XPost: phl.media, pa.politics, pa.general   
   XPost: ca.general   
   From: tfslnospam@yahoo.com   
      
   "Karen Y Byrd"  wrote in message   
   news:slrnfq64dg.j4m.kybyrd@pobox.upenn.edu...   
   > On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:09:53 GMT, dfte  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>"Karen Y Byrd"  wrote in message   
   >   
   >>> Just read some history. Don't you have a lot of free   
   >>> time???   
   >>>   
   >>> It might help you understand how recent "negative changes" that   
   >>> you are so worried about are nothing compared to living 100-150   
   >>> years ago before there was even dependable electrical service   
   >>> for instance. You or I can't even imagine living in that   
   >>> kind of environment. I mean we freak out when we lose   
   >>> power in storms. Imagine not having electric power as a way-of-life!   
   >>> Where if you were lucky all you did have was gas for lighting.   
   >>>   
   >>this is true   
   >   
   > Yes, it's true. Just like it's true that in the not too distant past,   
   > every year, people were terrified of polio epidemics. I'm old   
   > enough that I can remember the last big polio outbreak we had   
   > in the 1950s before the Salk vaccine was out. Do you ever think   
   > about polio now? No. I rarely think about it either which is   
   > remarkable since I remember quite  vividly the fear it used   
   > to create.   
   >   
   > Imagine a time when we had no antibiotics where a scratch could   
   > mean death. Although we've over-used them, with the result being   
   > that some bacteria have evolved to be resistant to them, I still   
   > DO NOT want to live in the world my grand-parents grew up in where   
   > they didn't exist.   
   >   
   >> so its a matter of accepting your cup half full or half empty   
   >   
   > All I'm suggesting is that you try to compare today with what   
   > the past was really like without trying to romanticize   
   > that past.   
   >   
   > You mentioned that it used to snow a lot in Phila. The inference   
   > being that you were worried about that as a sure sign   
   > of global warming.   
   >   
   > Sure it   
   > has snowed a lot in some years. But I read something very interesting   
   > today concerning local snow amounts in January: there have   
   > been 20 Januarys, since 1885, where we've had an ONE inch or less   
   > of snow. So you see not having much snow isn't that unusual.   
   > And I remember the winter in the early 70s where we   
   > had NO snow at all. So you've manufactured fear and worry   
   > about the lack of local snow when there's no reason to   
   > actually worry about it.   
   >   
   >>I would rather compare to every city in the US today,   
   >   
   > Like you've spent sufficient time in *every* large   
   > city in the US today to make a sensible comparison   
   > between any of them. You have to *live* in them   
   > to say anything sensible and real about any of them and not   
   > trust what some "news" reporter or somesuch   
   > says.   
   >   
   >>>> Many   
   >>>>people from midwest talk as if none of this is happening.   
   >>>   
   >>> Given that I have friends in  Nebraska I can tell you that   
   >>> their frame of reference is indeed different than our   
   >>> own but that doesn't mean that they are free from   
   >>> modern problems like drug addiction. It's just that they   
   >>> don't smoke crack, they use crystal meth and alcohol.   
   >>> And the "decent world" you think exists out there is   
   >>> illusionary.   
   >>   
   >>You might think differently someday .   
   >   
   > I doubt it.   
   >   
   > Steve, I've been to these places out in Plains and Mid-west:   
   > Scottsbluff, Gering, Alliance, Lincoln, and Omaha, Nebraska.   
   > Torrington and Cheyenne, Wyoming. Denver, CO. Oklahoma   
   > City, OK. Lawrence, KS. and Sioux City, IA.   
   >   
   > Where have you been out there?   
   >   
   >>There are variable changing conditions   
   >>in the US cities .   
   >   
   > True. But this is just generalizing.   
   >   
   >>To some extent we have people who base reality only on   
   >>the cities where they exist and make conclusions.   
   >   
   > Of course! You're doing it all the time by accusing   
   > Phila. of being completely dysfunctional by ignoring that it's   
   > only dysfunctional for people who are actually dysfunctional   
   > *themselves*. They'd be fucked up no matter where they   
   > were.   
   >   
   >>I was watching a news feed from Britain and they were talking about one   
   >>murder as if this was unusual and it top story.   
   >   
   > It's hard for private citizens to get guns in Britain. That's   
   > the difference. But the number of people getting guns there is   
   > increasing.   
   >   
   >>So you see reality is very contrasting and some people live very much   
   >>better   
   >>lives ,   
   >   
   > Sure they are. What separates you and me, obviously, is that I'm   
   > doing exactly the latter right here.   
   >   
   >>I can guarantee heredity has less impact then you   
   >>think compared to pollution   
   >   
   > I don't believe that at all. We already know that DNA   
   > differs in individuals. Why can I breathe essentially the same   
   > air as you and never suffer any respiratory illnesses?   
   > I'm almost 60 years old. If the air was going to sicken   
   > me it would have by now.   
   >   
   Karen you work for hospitals, and must know that everything in body is   
   connected. The thought it generated over and over again in text books. It   
   might not affect you the way it affects me, but we do have ways to   
   objectively judge danger, how can you ignore all the negative ratings to our   
   health from f rated to sperlings list of cities low rating, to number one   
   for asthma and respiratory deaths from a universtiy study by the way in   
   Philadelphi ( I think it was Temple) and of course anyone can read the links   
   to the damages our major news ignores. I am telling you with absolute   
   certainty that the people who breathed air without it being good the most or   
   who had the most pollution ( either one) suffer way more for lots of lost   
   health reasons then people who had good air and both populations ate the   
   same healthy things. We just heard about kids right outside Phily with   
   whopping cough? Why dont' we compare the particulate pollution ratings for   
   that are the past ten days? I will tell you it was not good, and compare   
   that to the people who got good air? No whooping cough there? Sure you might   
   find whooping cough in clean air but gernally speaking over and over again   
   the people who get sick the most are in areas they are not being told they   
   are getting sick the most and those area happen to be the most polluted.   
   This is the most unbelievable things that are allowed to sicken and harm   
   people and we are not told enmass or stop it from happening to the people   
   who get it the most.  and you think you would know its more then my reaction   
   and your reaction   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)