The left and right agree: Fox News destroyed Trump EPA chief Scott Pruitt over climate change

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,004
12,071
146
Probably referring to this

"WASHINGTON — Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, moved late on Wednesday to reject the scientific conclusion of the agency’s own chemical safety experts who under the Obama administration recommended that one of the nation’s most widely used insecticides be permanently banned at farms nationwide because of the harm it potentially causes children and farm workers."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/us/politics/epa-insecticide-chlorpyrifos.html?_r=0

Interesting, sounds like Dow is stating that when used correctly it's fine. After skimming through the advisory panel document it seems like there may have been some issues with the testing methodology that led the EPA team to recommending it be banned, however having said that, at no point in it did I see anything to suggest the stuff is actually safe... just that the request for ban may have been premature/based on iffy testing methods. That may mean that the danger was being overstated (most stuff is toxic in enough quantities), or that it is indeed very harmful (notably to fetuses when exposed through the mother... seemingly the focus on the advisory panel) and should be banned.

Either way the issue cannot be retouched until 2022, so 'protection of our agriculture jobs' can be a bullet point on Trump's list I suppose.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,203
28,218
136
Probably referring to this

"WASHINGTON — Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, moved late on Wednesday to reject the scientific conclusion of the agency’s own chemical safety experts who under the Obama administration recommended that one of the nation’s most widely used insecticides be permanently banned at farms nationwide because of the harm it potentially causes children and farm workers."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/us/politics/epa-insecticide-chlorpyrifos.html?_r=0
I think that's great and exactly what America wants.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,512
29,098
146
Interesting, sounds like Dow is stating that when used correctly it's fine. After skimming through the advisory panel document it seems like there may have been some issues with the testing methodology that led the EPA team to recommending it be banned, however having said that, at no point in it did I see anything to suggest the stuff is actually safe... just that the request for ban may have been premature/based on iffy testing methods. That may mean that the danger was being overstated (most stuff is toxic in enough quantities), or that it is indeed very harmful (notably to fetuses when exposed through the mother... seemingly the focus on the advisory panel) and should be banned.

Either way the issue cannot be retouched until 2022, so 'protection of our agriculture jobs' can be a bullet point on Trump's list I suppose.

well, I guess that's one way to do it: "Kill off the farmers through toxic exposure and acquired birth defects, that mean new, open jobs!" :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: [DHT]Osiris

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,592
7,673
136
Probably referring to this

"WASHINGTON — Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, moved late on Wednesday to reject the scientific conclusion of the agency’s own chemical safety experts who under the Obama administration recommended that one of the nation’s most widely used insecticides be permanently banned at farms nationwide because of the harm it potentially causes children and farm workers."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/us/politics/epa-insecticide-chlorpyrifos.html?_r=0


Trump's EPA Greenlights a Nasty Chemical. A Month Later, It Poisons a Bunch of Farmworkers.

http://www.motherjones.com/environm...ot-poisoned-nasty-pesticide-greenlghted-trump
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,381
7,444
136
Can you name a pesticide you can inhale without health issues?
Poison being poison is not exactly a surprise. Why is this one singled out?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,381
7,444
136
Maybe it's a lack of knowledge... but it's a poison. It WILL kill people. I expect that. The point of pesticides is you do NOT come into contact with them or they will cause problems. Toxicity, et al. To oppose it I think I want to know that there's an effective, alternative, pesticide that can be used that is less toxic to humans. I'm interested but I really don't know enough of the details on the subject to weigh one over the other.

So the crux would be to know the specific health problems to humans it will cause, that other pesticides do not cause. Relevant points are if it's toxic in the food chain, or just through direct contact. And I'd also need to know how many alternatives are available, and how effective they are. It matters if the specific pesticide fulfills a necessity, or if people simply use it to be cheap.

Maybe the EPA has already covered such discussion in the past... but I'd need the short of it if I'm to actively oppose it. Although reading up on those immune responses does strikingly sound familiar... I'd need to know that other pesticides are not just as bad.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,734
18,004
146
Maybe it's a lack of knowledge... but it's a poison. It WILL kill people. I expect that. The point of pesticides is you do NOT come into contact with them or they will cause problems. Toxicity, et al. To oppose it I think I want to know that there's an effective, alternative, pesticide that can be used that is less toxic to humans. I'm interested but I really don't know enough of the details on the subject to weigh one over the other.

So the crux would be to know the specific health problems to humans it will cause, that other pesticides do not cause. Relevant points are if it's toxic in the food chain, or just through direct contact. And I'd also need to know how many alternatives are available, and how effective they are. It matters if the specific pesticide fulfills a necessity, or if people simply use it to be cheap.

Maybe the EPA has already covered such discussion in the past... but I'd need the short of it if I'm to actively oppose it. Although reading up on those immune responses does strikingly sound familiar... I'd need to know that other pesticides are not just as bad.
Did you read the link?

It's not even people dying that's potentially to biggest problem.

Check this part out

In rats, low-level exposure during development has its greatest neurotoxic effects during the period in which sex differences in the brain develop. Exposure leads to reductions or reversals of normal gender differences. Exposure to low levels of chlorpyrifos early in rat life or as adults also affects metabolism and body weight. These rats show increased body weight as well as changes in liver function and chemical indicators similar to prediabetes, likely associated with changes to the cyclic AMP system.

Cons literally green light a chemical that showed in lab rats to cause prediabetes, and what I interpret as gender fluidity.

There's many other choices, but since this has to do with money I'm sure, con's won't give a shit if this is one here is linked to severely damaging conditions, like diabetes, slow motor development, and attention problems.

Guess what else, us plebes also get to pay increased medical costs due to the burden on our healthcare system....so double whammy. But who cares right?
 
Last edited:

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Did you read the link?

It's not even people dying that's potentially to biggest problem.

Check this part out



Cons literally green light a chemical that showed in lab rats to cause prediabetes, and what I interpret as gender fluidity.

There's many other choices, but since this has to do with money I'm sure, con's won't give a shit if this is one here is linked to severely damaging conditions, like diabetes, slow motor development, and attention problems.

Guess what else, us plebes also get to pay increased medical costs due to the burden on our healthcare system....so double whammy. But who cares right?

They're turning our Farmers Gay!
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,734
18,004
146
That particular part surprised me. If I've interpreted the effect stated correctly, the self ownage by Cons is too much for my tiny mind to handle.

Edit: based on the wiki, the farmers are more likely to develop cancer. It's us consumers that get the other effed up side effects.

Other effect are left to consumers...

Questions like: why are we having problems with obesity, diabetes, or ASD?
 
Last edited:

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,049
12,719
136
Brainfarting here, suppose that we through some technological marvel aquires the ability to effectively engineer the climate, globally. Who gets to decide the temperature? Bigger bomb than nuclear?
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,049
12,719
136
Not sure humans will make it that long, I admire your optimism.

“Who cares, nothing matters, no one knows anything, everything sucks.” ?
- Trump will pass, chin up ;).
Plus, Trump is an incompetent stooge and thats a good thing, he could have been competent, would be much worse. The world is gonna rally together in the post Trump area.
I am confident some great good will come from this.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,734
18,004
146
I agree. What will be worse? Trump, or a Con that knows the game and can mess shit up good.
 

xthetenth

Golden Member
Oct 14, 2014
1,800
529
106
I think that's great and exactly what America wants.

This would be more convincing if you accept the premises that the election was actually fair and that people who work against something should have to live and die by it.