Latest Shouts In The Shoutbox -- View The Shoutbox
The shoutbox is currently offline!

[ Smilies | BBCodes ]

     
 
Click Here and visit PuPPs FREE StuFF

This website contains controversial information that may be disturbing to some viewers.
The theories, conclusions and commentaries are presented in an attempt to reveal the hidden truths.
It is up to the viewer to determine what they choose to believe after evaluating all available sources of information.

 
     

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
Does your government represent your best interests?


     
 
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
~ Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.



POLITICAL ART GALLERY



IMPORTANT TOPICS

1. U.S. NEWS MEDIA CAN LEGALLY LIE TO YOU
There is no law preventing the U.S. news media from intentionally lying to the public. Whistle blowers and honest reporters are fired for telling the truth.

2. FLUORIDE IS A TOXIN/POISON
Read the Poison Warning label on your toothpaste, then call the 800# and ask;
"Why do you put poison in my toothpaste?"

3. NEW FLU VACCINE IS LOADED WITH MERCURY
by Dr. Joseph Mercola

4. PEDOPHILES IN HIGH PLACES
Also: Conspiracy of Silence Video

5. ASPARTAME IS HARMFUL
Equal, Nutra-Sweet and over 6000 food and beverage products contain Aspartame

6. On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 (2 Trillion) in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for.
Such a disclosure normally would have sparked a huge scandal. However, the commencement of the [9/11] attack on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon the following morning would assure that the story remained buried.


http://drinkingwaterlosangeles.com
Serving the greater Los Angeles area,
Los Angeles Drinking Water is proud to offer Reverse Osmosis filtration systems
that remove trace elements such as arsenic, mercury, lead and fluoride
which are known to be in Los Angeles tap water according to
the 2013 DWP Water Quality report.
POLITICAL ART GALLERY









"If our nation is ever taken over, it will be taken over from within."
~ James Madison, President of the United States

  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Coming soon to skies near you - MORE POLLUTION


Master Of His Domain
******
Group: Admin
Posts: 12736
Member No.: 8
Mood: 



Posted: Nov 22 2003, 06:17 PM
Quote Post
QUOTE
National Resources Defense Council
November Edition
http://www.nrdc.org

The Bush Administration waited until the lull of late August, when Congress was in recess and Americans on vacation, to tear a smokestack-sized loophole in the CLEAN AIR ACT that will allow 17,000 power plants, refineries and factories to spew millions of tons of pollution into the air.


user posted image

But while you may have missed the announcement, you won't miss the effects. The Bush rollback will be responsible for thousands of asthma attacks, hospitalizations and premature deaths across the country every year.

So who benefits? Coal burning utilities like the Southern Company and oil companies like Exxon-Mobil, among other corporate giants that contributed to the Bush campaign and heavily lobbied the White House for a free pass on expensive pollution controls.

Previously these companies were required by the Clean Air Act - under a provision called "new source review" - to INSTALL NEW POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES whenever they rebuilt or expanded old facilities in a way that caused pollution to increase significantly. NOT ANY MORE. Now, we'll pay with our lungs so that Exxon-Mobil and other behemoths can save billions of dollars.

NRDC has filed a suit in federal court to uphold the Clean Air Act and block the POLLUTION LOOPHOLE from taking effect.

Adding insult to injury, one week after the rollback, a high level official left the Environmental Protection Agency to take a job with the Southern Company.

"This is par for the course in the Bush Administration," says NRDC Advocacy Director Greg Wetstone. "A timber lobbyist runs the forest service, a mining lobbyist is deputy secretary of interior and a senior EPA official works to weaken the Clean Air Act and then takes leave to join the payroll of one of the nations largest polluters."

http://www.nrdc.org



I say we boycott Exxon-Mobil
Mark

This post has been edited by PuPP on Jan 27 2005, 01:21 PM




--------------------
QUOTE
"Ye shall know them by their fruits"
~ Matthew 7:16

"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
~ Buddha
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteAOL
Top
AceofBase


Unregistered




Mood: 



Posted: Jun 5 2004, 04:59 AM
Quote Post
I say we boycott organized government PuPP! mad.gif


Top
Off_the_Street


Unregistered




Mood: 



Posted: Jun 5 2004, 06:27 AM
Quote Post
according to an article in the Cincinnatti Enquirer (http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/10/18/loc_smokestack_scrubbers.html), a typical scrubber for a small coal-fired power plant is $300 million dollars. the average is about a half-to three quarters of a billion (with a "b") dollars each.

If you multiply the lower figure by the 17,00 power plants and factories in the United States, we're talking about a $510,000,000,000 bill. That's Five Hundred Ten Billion Dollars. where is the money going to come from?

Well, from us, of course! The power companies will pass the expenses on to the users as the cost of doing business, which is the way business works. Figure a doubling or maybe even tripling of your monthly electricity and heating oil bill. So if you're now paying, say, $200 a month for electricity, figure $400 to $600 a month after the scrubbers go on.

What're the options? Well, implementing solar or wind power means trashing all the infrastructure (like power lines, etc.) and building the entire infrastructure from scratch. We're not talking $500 billion; it'd be more like ten trillion bucks.

And you know who's going to pay for it!

Most people are afraid of nuclear power because they simply don't understand it; so there's tremendous political opposition to implementing nuclear power, which would be the most cost-effective option.

So you tell me -- what's the best route for us to take? Remember, there's ain't no such thing as a free lunch!

I certainly don't have the answers.



Top
BJ


Unregistered




Mood: 



Posted: Jun 5 2004, 07:09 AM
Quote Post
"there's tremendous political opposition to implementing nuclear power"

No money in it for the oil companies. If people are afraid of nuclear power, guess who frightened them into objecting?

The Earth is running out of resources because of corporate excesses. It was prophecied long ago that the earth would become as a worn-out garment. All of the patch work done now will not save it for long.

Thanks, Off_the_Street for these thoughts.

Good post, PuPP. Who knows if boycotting would help now? Exxon supplies gas to a lot of independents as well as supplying their own stations.

BJ



Top
Off_the_Street


Unregistered




Mood: 



Posted: Jun 5 2004, 01:05 PM
Quote Post
Actually, BJ, if you look at the people who are the most vocal anti-nuclear power plant folks, you'll see that they're also virulently anti-oil companies, too.

Take a look at outfits like Greenpeace, who want to ban oil drilling AND outlaw nuclear plants,

What's unfortunate is that, when you ask an anti-nuclear activist (who also wants to stop oil drilling and impose sanctions that would put the oil companies out of business) just where they would recommend that we get our electricity and heat from -- you're usually met with an embarrassed silence.

I think what a lot of these folks don't realize is that there is no completely bad source and no completely good one, either.

Nuclear power is probably (given the advances in engineering over the past twenty years) the safest alternative around, but how do you dispose of the fuel which is highly toxic? Should we tell ourselves that a particular area, say 25 miles on a side, will be used to store all the spent fuel, and that 625 square miles will be completely uninhabitable for the next thousand years? Is it worth destroying that much land for that period of time to "solve" the nuclear fuel problem?

Hydroelectricity sounds good, on the surface, but look at its drawbacks: First, most of the rivers in the world have aready been exploited. Second, if we dam a river to generate power, we replace a riparian ecology with a lake ecology and keep salmon from returning home to spawn. Third, the new lakes might silt up, as seems to be happening in Lake Powell on the Arizona/Utah border.

Solar and Wind Power just aren't suited for large-scale electricity generation becauwe there isn't that much energy from the sun we can tap.

Even if you can develop solar cells that are 50 percent efficient (which is twice as good as the best now), they would only be able to extract 500 Watts per hour from a square meter of land under the very best circumstances. Just to provide the needs of Salt Lake City, for example, you'd need almost a thousand square miles of solar collectors (which, of course, would kill off all plant ife underneath them). That's almost twice as much ruined land as that recommended for nuclear fuel rod storage.

I don't think that sitting around blaming these guys or those guys is going to solve our problem. What we -- as the people who are actually interested in the country's and the world's energy future -- need to do is to look at all the possibilities, and pick the one answer or the one mix that provides the most advantages and the least disadvantages to solve our energy problem.

That is a hard task indeed.


Top


Master Of His Domain
******
Group: Admin
Posts: 12736
Member No.: 8
Mood: 



Posted: Jun 5 2004, 03:10 PM
Quote Post
Point of use solar energy (panels on homes)

Wind turbines

Electromagnetic generators

geo thermal

tidal

Tesla energy system

ET technology (The good ones want to help us)



Energy is in the very air around us - all we need to do is harness it.



And if there's not enough clean energy available, we can always just close down Sin City - Land of Lost Wages (Las Vegas) LOL




--------------------
QUOTE
"Ye shall know them by their fruits"
~ Matthew 7:16

"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
~ Buddha
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteAOL
Top


Master Of His Domain
******
Group: Admin
Posts: 12736
Member No.: 8
Mood: 



Posted: Jan 16 2005, 07:59 AM
Quote Post
Duncan sez...
QUOTE
That's Five Hundred Ten Billion Dollars. where is the money going to come from?

The same place all of the hundreds of billions come from for the war machine.

Out of thin air... just print the money like they've always done, but instead of federal reserve notes, which keep us enslaved to the internatonal bankers, we should be printing US notes like JFK did just before he was murdered.

U.S. Note 1963
(not a federal reserve note)
user posted image


QUOTE
Panel: Plan Lowers Clean-Air Standards

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 14, 2005; Page A07

The Bush administration's bill to curb air pollution from power plants would reduce air pollution less than the current Clean Air Act rules, according to a preliminary report by the National Academy of Sciences released yesterday.

The 18-member panel's initial assessment of proposals to regulate aging coal-fired power plants represents the latest salvo in the ongoing battle over how best to clean up the nation's air. The president's "Clear Skies" bill would set up a cap-and-trade program that aims to cut sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury pollution from utilities by 70 percent after 2018; the Senate will conduct hearings on the plan in two weeks.

The administration has also retooled federal "New Source Review" (NSR) rules, which require plants to install costly emissions controls if they increase pollution when modifying the facilities.

The administration's revised rules, which have been blocked by a federal judge since late 2003, would require new controls only when the modifications equal 20 percent of a plant's replacement cost.

The academy report, commissioned by Congress in 2003 after Democrats tried to stall the administration's revision of NSR regulations, said it is difficult to gauge the effects of that plan because data are scarce.

But the committee, which consists largely of academics, said in its 160-page report that it is "unlikely that Clear Skies would result in emission limits at individual sources that are tighter than those achieved when NSR is triggered at the same sources. . . . In general, NSR provides more stringent emission limits for new and modified major sources than" Clear Skies. The panel will issue a final report by the end of the year.

The NSR rule triggered dozens of state and federal suits against more than 50 power plants during the 1990s and forced some to install new pollution controls. The administration argues that this approach costs jobs and keeps plants from running at full capacity.

Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.), the ranking minority member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report "provides further proof that the Bush administration has been recklessly tinkering with the Clean Air Act for several years and wants to go even further. They want to replace existing programs, like New Source Review, that have documented benefits, with a proposal that is weaker and slower when it comes to reducing emissions and protecting health and the environment."

But Environmental Protection Agency officials and Senate Republicans questioned the academy's assessment. They said it ignores the success of cap-and-trade programs such as the one for acid rain, which has cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions about a third since 1990, and that new plants would have incentives to reduce emissions because they would get no pollution allowances, unlike older plants.

"It's the same argument we've had before," said Will Hart, spokesman for Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.). "Overall, Clear Skies is more protective of human health because we know we're going to get early and guaranteed reductions from it. New Source Review is a piecemeal approach, while Clear Skies is certain."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer




--------------------
QUOTE
"Ye shall know them by their fruits"
~ Matthew 7:16

"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
~ Buddha
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteAOL
Top


Master Of His Domain
******
Group: Admin
Posts: 12736
Member No.: 8
Mood: 



Posted: Jan 27 2005, 01:26 PM
Quote Post
QUOTE
*********************************
Environmental Defense
take action for the environment online
*********************************

"Clear Skies" Smokescreen:

Act Now to Defend Clean Air For Life


Dear Mark,
While more than 160 million Americans live in or near areas with unhealthy air, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) has introduced an unprecedented rollback to our nation's clean air laws. The misnamed "Clear Skies" bill is a smokescreen that covers up a better, more immediate way to healthier air -- the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR).

Take action for cleaner air, faster - send a message to President Bush and your U.S. senators calling on them to support immediate EPA action to finalize a strong CAIR rule.

Take action:
http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/clearskies/i5kegw2yji6tbt

Spread the word:
http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/clearski.../i5kegw2yji6tbt

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Dirty Secrets Behind "Clear Skies" Plan*
The utility industry is backing the harmful "Clear Skies" legislation, which would make lasting, damaging changes to the Clean Air Act. But cleaner air is a stroke of a pen away, as the EPA can immediately finalize the pending Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). CAIR is a cost-effective way to cut power plant smokestacks. A protective CAIR could prevent up to 16,000 premature deaths and about 1 million asthma attacks in children annually.

Take action!
http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/clearskies/i5kegw2yji6tbt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------




--------------------
QUOTE
"Ye shall know them by their fruits"
~ Matthew 7:16

"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
~ Buddha
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteAOL
Top


Master Of His Domain
******
Group: Admin
Posts: 12736
Member No.: 8
Mood: 



Posted: Jan 27 2005, 01:38 PM
Quote Post
I just took action and added my comment below to the prepared text.
QUOTE
You must do the right thing for humanity and for all living things on Earth and failure to do so will ensure your place in history as those who valued money over life.




--------------------
QUOTE
"Ye shall know them by their fruits"
~ Matthew 7:16

"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
~ Buddha
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteAOL
Top

Topic Options Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 



[ Script Execution time: 0.0366 ]   [ 16 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."
~ James A. Garfield, President of the United States


MORE POLITICAL ART

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."
~ Amschel Mayer Rothschild