It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Pollution a Crime Against Humanity?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
.


First, I was thinking about how the US is expanding its bioterrorism industry, and wondering what to do with the information:



US begins building treaty-breaching germ war defence centre 31 Jul 2006 Construction work has begun near Washington on a vast germ warfare laboratory intended to help protect the US against an attack with biological weapon, but critics say the laboratory's work will violate international law and its extreme secrecy will exacerbate a biological arms race. The centre will have to produce and stockpile the world's most lethal bacteria and viruses, which is forbidden by the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.

U.S. biodefense lab raises concerns 30 Jul 2006 The Bush regime is building a massive biodefense laboratory in Maryland that will simulate [stimulate?] calamitous bioterrorism attacks, it was reported Sunday. But much of what the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center in Fort Detrick, Md., does may never be publicly known because the White House intends to operate the facility largely in secret, the Washington Post reported. In an unusual arrangement, the building itself will be classified as "highly restricted space," the newspaper said. Not even nuclear labs operate with such secrecy.

The Secretive Fight Against (For) Bioterror --The government is building a highly classified facility to research biological weapons, but its closed-door approach has raised concerns. 30 Jul 2006 On the grounds of a military base an hour's drive from the capital, the Bush regime is building a massive biodefense laboratory unlike any seen since biological weapons were banned 34 years ago.





Then, I posted on the thread about chemicals and human waste causing sexual mutations in fish, other animals, and maybe humans.

Then I saw this on another ATS thread:



marg6043

Grave breaches would include torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, biological experiments, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, rape, sexual assault or abuse and taking hostages.

www.cnn.com...




And it just came to me.

1. Pollution is a form of bioterrorism.

2. Bioterrorism is a crime.

3. Pollution IS a crime, against humanity, under international law.


So. Is it time for the likes of IG Farben - Bayer, Merck and all the boyz - to start paying up?

What do you think?





ed to expand

[edit on 24-9-2006 by soficrow]




posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Lightheartedly, I had to chuckle about this one, not because you take the matter seriously or that it is not a valid point, but that the argument is similar to crimes we consider criminal acts that are caused by the perpetrator and only hurts the perpetrator.

Now, don't get me wrong, pollution is a problem, but everyone is a polluter no matter how far they distance themselves from it with idealogies of better living, green-technology, or ecological sustainability. These ideas sound great in words, but every process we do has some by-products that can be considered harmful to everyone else, even if we had no technology and lived in caves and tents, a community would still have a pit full of feces nearby that would be considered their little toxic waste site. So the problem is unavoidable.

I think you are correct in your stance that pollution is a form of chemical and bio hazards and by every definition out there should be classified as such, but the problem people have with this as I do, is that we are trying to call something bad that we created and is our very nature. The only difference is that people like you have come to the point where they understand it now.

The solution is not to blame the world for pollution, because we are the world - every last one of us. By making it criminal, by classifying it as bioterrorism would be to criminalize every one of us. So the solution, although it is clear to you, seems to me that we should pay attention to what we are doing to the environment and seriously question the fact that we are destroying ourselves and others. If we cast ourselves into being criminals by producing bioterrorist agents then we are being true to ourselves, but are also cutting off our noses despite our face. It is not enough that a minority realize this, but everyone has to or the problems will get worse.

Back to my original thoughts; it appeared to me in a vision when I first read this that it is much like an isolated pocket of a community where every citizen is all poor crack heads all stealing from each other to support their habit of abuse and then sitting in the weekly community action group complaining that the crack is the reason for all the neighborhood problems. None of the participants will admit that they are one in the same abusers of the crack but are more than willing to blame it for the neighborhoods demise.

Also, this is just like California wanting to sue automobile manufacturers for pollution when the state fully sanctions the building of roads for cars to drive the entire economy.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Hmmm.

Interesting argument ben, but I don't think it washes.

True, people buy and use products that contaminate the environment, but unlike the manufacturers, people do NOT know the chemistry or consequences of using such products.

Data about the chemistry and impacts of using most products is in the private domain, protected as Intellectual Property by international law.

Ordinary people do not have the ability to buy, otherwise collect, or to process the information needed to make informed choices about most products.

By comparison and in effect, you might as well say that young children have the ability to make informed sexual choices. Or that tobacco companies were not withholding vital information about health risks from consumers.



.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Hmmm.

Interesting argument ben, but I don't think it washes.

True, people buy and use products that contaminate the environment, but unlike the manufacturers, people do NOT know the chemistry or consequences of using such products.


I suppose you're right depending on who you decide is the victim here and who is perpetrating it. Every chemical known has some hazard rating ranging from benign to really nasty, and it is already a requirement that a generalized list of ingredients are listed on things like say a can of hairspray. So are you saying that consumers should be held accountable for the use and waste of the end product or the manufacturer for producing the product or a combination of the both?



Data about the chemistry and impacts of using most products is in the private domain, protected as Intellectual Property by international law.


I would disagree with this as MSDS reports for just about any chemical element is available online, so at least it is not solely under the private domain. Even trade names have to list a basic break-down of ingredients for the purposes of being classified as hazardous materials. If you don't believe me, look at that same can of hairspray and it will list ingredients as percentages. From this, one can look at an MSDS report of that and find out any prevelant danger involved in its use.

I admit that it means very little to a consumer unless anything in it causes them damage, but hey.....they are the ones using it as well.



Ordinary people do not have the ability to buy, otherwise collect, or to process the information needed to make informed choices about most products.


Again, that information is freely available, but just not readily available.



By comparison and in effect, you might as well say that young children have the ability to make informed sexual choices. Or that tobacco companies were not withholding vital information about health risks from consumers.


Well some people really aren't much different in making choices like a child would, so in this way I can see that similarity. However, if children had the benefit of information and it was shown that they actually acted upon it and developed workable plans that were successful time and time again, then there probably wouldn't be any conflict of children making sexual choices. But we all know that isn't the case. In nature, our bodies are capable of reproducing at a very young age, but society is against it because the complexity of society dictates that young parenthood is unworkable with a mind that is not adept at living successfully in society and raising children. So it seems to me that you want people to be informed or at least enough so that they hold accountable producers of known pollutants in our world today.

That sounds good, but how do you intend to make people care about that even if products clearly stated in layman's english that it contained stuff that could possible make cock roaches impotent?



.




posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ben91069

... information is freely available, but just not readily available.




ben - I challenge you to obtain actuarial reports from the medical insurance industry, and then tell me that people are fully informed, and positioned to make responsible decisions about their own health and consumer products.

I know you can't do it.

One of the most obvious ways to track the health impacts of prescription drugs, food contamination, environmental contamination - and disease outbreaks - is to use billing data from medical insurance companies.

* Tracking disease outbreaks - and monitoring the emergence of new strains - is simple: The diagnostic codes and fee item data alone tell the tale.

* Tracking the effects of specific prescription drugs is a bit more complicated, but doable without additional data from other sources.

* Identifying the effects of food and environmental contaminations does require added information from other sources, but still is relatively simple, statistically speaking.

In fact, actuarials who work for medical insurance corporations compile and analyse this kind of data all the time. It's their job.

Such analyses are used to determine the terms of coverage for specific populations and geographic areas, adjust fee schedules, and make policy changes.

However, neither the raw data nor the analyses are made available to public health agencies like the World Health Organization (WHO), where the information might be used to identify and monitor epidemics and pandemics, for example.

Why don't medical insurance corporations give their raw data or actuarial studies to public health agencies?

Well...

They have a lot to hide.

They also own the information, privately, and choose to use it for business strategizing and planning, and profit-making - and for protecting their existing products and product lines, and their profits - not for public health or the public good. It is their legal right to do what they want with their own data.

More to the point, international insurance corporations are in bed with their counterparts - the pharmaceutical industry, food processing corporations, chemical manufacturers, the oil and mining industries, and the rest of the polluters - and many are subsidiaries of the same mother corporations.

In this system, information is a commodity. Actuarial reports identifying disease outbreaks, and the health impacts of prescription drug use and contaminants are sold to the highest bidder on a restricted list, or bartered, or sent up the pike.

For example...

Big Pharma uses privately acquired information about:

* Disease outbreaks - to get the jump on their competition for vaccine production, or drugs to target secondary symptoms;

* Side effects of prescription drugs - to develop and market more drugs to treat the effects;

* Health effects of pollution - to develop and market drugs to treat the symptoms.


Food processing companies, chemical manufacturers, the oil and mining industries, and the rest of the international polluters are able to buy damaging information outright, simply to prevent its public release. And it's legal to hide the information, under corporate law:

It is not just a corporations' legal right to do what they want with information they own, it also is their legal responsibility under corporate law to act to increase profits, and arguably, to act to prevent the release of information that may be damaging to their business, or negatively impact profits.

So any way you cut it: Information is a commodity. And individual consumers are not able to get the information they need to make fully informed, responsible decisions.

IMO - you are just pushing the new mantra of "Personal responsibility." And you have gone from "Personal responsibility in health" to "Personal responsibility for pollution."

Bah humbug and my aunt fanny's butt.

It doesn't wash. People are not personally responsible for their decisions when they don't have access to all the relevant information. And they don't.






posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I agree with almost everything you said there because you answered my question without answering it directly. By showing how people are misinformed about the actual risks of consumer products (and I didn't just mean health risks BTW, MSDS has more info than just exposure risks), I see your point. The truth is, an MSDS will tell you the risk behind handling a chemical compound, but it will never make claims of its actual impact as it is currently being used in a society. So the true nature of the risks involved cannot be fully understood without the data you say is in the private domain for probably all the reasons you give.

With this, you answered my question of where the responsibility should lie.




Originally posted by soficrow
IMO - you are just pushing the new mantra of "Personal responsibility." And you have gone from "Personal responsibility in health" to "Personal responsibility for pollution."

It doesn't wash. People are not personally responsible for their decisions when they don't have access to all the relevant information. And they don't.


This part is not something I agree with. Personal responsibility is not a new idea. Also I never went from personal responsibilty of health to pollution as the question of health from the effects of pollution is connected in this case and cannot be seperated. I only wanted you to clarify who is responsible. You made that case quite clear so if manufacturers are personally responsible for our health by their products, then it stands to reason that they should be personally responsible for the contributing pollution from the same. The key is, that you have to prove the impact of any given pollutant, which is definitely harder since all that information is hidden from our eyes.

Of course, you also have to take into consideration that the EPA already has standards for all this and routinely monitors what is acceptable and what isn't. I think you have a sincere desire to create change, but I also think it is almost an impossible agenda to complete given the fact that government and corporations are in bed with each other and both have much to gain with the status quo. It would be like me asking a rich man to give up his wealth so I don't have to work for him. The only positive thing I can see that you are doing is spreading the word, which can possibly change things if enough people find out about it.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Thanks for your responses ben - sorry if my tone was brusque or ungrateful.

Will give some thought to your comments, and be back later.

Thanks again, sofi



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Net gain and instant gratification void many a health concern, especially for those in power who want to maintain or expand their control. Greed will dance on the backs of the sick and poor.

It also comes down to a time frame, if a product/service kills quickly then those products/services can be considered criminal. If a product/service takes years to kill and has a nice profit potential, then it usually always gets the green light.


Smok'em if you got'em?

Imbalances will seek equilibrium and also called paying the Piper.

Let them eat cake only goes so far....

[edit on 26-9-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Pollution a Crime Against Humanity?


Pollution was once the savior of the world,
if all those smoke-stack industries weren't created
then all the steel for the ships & tanks from WWI thru WWII
then all the aluminum mined then transformed into aircraft or missiles
would not have materalized to save civilization from Nazis or Communists

all those coal-fired electric generating plants would not have lit up the dark
or led to telephone service etc., so the economy could grow & evolve into what we have today...

but now some of us are aware or smug enough to outsource most of those
industries to 'graduating' 3rd world countries so that a lot of pollution causing
fabrication plants are 'not-in-my-back-yard'

yes, we can rationalize & moralize that littering is an assault on one's neighbor
or that pollution is a necessary evil
or that intentional pollution is a crime
that's why there is a court system to address these issues



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Just a quick response, with more later.



ben

...if manufacturers are personally responsible for our health by their products, then it stands to reason that they should be personally responsible for the contributing pollution from the same.




I don't think so. Most 'developers' farm out their manufacturing - to spread the blame and cut their losses.

So we would need to go back to the source - find the corporations who are collecting fees on their "Intellectual Property Rights" and patents - NOT nail the little guys who are just fronting for the big guys.





The key is, that you have to prove the impact of any given pollutant,




We also need to change the law as required to acknowledge 'factorial' and systemic impacts - not just old-science 'cause-and-effect telationships.'






...all that information is hidden from our eyes.




Not all.

Watch this thread. The amount of evidence 'hidden' in the public domain might surprise you.


.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   
EPA??? hmm this issue is regulated and orgs/industries can be liable if they operate outside scope.

www.amazonwatch.org...]
Quito, Ecuador – As the historic $6 billion pollution trial against Chevron in Ecuador nears its final phase, the latest scientific results demonstrate that the company faces a massive potential liability for creating levels of toxicity in the rainforest up to thousands of times higher than permitted by Ecuadorian and U.S. law.





posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by NJE777
EPA??? hmm this issue is regulated and orgs/industries can be liable if they operate outside scope.





EPA??? Regulation???

Surely you jest.


U.S. Still Silencing Scientists

EPA modelers say science is being altered to suit objectives.


.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
EPA??? Regulation???

Surely you jest.


ok you are obviously critical of the regulation. I understand your point now.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by NJE777

Originally posted by soficrow
EPA??? Regulation???

Surely you jest.


ok you are obviously critical of the regulation. I understand your point now.




I am not just critical of the lack of adequate regulation - more so that this occurs in the context of laws demanding that corporations must increase profits, before any consideration of public good.


.



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Pollution is a crime against the entire ecosystem and all life on Earth. My greatest problem with the whole situation is China's defiance to do anything about the fact that they possess 90% of the worst pollution creating cities on the planet. Without China making huge changes, the rest of us can only delay the inevitable. China needs to have very serious tariffs placed on them. If the world would stand up as one (good luck), and stop buying their products without a serious commitment from them to drastically change their no-care attitude, they will continue to pour massive amounts of pollution into the air.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join