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.

 

Get Tough on Toxic Chemicals, Scientists Urge

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Canada's Environmental Protection Act is under review, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper plans to spend $300 million over four years assessing toxic chemicals, but does not make any commitment to act on results. Scientists say there is enough scientific evidence on the harmful health effects of many chemicals to act now. They are concerned that the plan does not commit the federal government to act, and so will not protect consumers. Scientists also say government should make industry prove chemicals are safe before they're used in consumer goods. Currently, industry can use toxic chemicals in consumer products without proving their safety, and the government must prove there is a problem after the chemicals have already been released. "Other jurisdictions have done a lot of research," says Gideon Forman, of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. "We're playing catch-up to the European Union. We're years behind the European Union. In fact, we're years behind some American states." On Monday, 700 environmental scientists joined the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment in petitioning Harper for better regulation of toxic chemicals.
 



www.cbc.ca
Hundreds of Canadian scientists and doctors are calling on the federal government to take a tougher stand on dangerous chemicals used in consumer products. ...Last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced a plan to spend $300 million over four years to make Canada a world leader in the testing and regulation of chemicals. ...But scientists have said they're concerned that the plan does not commit the federal government to act and thus may not protect consumers. ...On Monday, 700 environmental scientists added their voices to the debate, signing a letter asking the federal government to strengthen the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The act is currently under review by committees in the House and Senate. Gideon Forman, of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, said there is enough scientific evidence on the harmful health effects of many chemicals ...to act now.

Industry doesn't have to prove chemicals are safe. ...The letter also urges Ottawa to make industry prove chemicals are safe before they're used in consumer goods, rather than keep the current system, which requires governments to first prove there's a problem. ...When the Environmental Protection Act was last reviewed in 1999, industry lobbyists succeeded in getting it watered down, said David Schindler, a professor of ecology at the University of Alberta. ..."Other jurisdictions have done a lot of research," said Forman. "We're playing catch-up to the European Union. We're years behind the European Union. In fact, we're years behind some American states."

Forman noted that, under the federal plan, the government could choose to ban PBDEs or do nothing. He said there was nothing in the plan that commits Ottawa to doing anything except an assessment. ..."We have a lot of laws that have too much ministerial discretion," said Schindler. "They're written that 'If x happens, the minister may' rather than 'the minister must take' a particular action." ...Consumers are advised to read as much as possible about potentially dangerous chemicals and to keep a close eye on what politicians do with Canada's environmental laws, he added.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



Libertarians fight against industry regulation as a matter of principle. They say taxes should only be used to support a military to protect the nation from attack by other hostile nations.

But today, big international corporations have far more economic, political, military and social power than most of the world's nations - giving rise to the new "corporate state."

Corporate states look to expansion, just like nations historically have done. Unlike nations however, corporate states are satisfied with economic takeover, and only incidentally with political and population control - as means to the economic end.

Consequently, the kinds of attacks corporate states are most likely to make are "stealth" attacks - which are difficult to identify, and harder to fight against. Stealth arsenals include chemicals and bioweapons, and currently, biotechnology and nanotechnology.

The strategy is simple: Chemicals in consumer products make people sick; sick people are easier to manipulate and control, and too distracted to notice that their nation is being taken over by hostile economic forces.

IMO - we are already under attack. We need to fight back. Which leads to some tough questions.

How do we protect ourselves from chemical and bioweapons being distributed in consumer products and foods? How can nation states fight back against corporate states, and protect themselves from a stealth takeover?





[edit on 12-12-2006 by soficrow]




posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
The denial industry is enlisting all the help they can - including the Libertarian Party, to fight for deregulation.

Seems to me - deregulation helps the corporate states to take over nation states, if no other action is taken to level the playing field.

Any Libertarians here care to respond?





posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
The denial industry is enlisting all the help they can - including the Libertarian Party, to fight for deregulation.

Seems to me - deregulation helps the corporate states to take over nation states, if no other action is taken to level the playing field.

Any Libertarians here care to respond?




Its simple. You support it with the dollars you spend. If there is no government association respecting a corporation, then there is no dollar support government wise. That means the only support comes from the consumer. If the consumer base disappears, the company dies fast.

If people are not interested enough to diminish the consumer base, then they get exactly what they pay for.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Its simple. You support it with the dollars you spend. If there is no government association respecting a corporation, then there is no dollar support government wise. That means the only support comes from the consumer. If the consumer base disappears, the company dies fast.




Local, national and international laws support corporations. Today, corporations are on par with nations, and sit as equals at the table.

Corporate law stipulates that corporations MUST pursue profit before all else - even public health, environmental health, anything.

Today, international corprations are behemoths with more power than most nations.

Given the legal system and other realities, "consumers" have NO power.

Your first clue? People are not called 'people' or even 'citizens' - they are simply "consumers."

You wanna dismantle something? Be a real libertarian? Why not start with corporate legal protections - not the consumer ones?


.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Local, national and international laws support corporations. Today, corporations are on par with nations, and sit as equals at the table.


alright, time to show me the laws that support corporations.



Corporate law stipulates that corporations MUST pursue profit before all else - even public health, environmental health, anything.


wheres this law written? And for the record, thats a corporations purpose. People need to watch for the health and environmental health. If they give a damn, they will react to the corporation. In time corporations will realize, screw with the health of the consumer or their environment and the corporation will cease to exist. That is the LAST thing they want to happen.



Today, international corprations are behemoths with more power than most nations.


and? Its not my business what laws other countries have against their citizens that make them helpless to corporations. In america, we have the capability and right to protect ourselves from corporations. I know you want it to seem like the corporations are just too big and we need to create a big government to fight the evil corporations, but thats just not reality. Reality is that people are just too lazy to do it themselves and thats why we need a big government, because they won't do it.

Well I say screw them, stop being lazy. You want to be lazy, fine, your only killing yourself. You create a bigger government and it effects everyone whether they want it or not.



Given the legal system and other realities, "consumers" have NO power.


other then taxes from the government that pay these corporations like a middle man, consumers have ALL the power. If you stop buying products, the corporation will fall on its ass. Theres no law or higher reality then that. I don't think government should have any say in what happens to a business. If the business does good, it does good. If it falls, it falls. If the company is putting poison in its food, then the people will either stop buying it, or keep buying it. Whichever they do its their own damn right to do so.



Your first clue? People are not called 'people' or even 'citizens' - they are simply "consumers."


same person, different word. They are still the ones holding all the power. Power is money, and money is the consumer. No consumer, no money, and that means no power.



You wanna dismantle something? Be a real libertarian? Why not start with corporate legal protections - not the consumer ones?


Im against any affiliation the government has with business, religion, or anything requiring funds other then for the government to function really. Health care, get rid of it. Medicare, get rid of that too. Social Security, gone. Funding for public programs, out.

Let people decide what they want to do with their money. Then we will see where the nation is SUPPOSE to be, rather then were a dictatorship of a small handful decide where it goes.

You either want to be a part of a free world, or you want a small group to guide you to the outcome of this nation. Its that simple. Government control, is control no matter how lax they make the rules. They are still the ones in power.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Its simple. You support it with the dollars you spend. If there is no government association respecting a corporation, then there is no dollar support government wise. That means the only support comes from the consumer. If the consumer base disappears, the company dies fast.

If people are not interested enough to diminish the consumer base, then they get exactly what they pay for.


taxes aren't voluntary, last time i've checked, governments and corporations are the same, centralistic anonymous entities with minor differences, no wonder they're cooperating against us.

whenever the gov't spends money, it will inevitably end up in cartel's pockets, take agrarian subsidies, f-ex, the amount of money supplied to farmers (at least those who are good at filling in forms..) is inevitably and immediately transferred to someone in the supply chain, because they dictate acquisition prices, while the consumer has to pay full retail plus taxes to finance the subsidies.

i'm not the only one who knows this, of course, so why are they still doing it? conflict of interests, maybe? how come defunct politicians usually get a swell job with some defense contractor, while people who'd been slowly treading the hierachical ladder are ignored?

Source for corporate profit obligation soficrow is referring to



not to appear rude, sometimes i think libertarianism was invented for people who don't believe in keeping an eye on real developments. in theory, self-regulation should work, i'll give you that much, but look, it doesn't seem to work, does it?

PS: if you think you have that much power, stop buying fuel, k?


[edit on 13-12-2006 by Long Lance]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Libertarianism fails for the same reason the other systems have failed, and will fail...human error and faults. On paper, alot of systems work nice, but all fail in real life. Its not the systems fault, its peoples fault.

How many more systems need to be made up before we realize that we are the problem, not the system.

Its plain as day. You make a system where the government protects the people then the government corrupts with power. You make a government that lets the people do what they want, they get lazy and become complacent with whatever they are told, and the system fails anyway.

Its HUMAN faults that cause our governmental systems to fail. Libertarianism, unlike other ideologies, allows me to play a part though. I may not have a big part, but I have a part. I play my part, and hope other play their part. If everyone does what they are suppose to, the system works.

You take peoples freedom away and they scream for freedom. They finally get it, and 200 years later they are screaming to have their freedom taken away and be protected by government and higher power. People just don't seem to learn outside of experience for the most part.

Dictatorships techincally work...that doesn't mean they are right or a system that should be used.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reading the corporate law. I agree with it. There is no reason a business should have to care about anything other then making money. That is the point of a business. A business owner will take into account though, "If I pollute this area, and people find out, statistics show that people will no longer buy...I would lose ALOT of money. Thats not a good idea, because I could end up losing ALOT more money then its worth."

Overall though, a business has no logical reason to care about any of that. If a business owner decides its not a good idea, then fine. If they decide they want to do it, get caught, and the company collapses, well they the system worked just as it should.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Its simple. You support it with the dollars you spend. If there is no government association respecting a corporation, then there is no dollar support government wise. That means the only support comes from the consumer. If the consumer base disappears, the company dies fast.


Local, national and international laws support corporations. Today, corporations are on par with nations, and sit as equals at the table.

Corporate law stipulates that corporations MUST pursue profit before all else - even public health, environmental health, anything.

Today, international corprations are behemoths with more power than most nations.

Given the legal system and other realities, "consumers" have NO power.

Your first clue? People are not called 'people' or even 'citizens' - they are simply "consumers."

IMO less than that, they're subjects to get hooked, to become addicts of whatever product and once there, they are consumers, "the faithful costumers".

It's all about getting them hooked and and any trick of manipulation psychology can offer of course is applied.

I certainly won't rule out chemical manipulation is used too, addictive substancies added to products for internal use. Like ammoniazation used to turn cocain into crack. For years it has also been the method tobacco industry administer to make nicotin easier absorbed in the bloodstream, thus making it manyfold more addictive. Same chemistry is used making food flavours. That why you come like them so much. A treat.

Only a psychopath think up like that, but it is needed cause the first and only actual obligation of a corporation is to secure profit for its shareholders. To create the maximum profit however takes a psychopath, and thats excactly what the modern corporation is.

Using the WHO definitions for a psychopath, it requires six behavorial attitudes to be met. The corporation fulfills them all. And don't forget, the psychopath diagnose is the only psychiatric ailment where the patient does not suffer. Only his surroundings does.

The observation above is not my own, but from a book: Joel Bakan "The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power".

A TV documentary has been made over it as well, a Canadian production by Mark Achbar's and Jennifer Abbott's, "The Corporation".
Wiki has an entry about book and documentary.

Why corporations can get away what they do, is because they are persons. They are NOT entities, they are the richest individuals on earth.

Comes down to the 14th amendment about equal rights, initially added to state the rights of freed slaves. However between 1890 and 1910 307 cases were brought to the Supreme Court dealing with the 14th amendment. Out of the 307 only 19 cases were made by African Americans. The 288 came from corporate lawyers seeking "equal" rights for their corporate entities.

Of course they got them. That's the presedence.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon

Why corporations can get away what they do, is because they are persons. They are NOT entities, they are the richest individuals on earth.

Comes down to the 14th amendment about equal rights, initially added to state the rights of freed slaves. However between 1890 and 1910 307 cases were brought to the Supreme Court dealing with the 14th amendment. Out of the 307 only 19 cases were made by African Americans. The 288 came from corporate lawyers seeking "equal" rights for their corporate entities.

Of course they got them. That's the presedence.




Uh huh.


And dontcha just love those so-called Libertarians who are perfectly willing to give mega-billion dollar corporations the rights and freedoms of individual persons - but at the same time, wanna take away actual peoples' rights, freedoms and protections.

Talk about a very big clue...




clarity

[edit on 15-12-2006 by soficrow]



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join