GWB against health of unborn children
Find a Conversation
GWB against health of unborn children
| Thu, 09-09-2004 - 8:39pm |
For all of you who think gwb is a champion of unborn children, please do some research on his policies of mercury emissions from power plants. Mercury emissions in fish is a known detriment to pregnant women and their unborn babies (not to mention toddlers and small children) and yet gwb refuses to impose standards on these corporations that would reduce these these emissions within the next few years. (No coincidence these power companies are huge bush contributers).
As a mother of 3 children under the age of three.. how dare he.
GWB is a corporate HOG. His entire family has a history of stealing (remember Neil Bush and the S&Ls)? He has been in office for 4 yrs WITH a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS and has accomplished NOTHING! All he does at this point is exploits 9/11 and the security of our country.

In his final days in office, Bill Clinton, in addition to pardoning some very questionable folks, passed a bunch of bills sitting in his in-box. One of them was to lower the acceptable level of mercury allowed in water systems. There are a lot of "bad" chemicals and things in water, but the level requirements make sure that they are not at levels that will harm people. The level requirement of mercury was FINE where it was and treatment plants were going to have to rework their whole systems to make the changes comply with the new standards. When Bush got into office, he reversed the standard back to it's formerly ACCEPTABLE level to correct these problems. So, of course, the press sends it out as he is poisoning our water!
Unlike removing all the "W" keys on the computers, this was one expensive trick. Bill looks like a big environmental hero and Bush looks like a ... well, you get the picture.
I am also the mother of 2 youngsters (under 4) and I am not at all concerned with this. If he had not done a good job with national security, you wouldn't have this to complain about. Count your blessings.
As far as you (whoever YOU are) saying that BUSH reversed standards back to their "acceptable" levels.... HA HA HA! Even George Bush says it will take 15 years to get the mercury levels back to acceptable! He and his administration count on the ignorance of our citizens to allow him to let corporate polluters get away with damaging the environment of our children.
I have a feeling you and your children eat alot of big macs as opposed to fresh foods as I feed my family.
As far as the eating sea bass and tuna 4 times a week while pregnant...who does that? It wouldn't hurt you, but my OB told me that small levels of mercury would be concentrated to an unborn child. I was also told to not have caffeine, big deal.
Don't assume you know anything about the way I raise my family. What kind of a cheap shot is that anyway?
I would think you would be open to the knowledge that possibly your children are not being poisoned, that is if you care about them more than you hate George W. Bush.
Actually we live on the east coast and love fresh seafood. My 4 yr old loves tuna and salmon and I have explained to him how we cannot eat fish more than once a week because our oceans are polluted.
As an adult and health educator, I would LOVE to eat alot of fish. I even love to deep sea fish off of the coast of Jersey. Even the most conservative fishing boat captains are now voting for kerry because their livlihood is being compromised because gwb is siding with the coal plants along the jersey coast.
<>
Well, living on the coast and knowing how essential fresh fish is to health I find it deplorable that you would not care about mercury levels in fish.
<>
No, I would love to think that my children are not being poisoned. And yes, I do care about them more than I hate gwb (and that is a LOT because I really hate him).
I am sorry about assuming how you live. But if you don't know about gwbs assault on our oceans and environment. Then I take it you just don't care.
July 19, 2004
CONCORD, N.H. -- One of the Environmental Protection Agency's earliest leaders, flanked by Republican state politicians, blasted the president's record on the environment Monday during a news conference organized by an anti-Bush environmental group. Russell Train, a Republican, was the EPA's second chief under presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. But he said Bush's record is so dismal he's casting his presidential vote for Democrat John Kerry in November.
"It's almost as if the motto of the administration in power today in Washington is not environmental protection, but polluter protection," he said. "I find this deeply disturbing."
Bush supporters defended the president's record. Tom Thomson, owner of Thomson Family Tree Farm in Orford, praised the Healthy Forests Initiative as good legislation that protects loggers as well as forests. He predicted current policies would have positive long-term effects. Bush "has made progress over the last four years giving us cleaner air, water and land," Thomson said in a statement.
Officials with the state's Bush-Cheney campaign said sulfur dioxide emissions are down 9 percent, while nitrogen oxide emissions are down 13 percent. They added that the 2002 Farm Bill set aside more than $40 billion in conservation funding.
Environment2004, the environmental group, released a report Monday titled "Damaging the Granite State." It criticizes presidential policies on energy, global warming, toxic waste and air and water pollution. "It is the worst record in modern history, unfortunately," said Aimee Christensen, the group's executive director. "They are systematically weakening our keystone public health protections and undermining decades of bipartisan leadership on the environment."
The report faults Bush's energy policy, for example, for slashing renewable energy funding. According to the report, the cuts are holding back New Hampshire, which could produce 43 percent of its energy from wind power. The report also claims the state could add 5,000 jobs by 2020 with more renewable energy and efficiency investments. The report cites such sources as federal and state agency reports as well as newspaper articles and advocacy-group studies.
The two Republican state politicians who spoke -- Rep. Jim Pilliod, a pediatrician, and former Sen. Rick Russman, who once headed the Senate Environmental Committee, did not endorse Kerry. They said they participated to stress the importance of environmental issues. Russman said funding was cut for cleanup work at two of the state's 19 Superfund sites. He also said the administration's standards would delay mercury emissions cleanup until at least 2018. Pilliod added that mothers and children are particularly vulnerable to mercury pollution.
Train also accused Bush of letting weakening the Clean Air Act. The record, he added, falls short of those set by former Republican presidents ranging from Theodore Roosevelt, who advocated creating national parks and forests, to George H.W. Bush, who supported new anti-air-pollution standards. The Bush record is "appalling, with very, very few exceptions," Train said. He described presidential policies as "geared to rolling back environmental protections."
Environment2004 has been actively campaigning against Bush policies and has released a national report on its Web site criticizing them.
If it were such important legislation, why was it signed when Clinton was running out the door? Why didnt he act on it in the 8 years he was in office?