 1950s, and it wasn't until the 1970s that all the major components and activities of the immune system were identified. Many of these are not well understood even today.[2] Partly as a result of this ignorance, public health authorities have still not established consistent criteria for measuring damage to the immune system,[4] which of course allows corporate polluters a lot of "wiggle room" when they are asked to stop releasing --or to clean up past releases of --immunotoxic chemicals such as PCBs, cadmium (see REHW #179), and mercury (REHW #462). (PCBs are a class of industrial chemicals outlawed in the U.S. in 1976 because of their dangerous properties. Unfortunately, large quantities of them persist in the environment to this day, affecting wildlife and humans.[5]) A new study of immunotoxic chemicals affecting mammals appeared earlier this year in ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, a publication of the American Chemical Society.[6] Since 1987, large numbers of dolphins, seals, and sea turtles have been killed by disease in the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea, and the Mediterranean. (See REHW #399.) In this new study, researchers examined carcasses of bottlenose dolphins found dead on Atlantic and Gulf coast beaches in Florida, 1989-1994. They found elevated levels of tin, a toxic metal that has been used for the past 40 years to paint the bottoms of boats and ships to prevent the growth of barnacles and slime. (The specific tin compounds are tributyl tin, dibutyl tin, and monobutyl tin, together called organotin compounds. Tributyl tin is added to paint to prevent growth of organisms on ships' bottoms; it slowly degrades into the other two compounds.) The tin found in bottlenose dolphins was compared to the tin found in spotted dolphins, and pygmy sperm whales, which spend their lives far offshore. The bottlenose dolphins had higher levels of tin, presumably because they spend their lives close to shore, where anti-fouling paint from boats and ships has contaminated bottom sediments and local food chains. The researchers conclude that the tin compounds --which are well established immunotoxins --combined with PCBs and the pesticide DDT, which are also found at high levels in dolphins and which are also well-established immunotoxins --together may have deprived the dolphins of their main defense against disease, their immune systems. They then succumbed to bacteria and viruses that they had previously been able to live with. Other common agents and environmental contaminants known to harm the immune system include: ** Ultraviolet light from the sun --the kind of light that is increasing in the northern latitudes of the Earth because chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have damaged the planet's protective ozone shield 10 to 30 miles in the sky. (See REHW #246, #441.) Ultraviolet sunlight striking the inhabited portions of the planet has increased 5% to 10% in recent years. In sum, we are now all taking a bath in a moderately immunotoxic agent.[7] ** Dioxin and PCBs. As mentioned above, PCBs are a class of industrial chemicals now outlawed in the U.S., but still present in many parts of the environment at toxic levels. Dioxins are a class of chemicals created as unwanted byproducts of incineration, metal smelting, and the manufacture of many pesticides. Dioxins and PCBs are carcinogenic and powerfully immunotoxic in many animals, including humans. (The International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC] --part of the World Health Organization --announced February 14, 1997, that the most potent dioxin, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, is a now considered a Class 1 carcinogen, meaning a "known human carcinogen.")[8] In monkeys (marmosets), changes in white blood cells associated with the immune system can be measured at dioxin levels of 10 ng/kg (nanograms of dioxin per kilogram of body weight) --25% below the dioxin level already found in average Americans. Mice with body burdens of 10 ng/kg --25% below the amount already found in you and me --display an increased susceptibility to infections by viruses, presumably because their immune system has been damaged. (See REHW #463 and #414.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Happy Joyful Toxins 2/2 Date: Thu Mar 06 11:06:36 CST 1997 Message number: 53 Reply to message number: unavailable ** Agent orange --the chemical used by the U.S. in Vietnam to defoliate the jungle, damages the immune system. Furthermore, Vietnam veterans have an above-average likelihood of being struck by diabetes --a serious immune system disease. (REHW #463.) In the general population in the U.S., the incidence (occurrence) of diabetes doubled between 1964 and 1981.[9] It is worth noting that Agent orange is composed of two pesticides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. Though 2,4,5-T was banned in the U.S. in the early 1980s for fear of birth defects, 2,4-D is still most the popular herbicide used to kill broad-leaf weeds, such as dandelions, in lawns today. After people spray 2,4-D on their lawn, it is carried indoors on the family dog and on children's feet. Once indoors, it contaminates rugs and carpets and persists for a very long time. (REHW #436) ** Many pesticides damage the immune system. In 1996, a study of pesticides and the immune system, published by the World Resources Institute (WRI), examined a growing body of literature from around the world, showing that many common pesticides degrade the immune systems of laboratory animals, wildlife, and humans.[10] WRI examined studies of all major classes of pesticides --organochlorines such as DDT, organophosphates such as malathion, and carbamates such as aldicarb. All three classes were immunotoxic. ** Living near a toxic dump damages the immune system in some people, though these effects have been rarely studied. (REHW #272) ** Exposure to fibers of asbestos and fiber glass damages the immune system. (REHW #444.) These effects may be more common than, and perhaps more important than, cancer caused by exposure to such fibers, but have been largely ignored in favor of cancer studies. ** Organochlorine chemicals, including those known as "endocrine disrupters," damage the immune system. The endocrine (hormone) system strongly influences the immune system, so chemicals that mimic hormones may disrupt immune functions.[11] In addition, common chlorine-containing chemicals such as perchloroethylene (dry cleaning fluid), trichlorethylene (a common industrial solvent), and chloroform (created in drinking water when it is chlorinated to kill germs) can damage the immune system. (REHW #279, #365, #399) Since 1970, the U.S. has spent 98% of its health dollars trying to cure diseases, and only 2% trying to prevent them.[12] During this same period, many diseases connected to the immune system such as asthma (REHW #218, #374) and diabetes have increased dramatically, and deaths from infectious diseases (not including AIDS) have increased 22%. (REHW #528) These seem to be strong indications that immune disorders are increasing. Perhaps all these immunotoxins are having a cumulative effect. The U.S. government does not seem prepared to cope with these problems. To prevent damage to the immune system would require strong action to curb the release of immunotoxic chemicals into the environment. This would require a government that is independent of, and stronger than, the corporations releasing the chemicals. At present we do not have anything close to that kind of government. --Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO) =============== [1] Catherine Hoffman and others, "Persons With Chronic Conditions," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vol. 276, No. 18 (November 13, 1996), pgs. 1473-1479. The data describe the non-institutionalized population. [2] William R. Clark, AT WAR WITHIN; THE DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD OF IMMUNITY (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). Clark lists autoimmune diseases on pg. 123. [3] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, FISCAL YEAR 1984 ANNUAL PLAN (Research Triangle, N.C.: National Toxicology Program [P.O. Box 12233, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709], 1984), pg. 157. [4] Anna Fan, Robert Howd, and Brian Davis, "Risk Assessment of Environmental Chemicals," ANNUAL REVIEW OF PHARMACOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY Vol. 35 (1995), pgs. 341-368. [5] See, for example, Andrew C. Revkin, "New Studies Show PCB's [sic] Persist in Hudson, and Are Entering Air," NEW YORK TIMES February 22, 1997, pg. A1. [6] K. Kannan and others, "Elevated Accumulation of Tributyltin and Its Breakdown Products in Bottlenose Dolphins (TURSIOPS TRUNCATUS) Found Stranded along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts," ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY [ES&T] Vol. 31, No. 1 (1997), pgs. 296-301. [7] And see A.J. McMichael and others, editors, CLIMATE CHANGE AND HUMAN HEALTH (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1996), Chapter 8, especially pages 167-170. [8] According to the press statement, the new IARC finding on dioxin will be published in Volume 69 of IARC MONOGRAPHS ON THE EVALUATION OF CARCINOGENIC RISKS TO HUMANS. The IARC can be contacted at: IARC, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon, France. [9] National Diabetes Data Group, DIABETES IN AMERICA [NIH Publication No. 85-1468] (no place of publication [Bethesda, Md.?]: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Arthritis, Diabetes, and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, August 1985), Table 2, pgs. VI-4, VI-5. [10] Robert Repetto and Sanjay S. Baliga, PESTICIDES AND THE IMMUNE SYSTEM: THE PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS (Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute, 1996). Available for $14.95 from WRI Publications, P.O. Box 4852, Hampden Station, Baltimore, MD 21211. Telephone: 1-800-822-0504, or (410) 516-6963. Fax: (410) 516-6998. E-mail: chrisd@wri.org. [11] William R. Clark, AT WAR WITHIN; THE DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD OF IMMUNITY (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), Chapter 8. See also: Phyllis B. Blair and others, "Disease Patterns and Antibody Responses to Viral Antigens in Women Exposed IN UTERO to Diethylstilbestrol," in Theo Colborn and Coralie Clement, editors, CHEMICALLY-INDUCED ALTERATIONS IN SEXUAL AND FUNCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: THE WILDLIFE/HUMAN CONNECTION [Advances in Modern Environmental Toxicology Vol. XXI] (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Scientific Publishing Co., 1992), pgs. 283-288. And, in the same volume, see Phyllis B. Blair, "Immunologic Studies of Women Exposed IN UTERO to Diethylstilbestrol," pgs. 289-294. [12] Speech by Gilbert Omenn, Dean, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, given at the meeting of Grantmakers in Health, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, February 27, 1997. Descriptor terms: chronic diseases; immune system; children; health care costs; prevension; diabetes; multiple schlerosis; lupus erythematosus; schleroderma; rheumatoid arthritis; arthritis; hypersensitivity reactions; allergies; national toxicology program; cancer; bacteria; viruses; fungi; parasites; corporations; dolphins; marine mammals; gulf of mexico; atlantic ocean; tributyltin; tin; pcbs; ddt; uvb; ultraviolet radiation; cfcs; chlorofluorocarbons; dioxin; carcinogens; iarc; international agency for research on cancer; world health organization; who; agent orange; vietnam veterans; 2,4,5-t; 2-4,d; herbicides; perticides; world resources institute; wri; toxic dumps; landfilling; asbestos; fiberglass; endocrine disrupters; endocrine system; perchloroethylene; trichloroethylene; chloroform; asthma; infectious diseases; ################################################################ NOTICE Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge even though it costs our organization considerable time and money to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do not send credit card information via E-mail. For further information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL. --Peter Montague, Editor ################################################################ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Happy Joyful Toxins 1/2 Date: Thu Mar 06 13:10:13 CST 1997 Message number: 54 Reply to message number: 52 DR> The majority of people with chronic conditions are not disabled, DR> nor are they elderly. In fact, one out of every four children in DR> the U.S. (25%) now lives with a chronic condition.[1] DR> DR> Chronic conditions can often be "managed" (helping people to live DR> with the condition), but they usually cannot be cured. The cost They are also cumulative and progressive. As more and more insults are added to the person. more and more such chromic conditions occur. Damage from one impacts another. The fact that younger children are being hurt by it means that they have longer to deal with this than the earlier generations. In addition, I personally know of four children under 15 and one 22 year old who are already considerably disabled. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FATAL ERROR To: All Subject: Owl's Date: Tue Apr 01 15:06:39 CST 1997 Message number: 55 Reply to message number: unavailable I have a question for you all. Do you really think that owl's are more important then people? I am bringing back the past here... But I guess it is still happening today. Because of some stupid own that does no good to anyone (That is the part I want comments on) I have to use cheap wood to build stuff... Yes you all know what I am talking about! Becuause of a own people don't have jobs, and the people that do have jobs have rotted fences. Just a message to get discussion going. --- � [TN71] Area 51 bbs * xxxxxxxxxxxxxx * "The Truth is Here" |13--------- Edited by SysOp - BBS ads are still not allowed in the message areas.. --------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Fatal Error Subject: Re: Owl's Date: Tue Apr 01 16:58:38 CST 1997 Message number: 56 Reply to message number: 54 FE> Do you really think that owl's are more important then people? I am FE> bringing back the past here... But I guess it is still happening today. FE> Because of some stupid own that does no good to anyone (That is the FE> part I want comments on) I have to use cheap wood to build stuff... Yes FE> you all know what I am talking about! Becuause of a own people don't FE> have jobs, and the people that do have jobs have rotted fences. FE> You may not realize it, but you have brought up two different issues. One is about owls, I assume that you mean the Northern Spotted Owl that lived in the old growth forests in northwestern United states. It, along with a few other species have been defined as endangered because their numbers have dropped to a level so dangerously low that the species may become extinct. To answer your question, no, I think that the owls and humans are equally important. A species, especially of predators, like raptors, becoming extinct has important ramifications for humans because they are markers that show the health of the entire ecosystem. When one of these species does poorly, it indicates that there may be trouble for other species in the same area. An example of how this may work is about mice. One owl kills and eats more than its own weight in mice every day. If you kill one owl, you have a lot of mice running loose who make more mice rapidly and eat, not mice, but REALLY like the grains that humans farm and store. They are also not particularly careful with their bathroom habits and leave their marks, along with disease, in the grain. A neighbor of mine found this out the hard way. He kept losing chickens and blamed the great horned owls that live nearby and shot them. After he shot the third owl, I wondered why he was killing the predator and still losing chickens. Upon asking him how the chickens were being killed, I knew that the predator killing them was not an owl. In fact, I pointed out to my neighbor that the favorite prey of Great Horned Owls is skunks, and skunks love to kill -- chickens. By killing the GH owls, he was making this very easy for them. I think that humans and other species all have purposes in being here and are equally important. FE> part I want comments on) I have to use cheap wood to build stuff... Yes FE> you all know what I am talking about! Becuause of a own people don't FE> have jobs, and the people that do have jobs have rotted fences. FE> I doubt tht you are having to buy cheap wood. More likely that you are having to pay high prices for poor wood. This is partly because the lumbering industry is doing this deliberately to try to convince people that they really need to cut all of the old growth forests, which by definition, are mature and have been in place for a long time. Some of those trees in the northwest were saplings when Christ was born. But, since we have been cutting them down, there is less than 10% of the original old growth trees left. I don't think we need to cut them all down now. I think that it is a benefit to our children to leave them a world with some old forests, siberian tigers, and spotted owls. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: THE INVISIBLE MAN To: Fatal Error Subject: Re: Owl's Date: Thu Apr 03 11:42:41 CST 1997 Message number: 57 Reply to message number: 55 FE> Do you really think that owl's are more important then people? I am It would help if you're being more specific. Survival of the fittest is the key -- if you're stronger than the owl, well your more powerful. But does that mean you should kill to unnecessarily expand? Well, I'll let you decide. Of course, it's almost impossible to take a real stance on what you are saying, since you aren't talking about a specific incident. FE> have jobs, and the people that do have jobs have rotted fences. Fences are bad. FE> � [TN71] Area 51 bbs * xxxxxxxxxxxxxx * "The Truth is Here" FE> --------- FE> Edited by SysOp - BBS ads are still not allowed in the message areas.. Heh. Teebo hand sout beatdowns. *67 bitch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FATAL ERROR To: The Invisible Man Subject: Re: Owl's Date: Thu Apr 03 16:03:31 CST 1997 Message number: 58 Reply to message number: 57 TI> Heh. Teebo hand sout beatdowns. *67 bitch. I really thought you would be able to figure out the first part of my message... Froggy did... Anyways that subject got old fairly quick, Froggy had an excellent message on the subject. As for the *67 thing... It is no more... I no longer have the CID hooked up... I am joining up with a few people and making the board private, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFIRE To: All Subject: Earth Day Date: Fri Apr 04 18:33:26 CST 1997 Message number: 59 Reply to message number: unavailable I know that some of you live in the Eagan/Apple Valley area and I am organizing a park and lake clean up. If you are interested in helping in my effort mail me but I would encourage all of you to do something for mother Earth on tues, April 22 and every day. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Fatal Error Subject: Re: Owl's Date: Wed Apr 23 16:30:40 CDT 1997 Message number: 60 Reply to message number: 58 TI> Heh. Teebo hand sout beatdowns. *67 bitch. FE> As for the *67 thing... It is no more... I no longer have the CID hooked up FE> I am joining up with a few people and making the board private, Invis was being elite. You had to read into it a bit.. He was saying that by "*67"ing, I was cencoring numbers.. It's like saying "let's 86 this place", "popped point blank", or "you got burned".. *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: THE INVISIBLE MAN To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: Owl's Date: Sat Apr 26 03:36:51 CDT 1997 Message number: 61 Reply to message number: 60 TI> Heh. Teebo hand sout beatdowns. *67 bitch. FE> As for the *67 thing... It is no more... I no longer have the CID hooked up FE> I am joining up with a few people and making the board private, BT> BT> Invis was being elite. You had to read into it a bit.. He was saying that BT> "*67"ing, I was cencoring numbers.. It's like saying "let's 86 this place" BT> "popped point blank", or "you got burned".. Actually I meant what fatal error said above, I was unhappy I couldn't use *67 to call his board, but the you got burned was in there a bit.. Terminate doesn't use just ATDT as the dial prefix, it's ATDT*67, :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: I'm a Walkin'... Date: Fri May 02 17:13:22 CDT 1997 Message number: 62 Reply to message number: unavailable � Area: Skeptic 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴 From: Kevin Gibson Read: Yes Replied: No To: Laurie Appleton Mark: Subj: Garden Variety Snake 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴 From: The New York Times Fossils show snakes had limbs, then lost the evolutionary leg up ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paleontologists say they have found the first compelling fossil evidence that snakes grew legs long ago. In a reappraisal of fossils from a limestone quarry in Israel, paleontologists identified specimens, previously thought to be a lizard species, as the most primitive known snake - so primitive that it still had short but well-developed hind limbs. This slender, 3-foot snake, Pachyrhachis problematicus, lived in a shallow sea 95 million years ago. The discovery, being reported today in the journal _Nature_, could be a significant step in determining the origin of snakes, which has been obscured by a frustratingly skimpy fossil record, and tracing their evolutionary history. Not only does it enable scientists to prove that early snakes had legs, like other reptiles, but may let them establish more clearly their relationship to the wider order of lizards, one of the unsolved mysteries of evolution. Questions about whether snakes ever had limbs and how they might have lost them have long intrigued scientists. Ancient people must have wondered, too, which would account for the story of the most famous snake of all, the source of temptation in the Garden of Eden. When the serpent beguiled Eve into tasting of the tree of knowledge, according to the Book of Genesis, God condemned the serpent to go on its belly "and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." Michael W. Caldwell of the University of Alberta in Edmonton and Michael S.Y. Lee of the University of Sydney in Australia examined the two fossils last year at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The specimens had two hind legs, each only a little more than an inch long. And these were not lizards, as they had been classified 20 years ago, when they were excavated at the Ein Jabrud quarries, 12 miles north of Jerusalem on the West Bank. In their journal report, the two paleontologists said the small, narrow, lightly built skull of Pachyrhachis had many characteristics found only in snakes. The braincase is fully enclosed in bone. Other bones and the jaws are loosely connected, which gives snakes the wide-mouthed flexibility to swallow whole their prey of frogs and rodents. Even the number and nature of the vertebrae seemed to stamp the specimens as snakes. Caldwell and Lee called this "compelling evidence" that Pachyrhachis was "a primitive snake with a well-developed pelvis and hind limbs." In a telephone interview yesterday, Nicholas C. Fraser, a paleontologist at the Virginia Museum of Natural History in Martinsville, agreed that this "is unquestionably a primitive snake." He wrote an accompanying article in Nature commenting on the research. Fraser said the scientists would probably meet with considerable resistance, and require much more evidence, before they could win over paleontologists to their second conclusion - the link between snakes and a particular group of marine lizards - based on the analysis of the fossils. ... Good printers do it without wrinkling the sheets. ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: The Invisible Man Subject: Re: Owl's Date: Fri Jun 06 11:10:08 CDT 1997 Message number: 63 Reply to message number: 57 TI> Heh. Teebo hand sout beatdowns. *67 bitch. *51 ,, 911