February 13, 2004

Well not to be insensitive..but the article didn't say what was there first, landfill or the house..if the house was there first couldn't they have just asked the county to buy them out and move. It's like the comedian that made fun of white people not leaving a haunted house, no wonder they all die, a black guy would have heard, "Get out" and he would have been gone...Like buying a house close to an airport than complaining about the noise...I would have moved from the lanfill long before I would have let it effect me medically and what not..

This is why we call them the NINTH CIRCUS out here in the land of fruits and nuts.

AAARRRRRRRGG$%#%##$^^$^

Private enterprise was doing a very efficient job of collecting and recycling materials when it was economically feasible to do so. Government has contributed absolutely nothing except (to) create a new layer of bureaucracy, and has misspent the energy of adults, teachers, and students on projects of little or no meaning. We should be spending all of that money and energy on programs that contribute to real solutions for real environmental problems.

R.S. Bennett, The Torch

Sounds a bit like the two homeless dudes in my town who want to sue a charity that runs a food handout van because they claim they refused service.

Story at www.digitalpicture.com.au/index.html#feb12041

So styrofoam cups buried next door to these idiots are killing you and I?

From

http://www.sepp.org/ozone/ozscsst.html

read the following:

"There has, of course, been a determined search for a secular increase in UV-B to match the claimed global depletion of ozone. No such trends had been observed until publication in November 1993 of a startling increase in UV-B between 1989 and 1993 over Toronto, Canada [23]. University of California Prof. F. Sherwood Rowland, coauthor of the CFC/ozone depletion theory, immediately endorsed the Canadian study in the Los Angeles Times, saying, "Now, at last, we have good data to point to." But closer examination revealed that this "smoking gun" was smoke and little else. The authors had confused a short-lived increase at the end of their record--likely due to a severe weather disturbance, the "storm of the century" that hit the northeast in March 1993--with a long-term UV trend [24].

Fears about small changes in UV-B intensity may be ill- founded, in any case. To put matters into perspective: UV-B increases naturally by about 5000 percent between pole and equator, largely because of the change in the average angle of the sun [25]. Therefore, a 10 percent increase at mid-latitudes translates into moving just 60 miles to the south--hardly a source for concern."

In other words, I increase my risk of skin cancer by 10% every time I drive down to San Diego from here in Hollyweird.

Oh, and by the the way, if you peruse the scientific literature, you'll find that Rowland et. al. were eventually forced to publically retract their "smoking gun" claim r.e. the Canada study.

Acidman is right. The Green's are just druids.