Well, first off, it's MIT. And we don't take the word of science too
kindly round here. Especially elite east coast science. Secondly, if
there's a shred of contradiction to these findings on the internet, we can
deny it all summarily. We don't have to fix it. Finally, even if it is
true, the victims of pollution are like the victims of cigarettes. They die one
at a time, and never make the news. So we're going after lowering the BAC
Hutterite...You seem to be comparing this study on pollution to the
"science" of global warming. However, the negative effects of pollution
are far less controversial in the scientific community than the man made ability
to change the climate of Earth. Also, I feel that if anyone truly believes in
global warming/negative effects of climate change, they should be traveling by
public transit, bike, or walking. If you believe in global warming and commute
by car to work, then you are contributing to "climate change."
Other sources of danger:Motherhood: Every murder had a mother.Milk: 100% of those who smoke pot had milk as a baby.Politicians:
Everyone killed in a war was sent to war by a politician or government
official.I love studies, you can gin up any result you like.Headline in Provda (reporting on a track meet between the USSR and the
USA).USSR Track Teams places second. USA team comes in second to last.
I've been around to know that figures can lie and liars can figure. When
these type of stats are shared and evaluated I'm always very skeptical.
Seems to me, someone, somewhere has something to gain, just ask Al Gore.
But, this is Utah, and Science is automatically considered a big fat
Al Gore lie around here, especially when it comes to taking care of Mother
If you believe in global warming and commute by car to work, then you are
contributing to "climate change." I drive over a hundred
thousand kilometres a year, a lot of it in a one ton diesel with a trailer, and
believe in climate change. Man made. I'm definitely contributing to it.
Pollution, too. No two ways about it. I'm part of the problem, but I'm
no hypocrite about it. I just don't care, that's all. If nobody is
going to do anything about it until it's too late, que sera, our fate is
determined in any case. Things will hold out as long as I'm alive. Our
posterity will have to deal with whatever comes of it, they can accuse me of
being part of the problem. But at least I didn't deny it at the time.
Earlier this week, the United Nation's World Health Organization declared
that air pollution directly caused cancer. Sadly, many Utahns will simply
ignore the findings (which is intuitively obvious) because it came from the UN
rather than Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, who are more concerned about the "war
on Christmas" and if Obama is really an American.It's sad
that in the 21st century, science has become politically divisive, so that basic
concepts such as evolution, climate change, the benefits of sex education, the
moon landing's reality, genetic-orientation of sexuality, ... and now the
negative health impacts of pollution (!!!) are all dismissed because it
doesn't fit the value system and pre-beliefs of conservatives. But a news report about the Obama's birth certificate?
Conservatives swallow it without question!I guess reality is
inherently "liberal" so conservatives will continue to deny it!
Baron Scarpia"But a news report about the Obama's birth
certificate? Conservatives swallow it without question!" Typical left wing
hate speech/inaccurate stereotype that doesn't even acknowledge the Hillary
Clinton campaign started the birther rumors.Then leftists wonder why
alarmists are not trusted.
And Rush Limbaugh is still telling them tobacco doesn't cause cancer
We need to be concerned about what we breath. It's as simple as that.
The article might have been a bit more credible, had it not been for the use of
an image of a polluted city/highway in China.