2
POPSExposed: How Businesses Are Undermining Efforts on U.S. Climate Committments
Opponents say the approach is tantamount to a fuel tax that would burden families, cost jobs, and weaken an already sagging economy. Three government analyses, including one by the Congressional Budget Office, projected that because of its generous flexibilities for business the legislation under consideration would cost households $80 to $175 per year. But opponents continued to wave their own estimates that the legislation would add thousands of dollars a year to home electricity, gas, and oil bills. And although none of the opposition TV ads or public statements challenge the idea that fossil fuel emissions are causing dangerous climate change that the world must address, there have been other efforts to sow doubt. The boldest of these was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's request that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hold a "trial" on global warming science -- a move its spokesman told the Los Angeles Times could be "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century." Divisions Wit
22
POPSWhat the Inventor of the Flu Shot NOW Thinks of the Vaccine... What Can You Learn From History? The last time we trusted industry and their appointed government lackeys about the swine flu vaccine, the vaccine ended up killing 300 times more people than the flu itself! It was 1976, and an outbreak of swine flu supposedly threatened the lives of millions. But instead of the flu killing millions of people, it claimed ONE life, whereas the vaccine turned out to contain the real danger. Twenty five people died from severe pulmonary complications after receiving the swine flu vaccine, and about 500 cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome were reported after vaccination. Some 300 claims were later filed by families of Guillain-Barre Syndrome victims who died from the disease.
8
POPSWarning: Eating Meat May Cause Sickness, Paralysis and Death In short, E. coli didn't just "happen" to the meat industry -- it's a consequence of industrial practices. But nowhere in the article (or in the halls of the USDA or the largescale beef producers for that matter) is the possibility of moving away from this corn-based system raised as a solution for the industrial system. Surprisingly, the article includes virtually no proposed solutions for this crisis -- just vague assurances that the USDA isn't "standing still" on the issue. In reality, the industry focuses exclusively on "managing" the ongoing presence of E. coli O157 though the development of an E. coli vaccine for cows, and irradiation or chemical washes for the meat. All of which are attempts to mask the risks of a failed system and represent an institutionalizing of the underlying failures. And none of which make me ever want to touch industrial meat again. Indeed, if there ever was a powerful argument for eating only grass-fed beef from small producers, this article is it. T
1
Clips
Latest Pops
Latest Comments
Most Pops
Tags
Print
Save
Turn on live update