Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dear Governor LePage (R - anti-science industry stooge) Maine Re: Bisphenol A

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 02:58 PM
Original message
Dear Governor LePage (R - anti-science industry stooge) Maine Re: Bisphenol A
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 03:12 PM by jpak
You and your republic cronies have stated that environmental policy and regulations should be based on "sound science". Yet you continue to to deny the overwhelming scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming. Your expressed views on teaching creationism in public schools also reveal your anti-science anti-intellectual political bias. You have attacked DEP rules protecting vernal pools in Maine, but clearly do not know the scientific definition of a vernal pool (clue: they all "dry up" periodically).

What really bothers me is your plan to repeal Maine's restrictions on products containing Bisphenol-A (BPA) which has been shown to be an endocrine disruptor that affects human health. Public hearings prior to the decision to list BPA as a toxic substance revealed that...

"During a six-month public hearing and comment period, the BEP heard the consensus of the nations top scientists that BPA is dangerous, even in small doses, such as those we are exposed to every day. BPA is an endocrine disrupting chemical that can reduce immune function, impair brain development and contribute to diseases like breast and prostate cancers later in life."

http://www.nrcm.org/news_detail.asp?news=3911

How much "sound science" influenced your decision to reverse current BPA rules?

Apparently none.

Laura N. Vandenberg, Maricel V. Maffini, Carlos Sonnenschein, Beverly S. Rubin and Ana M. Soto (2009) Bisphenol-A and the Great Divide: A Review of Controversies in the Field of Endocrine Disruption. Endocrine Reviews, doi:10.1210/er.2008-0021

http://edrv.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/1/75

Conclusions:

The data collected thus far in the field of environmental toxicology are sufficiently robust to raise concerns about the potentially deleterious impact of endocrine-disrupting chemicals on human development. To extrapolate evidence from animal studies to humans should be done cautiously because differences among species and strains have been reported regarding a variety of parameters. However, the mouse and rat have been shown to be excellent models for the understanding of the sad episode of the human DES syndrome. Importantly, recent studies indicate that in both rats and nonhuman primates, BPA abolishes estrogen-dependent spine synapse formation in the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex, lending additional support to the use of rodent models (197, 198). Thus, it would be unwise to ignore the incremental evidence stemming from rigorously controlled laboratory experiments and from chemically exposed wildlife, alongside the increasing incidence of comparable issues in human populations exposed to these same chemicals during different developmental stages. All of this evidence should encourage regulatory agencies to apply the precautionary principle and thus ban and/or substitute those chemicals that are likely to be harmful to the normal development of humans and wildlife. The NTP report, the most recent statement by the FDAs commissioner, and a report from Health Canada classifying BPA as a human and environmental toxin all suggest a potential change in the perception of the regulatory community toward recognizing the risk posed by BPA exposure.

Although scientific inquiry is a dynamic give-and-take among researchers with different opinions and viewpoints, the so-called controversies surrounding low-dose effects and NMDR curves should be put to rest, given that they now affect public health decisions. These phenomena have been demonstrated time and again for a sufficient number of endocrine-related endpoints, and they no longer merit being considered "controversial" topics. It is time to span the great divides that exist in this field.

<end snip>

Since "Sound Science" obviously had nothing to do with your decision regarding BPA - what did influence it?

Jobs in Maine?

How many jobs were lost because of BEP's listing of BPA as toxic chemical?

I have not read anything in the papers or seen anything on the local news that indicated any jobs werer lost by listing BPA as a toxc substance - or of any jobs that will be gained by reversing BEP's rules on BPA- so what was it?

The inane right wing rantings of the Maine Heritage Policy center?

Financial gain for your political cronies?

All of the above?

yup

:thumbsdown:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. Is there a recall process or are you guys stuck with him for four years? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. No recall procedure :( - but there is the People's Veto referendum option
Which I hope is used as many times against LePew and the republics as it wuz against Baldacci and the Dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. He's off to a roaring start for someone who garnered only a plurality
The good news is Mainiacs do take the referendum process seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Republicans -- give them an inch and they'll take a mile.
Democrats -- give them a mile and they'll take an inch, and then give the remaining 63359 inches to the Republicans.

x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. BPA is in almost all plastic items made in China
Be very careful buying anything made in China, India or Indonesia. Try not to buy any plastic items intended for food, drink or storage that do not have a label certifying they contain NO BPA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
4. He's a piece of work

And to think he won the election due to the split votes for the dem and the indie. Yuck, what a lousy result.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. Kids if you want some fun, Mr. LaPage is your man
He's always laughing, having fun
Showing his films in the den

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
8. Environmental Coalition Urges Legislature to Reject LePage Roll Back Proposals
http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineNewsArchive/tabid/181/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3475/ItemId/14988/Default.aspx

A coalition of environmental groups, doctors and parents converged on the State House today to express their outrage at the proposed repeal of laws that protect children, families and businesses from toxic chemicals. This week the LePage administration recommended a list of environmental regulations that it would like to see rolled back or repealed, including the Kid Safe Products Act. The coalition is asking the current Legislature to reject the wish list.

<snip>

Recently, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection determined that the hormone disrupting chemical bisphenol-A should be phased out of sippy cups and baby bottles. The move was opposed by chemical manufacturers, and Mike Belliveau of the Environmental Health Strategy Center says the governor appears to be putting the chemical industry's interests ahead of those of Maine's children.

"When Gov. LePage joined with the chemical industry in attacking the Kid Safe Products Act that's like poisoning the baby first and then throwing the baby out with the bath water. It's really outrageous. It's beyond the pale," Belliveau said. "Maine parents won't stand for it. Maine grandparents won't stand for it. We're confident that the Maine Legislature won't stand for that either."

A spokesman for the American Chemistry Council did not return a telephone call from MPBN, but a spokesman for Gov. LePage says his boss is not passing judgment on BPA or any other chemical. Instead, Dan Demeritt says the list is all about putting Maine's regulations on par with the findings of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.

<more>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
9. Gov. LePages vision for Maine?
http://www.timesrecord.com/articles/2011/01/27/opinion/commentaries/doc4d419830b4ed8143688636.txt

<snip>

Taken literally, the plan amounts to a huge rollback of environmental legislation passed over the past three decades. According to the Natural Resources Council of Maine, the plan would repeal or substantially weaken 18 environmental laws, including several that received unanimous support from the Legislature. It would also gut land-use controls over the vast unorganized territories the Maine woods which at 10.4 million acres is nearly half the states land area

<snip>

Perhaps the most staggering proposal is the decimation of the Land Use Regulatory Commission, which since 1970 has overseen development in the unorganized territory all of Maines land without local government.

<snip>

Under his plan, LURC would have to open to unfettered development 30 percent of this land base. Thats 3 million acres, an area the size of Connecticut, and about one-seventh of Maine. It would also repeal the adjacency rule, which means that new development should take place primarily near existing development. To most Mainers, this is common sense. To LePage, its a millstone around commercial development.

<more>

The North Woods LURCs jurisdiction means many different things. To hikers and campers, its the last remaining wilderness in the Northeast. To forest products companies, its a huge and vital source of wood fiber, the reason why Maine still has a vigorous forest economy while other states are losing theirs. To the world, places like northern Maine are vital repositories of medicinal plants, and a buffer against global warming.

<more>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
10. LePage aims to ease vernal pool regulations
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 08:44 PM by jpak
http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/lepage-aims-to-ease-vernal-rules_2011-01-18.html

LEWISTON Gov. Paul LePage wants to relax state rules aimed at protecting vernal pools from development.

<snip>

A vernal pool is a small, shallow body of water that dries up for part of the year. Because they have no fish in them, the pools are relatively safe places for amphibians to breed and spend the first few weeks of their lives before they crawl out into the forest.

A state law protecting "significant" vernal pools took effect in 2007. LePage said he is sympathetic to developers who complain that that the law often makes it too difficult to build.

"We want to address vernal pools," he said. "If they are intermittent and dry up after rainfalls, I am going to recommend we ignore them."

<more>

FYI, the biomass of wood salamanders *alone* (not counting wood frogs and toads that utilize vernal pools) in New England forests is equal to that of small mammals....(note: the biomass of white-tailed deer in Maine is ~2000 g/ha)

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1443655

and play a significant role in forest energy flow and nutrient cycling...

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1936147

dumbass

yup

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
11. Well, it's somewhat surprising to hear WHO is complaining about dogmatism.
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 10:12 PM by NNadir
I don't know many people from Maine, but one person I do know proceeds from a very, very, very, very, very, very closed minded and dogmatic position that flies directly in the face of the work of one of the greatest chemists who ever lived - the only one to be honored with an element named in his life time - discoverer of the 5f series, and co-discoverer of more then ten elements in the periodic table.

Did I mention that said scientist personally knew every President of the United States from Truman to Clinton, and was on a familiar basis with even Nikita Khrushchev?

That he won the Nobel Prize in chemistry, was elected President of the American Chemical Society, and was instrumental in both the atmospheric nuclear test ban treaty, and, um, as the administrator of the Atomic Energy Commission, oversaw the initiation of construction of more than 70 nuclear reactors in the United States, most of which still operate today and almost all of which each produce more energy than the entire nation of Denmark can produce in all the rickety wind turbines in the entire nation of Denmark?

The guy who wrote more than 50 books, covering everything from http://www.amazon.com/Kennedy-Khrushchev-Test-Glenn-Seaborg/dp/0520049616">diplomatic negotiations and http://www.amazon.com/Chemist-White-House-Manhattan-Project/dp/0841233470/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296182605&sr=1-5">Presidential politics to the http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Beyond-Uranium-Glenn-Seaborg/dp/0471890626/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296182605&sr=1-3">Chemistry of Mendelevium and more than 500 scientific journal articles, many of which were of Nobel Prize quality?

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1951/seaborg-bio.html

I happen to have book discussing Mendelevium before me right now, and I quote this great American scientist's words written in 1990:

The present electricity producing nuclear power reactors in the United States and most countries, will continue to operate over their design lifetimes. We hope for a return in the United States and elsewhere to nuclear power as an option for needed future expansion in electric generating capacity. (Some countries, such as France, never yet indulged in a hiatus in their dependence on this source of energy.) There are many reasons for such a return to this safe and reliable source of energy, such the avoidance of acid rain and air pollution, need to conserve fossil fuels as a source of chemicals, need to conserve oil as a fuel for transportation and increasingly the need to avoid a worldwide catastrophe resulting from the "greenhouse effect"...


The bold and transcription are mine. Ref: Seaborg, Loveland, "The Elements Beyond Uranium" John Wiley and Sons, copyright 1990, excerpt from pages 325-326.

It all makes one want to yelp like a childish backward hick: Yup! Yup! Yup! Yup! Yuppie.

Nevertheless, with carbon dioxide now rapidly approaching 400 ppm, we have people who rail against what has consistently been, for decades, the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy and lecture us about - how rich is this - respect for science.

Then we here about what is determined to be clearly the most important issue before humanity today, bis-phenol A, which is why we need to cut and paste abstracts that include words like "possibly" and phrases like "To extrapolate evidence from animal studies to humans should be done cautiously..." as proof that we should make all plastics from wood.

Whatever.

Still the whole matter here in complaining about "anti-science" makes me want to think about the renewably http://www.who.int/indoorair/health_impacts/en/">renewably carbonized lung tissue calling the, um, kettle black.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. The New Jersey molten salt breeder reactor is still a fraud
and Glenn Seaborg would not be amused by that ridiculous buffoonery.

Yup!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Glenn Seaborg was in the control room of the Molten Salt Reactor during the first U-233 run.
Edited on Fri Jan-28-11 10:02 PM by NNadir
This is described by the (then) Director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in his outstanding book, http://www.amazon.com/First-Nuclear-Era-Times-Technological/dp/1563963582/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top">The First Nuclear Era, copyright 1994, by the American Physics Institute.

Here's a photograph of Dr. Weinberg, who worked with an knew scores of Nobel Laureates, with Nobel Laureate Cliff Shull, who performed his Nobel Prize winning work under Dr. Weinberg's directorship.



http://www.ornl.gov/ornlhome/news_items/news_061019.shtml">Oak Ridge National Laboratory Tribute to Alvin M. Weinberg.

As it happens, I have Dr. Weinberg's book in front of me right now. I cite from his text on Glenn Seaborg's participation in the Molten Salt Reactor Operations:

The Molten Salt reactor began operation in 1966 and achieved its maximum power (limited by the size of the air cooled ultimate heat exchanger of of 7,500 kilowatts in March of that year. It continued to operate remarkably smoothly, though with interruptions for maintenance, until December of 1969, when its operation was terminated so that funds could be diverted to the development of more advanced molten-salt systems. We were delighted with the MSRE. Here we had a high-temperature fluid fuel reactor that operated reliably and, even the primitive embodiment represented by MSRE, had remarkably low fuel costs. Before shutting down the MSRE, we operated with 233U as fuel. Glenn Seaborg and Ray Stoughton, co-discoverers of 233U were in the control room we we began a yearlong run with 233U. This was the first time any reactor operated with 233U as fuel. I think Glenn who was chair of the AEC, must have been pleased to see "his" 233U being put to practical use!


Ibid, Weinberg, page 126-127. The transcription and the bold are mine.

I was in Glenn Seaborg's presence exactly once in my life. I would not presume, of course, to put any words in the mouth of that august scientist, for whom I felt such awe and from whom young people today may take scientific inspiration. However I will say that in person - at the ACS meeting where he was being honored with the naming of Seaborgium - he seemed very much the gracious man who comes across in print. I very much doubt that he would be nearly as vicious as I am in addressing the obvious ignorance of anti-science anti-nuke stumble bumb types. I don't think he messed much with houseflies.

But the fact is that dumb people, again from a position of total ignorance, are trying to destroy his life's work. My personal position, irrespective of Dr. Seaborg's (or Dr. Weinberg's) is that it is the duty of educated people to confront ignorance and fight it.

It is my oft stated conviction that better than 99% of anti-nukes are the intellectual equivalents of creationists, since like creationists, they hate, from a dogmatic and completely uneducated position, a science about which they clearly know nothing.

They have no respect for nuclear science (or, in fact any science) because it's pretty clear that they have never opened a science book in their pathetic lives.

Often when I state this fact about the intellectual standing of anti-nukes, they show up to verify my contention, although usually while being completely oblivious to their dogmatism and lack of wit.

I am always thankful for that, and of course, appreciate it presently.

In general, like creationists, anti-nukes are too stupid to grasp precisely how clownish they are. The fact is that without smiley buttons, they would be spectacularly unable to express themselves, which is, of course, a reflection of the hollows of their minds.

Have a nice evening.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. You are not Glenn Seaborg
You have not invented a molten salt breeder reactor.

yup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 25th 2024, 03:08 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC