Lead isn’t bad. Cigarettes aren’t bad either. Global warming is a hoax.
I’m not ancient, but I’m old enough to remember when gas stations served both leaded and unleaded gas. I also lived through the age when cigarettes weren’t deemed that harmful. I grew up with my grandparents who chain smoked in the house. It was pretty disgusting, really.
In regard to lead, there was a long period of time when the medical and scientific community were at war with big corporate interests over lead poisoning. The U.S. government didn’t begin reducing the lead content in gas until 1972 and it wasn’t completely banned until 1996. Car manufacturers and the oil industry had their own scientists who insisted lead wasn’t really that harmful. Today, we know better. Lead interferes with the normal functioning of nearly every cell in the body because it chemically displaces elements that are essential to daily life, which includes calcium, zinc and iron. So lead can really mess up the way red blood cells carry and deliver oxygen, and more importantly, it screws up the transmission of electrical messages by the brain. We know now it’s especially harmful to youngsters, who are still developing and growing on a daily basis.
For years and years, there was a war about whether lead was really harmful to us. The same thing happened with cigarettes and tobacco. Big money was involved. There were many loud voices from the tobacco industry claiming that cigarettes weren’t really that harmful, and in some cases, they touted the benefits of smoking.
Today, we obviously know better. We’re watching another fight happen now with vaping (e.g., Juul). Common sense would tell us that inhaling chemicals into our delicate lung tissues on a regular basis would be harmful. But once again, big money is involved and the war wages.
So it truly astounds me that with history to look back on, we’re even having a debate about climate change. I have family members who believe it’s either a hoax, or just part of normal planetary cycles. We just need to follow the money. Are there huge corporate interests whose profits are threatened if our governments pass legislation to drastically cut CO2 emissions? You bet there are.
Is there a war of misinformation that is helping to protect large industries from making needed changes for the sake of our children and grandchildren? Without a doubt.
It saddens me that there are still so many that remain blinded to the truth, but I’m encouraged that a growing percentage of the U.S. population is finally waking up to the danger that our planet is in.
Well said, Logan. My sentiments exactly. When I saw An Inconvenient Truth I was impressed because the science is clear and valid. Further, the worldwide increase in temperatures is coincidental to the atmospheric increase in greenhouse gases. It supports the truth of the matter.
I have two questions that I would like to throw out, if anyone is interested in commenting:
First, did the fact that Al Gore initially presented the issue to the public have any politicizing impact such that the conservative element reacted in a knee-jerk manner and immediately dismissed it?
Has dominionism played anything close to a significant role in shaping the position of the religious right? That is, that God gave humankind dominion over the earth and that this granting of stewardship was essentially a blank check to rape the earth? Their claim carries with it the notion that God is in control and will fix any mess we make. Either that, or “the earth is going to end in apocalypse anyway so what the heck?”
Dennis
I won’t claim to know the answer to either, but I think those are outstanding questions. My gut reaction is yes to both, and I’ve been especially concerned that dominionism and “new heaven/new earth” doctrine is a very troubling belief behind climate change denial among conservative Christians.
That’s a great way to put it too… “blank check to rape the earth”.
I have nothing to base it upon except personal opinion, but I would answer YES to both of your questions.
Thanks Logan and Nan for your comments.