Politicians found to carry toxic chemical soup
Updated Wed. Jan. 3 2007 3:52 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Four top Canadian politicians have a combined cocktail of toxic chemicals in their bodies that would make a smokestack shudder.
The group Environmental Defence released results Wednesday of laboratory testing done on Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, NDP Leader Jack Layton, Health Minister Tony Clement and Liberal environment critic John Godfrey.
The study found that Ambrose had fewer flame-retardants in her blood than Layton, but had a higher level of arsenic than the New Democrat leader.
Clement's blood, meanwhile, contains polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, despite the fact they have been banned for years. But Clement's blood was lower in neurotoxic mercury than Godfrey's.
The results are part of the report Toxic Nation on Parliament Hill: A Report on Pollution in Four Canadian Politicians, which is intended to serve as a wake-up call for leaders about the state of pollution in Canada.
So what......
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Come On People...Let's Not Become Hysterical
and start parking our cars, shuting down our industries, lowering/raising our thermostats, etc. let's compare the levels in the politicos with a smoker who died at the age of 80 because when the pedal hits the medal we have to see how this information impacts on longevity. In 1940 life expectancy was 66.1 years but in 2001 it climbed to 77.7 years which would indicate that environment is not a major factor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Unhypentated Canadian
- I lean to the right but I still have a heart and if I have a mission it is to respond to attacks on people not available to protect themselves and to point out the hypocrisy of the left at every opportunity.MY MAJOR GOAL IS HIGHLIGHT THE HYPOCRISY AND STUPIDITY OF THE LEFTISTS ON TORONTO CITY COUNCIL. Last word: In the final analysis this blog is a relief valve for my rants/raves.
5 comments:
oh hell no. Let's not let the fact that cancer rates are soaring. We can cure cancer now!
Sorry but you will have to explain your explanation.
The simple fact is that life expectancy has increased while the sources of pollution, or at least the indentification have also increased so therefore following your convuluted logic the higher the number of pollutants found in our bodies the longer we will live.
you just hang on to your little factoid. Hold your head in the sand, big industry will thank you. We have increased life expectancy from the days of horses and buggies, Yet today, we allow big business to poison our population, with little resistance. Now what would happen to life expectancy, and hey, let's throw something here wild.... life QUALITY... if we were s to start reducing the poisons that any half wit can see is hampering progress?
It really depends on what is important to you. Progress for filling the pockets of a few in big business, or, further increasing the life expectancy, and 'quality' of life from where we are now. It's the attitudes of dinosaurs like yourself that impede real progress for the betterment of life.
You don't have a leg to stand on.
I pose the following questions:
* What mode of transportation do you use?
* How do you control the environment in your home?
* How do you dispose of body waste/fluids?
* When you are ill what medications do you take?
* How do you communicate with other people?
* Where do get the funds that you use to sustain yourself?
If you answer even one of these questions honestly then you are a hypocrite. The big business gambit is ridiculous because big business, or any business, cannot survive without people like you and I using the services they provide...when you stop using the services of big business then you can upgrade your status from half wit.
*
is that your excuse for doing nothing? You show someone who never pollute the air by getting A to B. You show me someone who doesn't affect air quality by heating their home. You show me someone who is able to make body waste invisible magically. You show me someone who never uses any technology to communicate with someone. You show me someone who in their employment doesn't in some way affect our environment negatively.
That argument is useless, and a clear sign you have nothing. You rant about people being hysterical when really, you are a hinderance to REAL progress.
Of course everyone effects our environment. It is how our society runs. But the real challenge, to those who wish to rise to it, is how to improve our footprint on environmental damage. Your argument is the typical close minded crap I hear from those who refuse to acknowledge there is a problem to be addressed.
No one has suggested we live in mud huts and eat tree bark. But you seem to think so. Take off your tin hat old man.
years ago CFCs were banned and now they are reporting improvements on the ozone layer. It took years, and many more to improve. It's about identifying how we can effectively change our methods and lifestyles and we don't need fossils sitting there crapping on good ideas.
There are many people who make different choices to help reduce environmental damage every little bit by everyone makes a large difference.
I realize you don't care much, you'll be long gone before the real shit hits the fan.
Post a Comment