June 30, 2018 By Norman Rogers
It is difficult to fully itemize the subsidies provided for wind and solar energy. Many subsidies are hidden in the tax code or are an indirect consequence of the privileged treatment given these sources of electricity.
A fundamental difference between wind and solar and traditional energy sources is that wind and solar are intermittent and erratic. The weather affects both wind and cloud cover. The sun sets every night, turning off solar generation, often just when demand peaks. In winter, solar generation drops -- dramatically in areas with heavy winter cloud cover.
Wind and solar are dumb electricity.
It would be helpful if the erratic electricity flow could be smoothed out by means of electricity storage. But all methods of storing electricity are too limited or too expensive. Batteries are flexible but wildly expensive for anything beyond very short term storage. Pumped storage is the most realistic method of storing electricity. Pumped storage requires reservoirs and reversible hydroelectric plants, rendering it impracticable except where natural reservoirs and abundant water are present. Even under the best conditions, pumped storage would greatly increase cost of the wind or solar electricity..........
under near ideal circumstances, costs about seven cents per kilowatt hour........five cents per kilowatt hour is the subsidy that society pays for generating electricity in this fashion.........We are constantly treated to disinformation claiming that wind or solar is competitive with fossil fuels.....................Read more
Saturday, June 30, 2018
Friday, June 29, 2018
Science Triumphs At The EPA. For Now
By Henry I. Miller May 17th 2018 @ Science 2.0
1) honeybee populations are rising, not falling
2) pesticides as a whole play only a minor role in bee health,
3) some of the most problematic pesticides are those used directly in the hive by beekeepers to control the deadly Varroa mite
4) neonics are significantly more benign than the older pesticides they replaced, such as organophosphates and pyrethroids, and
5) the real cause of honeybee health problems is the global spread of parasites and the myriad diseases that currently infect beehives.
In The Neonic Ban: A Scientific Fraud
Becomes Enshrined In EU Regulatory Law, I described the many
elements of corruption that led to Europe’s recently announced ban on neonic
insecticides (“neonics”) which is based on the fallacy that they are
responsible for a supposed collapse in bee populations. In fact, bee
populations are rising on every habitable continent in the world, and have been
since neonics first came on the market.
So far, despite some worrisome signals from EPA early on, U.S. farmers appear tohave
escaped the regulatory fate of their European counterparts. Largely unreported
by the mainstream media, the agency recently released draft final assessments
on neonics that reach dramatically different conclusions from Europe’s
counterpart agency EFSA.
A few unresolved issues notwithstanding, EPA’s magnum opus – 12 separate, voluminous reviews of effects on non-pollinators, human health, drinking water and aquatic environments for the four major products -- imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam and dinotefuran -- re-affirms the critical importance of neonics to U.S. agriculture and largely refutes the claims of environmental activists. Combined with earlier, positive assessments on bees and other pollinators, EPA has now effectively given neonics a clean bill of health.
A few unresolved issues notwithstanding, EPA’s magnum opus – 12 separate, voluminous reviews of effects on non-pollinators, human health, drinking water and aquatic environments for the four major products -- imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam and dinotefuran -- re-affirms the critical importance of neonics to U.S. agriculture and largely refutes the claims of environmental activists. Combined with earlier, positive assessments on bees and other pollinators, EPA has now effectively given neonics a clean bill of health.
As the Duke of
Wellington said of his victory over Napoleon Bonaparte at Waterloo, however,
“it was a close run thing.” This is not because the science concerning bees and
neonics was in doubt. The campaign to ban neonics was never about science and
facts -- it was about politics. While the U.S. regulatory system has more
structural safeguards against manipulation than Europe’s -- which has
practically none -- it is far from immune to political pressure. During the
last U.S. administration, especially, it too often appeared that activists were
calling the shots at EPA.
Activists were calling the shots
Activists were calling the shots
When the EU
banned neonics in 2013, the environmental movement smelled blood in the water.
Much of the activist cash used to promote the false bee-pocalypse narrative in
Europe was subsequently targeted on the U.S. As usual, many in the mainstream
media were willing accomplices in spreading their apocalyptic narrative. Time
magazine’s iconic cover story, “A World Without Bees,” was just one of
thousands declaring that honeybees were going extinct and that we’d all soon
starve to death because bees “are responsible for one-third of everything we
eat” (the latter part being yet another fictitious and endlessly repeated
claim).
Like EFSA, the
U.S. EPA knew full well that:
1) honeybee populations are rising, not falling
2) pesticides as a whole play only a minor role in bee health,
3) some of the most problematic pesticides are those used directly in the hive by beekeepers to control the deadly Varroa mite
4) neonics are significantly more benign than the older pesticides they replaced, such as organophosphates and pyrethroids, and
5) the real cause of honeybee health problems is the global spread of parasites and the myriad diseases that currently infect beehives.
It was clear
that mere facts weren’t going to matter very much, however. At the time of the
EU ban, the head of the EPA office in charge of pesticides, Jim Jones,
complained that the intense political pressure then being exerted on EPA would
force the agency to either ban or tightly restrict neonics in this country as
well. That pressure only became more intense when President Obama took a “personal interest” in bees and formed a White
House Task Force on Pollinators.
EPA caved to political pressure from the White House
EPA caved to political pressure from the White House
At first, EPA
appeared to be capitulating. Neonics had already undergone rigorous assessments
before they were commercialized, of course, but without any scientific
justification those initial tests were now deemed insufficient, and new, more
stringent standards were set up for an accelerated re-assessment. ThenEPA
released a bizarre and unprecedented “efficacy” study of neonicotinoid seed
treatments on soy that found they had little value to farmers.
That analysis
was remarkable in several ways: EPA had never conducted such a study before;
its authors neglected to actually ask soy farmers what they thought; and the overwhelming weight of evidence from other
studies clearly showed substantial benefits. In fact, EPA’s manipulation of the
facts and data was so egregious that USDA issued a public rebuke to theagency! Calling the
report “incomplete,” “premature,” and damaging to farmers, they strongly urged
EPA to withdraw it.
 |
What canola fields really look like without neonics: Left has not been treated, while the right has. Credit: Gregory Sekulic, Canola Council of Canada Agronomy Specialist
|
Undaunted and
unrepentant, EPA started laying the groundwork to restrict or even ban neonic
use on citrus and cotton, in spite of the fact that neither crop requires bees
for pollination. Inasmuch as orange and cotton farmers only allow hives to be
placed on their property as a favor to beekeepers, who can charge a significant
premium for orange and cotton blossom honey, it seemed as if EPA was punishing
the farmers for being good neighbors.
Moreover,neither
crop would survive without neonics, as EPA knew full well. Neonics areFlorida
orange growers’ last line of defense against the Asian psyllid thatcarries
citrus greening disease, an incurable infection that has alreadyslashed Florida’s orange productionby 70 percentover
the last 20 years. The loss of neonics would be just as devastating for cotton,
collapsing the industry and turning
cotton-dependent communities throughout America’s southeast into ghost towns.
Talk about the “Deep State” conspiring to injure the nation’s economy.
Something
happened on the way to the activists’ party, however. The neonics kept passing
EPA’s doubly rigorous scientific tests. Even before the first preliminary
assessments, Reuters reported that the EPA official in charge of regulating
pesticides admitted that that neonic seed treatments – which account for
thevast majority of neonic uses – do not pose a threat to bees
If nectar
brought back to the hive from worker bees had more than 25 parts per billion of
the chemical, "there's a significant effect," namely fewer bees, less
honey and "a less robust hive," said Jim Jones, EPA's assistant
administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention.
But if the nectar chemical level was below 25 parts per billion, it was as if there were no imidacloprid at all, with no ill effects, Jones said. It was a clear line of harm or no harm, he said. Levels depended on the crop, Jones said.
While nectar of cotton and citrus fruits were above the harmful concentrations, the levels were not harmful for corn — the nation's top crop by far — most vegetables, berries and tobacco. Other crops weren't conclusive and need more testing, including legumes, melons, tree nuts and herbs
Also, the controversial practice of treating seeds with the chemical seemed not to harm bees, Jones said.
But if the nectar chemical level was below 25 parts per billion, it was as if there were no imidacloprid at all, with no ill effects, Jones said. It was a clear line of harm or no harm, he said. Levels depended on the crop, Jones said.
While nectar of cotton and citrus fruits were above the harmful concentrations, the levels were not harmful for corn — the nation's top crop by far — most vegetables, berries and tobacco. Other crops weren't conclusive and need more testing, including legumes, melons, tree nuts and herbs
Also, the controversial practice of treating seeds with the chemical seemed not to harm bees, Jones said.
Given that
crop residues from neonic seed treatments fall far below 25 parts per billion –
usually between undetectable and the low single digits -- it was becoming clear
that there simply was no scientific justification for a widespread ban.
The recent
draft assessments should cut off the last hope the activists have for
significant restrictions. Effective reversals on restrictions of neonics on
cotton and citrus acknowledge how critical these chemicals are. And on soy, EPA
essentially issued a mea culpa, admitting that seed treatments are
critical to crop survival in much of the United States.
Interestingly,
Canada’s EPA-equivalent, PMRA, issued a parallel briefing in December on its
long-awaited review of neonics’ health, safety and environmental risks in
Canadian agriculture. In spite of intense lobbying by environmental activists
in Ontario and Quebec for an outright ban on neonics, PMRA found that nothing
more was justified to cope with a handful of minor and isolated risks than to
prescribe a few targeted mitigation measures. That will likely be EPA’s final
finding as well for the few unresolved issues that remain concerning birds and
aquatic systems.
Neonics are OK in the United States for now - but environmentalists hate to lose against science
Neonics are OK in the United States for now - but environmentalists hate to lose against science
For now,
neonics are OK in the United States. But how long will this last? Central to
Europe’s regulatory dysfunction is the so-called “precautionary principle, ”which
as I’ve written about before, is neither a principle nor truly precautionary.
By writing into law the idea that hypothetical (and often, imaginary) threats
are more important than actual evidence, the EU has fundamentally abandoned the
field to the activists, who are masters at whipping up public hysteria over
imminent crises, even if, as with the bee-pocalypse, they’re entirely
fictional.
In the United
States, by law, EPA regulation must still be based on science. Unfortunately,
the activists are becoming increasingly adept at manipulating the process,
producing junk studies by the boatload, continually pushing for relaxed
evidential standards (such as greater reliance on easily fudged epidemiological
studies), and proposing ever more novel theories of environmental and
biological harm.
Science-based
regulation can’t withstand political pressure forever if it’s intense enough. It
would be naïve to think that we would be where we are with neonics if the2016
presidential election had gone differently, or that regulatory policy couldn’t
deteriorate if the House and/or Senate majorities were to switch next year. For
the time being, science is winning this battle, but the best we can say going
forward is that it will continue to be a “close run thing.”
Henry I.
Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in
Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University's Hoover
Institution. He was the founding director of the U.S. FDA's Office of
Biotechnology.
More Articles
About
Henry I.
Miller, MS, MD, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public
Policy at the Hoover Institution https://www.hoover.org/
Related articles
Thursday, June 28, 2018
Could Herpes Cause Alzheimer's? Maybe
By Josh Bloom — June 27, 2018 @ American Council on Science and Health
A recent study in the journal Neuron has found a strong link between two rather obscure and poorly understood families of human herpesviruses and Alzheimer's Disease (AD). This is a fascinating development.
Dr. Joel Dudley of Mount Sinai Medical School and colleagues identified two herpes viruses that were strongly associated with AD. The group found that people who had AD when they were alive had more of two viruses, human herpesvirus-6A (HHV-6A) and HHV-7, (1) in their brains than those who did not.
The paper, which is long and complex, once again raises the possibility that AD is caused by a virus, a theory that has been hotly disputed for years. I wouldn't bet against Dudley for two reasons: 1.A fundamental but unanswered question about AD has always been whether the plaques that form in the brains of its victims are the cause of the disease or the result of damage from something else. like infection or head trauma. Since all attempts to prevent or dissolve the plaques have failed to impact AD (2), perhaps something else, like a pathogen, is the causative factor and the plaques are merely an aftermath. 2.Pathogens, especially viruses, are increasingly implicated in diseases in which there was no apparent connection until one was discovered. Dr. Dudley makes this quite clear:
“Even if the questions remain, this research offers strong support for a long-controversial hypothesis that viruses might be involved in the development of Alzheimers disease. We didn’t have a horse in this virus race whatsoever. It’s the data that took us there. And now, not only is the viral hypothesis resurrected: it has specific testable pathways and networks and interactions that can be explored and reconciled with the rest of the work emerging in Alzheimers.”
Joel Dudley , M.D.
I think that it a given that we will continue to see some important and surprising discoveries that will reveal that pathogens are the root cause of poorly understood maladies, for example, a range of viral infections and the development of autoimmune diseases (3). Epidemiology certainly backs this up. About 15% of cancers worldwide are attributed to viral infections. Two other cancers are attributed to bacterial infections.
CANCERS CAUSED BY VIRUSES
•Infection by both hepatitis B and C cause hepatocarcinoma (liver cancer).
•The human papillomavirus (HPV) causes cancers of the cervix, anus, vagina, penis, and head and neck.
•Kaposi's Sarcoma, a cancer that was rare before the onset of the AIDS epidemic is caused by human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8).
•Certain lymphomas and Hodgkin’s disease are caused by the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV, HHV-4) causes mononucleosis as well as
•Human T-cell leukemia virus (HTLV), a retrovirus (5), causes certain leukemias and lymphomas. Although 10-25 million people worldwide are infected, only 5% of them get any disease from the virus.
CANCERS CAUSED BACTERIA
•Helicobacter - Ulcers and stomach cancer
•Tuberculous - Lung cancer
There are nine herpes families that infect humans (4). Most of these are either well-known or at least have recognizable names - HSV-1 and-2, Epstein-Barr, varicella-zoster, cytomegalovirus. But the two herpes families that were found to be associated with AD were HHV-6a and HHV-7, and little is known about either one of them. Almost all humans are infected, primarily during childhood, but rarely cause disease.
In 2005, Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discovery of Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease. Ulcers were caused by an infectious disease, a startling revelation at that time. Perhaps the Mount Sinai group's findings will point others in a different direction. One is sorely needed. There are now 5 million Americans living with this awful disease and this number is expected to grow to 17 million by 2050.
If researchers turn their attention to the role of infectious pathogens in causing seemingly unrelated diseases perhaps we will see more surprises like Marshall and Warren's discovery.
There are plenty of Nobel Prizes out there. Whoever discovers the root cause of Alzheimer's can expect a nice trip to Stockholm.
NOTES:
(1) HHV-6 belongs to the Roseolovirus subfamily of herpesviruses. HHV-7 belongs to the Betaherpesviridae subfamily.
(2) Derek Lowe over at Science Translational Medicine has frequently written about the failures of drugs that were designed to prevent or modify plaques. His most recent article about Merck's failed attempt can be read here.
(3) Multiple viral infections have been postulated as causes for a host of autoimmune diseases, for example, Type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and multiple sclerosis.
(4) It's not just humans. Feline leukemia virus (FeLV), as the name implies, causes leukemia, which is a major cause of death in cats that have not been vaccinated.
(5) Retroviruses are particularly nasty concoctions of nature. Like many other viruses their genetic material is RNA but they also have two specialized enzymes differentiate them from normal viruses. One is reverse transcriptase, which uses the viral RNA as a template to build viral DNA. The other is called integrase, which inserts the newly formed DNA into the DNA of the host cell, which changes its genome. Then you're not you anymore. The cells that are infected are transformed into something you weren't born with.
Original Soure: Readhead et al., 2018, Neuron 99, 1–19 July 11, 2018. "Multiscale Analysis of Independent Alzheimer’s Cohorts Finds Disruption of Molecular, Genetic, and Clinical Networks by Human Herpesvirus" https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.05.023
A recent study in the journal Neuron has found a strong link between two rather obscure and poorly understood families of human herpesviruses and Alzheimer's Disease (AD). This is a fascinating development.
Dr. Joel Dudley of Mount Sinai Medical School and colleagues identified two herpes viruses that were strongly associated with AD. The group found that people who had AD when they were alive had more of two viruses, human herpesvirus-6A (HHV-6A) and HHV-7, (1) in their brains than those who did not.
The paper, which is long and complex, once again raises the possibility that AD is caused by a virus, a theory that has been hotly disputed for years. I wouldn't bet against Dudley for two reasons: 1.A fundamental but unanswered question about AD has always been whether the plaques that form in the brains of its victims are the cause of the disease or the result of damage from something else. like infection or head trauma. Since all attempts to prevent or dissolve the plaques have failed to impact AD (2), perhaps something else, like a pathogen, is the causative factor and the plaques are merely an aftermath. 2.Pathogens, especially viruses, are increasingly implicated in diseases in which there was no apparent connection until one was discovered. Dr. Dudley makes this quite clear:
“Even if the questions remain, this research offers strong support for a long-controversial hypothesis that viruses might be involved in the development of Alzheimers disease. We didn’t have a horse in this virus race whatsoever. It’s the data that took us there. And now, not only is the viral hypothesis resurrected: it has specific testable pathways and networks and interactions that can be explored and reconciled with the rest of the work emerging in Alzheimers.”
Joel Dudley , M.D.
I think that it a given that we will continue to see some important and surprising discoveries that will reveal that pathogens are the root cause of poorly understood maladies, for example, a range of viral infections and the development of autoimmune diseases (3). Epidemiology certainly backs this up. About 15% of cancers worldwide are attributed to viral infections. Two other cancers are attributed to bacterial infections.
CANCERS CAUSED BY VIRUSES
•Infection by both hepatitis B and C cause hepatocarcinoma (liver cancer).
•The human papillomavirus (HPV) causes cancers of the cervix, anus, vagina, penis, and head and neck.
•Kaposi's Sarcoma, a cancer that was rare before the onset of the AIDS epidemic is caused by human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8).
•Certain lymphomas and Hodgkin’s disease are caused by the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV, HHV-4) causes mononucleosis as well as
•Human T-cell leukemia virus (HTLV), a retrovirus (5), causes certain leukemias and lymphomas. Although 10-25 million people worldwide are infected, only 5% of them get any disease from the virus.
CANCERS CAUSED BACTERIA
•Helicobacter - Ulcers and stomach cancer
•Tuberculous - Lung cancer
There are nine herpes families that infect humans (4). Most of these are either well-known or at least have recognizable names - HSV-1 and-2, Epstein-Barr, varicella-zoster, cytomegalovirus. But the two herpes families that were found to be associated with AD were HHV-6a and HHV-7, and little is known about either one of them. Almost all humans are infected, primarily during childhood, but rarely cause disease.
In 2005, Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discovery of Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease. Ulcers were caused by an infectious disease, a startling revelation at that time. Perhaps the Mount Sinai group's findings will point others in a different direction. One is sorely needed. There are now 5 million Americans living with this awful disease and this number is expected to grow to 17 million by 2050.
If researchers turn their attention to the role of infectious pathogens in causing seemingly unrelated diseases perhaps we will see more surprises like Marshall and Warren's discovery.
There are plenty of Nobel Prizes out there. Whoever discovers the root cause of Alzheimer's can expect a nice trip to Stockholm.
NOTES:
(1) HHV-6 belongs to the Roseolovirus subfamily of herpesviruses. HHV-7 belongs to the Betaherpesviridae subfamily.
(2) Derek Lowe over at Science Translational Medicine has frequently written about the failures of drugs that were designed to prevent or modify plaques. His most recent article about Merck's failed attempt can be read here.
(3) Multiple viral infections have been postulated as causes for a host of autoimmune diseases, for example, Type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and multiple sclerosis.
(4) It's not just humans. Feline leukemia virus (FeLV), as the name implies, causes leukemia, which is a major cause of death in cats that have not been vaccinated.
(5) Retroviruses are particularly nasty concoctions of nature. Like many other viruses their genetic material is RNA but they also have two specialized enzymes differentiate them from normal viruses. One is reverse transcriptase, which uses the viral RNA as a template to build viral DNA. The other is called integrase, which inserts the newly formed DNA into the DNA of the host cell, which changes its genome. Then you're not you anymore. The cells that are infected are transformed into something you weren't born with.
Original Soure: Readhead et al., 2018, Neuron 99, 1–19 July 11, 2018. "Multiscale Analysis of Independent Alzheimer’s Cohorts Finds Disruption of Molecular, Genetic, and Clinical Networks by Human Herpesvirus" https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.05.023
NPMA: To Win We Must First Define Our Enemies and Our Allies, Part II
By Rich Kozlovich
In 1998 David S. Landis published “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, Why Some Nations are so Rich and Some Nations are so Poor”. I recommend it highly. There-in he notes that at one-point China was 500 years ahead of the rest of the world technologically. What happened? It’s not an easy answer since hundreds of years passed before they were completely overtaken by western technology, but there were some fundamental paradigms that caused it.
One, the government was foundationally tyrannical. Whether the leader is called a dictator or an emperor is immaterial. Tyranny is tyranny. They eschewed they idea of a “free market and institutionalized property rights. The Chinese state was always interfering with private enterprise - taking over lucrative activities, prohibiting others, manipulation of prices, exacting bribes, curtailing private enrichment.” (1)
He went on to say: “Bad government strangled initiative, increased the cost of transactions, diverted talent from commence and industry.” Quoting who he calls the “Great Hungarian-German-French sinologist, Etienne Balazs”, he says:
Let me tell you about the Sacketts.
The Sackett’s bought a lot in a residential area near Priest Lake, Idaho with the intention of building a home. They conscientiously acquired the necessary permits and not one person said anything to them about that property being a “wetlands”.
After they started excavation the EPA came in and issued “a "compliance order" that required them to undo the excavation and restore the "wetlands." What were their options? “After three years they could seek a "permit" that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Or they could wait for the EPA to prosecute the alleged Clean Water Act violations, which could result in penalties of $32,500-plus per day.” Worse yet, according to the EPA they weren’t even allowed to challenge their order in court until EPA started enforcement actions. In short – EPA bureaucrats can steal your land, make you pay for it and you’ll like it or else.
Two federal courts agreed with the EPA sending this to the Supreme Court, who unanimously agreed that it was unconstitutional for the government to believe there could be no judicial review of an EPA compliance order. This clearly repudiated the idea that "efficiency of regulation conquers all’.
However, the Sacketts still don’t have a home because the issue didn’t resolve whether or not this was a wetland, and the EPA apparently has other means at their disposal, and unless something has changed, the EPA isn’t backing away. And this is by no means an isolated case, or with just one abusive agency that believe environmental regulations and the capricious interpretation of those regulations by out of control unaccountable bureaucrats can trump the Constitution and your rights.
No matter what happens now we have to ask this one over-riding question: Who makes whole those who’ve been abused by the EPA and other tyrannical government agencies?
Given the nature of the EPA, why would the NPMA ask the membership to support increasing the EPA’s budget tens of millions of dollars over the last two years when there finally is an Administrator who wants to cut their budget? An administrator who is unjustifiably under attack by the left, even threatening his life.
Are we making an attempt to let Congress know our industry supports Pruitt? Do we support Pruitt? Do we believe ending Sue and Settle was a good thing? Do we believe ending the EPA's scheme of creating new regulations and rules via Secret Science was a good thing? I certainly do, but I have no idea what our national leaders think, other than being concerned whether or not the EPA trusts us. And that really matters why? Our character as an industry doesn't make us the issue over trust. Can we really say that about the EPA?
As far as I can tell there are around 15,000 pest control companies in the nation, although I'm sure there's more, and perhaps there's less, but no matter the number, the principles are the same.
It's been noted that over ninty percent of the companies have ten or employees or less. I'm probably way underestimating, but let's make some broad assumptions here. Let's speculate there's approximately 150,000 applicators out there, making at least 100 applications a month. That's 15,000,000 (fifteen million) applications a month, and let's say they work 264 days a year. That means they've made 3,960,000,000 (Almost four billion)applications a year.
How many people have been sickended or died? Over the last 35 years I've been in pest control that number has been miniscule compared to the number of applications made. Some of those cases have been tragic, but assuming my figures are accurate, that means in 35 years there's been 138,600,000,000 applications made in structural pest control alone, and very, very few tragedies.
That's a remarkable safety record. Yet, the EPA is directly responsible for possibly as many as 100 million unnecessary deaths and billions of unnecessary cases of malaria as a result of the ban on DDT. Who needs to earn trust?
If we're so concerned about attaining trust, perhaps we should be more concerned about attaining the trust of Administrator Scott Pruitt and the man who appointed him - and is in complete harmony with his views - President Trump. At least we know they're on our side. Do we know what our side is?
But I do have one idea I really like and I'm sure the Administrator likes it also.
If we and our manufacturer "friends and allies" are so worried the EPA has insufficient funds to carry out one of their legitimate core responsibilities, let’s work at making sure the EPA has adequate funds by going up to the Hill next year and asking Congress to eliminate every one of the regional offices, which could be done via a budget initiative. I would imagine that would be an amazing savings and that would be a grand start!
Bureaucrats with nothing really important to do can always find new interpertations of law to create rules for "a regime of paper work and harassment, endless paper work and endless harassment.” Fire them and watch that problem go away. After that - watch that almost 2 trillion dollars it costs the American public to meet federal regulatory standards start to melt away into something worthwhile.
One more thing. We might think it's a good idea to ask them to insist something be done about the potentially treasonous and illegal activity of the environmental movement by finding out where their money's coming from and what they're doing with it.
NPMA: To Win We Must First Define Our Enemies and Our Allies, Part I
In 1998 David S. Landis published “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, Why Some Nations are so Rich and Some Nations are so Poor”. I recommend it highly. There-in he notes that at one-point China was 500 years ahead of the rest of the world technologically. What happened? It’s not an easy answer since hundreds of years passed before they were completely overtaken by western technology, but there were some fundamental paradigms that caused it.
One, the government was foundationally tyrannical. Whether the leader is called a dictator or an emperor is immaterial. Tyranny is tyranny. They eschewed they idea of a “free market and institutionalized property rights. The Chinese state was always interfering with private enterprise - taking over lucrative activities, prohibiting others, manipulation of prices, exacting bribes, curtailing private enrichment.” (1)
He went on to say: “Bad government strangled initiative, increased the cost of transactions, diverted talent from commence and industry.” Quoting who he calls the “Great Hungarian-German-French sinologist, Etienne Balazs”, he says:
“ ……..if one understands by totalitarianism the complete hold of the State and its executive organs and functionaries over all the activists of social life, initiative, no expression of public life that can escape official control……No private initiative, no expression of public life that can escape official control. There is to begin the with a whole array of state monopolies, which comprise the great consumption stables: salt, iron, tea, alcohol, foreign trade. There is a monopoly of education, jealously guarded. There is practically a monopoly of letters (I was about to say, or the press): anything written unofficially, that escapes the censorship, has little hope of reaching he public. But the reach of the Molock-State, the omnipotence of the bureaucracy, goes much farther. There are clothing regulations, a regulation of public and private construction (dimensions of houses); the colors one wears, the music one hears, the festivals – all are regulated. There are rules for birth and rules for death; the providential State watches minutely over every step of its subjects, from cradle to grave. It is a regime of paper work and harassment, endless paper work and endless harassment.” (2)The point he makes later on is the danger of this creating an “atmosphere of routine, of traditionalism and of immobility, which makes any innovation suspect, any initiative that is not commanded and sanctioned in advance, is unfavorable to the spirit of inquiry.“ In short, people give up and give in to consensus. Admittedly all the points he mentions aren’t applicable, but that’s not the issue. The issue is the societal acceptance of tyranny by bureaucracy, and their abuses.
Let me tell you about the Sacketts.
The Sackett’s bought a lot in a residential area near Priest Lake, Idaho with the intention of building a home. They conscientiously acquired the necessary permits and not one person said anything to them about that property being a “wetlands”.
After they started excavation the EPA came in and issued “a "compliance order" that required them to undo the excavation and restore the "wetlands." What were their options? “After three years they could seek a "permit" that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Or they could wait for the EPA to prosecute the alleged Clean Water Act violations, which could result in penalties of $32,500-plus per day.” Worse yet, according to the EPA they weren’t even allowed to challenge their order in court until EPA started enforcement actions. In short – EPA bureaucrats can steal your land, make you pay for it and you’ll like it or else.
Two federal courts agreed with the EPA sending this to the Supreme Court, who unanimously agreed that it was unconstitutional for the government to believe there could be no judicial review of an EPA compliance order. This clearly repudiated the idea that "efficiency of regulation conquers all’.
However, the Sacketts still don’t have a home because the issue didn’t resolve whether or not this was a wetland, and the EPA apparently has other means at their disposal, and unless something has changed, the EPA isn’t backing away. And this is by no means an isolated case, or with just one abusive agency that believe environmental regulations and the capricious interpretation of those regulations by out of control unaccountable bureaucrats can trump the Constitution and your rights.
No matter what happens now we have to ask this one over-riding question: Who makes whole those who’ve been abused by the EPA and other tyrannical government agencies?
Given the nature of the EPA, why would the NPMA ask the membership to support increasing the EPA’s budget tens of millions of dollars over the last two years when there finally is an Administrator who wants to cut their budget? An administrator who is unjustifiably under attack by the left, even threatening his life.
Are we making an attempt to let Congress know our industry supports Pruitt? Do we support Pruitt? Do we believe ending Sue and Settle was a good thing? Do we believe ending the EPA's scheme of creating new regulations and rules via Secret Science was a good thing? I certainly do, but I have no idea what our national leaders think, other than being concerned whether or not the EPA trusts us. And that really matters why? Our character as an industry doesn't make us the issue over trust. Can we really say that about the EPA?
As far as I can tell there are around 15,000 pest control companies in the nation, although I'm sure there's more, and perhaps there's less, but no matter the number, the principles are the same.
It's been noted that over ninty percent of the companies have ten or employees or less. I'm probably way underestimating, but let's make some broad assumptions here. Let's speculate there's approximately 150,000 applicators out there, making at least 100 applications a month. That's 15,000,000 (fifteen million) applications a month, and let's say they work 264 days a year. That means they've made 3,960,000,000 (Almost four billion)applications a year.
How many people have been sickended or died? Over the last 35 years I've been in pest control that number has been miniscule compared to the number of applications made. Some of those cases have been tragic, but assuming my figures are accurate, that means in 35 years there's been 138,600,000,000 applications made in structural pest control alone, and very, very few tragedies.
That's a remarkable safety record. Yet, the EPA is directly responsible for possibly as many as 100 million unnecessary deaths and billions of unnecessary cases of malaria as a result of the ban on DDT. Who needs to earn trust?
If we're so concerned about attaining trust, perhaps we should be more concerned about attaining the trust of Administrator Scott Pruitt and the man who appointed him - and is in complete harmony with his views - President Trump. At least we know they're on our side. Do we know what our side is?
But I do have one idea I really like and I'm sure the Administrator likes it also.
If we and our manufacturer "friends and allies" are so worried the EPA has insufficient funds to carry out one of their legitimate core responsibilities, let’s work at making sure the EPA has adequate funds by going up to the Hill next year and asking Congress to eliminate every one of the regional offices, which could be done via a budget initiative. I would imagine that would be an amazing savings and that would be a grand start!
Bureaucrats with nothing really important to do can always find new interpertations of law to create rules for "a regime of paper work and harassment, endless paper work and endless harassment.” Fire them and watch that problem go away. After that - watch that almost 2 trillion dollars it costs the American public to meet federal regulatory standards start to melt away into something worthwhile.
One more thing. We might think it's a good idea to ask them to insist something be done about the potentially treasonous and illegal activity of the environmental movement by finding out where their money's coming from and what they're doing with it.
NPMA: To Win We Must First Define Our Enemies and Our Allies, Part I
- Wealth and Poverty of Nations, Page 56
- Wealth and Poverty of Nations, Page 57
Pesticides, Hormones, EPA and Scientific Integrity
Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality.
By Rich Kozlovich
I originally published this on Thursday, June 30, 2011 under the title, This is For Jenni . I think its worth updating and repeating now. RK
Occasionally when talking to people about pesticides and chemicals in general I find that some have a smattering knowledge about studies that make all sorts of claims about chemicals and pesticides in particular.
The reality is that 10,000 poorly designed studies with weak associations filled with weasel words and assumptions (and possibly outright fraud such as the Tulane endocrine disruption study) amount to nothing more than “conclusions in search of data”; and they are not worth one well designed study that is “data in search of a conclusion”. In short….they lie. Lies of commission and lies of omission. As my friend Dr. Jay Lehr says; they don’t get government grant money unless they give these people what they want. Government grant money has turned the term “scientific integrity” into an oxymoron. When science gets rich, it gets political.
There are a number of articles I wish to highlight in this post dealing with two issues. Pesticides and IQ, and pesticides and endocrine disruption. In the developed world, where pesticides were used the most IQ's have up over the last fifty years. (Editor's Note: Currently that's reversing worldwide. RK)
As for sperm count issues - one of the many fallacious knocks on DDT was that it causes a loss of sperm count. Even if this was true, it doesn’t seem to much matter because the generation most heavily exposed to DDT was also the generation that created the baby boomers.
At the end of WWII the world’s population numbered around two billion people, and it took thousands of years to accomplish that. The world’s population has soared to almost seven billion in less that seventy five years. The reality is this; everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality.
Dr. Gil Ross, M.D. of the American Council on Science and Health recently wrote an article called, “Better Living Through Chemistry (If Permitted)”, Ross states: “The overwhelming body of scientific evidence supports the safety of myriad chemicals in use today. A fusillade of recent items by the New York Times, US News, CNN, and others purports to show how certain common pesticides lead to reduced IQ's among children of women exposed to these chemicals while pregnant.”
He goes on to say:
“Dismayed, I carefully went over the paper that lies at the ground zero of the media frenzy. It is a study of the organophosphate (OP) class of pesticides by a group of researchers based at the University of California at Berkeley and led by Brenda Eskenazi.”
Furthermore:
“Analogously, pesticides kill pests—insects, weeds, fungi—and increase crop yields and the safety of our food. Yet the anti-pesticide, anti-chemical, anti-technology crowd says the opposite.” “These same “friends of the earth” oppose genetically modified (or biotech) agriculture, again for no science-based reason. This technology is another potential method to increase production of desperately needed staple crops—yet the opposition stems from a fear of “frankenfoods,” despite these crops’ demonstrated safety over the past 15-plus years—echoing the never-ending crusade against DDT”
Ross continues:
“It was a sign of things to come, as the EPA expanded its search for “toxic” problems to fix—even if it had to invent them. Now the law of diminishing returns has set in: fewer serious (or even real) problems to fix, so the search for “toxins” to justify the huge EPA budget has become increasingly desperate. Is this know-nothing obstructionism what being “earth-friendly” means today?”
I keep hearing all sorts of claims by activists and government grant chasing “scientists” that chemicals (especially pesticides) cause cancer, autism, low sperm count and a host of other unproven scares. This has been particularly true of DDT. More outrageous claims have been made against DDT than almost any product that has ever been developed, with the possible exception of bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates. As for claims that there has been a drop in sperm count over these many decades. Gil posted an article dealing with this issue.
In one of this week’s Daily Dispatches the American Council on Science and Health cited a study that clearly demonstrated that:
“the 1992 study by a group of Danish researchers that claimed sperm counts declined by 50 percent worldwide from 1938 to 1991”, was wrong! They point out that the study was “heavily criticized for its many flaws, methodological problems, and biases” at the time. “We know that the so-called decline in sperm count is just another myth promulgated by the ‘our stolen future’ crowd who say that environmental chemicals lead to infertility in men,” ...........“But now we have proof that’s simply not true.”
Michael Fumento also addressed, “Our Stolen Future” in an article in 1999 entitled, Hormonally Challenged, and I published what I think is a definitive response to this claim in my article, Endocrine Disruption Is A Medieval Spell in the Hands of Environmentalists.
So, do chemicals really cause a drop in sperm count? Although it was obvious for years that all these claims were junk science, we can finally answer with an absolute and resounding; NO!
Unscientific Method: Study Finds All Those Big Data Studies Are Mostly Big Mistakes
Researchers say studying individuals, not large groups, is the only way to accurate conclusions
27Jun - by Study Finds
BERKELEY, Calif. — People like to read studies. This, we at StudyFinds, know to be true. But we also know that people like to debate — and often debunk — the veracity and viability of studies, too. Now a study that actually studied studies seems to side with the naysayers, finding that research which evaluates large groups of people leads to skewed results. In order to get a better and more accurate grasp of mankind, the authors say, scientists need to study people individually.
Researchers from the University of California at Berkeley believe that big data can be a big mess, especially for health practitioners who depend on medical research to guide them in their practices. That’s because human beings can be so markedly different from one another, often-studied subjects like mental health and physiology can yield unreliable conclusions when coming from massive segments of a population.......To Read More.....
27Jun - by Study Finds
BERKELEY, Calif. — People like to read studies. This, we at StudyFinds, know to be true. But we also know that people like to debate — and often debunk — the veracity and viability of studies, too. Now a study that actually studied studies seems to side with the naysayers, finding that research which evaluates large groups of people leads to skewed results. In order to get a better and more accurate grasp of mankind, the authors say, scientists need to study people individually.
Researchers from the University of California at Berkeley believe that big data can be a big mess, especially for health practitioners who depend on medical research to guide them in their practices. That’s because human beings can be so markedly different from one another, often-studied subjects like mental health and physiology can yield unreliable conclusions when coming from massive segments of a population.......To Read More.....
Ontario’s new premier must save the province
Neither Ontario nor any country should follow its example on energy and environmental policies
Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris
On March 8, 2018, former US Vice President Al Gore visited Ontario, Canada in an attempt to help then-Premier Kathleen Wynne win the June 7 provincial election. Gore said, “I travel all over the world, and I cite Ontario as an example of a provincial government that is doing it right: creating jobs, building the base for economic progress, while also staving off the severe danger that the climate crisis poses to all of us.”
In reality, Ontario’s approach to climate change and so-called green energy has been a disaster – an extreme example of what governments around the world should not do. That may be part of the reason Ms. Wynne lost to Doug Ford.
Ontario’s situation is dire. In “Ontario MPP ‘proud’ of province’s debt and ‘would do it again’” (April 1, 2018), National Post writer Triston Hopper explained:
The real rot in Ontario began in 1992, when then-premier Bob Rae appointed businessman and former UN Under-Secretary-General Maurice Strong to be the Chairman of Ontario Hydro, the province’s publicly owned electricity utility.
At the time, Ontario was an economically sound, prosperous province. All this started to change when Strong applied the energy and environmental policies he proposed for the entire world through his creation of the United Nations Environmental Program and his chairmanship of the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit (officially, the UN Conference on Environment and Development, UNCED).
At UNCED, Strong introduced Agenda 21, a global energy and environment policy of world-shattering implications, and got it ratified. It was also at the Earth Summit that world leaders signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The UNFCCC’s primary objective was defined as achieving “stabilization of greenhouse gas [GHG] concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [human-caused] interference with the climate system.”
Under this scheme, the fact that in 1992 (and even today) we had no idea what concentration of GHGs would lead to “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” was immaterial. The die was cast. The world-wide climate alarm had begun.
The UNFCCC even redefined the basic guidelines for the UN’s climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The guidelines now restrict “climate change” to include only variations due to human activity. Specifically, Article 1 of the UNFCCC treaty states:
So the IPCC’s mandate was changed to assessing “the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change.…”
The problem is, you cannot determine the human effects unless you first know the extent and cause of natural climate change. The fact that we cannot meaningfully forecast the weather beyond 72 hours in advance demonstrates how little we understand about natural climate change and its causes.
But the new IPCC mandate worked perfectly to support Strong’s anti-development agenda. He needed “science” to prove that increasing GHG emissions from industrial activities (especially carbon dioxide or CO2) would cause dangerous global warming. Since rising emissions are a natural outcome of increasing global production, energy use and prosperity, linking emissions to alleged climate changes and extreme weather events allowed Strong to target the world’s major energy source: fossil fuels.
Once the science was determined, the bureaucracies of national offices such as Environment Canada could push policies to cripple energy production, industry and development. Other countries and regions were slow to adopt these principles, but in Ontario Strong was able to use his position at Ontario Hydro with impunity, to implement the crippling policies he orchestrated in Rio.
In so doing, he stopped nuclear programs, closed coal plants, and diverted funds to alternate energies that were already shown not to work. . As one report summarized:
When Strong started as Ontario Hydro Chairman, the province had one of the most powerful provincial economies. It was consistently classified as a “have” province in the federal government equalization program, which begun in 1957 and designated provinces as “have” or “have not” based primarily on their ability to generate tax revenue.
In the ensuing grand socialist scheme, between 2012 through 2018, nearly C$121 billion was transferred from the “have” provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Saskatchewan to the “have not” provinces of Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec – and Ontario. (See the table.)
From Strong’s tenure onward, Ontario energy costs continued to sap the vigor of its economy. Once an industrial powerhouse and the home of hundreds of thousands of high-paying manufacturing jobs, Ontario lost many of these jobs when companies either left the province or went bankrupt. Contributing to the downward spiral were skyrocketing electricity prices.
For consumers and small businesses, electricity prices have increased from 4.3 cents per kilowatt-hour for all times of the day in 2002 to 13.2 cents per kWh in 2018 during peak usage times – a 200% rise. Electricity rates for larger businesses follow the market rate and so vary widely throughout the day. For example, at 5 pm on June 26, 2018, the rate was 22.14 cents per kWh!
Independent energy researcher and former Ontario Independent Electricity Market Operator board member Tom Adams concludes, “The root cause of Ontario’s power rate cancer started with the coal phase-out” – which went from 7,587 megawatts of coal-based electricity in 2003 to zero by 2014!
To supposedly “lead the world” in “stopping global warming,” the provincial government closed all of Ontario’s coal-fired electricity stations, which provided about 25% of the province’s then-inexpensive electricity in 2002. And yet, even in 2003, Ontario accounted for a measly 0.5% of global CO2 emissions.
So regardless of what one believes about the causes of climate change, the sacrifice was worthless.
Making matters even worse, the Ontario government spent billions of dollars erecting about 8,000 industrial wind turbines. In a report co-authored by University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick, Mr. Adams noted: “Solar and wind systems provide just under 4 percent of Ontario’s power but account for about 20 percent of the average commodity cost.”
Electricity market expert and University of Montreal professor Pierre-Olivier Pineau has observed, today “Ontario is probably the worst electricity market in the world.”
And so, Ontario went from being an economic powerhouse to joining the ranks of “have not” provinces that receive payments from Canada’s equalization program.
Not surprisingly, access to abundant, reliable, inexpensive energy has been a major factor differentiating the “have” and “have not” provinces. Mostly because of Hibernia oil, Newfoundland and Labrador became a “have” province. The other “have” provinces are also energy-rich: Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan.
So, the question now is: Can premier-elect Doug Ford get Ontario back on track with a sound energy policy? There is no better place for him to start than by publicly opposing the myth that human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming.
There is plenty of scientific evidence to support this. Ford need only consult the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which summarize thousands of studies from peer-reviewed scientific journals that either refute or cast serious doubt on the climate scare.
Let’s hope Ford uses this important tool – and that the next example Ontario sets for the world is how to rebound from a green energy disaster.
Dr. Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition.
Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris
On March 8, 2018, former US Vice President Al Gore visited Ontario, Canada in an attempt to help then-Premier Kathleen Wynne win the June 7 provincial election. Gore said, “I travel all over the world, and I cite Ontario as an example of a provincial government that is doing it right: creating jobs, building the base for economic progress, while also staving off the severe danger that the climate crisis poses to all of us.”
In reality, Ontario’s approach to climate change and so-called green energy has been a disaster – an extreme example of what governments around the world should not do. That may be part of the reason Ms. Wynne lost to Doug Ford.
Ontario’s situation is dire. In “Ontario MPP ‘proud’ of province’s debt and ‘would do it again’” (April 1, 2018), National Post writer Triston Hopper explained:
“Ontario’s debt, which currently stands at $311.7 billion, is the most held by any sub-sovereign government in the world. It has also grown precipitously under the current Liberal government, who first took government when Ontario’s debt stood at $138.8 billion.”To fix the province’s woes, new Conservative Premier Doug Ford must first understand the causes of the problems. A major issue has been crippling energy and environmental policies.
The real rot in Ontario began in 1992, when then-premier Bob Rae appointed businessman and former UN Under-Secretary-General Maurice Strong to be the Chairman of Ontario Hydro, the province’s publicly owned electricity utility.
At the time, Ontario was an economically sound, prosperous province. All this started to change when Strong applied the energy and environmental policies he proposed for the entire world through his creation of the United Nations Environmental Program and his chairmanship of the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit (officially, the UN Conference on Environment and Development, UNCED).
At UNCED, Strong introduced Agenda 21, a global energy and environment policy of world-shattering implications, and got it ratified. It was also at the Earth Summit that world leaders signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The UNFCCC’s primary objective was defined as achieving “stabilization of greenhouse gas [GHG] concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [human-caused] interference with the climate system.”
Under this scheme, the fact that in 1992 (and even today) we had no idea what concentration of GHGs would lead to “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” was immaterial. The die was cast. The world-wide climate alarm had begun.
The UNFCCC even redefined the basic guidelines for the UN’s climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The guidelines now restrict “climate change” to include only variations due to human activity. Specifically, Article 1 of the UNFCCC treaty states:
“‘Climate change’ means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.”The definition predetermines the outcome of the IPCC’s work. In particular, since the IPCC is required to support the Framework Convention, it had to change its mandate from its original purpose of studying all causes of climate change to the UNFCCC’s political definition of manmade climate change.
So the IPCC’s mandate was changed to assessing “the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change.…”
The problem is, you cannot determine the human effects unless you first know the extent and cause of natural climate change. The fact that we cannot meaningfully forecast the weather beyond 72 hours in advance demonstrates how little we understand about natural climate change and its causes.
But the new IPCC mandate worked perfectly to support Strong’s anti-development agenda. He needed “science” to prove that increasing GHG emissions from industrial activities (especially carbon dioxide or CO2) would cause dangerous global warming. Since rising emissions are a natural outcome of increasing global production, energy use and prosperity, linking emissions to alleged climate changes and extreme weather events allowed Strong to target the world’s major energy source: fossil fuels.
Once the science was determined, the bureaucracies of national offices such as Environment Canada could push policies to cripple energy production, industry and development. Other countries and regions were slow to adopt these principles, but in Ontario Strong was able to use his position at Ontario Hydro with impunity, to implement the crippling policies he orchestrated in Rio.
In so doing, he stopped nuclear programs, closed coal plants, and diverted funds to alternate energies that were already shown not to work. . As one report summarized:
“The electrical scam in Ont. started with the Bob Rae NDP government when Maurice Strong, Rae’s god-father, broke up Ontario Hydro. The electricity scam continued through the Harris and McGuinty Governments. Today Premier Kathleen Wynne and the liberal party administer the Enron styled electrical rate manipulation scam.”Other premiers since, right through to Wynne, tried to privatize Ontario Hydro. But all failed to deal with the problem. Meanwhile, the cost of energy became an increasing drag on the economy and cost of living.
When Strong started as Ontario Hydro Chairman, the province had one of the most powerful provincial economies. It was consistently classified as a “have” province in the federal government equalization program, which begun in 1957 and designated provinces as “have” or “have not” based primarily on their ability to generate tax revenue.
In the ensuing grand socialist scheme, between 2012 through 2018, nearly C$121 billion was transferred from the “have” provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Saskatchewan to the “have not” provinces of Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec – and Ontario. (See the table.)
From Strong’s tenure onward, Ontario energy costs continued to sap the vigor of its economy. Once an industrial powerhouse and the home of hundreds of thousands of high-paying manufacturing jobs, Ontario lost many of these jobs when companies either left the province or went bankrupt. Contributing to the downward spiral were skyrocketing electricity prices.
For consumers and small businesses, electricity prices have increased from 4.3 cents per kilowatt-hour for all times of the day in 2002 to 13.2 cents per kWh in 2018 during peak usage times – a 200% rise. Electricity rates for larger businesses follow the market rate and so vary widely throughout the day. For example, at 5 pm on June 26, 2018, the rate was 22.14 cents per kWh!
Independent energy researcher and former Ontario Independent Electricity Market Operator board member Tom Adams concludes, “The root cause of Ontario’s power rate cancer started with the coal phase-out” – which went from 7,587 megawatts of coal-based electricity in 2003 to zero by 2014!
To supposedly “lead the world” in “stopping global warming,” the provincial government closed all of Ontario’s coal-fired electricity stations, which provided about 25% of the province’s then-inexpensive electricity in 2002. And yet, even in 2003, Ontario accounted for a measly 0.5% of global CO2 emissions.
So regardless of what one believes about the causes of climate change, the sacrifice was worthless.
Making matters even worse, the Ontario government spent billions of dollars erecting about 8,000 industrial wind turbines. In a report co-authored by University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick, Mr. Adams noted: “Solar and wind systems provide just under 4 percent of Ontario’s power but account for about 20 percent of the average commodity cost.”
Electricity market expert and University of Montreal professor Pierre-Olivier Pineau has observed, today “Ontario is probably the worst electricity market in the world.”
And so, Ontario went from being an economic powerhouse to joining the ranks of “have not” provinces that receive payments from Canada’s equalization program.
Not surprisingly, access to abundant, reliable, inexpensive energy has been a major factor differentiating the “have” and “have not” provinces. Mostly because of Hibernia oil, Newfoundland and Labrador became a “have” province. The other “have” provinces are also energy-rich: Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan.
So, the question now is: Can premier-elect Doug Ford get Ontario back on track with a sound energy policy? There is no better place for him to start than by publicly opposing the myth that human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming.
There is plenty of scientific evidence to support this. Ford need only consult the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which summarize thousands of studies from peer-reviewed scientific journals that either refute or cast serious doubt on the climate scare.
Let’s hope Ford uses this important tool – and that the next example Ontario sets for the world is how to rebound from a green energy disaster.
Dr. Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition.
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
Trump's Executive Branch Restructuring: What If The Federal Government Is Beyond Streamlining?
June 25, 2018
Can the federal government shrink? Or is the situation like the waistlines that paradoxically parallel the growth of the diet and fitness industry? Over a year ago, the White House announced executive order 13,781 on executive branch reorganization, targeting "where multiple Federal agencies interact in fragmented or duplicative ways." Reform proposals included "merging agencies, components, programs, or activities that have similar missions." The campaign presented an important opportunity to discover that, if an agency is engaging in needless regulation, then perhaps we do not need that agency after all. As my colleague Iain Murray noted about the plan, the impulse of better services for the citizen “customer” as opposed to the bureaucrat is commendable. There are important and worthwhile recommendations contained within, but this report does not quite herald the downsizing of government one might have expected, even if Congress were to enact all of it. In its own way that’s alarming. After an administration like Trump's, who would propose a more "radical" restructuring agenda later?.............Other detailed proposals to reduce spending on redundancy and duplication, fraud and abuse have been available for years. These include the Heritage Foundation's many nominations for eliminations and consolidations; the "Wastebook" produced by former Sen. Tom Coburn; and the famous Citizens Against Government Waste "Pig Book." ...........
Ultimately the task of streamlining will need to extend beyond improving agencies as customer service entities and consolidation, and more deeply rethink the basic role of the federal government relative to the rest of society. Some remember hearing of President Ronald Reagan, in his inaugural address, saying "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
Has that changed?..........To Read More....
Can the federal government shrink? Or is the situation like the waistlines that paradoxically parallel the growth of the diet and fitness industry? Over a year ago, the White House announced executive order 13,781 on executive branch reorganization, targeting "where multiple Federal agencies interact in fragmented or duplicative ways." Reform proposals included "merging agencies, components, programs, or activities that have similar missions." The campaign presented an important opportunity to discover that, if an agency is engaging in needless regulation, then perhaps we do not need that agency after all. As my colleague Iain Murray noted about the plan, the impulse of better services for the citizen “customer” as opposed to the bureaucrat is commendable. There are important and worthwhile recommendations contained within, but this report does not quite herald the downsizing of government one might have expected, even if Congress were to enact all of it. In its own way that’s alarming. After an administration like Trump's, who would propose a more "radical" restructuring agenda later?.............Other detailed proposals to reduce spending on redundancy and duplication, fraud and abuse have been available for years. These include the Heritage Foundation's many nominations for eliminations and consolidations; the "Wastebook" produced by former Sen. Tom Coburn; and the famous Citizens Against Government Waste "Pig Book." ...........
Ultimately the task of streamlining will need to extend beyond improving agencies as customer service entities and consolidation, and more deeply rethink the basic role of the federal government relative to the rest of society. Some remember hearing of President Ronald Reagan, in his inaugural address, saying "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
Has that changed?..........To Read More....
Ten Thousand Commandments 2018
An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State
Ten Thousand Commandments is the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s annual survey of the size, scope, and cost of federal regulations, and how they affect American consumers, businesses, and the U.S. economy at large. Written by CEI Vice President for Policy Wayne Crews, it shines a light on the large and under-appreciated “hidden tax” of America’s regulatory state. The current edition marks 25 years since the first report was published as part of the Journal of Regulation and Social Costs in 1993.
Federal government spending, deficits, and the national debt are staggering, but so is the impact of federal regulations. Unfortunately, the financial impact of these rules gets little attention in policy debates because, unlike spending and taxes, they are unbudgeted and difficult to quantify.
By making Washington’s rules and mandates more comprehensible, Crews underscores the need for more review, transparency, and accountability for new and existing federal regulations.
The 2018 report charts new territory as it presents the initial results of President Trump’s efforts to cut red tape via executive order, the most aggressive effort at regulatory reform in over a quarter century. Trump has slowed the momentum of the Obama years and implemented policies to incentivize further restraint, but the long-term agenda of the government’s executive agencies could easily stray back toward bureaucratic overreach without permanent reform by Congress.....To Read More.....
Government Is The Big Reason EpiPen And Other Generics Are So Expensive
By ACSH Staff — June 23, 2018
@ American Council on Science and Health
The drug, 62 years old at the time, was not covered by a patent and was a key antibiotic used in treating persons with HIV/AIDS. The price hike put patients’ health at risk, leading to a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars for some. Shrekli, unsurprisingly, was vilified (and, for unrelated reasons, ultimately indicted on fraud).
While this conduct was outrageous, it wasn’t illegal. Any pharmaceutical company is free to set the price for its drug at any level the market will bear that maximizes their profits. Other drugs whose prices have risen include treatments for hepatitis C, cancer and high cholesterol. So, while the price hike was not the best public relations move, it is legal.
What explains such a rapid rise in price for a drug that has been around for several years? As a patent lawyer with particular experience in the pharmaceutical industry, I think it’s important to look at the role of patents and also FDA approvals in drug discovery and sales. Currently, a backlog of about 4,000 generic drugs is awaiting FDA approval. Both factors play a role in how both rare and common drugs, such as EpiPens, can shoot up in price so rapidly.
Patents encourage innovation
The drug, 62 years old at the time, was not covered by a patent and was a key antibiotic used in treating persons with HIV/AIDS. The price hike put patients’ health at risk, leading to a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars for some. Shrekli, unsurprisingly, was vilified (and, for unrelated reasons, ultimately indicted on fraud).
While this conduct was outrageous, it wasn’t illegal. Any pharmaceutical company is free to set the price for its drug at any level the market will bear that maximizes their profits. Other drugs whose prices have risen include treatments for hepatitis C, cancer and high cholesterol. So, while the price hike was not the best public relations move, it is legal.
What explains such a rapid rise in price for a drug that has been around for several years? As a patent lawyer with particular experience in the pharmaceutical industry, I think it’s important to look at the role of patents and also FDA approvals in drug discovery and sales. Currently, a backlog of about 4,000 generic drugs is awaiting FDA approval. Both factors play a role in how both rare and common drugs, such as EpiPens, can shoot up in price so rapidly.
Patents encourage innovation
 |
| From www.shutterstock.com Thomas Edison knew the value of patents. He held more than 1,000 in his name |
High prices for medications are nothing new. They are often expected, given the role of the patent system in fostering innovation in the pharmaceutical industry.
Patents create incentives for persons to innovate by giving them a limited period of exclusivity, currently from the date the patent issues until 20 years after its application date. During the patent’s term, the owner can stop others from making, using or selling the patented invention.
Without this period of exclusivity, companies would have little incentive to engage in research and development. Pharmaceutical research and regulatory approval is a costly endeavor. The average cost to bring a drug to market is $2.6 billion, according to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development.
Imagine the world of pharmaceuticals without patents. The National Institutes of Health predicts drug development would greatly diminish. Once a company put a drug on the market, others could purchase it and likely figure out how to synthesize a competing version, without incurring all of the research and development costs to identify that particular chemical entity.
When competitors enters the market, they would be able to undersell the original innovator, whose price must reflect those sunk costs of research and development. Likely, it would not be profitable to have ever engaged in the drug innovation to begin with.
Patents help stimulate innovation by temporarily avoiding this dynamic.
Playing monopoly
During the patent term, particularly for pharmaceuticals, the patent holder may effectively have a monopoly, allowing the company to charge prices higher than a competitive market would allow. As a society, we largely have accepted this elevated price because we believe it helps pharmaceutical companies to recoup their sunk research and development costs and to perform later research for the next generation of drugs.
Once the patent expires, however, others can enter the market, creating competition and lowering the price for the drug.
There are opponents to the power of these patents. Critics argue that these patents deny patients access to those drugs to patients in need.
There’s more at play here: The FDA
Interestingly, though, the patent system is not to blame for many of these price hikes we hear about in the news. Instead, these drugs, such as the EpiPen, are off-patent, suggesting that generic competition should help keep prices lower.
So, if it isn’t the patent system, then what is at play? It is conceivable the cost of producing some of these drugs has gone up. Similarly, there could be surging demand that drives up prices as well. Neither, though, explain the abrupt, dramatic hikes of some of these medicines.
At the simplest level, there is simply a lack of competition for these drugs, even absent patent protection. Some of this dynamic could be the well-recognized consolidation in the pharmaceutical industry, which may have reduced competition. The low profit margins on some of these drugs may have led some companies to leave the market altogether, leaving only one company.
But even absent consolidation, there is another barrier that appears to be in play: regulations by the FDA, and the huge backlog. Even generic drugs need regulatory approval to be sold, which makes sense. We don’t want fly-by-night companies selling impure or otherwise harmful drugs.
But obtaining approvals does add costs and time to competitors attempting to enter the market. One potential EpiPen competitor, Teva Pharmaceuticals, failed to obtain regulatory approval, delaying their entry into the market. Another competitor, Sanofi, recalled its competing epinephrine delivery device because it may be delivering in incorrect dosage. That leaves Mylan alone in the market, with the power to raise prices, which is what it did.
Congress and the FDA are well aware of the backlog, even though the FDA says it is picking up the pace, thanks to fees charged to the drug companies seeking approval.
In theory, some of these are just short-run problems. Eventually exorbitant prices will draw other competitors to the market and prices will come down, or so goes the thinking of basic supply and demand. But, FDA regulations – if unduly onerous – could continue to create long delays, resulting in higher prices and loss of access to some of these medications.
It may be time for the FDA to reconsider some of its regulations governing these well-known, generic drugs to reduce the cost of approval and to facilitate competition. For example, the FDA may need to consider some sort of accelerated approval for importing drugs already sold in countries with regulatory systems comparable to our own. In that way, competition for these unpatented drugs could return more quickly.
As famed economist John Maynard Keynes noted, in the long run, we’re all dead. But, even if these price hikes are only in the short run, some of these patients may be dead in the short run, too.
At present, companies will charge prices that the market can bear for these drugs. There are few levers the government has to impact these prices. The FDA is in a unique position to act. It should revisit its role in this regulatory structure to ensure it is striking the appropriate balance between protecting patients from flawed drugs and ensuring drugs get to market to reduce prices.
By Timothy Holbrook, Professor of Law, Emory University. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Patents create incentives for persons to innovate by giving them a limited period of exclusivity, currently from the date the patent issues until 20 years after its application date. During the patent’s term, the owner can stop others from making, using or selling the patented invention.
Without this period of exclusivity, companies would have little incentive to engage in research and development. Pharmaceutical research and regulatory approval is a costly endeavor. The average cost to bring a drug to market is $2.6 billion, according to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development.
Imagine the world of pharmaceuticals without patents. The National Institutes of Health predicts drug development would greatly diminish. Once a company put a drug on the market, others could purchase it and likely figure out how to synthesize a competing version, without incurring all of the research and development costs to identify that particular chemical entity.
When competitors enters the market, they would be able to undersell the original innovator, whose price must reflect those sunk costs of research and development. Likely, it would not be profitable to have ever engaged in the drug innovation to begin with.
Patents help stimulate innovation by temporarily avoiding this dynamic.
Playing monopoly
During the patent term, particularly for pharmaceuticals, the patent holder may effectively have a monopoly, allowing the company to charge prices higher than a competitive market would allow. As a society, we largely have accepted this elevated price because we believe it helps pharmaceutical companies to recoup their sunk research and development costs and to perform later research for the next generation of drugs.
Once the patent expires, however, others can enter the market, creating competition and lowering the price for the drug.
There are opponents to the power of these patents. Critics argue that these patents deny patients access to those drugs to patients in need.
There’s more at play here: The FDA
Interestingly, though, the patent system is not to blame for many of these price hikes we hear about in the news. Instead, these drugs, such as the EpiPen, are off-patent, suggesting that generic competition should help keep prices lower.
So, if it isn’t the patent system, then what is at play? It is conceivable the cost of producing some of these drugs has gone up. Similarly, there could be surging demand that drives up prices as well. Neither, though, explain the abrupt, dramatic hikes of some of these medicines.
At the simplest level, there is simply a lack of competition for these drugs, even absent patent protection. Some of this dynamic could be the well-recognized consolidation in the pharmaceutical industry, which may have reduced competition. The low profit margins on some of these drugs may have led some companies to leave the market altogether, leaving only one company.
But even absent consolidation, there is another barrier that appears to be in play: regulations by the FDA, and the huge backlog. Even generic drugs need regulatory approval to be sold, which makes sense. We don’t want fly-by-night companies selling impure or otherwise harmful drugs.
But obtaining approvals does add costs and time to competitors attempting to enter the market. One potential EpiPen competitor, Teva Pharmaceuticals, failed to obtain regulatory approval, delaying their entry into the market. Another competitor, Sanofi, recalled its competing epinephrine delivery device because it may be delivering in incorrect dosage. That leaves Mylan alone in the market, with the power to raise prices, which is what it did.
Congress and the FDA are well aware of the backlog, even though the FDA says it is picking up the pace, thanks to fees charged to the drug companies seeking approval.
In theory, some of these are just short-run problems. Eventually exorbitant prices will draw other competitors to the market and prices will come down, or so goes the thinking of basic supply and demand. But, FDA regulations – if unduly onerous – could continue to create long delays, resulting in higher prices and loss of access to some of these medications.
It may be time for the FDA to reconsider some of its regulations governing these well-known, generic drugs to reduce the cost of approval and to facilitate competition. For example, the FDA may need to consider some sort of accelerated approval for importing drugs already sold in countries with regulatory systems comparable to our own. In that way, competition for these unpatented drugs could return more quickly.
As famed economist John Maynard Keynes noted, in the long run, we’re all dead. But, even if these price hikes are only in the short run, some of these patients may be dead in the short run, too.
At present, companies will charge prices that the market can bear for these drugs. There are few levers the government has to impact these prices. The FDA is in a unique position to act. It should revisit its role in this regulatory structure to ensure it is striking the appropriate balance between protecting patients from flawed drugs and ensuring drugs get to market to reduce prices.
By Timothy Holbrook, Professor of Law, Emory University. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Lawmakers raise red flags over environmental group's ties to China
ByAlex Pappas | Fox News
Two senior Republicans are raising red flags about a major environmental group's ties to China, suggesting the organization is "at risk" of being "coerced" and might even need to register as a foreign agent. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., sent a letter Tuesday to Natural Resources Defense Council President Rhea Suh seeking “clarification” on the group’s advocacy work.
“The committee is concerned about the NRDC’s role in aiding China’s perception management efforts with respect to pollution control and its international standing on environmental issues in ways that may be detrimental to the United States,” the Republicans wrote. Specifically, they raised concerns that NRDC reports and other statements "consistently praise" China's environmental initiatives, and that their "need to maintain access to Chinese officials" has influenced their work in the U.S. -- and may require registration as a foreign agent.
Rep. Rob Bishop is pressing the NRDC for answers about its ties to China.
The lawmakers asked the NRDC for a variety of documents, including those explaining why the group is not registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, considering its relationship with China. A person or entity that works to influence the United States on behalf of another country is required to register as a foreign agent.......To Read More.....
My Take - One of the things you'll notice is - they never answer the question put to them - "why the group is not registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act". They spew out the usual leftist clabber - we're the good guys, we know what's best, we have your interests at heart, all you need to do is just trust us and be quiet. Some people might view this as a bit treasonous, but one thing we know for sure - if there's evidence of them acting in the behalf of China's interests - and I've no doubt there is - it's illegal. This committee needs to start looking at all the funding of all these groups to see where it's coming from and what they're doing with that money. Once that's been exposed - I have absolutely no doubt they will find startling irregularities.
This socialist collusion with the NRDC (a virtual lava flow of dubious claims and opinions, always attended by loads of dubious "science". Paradigms and Demographics: The Alar Story ) isn't an isolated situation within the green movement.
Remember Carol Browner, the onetime Administrator of the EPA (The Food Quality Protection Act was passed during her tenure, and we now have a bed bug plague in America) and Climate Czar under the Obama administration? She was outed as being listed one of 14 members of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society (CSWS), "which is a formal organ of the Socialist International," A leftist group that calls for “global governance” and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change."
Does that sound a bit treasonous to anyone besides me? After all, doesn't the Constitution and Congress play some role in all of this? And what does that mean to shrink our economy, and how far? Don’t the rest of us have a say in this? Nah……socialists always know what’s best for the peasants, we just need to trust them and be quiet…..unless we learn to speak Chinese!
After she was outed her biography, unlike the other members of the commission, was removed from the Socialist International's web site. Apparently, transparency is a one-way street - and that street runs right down the middle of Peking, or some other socialist worker's paradise.
Two senior Republicans are raising red flags about a major environmental group's ties to China, suggesting the organization is "at risk" of being "coerced" and might even need to register as a foreign agent. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., sent a letter Tuesday to Natural Resources Defense Council President Rhea Suh seeking “clarification” on the group’s advocacy work.
“The committee is concerned about the NRDC’s role in aiding China’s perception management efforts with respect to pollution control and its international standing on environmental issues in ways that may be detrimental to the United States,” the Republicans wrote. Specifically, they raised concerns that NRDC reports and other statements "consistently praise" China's environmental initiatives, and that their "need to maintain access to Chinese officials" has influenced their work in the U.S. -- and may require registration as a foreign agent.
Rep. Rob Bishop is pressing the NRDC for answers about its ties to China.
The lawmakers asked the NRDC for a variety of documents, including those explaining why the group is not registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, considering its relationship with China. A person or entity that works to influence the United States on behalf of another country is required to register as a foreign agent.......To Read More.....
My Take - One of the things you'll notice is - they never answer the question put to them - "why the group is not registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act". They spew out the usual leftist clabber - we're the good guys, we know what's best, we have your interests at heart, all you need to do is just trust us and be quiet. Some people might view this as a bit treasonous, but one thing we know for sure - if there's evidence of them acting in the behalf of China's interests - and I've no doubt there is - it's illegal. This committee needs to start looking at all the funding of all these groups to see where it's coming from and what they're doing with that money. Once that's been exposed - I have absolutely no doubt they will find startling irregularities.
This socialist collusion with the NRDC (a virtual lava flow of dubious claims and opinions, always attended by loads of dubious "science". Paradigms and Demographics: The Alar Story ) isn't an isolated situation within the green movement.
Remember Carol Browner, the onetime Administrator of the EPA (The Food Quality Protection Act was passed during her tenure, and we now have a bed bug plague in America) and Climate Czar under the Obama administration? She was outed as being listed one of 14 members of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society (CSWS), "which is a formal organ of the Socialist International," A leftist group that calls for “global governance” and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change."
Does that sound a bit treasonous to anyone besides me? After all, doesn't the Constitution and Congress play some role in all of this? And what does that mean to shrink our economy, and how far? Don’t the rest of us have a say in this? Nah……socialists always know what’s best for the peasants, we just need to trust them and be quiet…..unless we learn to speak Chinese!
After she was outed her biography, unlike the other members of the commission, was removed from the Socialist International's web site. Apparently, transparency is a one-way street - and that street runs right down the middle of Peking, or some other socialist worker's paradise.
UVA School of Medicine reveals true nature of cells blamed in Alzheimer’s
Jun. 26, 2018
Immune cells commonly blamed in Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases are actually precision cleaning machines protecting the central nervous system, new research from the UVA School of Medicine shows. The discovery adds nuance and complexity to our understanding of immune cells known as microglia. By appreciating the role of these cells in full, scientists are better positioned to develop new treatments and tailor medicine to individual patients’ needs. “What we’re finding now is that at very acute time points, whether it’s in disease or whether it’s injury, the microglia are doing a lot,” said researcher Geoffrey Norris, PhD. “It’s important to know the role and function of these cells, especially going forward for human therapy.”.......To Read More....
There's more in Science Daily: Missing link found between brain, immune system; major disease implications . In a stunning discovery that overturns decades of textbook teaching, researchers at the University of Virginia School of Medicine have determined that the brain is directly connected to the immune system by vessels previously thought not to exist. That such vessels could have escaped detection when the lymphatic system has been so thoroughly mapped throughout the body is surprising on its own, but the true significance of the discovery lies in the effects it could have on the study and treatment of neurological diseases ranging from autism to Alzheimer's disease to multiple sclerosis...........
My Take - I've posted these because we occasionally see weasel word claims that pesticides "may" contribute to Alzheimer's disease over a life time. This article demonstrates one incontrovertible fact. What we know for sure is far more limited than we may believe, and certainly not enough to make speculative claims against pesticides.
Immune cells commonly blamed in Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases are actually precision cleaning machines protecting the central nervous system, new research from the UVA School of Medicine shows. The discovery adds nuance and complexity to our understanding of immune cells known as microglia. By appreciating the role of these cells in full, scientists are better positioned to develop new treatments and tailor medicine to individual patients’ needs. “What we’re finding now is that at very acute time points, whether it’s in disease or whether it’s injury, the microglia are doing a lot,” said researcher Geoffrey Norris, PhD. “It’s important to know the role and function of these cells, especially going forward for human therapy.”.......To Read More....
There's more in Science Daily: Missing link found between brain, immune system; major disease implications . In a stunning discovery that overturns decades of textbook teaching, researchers at the University of Virginia School of Medicine have determined that the brain is directly connected to the immune system by vessels previously thought not to exist. That such vessels could have escaped detection when the lymphatic system has been so thoroughly mapped throughout the body is surprising on its own, but the true significance of the discovery lies in the effects it could have on the study and treatment of neurological diseases ranging from autism to Alzheimer's disease to multiple sclerosis...........
My Take - I've posted these because we occasionally see weasel word claims that pesticides "may" contribute to Alzheimer's disease over a life time. This article demonstrates one incontrovertible fact. What we know for sure is far more limited than we may believe, and certainly not enough to make speculative claims against pesticides.
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
LA Mayor’s Green obsession a nightmare for citizens
June 22, 2018by Chris White,2 Comments
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti’s long-time mission to electrify the city’s buses is turning into a massive waste of time that could further disrupt the West Coast Democrat’s hopes of running for president in 2020. The city began buying a lot of buses in 2008 from a Chinese battery manufacturer called BYD Ltd., which promised to create thousands of new green energy jobs and provide L.A. buses with long-range use that could clean up the environment. The promise became an expensive flop, according to a report published Wednesday in the Los Angeles Times. BYD’s buses stalled on hills, required frequent service calls and had unpredictable driving ranges below advertised distances, which were impaired by temperature changes and the driver’s braking. In fact, the first five buses BYD sent to LA Metro, which manages the city’s public transportation, were pulled off the road after less than five months of service............Garcetti led an effort to force Metro to convert its 2,200-bus fleet to electric despite the poor results with BYD. He and his staff wrote policy motions and created a private meeting between Metro executives and environmental lobbyists, the LA Times reported...........Garcetti......plans to take on President Donald Trump.......drawing a distinction between himself and Trump..........To Read More......
My Take - There is one thing we can have one hundred percent confidence in. If something turns green - it isn't gold. The green movement and their lackeys in government almost have a monopoly on being wrong, but it's the people who pay the penalty for their arrogance and incompetence. To be green is to be irrational, misanthropic and morally defective. If you're an elected official - to be green borders on treason.
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti’s long-time mission to electrify the city’s buses is turning into a massive waste of time that could further disrupt the West Coast Democrat’s hopes of running for president in 2020. The city began buying a lot of buses in 2008 from a Chinese battery manufacturer called BYD Ltd., which promised to create thousands of new green energy jobs and provide L.A. buses with long-range use that could clean up the environment. The promise became an expensive flop, according to a report published Wednesday in the Los Angeles Times. BYD’s buses stalled on hills, required frequent service calls and had unpredictable driving ranges below advertised distances, which were impaired by temperature changes and the driver’s braking. In fact, the first five buses BYD sent to LA Metro, which manages the city’s public transportation, were pulled off the road after less than five months of service............Garcetti led an effort to force Metro to convert its 2,200-bus fleet to electric despite the poor results with BYD. He and his staff wrote policy motions and created a private meeting between Metro executives and environmental lobbyists, the LA Times reported...........Garcetti......plans to take on President Donald Trump.......drawing a distinction between himself and Trump..........To Read More......
My Take - There is one thing we can have one hundred percent confidence in. If something turns green - it isn't gold. The green movement and their lackeys in government almost have a monopoly on being wrong, but it's the people who pay the penalty for their arrogance and incompetence. To be green is to be irrational, misanthropic and morally defective. If you're an elected official - to be green borders on treason.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)