Dennis

You will never get it, will you? Your "claim" that we are ignoring mainstream science has two flaws 1) it depends on what you define as mainstream, and 2) a good scientist always keeps a healthy eye out for info against the mainstream (assuming one exists in this arena). Science is one of the most arrogantly congested areas around (as evidenced by people like you).

Did you ever hear of Albert Einstein? Have you ever heard that the Theory of Relativity was initially laughed at by his contemporaries? Did you hear that his finest theory, that of anti-matter, was actually discounted by HIMSELF as ridiculous. We come to find out lately that he was absolutely right, nearly 70 years later.

Have you been following the arrogance-filled world of HIV and AIDS (mainly established by Robert Gallo the discoverer of HIV), where many of the self-centered scientists (who get funding based on their studies) have stood by since the mid 80s and have insisted that HIV alone is the sole cause of HIVs. Now, even the DISCOVERER of HIV (Gallo), who once would refuse to even elude to a co-conspirator, is now saying that HHV-6A (a strain of herpes virus) is definitely a major accelerating factor (co-factor) in the progression to AIDS (although he still maintains HIV will eventually lead to AIDS all by itself, albeit much slower). Luc Montagnier (the French doctor many insist that Gallo stole the HIV discovery from) has long since insisted that HHV-6A is a major co-factor, and once activiated it is hundreds of times more devastating to the body's immune system that HIV could ever be.

Thanks to people like Gallo and mindless disciples like you, rather than embrace all respectable theories (although you are welcome to side with one), everyone blindly follows one theory until proven wrong, and in the meantime countless people die, or countless funds are spent. It took me all of two seconds to find my research in my previous post, which says that the natural causes of C02 are 29 times higher than any manmade. There are just as many studies against global warming as there are for it. I can put up links just like you can.

You are truly amazing, Dennis. This is all scientific theory, but you are attempting to make it fact, simply by talking about how you are a self-taught scientist, and by placing 6 or 7 links to studies. BTW, Mr. Genius, what were you saying for the decades that they were insisting that cancer was caused by a virus? If there was an online forum then, you would have been running your Scientific-***** readin' pie-hole about how we are stupid for not following mainstream science....

 

Dennis:

I am with cpadpl your links mean nothing and I wouldn't bother to put more on.

Your links are ONE side of the opinion of a THEORY. Your links have NO facts to back up global warming.

There are other sides that have opinions of a THEORY that, in most cases don't try to PROVE there is NO globla warming BUT that there is nothing supporting YOUR sides opinion of the THEORY. Some say there is NO global warming but rather different weather patterns that happen over hundreds of years. There are some that say there IS global warming but that it has NOTHING to do with HUMANS.

My point is, and has been, regardless if there is or is not global warming, and if it is caused by HUMANS is at this time there is no need to go around screaming THE SKY IS FALLING and trying to force people into other habits that may or may not do anything to help.

It is also not right to take away peoples livelyhood, or make them feel bad for grilling, driving gas guzzlers, using hairspray, using GAS lawn mowers etc. It's just plain stupid.

Why are the liberals not our trying to force people to drive BIG gas guzzlers in the first place. It makes more since, you can do more with them and plus there are ALOT more SAFER to drive. I thought liberals were concerned for their fellow humans, that gov't know's best. Am I wrong on that? I mean it is really stupid to take away BIG gas guzzlers in the first place because it puts us humans at risk. Why are the liberals NOT forcing people out of them small rice cars, and electric cars? They are both extreamlly dangerious.

Here is why, when a full size truck hits one of them small things usally people in the small "return for depoist" cars dies. Let's not forget the moron that wants to put people in electric cars. Who thought that would be safe all that battery acid. A truck hits an electric car and cracks them batterys and acid happens to spray out, well I feel sorry for anyone inside. Then you have the weight of all that lead, damn I hope they have good maintenance on their brakes. What do you think is going to happen when we have millions of electric cars and the batterys need to be replaced? You don't really think that a good amount of them won't end up burried in mother earth do you? God I hope not because they sure will be.

Point is this, if I hit a pole with my full size truck my chances are much greater to survive then someone in a small car, and that is why liberals should be trying to ban the small cars and electic waste hazard cars. As you can see once again the liberals did NOT think this thing all the way through. They are not concerned with mankind or safety, or mother earth just their ONE sided THEORY.

Liberals worry about to much foney BS usally with nothing to back it up, or to take things away from smart people because a few people are stupid. Like taken away good food, fast food, good popcorn butter at the movies all because it is NOT good for use. They, these moron libearls should worry about themselfs and not others.

Now, if you are so concerned about global warming do something about it yourself FIRST, then ASK others if they will help. Sale your truck, buy yourself a bike, not a small car or electric since even those are both bad for motherearth. If there REALLY is so many people that believe in what you believe in then the problem will be solved. While you all ride your bikes and live in tents, not using electric etc. maybe global warming will stop. Then again you had all better pray you don't do to much or we will have global cooling and it will get damn cold out there in your tents...

Oh, make sure you have guns and ammo for hunting before those are gone as well...

 

01 XLT Sport

I've attempted to have discussions over "the sky is falling" mentality with my liberal friend, but apparently he doesn't have the common sense (for lack of a better term) to understand the onerous economic implications of having such a panic attack over theory.

So oil is a depletable fossil fuel and we will be out in 50 years. Fine, that's one theory. Based on a recent post I made here that no one responded to except for Cowlady, some studies are coming out saying that oil is "reappearing" in empty wells, meaning that the earth is reproducing it at a rapid pace, and the way we had initially understood oil formation needed to be totally revised. Therefore, we should continue studies in BOTH areas. We should always play devil's advocate with any scientific theory. We should legitimately engage research in alternative fuels, but we DO NOT need to mandate that all car makers be making all electric cars by 2020.

Same thing goes with global warming. There are studies on both sides. I say continue such studies and voluntarily work towards reducing emissions just in case (if you want), but don't mandate that by 2008, all vehicles must get 30 miles to the gallon. Such unsubstantiated mandates are undue burdens on business.

These people get fed some scientific studies, and then they want to rewrite business policy as we know it, without even considering what it will do to the business owner, and without even knowing if the scientific study will ultimately turn out to be true.....

 

(i didnt read through all this, so if this has been already stated im sorry):


Global warming is caused from an increase in greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, these gases trap the radiation from the sun and keep them in earths atmosphere longer, allowing them to further warm the earth, without them nearly everything would freeze.
But an abundance of these gases causes the earth to warm itself to an unsafe point which equals global warming as most people know it.
As you probably know the burning of fossil fuels, such as gas in cars, releases carbon dioxide.

now that thats done with, heres what people dont understand:

Cars in general do contribute a great amount of co2(carbon dioxide) to the earths atmosphere, but so do factories, gas furnaces, etc... Therefore cars are not the only cause for an increased amount of co2

The difference between, lets say a honda civic, and a ford excursion is quite a bit, but when compared to the difference in emissions from those cars, and the amount of co2 being released in the air it has VERY little impact at all.

Are big SUV's and trucks contributing to the warming of the earth? yes, but so is that honda civic, and that kodak factory, and that train, and that furnace as well.

 

I've tried to explain the difference between 'knowledge' and 'information' to a couple of my liberal, yet more educated friends and it never gets through. You're wasting your breath, er, keystrokes guys.

You use alot more fuel in your truck than I do in mine. Noone's going to burn in hell for polluting the air a little more or less than the next guy. 20 years ago they said we would run out of crude oil in 50 years. They're saying the same thing today. The scientists cannot be taken as the word of God. Anyone who believes that they should, are mistaken. I know, I used to take their word as law growing up. The scientific community is now looking into how crude oil is 'really' produced. Some theorize it comes from the earths' crust (sounds more believeable) as compared to from decaying/decayed plants, and dinosaurs.

 

cpadpl:

Once again, as I usally do, I agree with you. I think the biggest thing about libearls and there need to grab on to anything someone states is the fact that if a statement has anything to do with making business and their owners look BAD they jump on it. It could be someone they don't really know who "says" they have some type of degree, and there you go that person is an expert.

Big business especially oil liberals CAN'T wait to grab on to something to be able to say "Look they are bad". I don't recall that I ever said I knew for a FACT that there is no global warming because of us humans or not. I still maintain that NO one knows for sure, as you and some others have. That alone dictates to do NOTHING as far as making demands on people, be it business, or us EVIL gas guzzling drivers.

Should we try to crub the crap we put in the air? I say sure, and why not there is MONEY to be made doing that. However, we, business, etc should do so at a rate we feel comfortable with. I honest believe we can continue spewing the same amount of crap in the air for another 100 years and it will do NOTHING to harm earth. Could it possible raise the temp a bit? Maybe, but so what, maybe 1 degree or 2, no biggy...

Oh, what happen to your sugar coating?

F250wanniebe:

"Global warming is caused from an increase in greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide"

I would respectfully disagree with that statement. It should read "Global warming MAY be caused from an increase in greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide" It has yet to be proven that there is such a thing, and if so, just what causes it.

The fact is I don't believe for a minute some scientist knows for a fact just how much CO2 there was some 1,000 years ago, I don't believe they know for a fact what the temps may have been 1,000 years ago, or 1 million years ago. They may have a good idea of what it was but that is it a GOOD idea.

I still ask one question as far as global warming. If it just started the past 50 - 100 years then how did we get out of the ICE AGE.

It is a theory for now, but lets us all remember many hundreds of years ago there was another theory that was proved WRONG, and that was that the earth was FLAT...

 

Ahhh, the joys of a good, hearty debate!

Well, while everyone is trying to figure this out, I'll just enjoy my pickup, and replace my wife's car with one of those evil SUV's. And just as an extra measure, I'll crank up the lawnmower and 2-cycle weedeater, and let them run all day in the back yard.

Actually, I think these debates are entertaining. Personally, I haven't a clue whether there's global warming or not. But when the environmentalists start coming down hard on 3rd world countries, and large, overpopulated cities around the world (like Mexico City, Bombay, Moscow, etc...) then I'll give them a little respect. But the focus for all their criticism is America, which is the cleanest (relatively speaking) country in the world.

 

Well said and ditto.

 

roushscrew

This really isn't a debate, it's an argument between Dennis demanding that something is fact, and the rest of us demanding that something is theory.

Frank and 01

I know this is off topic, but here is the prior post I mentioned about oil that only Cowlady responded to. Now that is after heated 100+ reply threads we have had over oil consumption where Dennis has joined in on how oil will be depleted and why don't we develop new alternative fuels SOON. You would think someone who was a true disciple of science (and also is on the cutting edge of it) would be all over any kind of new scientific report. But this post just hit with a thud....Dennis appears to only be a fan of the scientific reports that he agrees with.

It's also funny how Dennis never replies directly to an individual and answers a specific question (as Frank had to chase him down in a previous thread with about 10 posts to get him to come clean). My prediction is this: Dennis will revisit this thread, ramble on about some pointless bull***** that doesn't even address the issue here (that his position is theory), and he will elaborate on how he can't dedicate his life to F150-online and was too busy out buying $100,000,000 worth of property or building some elaborate multi-million dollar house....




------------------------------------


For those of you that are interested, Newsday article, April 17, 2002, Robert Cooke -

Deep underwater, and deeper underground, scientists see surprising hints that gas and oil deposits can be replenished, filling up again, sometimes rapidly.

Although it sounds too good to be true, increasing evidence from the Gulf of Mexico suggests that some old oilfields are being refilled by petroleum surging up from deep below, scientists report. That may mean that estimates of oil and gas abundance are far too low.

Recent measurements in a large oilfield show "that the fluids were changing over time; that very light oil and gas were being injected from below, even as the producing [oil pumping] was going on", Mahlon Kennicutt, a chemical oceanographer, said. "They are refilling as we speak. But whether this is a worldwide phenomenon, we don't know."

Also not known, Mr Kennicutt said, was whether the injection of new oil from deeper strata was of any economic significance; whether there would be enough to be exploitable. The discovery was unexpected, and it was still "somewhat controversial" within the oil industry.

Mr Kennicutt, a faculty member at Texas A&M University, said the inflow of new gas, and some oil, had been detectable in as little as three to 10 years. In the past, it was not suspected that oilfields could refill because it was assumed the oil formed in place, or nearby, rather than far below.

Harry Roberts, a marine geologist at Louisiana State University, said: "Petroleum geologists don't accept it as a general phenomenon because it doesn't happen in most reservoirs. But in this case ... you have a very leaky fault system that does allow it [petroleum] to migrate in".

What the scientists suspect is that very old petroleum - formed tens of millions of years ago - has continued migrating up into reservoirs that oil companies have been exploiting for years. But no-one had expected that depleted oil fields might refill themselves.

"No-one has been more astonished by the potential implications of our work than myself," said Jean Whelan, an analytic chemist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.

The first sketchy evidence of this emerged in 1984, when Mr Kennicutt and colleagues from Texas A&M University were in the Gulf of Mexico working on "seeps", areas on the sea floor where sometimes large amounts of oil and gas escape through natural fissures.

They found "odd looking sea-floor creatures" identified as tube worms - creatures that get their energy from oil and gas rather than from ordinary foods.

The discovery of abundant life where scientists expected a deserted sea floor also suggested that the seeps have been there for a long time. Indeed, the clams found around them were thought to be about 100 years old, and the tube worms might live as long as 600 years or more, Mr Kennicutt said.

The oil industry has not shown great enthusiasm for the idea - arguing that the upward migration is too slow and too uncommon to do much good.

However, Ms Whelan says measurements taken involving biological and geological analysis, plus satellite images, "show widespread and pervasive leakage over the entire northern slope of the Gulf of Mexico".

Newsday

 

Quote:
Should we try to crub the crap we put in the air? I say sure, and why not there is MONEY to be made doing that. However, we, business, etc should do so at a rate we feel comfortable with. I honest believe we can continue spewing the same amount of crap in the air for another 100 years and it will do NOTHING to harm earth. Could it possible raise the temp a bit? Maybe, but so what, maybe 1 degree or 2, no biggy...
You have got to be kidding.
I agree with you 01 Sport on some your posts on this, for every scientist reporting one thing, there is another opposed. However polluting because trying to look at cleaner alternatives might take a bit more effort or a few cents is another matter. Do you have any dealings with the government when it comes to exhaust regualtions? What it amounts to now is companies writing checks to pay for what they send out their stacks. That is what currently what permitting is all about. The amount of toxins/noxious gases you send out increases, your fee for that stack goes up. You and I have the luxury of living in the clean air of NH. I think you might change your mind if you spent your days inhaling the noxious fumes that are spewed forth daily. Maybe you should take a quick swim in the New River as opposed to our clean lakes.

To that end I can agree with both sides that there is no 100% indisputable fact one way or the other. But continuing on in our fashion is plain ignorance. What the hell it doesn't directly affect me so no biggie.

 

I would suggest the "plainest" ignorance is to do a 180-degree turn behavior-wise based solely on scientific theory. When theories contradict, the wisest thing to do IMHO is to continue with the status quo, do further research on both sides of the issue, and take voluntary steps in order to lessen any possible damage should one theory ultimately prove true.

I don't think any people here have problems with recycling oil or encouraging (through various incentives) alternative fuel supplies as well as more efficient engines. Scientific evidence (in the form of theories) does exist that humans may be a significant cause of global warming. I encourage every automaker to anticipate the future and strategically plan ahead for changes in the supply of raw materials (i.e. oil), as I encourge every business to do.

What I don't encourage is a group of studies being done, mindless disciples adopting those studies as gospel, informing everyone else that global warming is a fact and our contribution being significant is a fact, and subsequent laws being passed that essentially handcuff business and FORCE them to make radical changes in a short period of time.

If you want the best example (IMO) of the "sky is falling" mentality take a look at the utter eradication of safe asbestos insulation products from schools and government buildings. Whether you believe it or not, asbestos is a natural occuring substance that you are breathing in at this very moment (as has every human since the beginning of time). I can also make a statement that is probably as close to fact as one can get (i.e. I have never read a scientific study that disagrees with this statement, and many have been done): Some of the products that are replacing asbestos (i.e. fiberglass) are EQUALLY IF NOT MORE carcinogenic than asbestos. Ever wonder why people that sand fiberglass wear those masks? However, people feel much better now. Studies came out, people freaked, everyone said let's save the children, tons of money was poured into renovations (which probably exposed the children to more asbestos than had they left it alone), and now everyone feels better.....Ahhhhhhhh...........

One of my father's closest friends worked for an asbestos processing mill in Canada, and also worked with asbestos in the Navy during the War.....He's still chugging along, smoking his Menthols, wondering why they are ripping perfectly safe insulation out of buildings....

 

Very good points CPADPL

However you are completely wrong on the asbestos and fiberglass issue. I am run the safety program at my company and perform industrial hygiene testing among other things. Both materials have been tested for a long time from groups around the world. The facts about asbestos are facts. The facts about fiberglass are facts. All proven through acceptable testing methods.You should take another look. Your choice, if you continue to think asbestos is safe, that is fine as well.

Back to the other subject though. I agree everyone should always keep an open mind and not get crazy. I just get riled up when people are of the mind that their actions have no consequences. Why not try to preserve the incredible wealth of nature we have.

 

Global warming cause can be summed up in one word ...

"Asphalt".

Haven't you ever noticed how hot an asphalt parking lot is on a sunny day? The more parking lots we make the warmer our planet will get . I vote we make gravel parking lots.

 

Rugby3:

"I just get riled up when people are of the mind that their actions have no consequences."

I have lived other places other then New Hampshire. I was raised and lived in Calif, for over 20 years. I have been many places overseas in the Navy and seen many filthly places, much more so then the USA. I would say here in the USA we have nothing to worry about as far as spewing crap in the air and causing global warming. We should first worry about overseas and them cleaning up it that is the answer. I don't believe for a minute that we will continue to spew the same amount of crap in the air that we now do because there are always advances. I vote against electric cars because they are more a hazard to the enviorment and safety then any gas guzzling truck by far.

You may have taken my post the wrong way, or it came across the wrong way. I don't sugar coat anything, just ask cpadpl, I come right out and say what I think, in the hopes it provokes thought and discussion. Now, do I think what we do has consequences? Yes, absolutely, everything has consequences, be it driving gas guzzlers, or doing a 180 and making, forcing change when, at this time, there is no solid proof that it is even needed.

I would weigh the consequences of gas guzzlers, spewing crap in the air compared to forced change and would tell you that forced change has worse consequences then doing nothing at all. I would tell you that forced change will affect everyone of us for years to come, it will cost us more money, it will cost us jobs just to name a few things. Now weighing that against spewing the same amount of crap into the air for another hundred and "predicting" it will cause MAJOR problems is just nonsense. We don't know how long this "warming" thing has been going on, but I can tell you it has been ALOT longer then a few hundred years. I still ask one simple question, not to you, but the ones that believe some "theory" us humans have caused "warming" and the question is how did we get out of the ice age WITHOUT global warming?

Now, I did not take your post as a hit towards me or disrespect, as you know I do respect what you have to say and your opinions. I hope you do the same with this and take it not as a hit or disrespect, but rather my position on this issue. As I stated before, should we do something to make things cleaner? Yes, its good for everyone and there is MONEY to be made at doing it. My point is to take it slow and easy, to think it through as best we can, not to rush into something without weighing as many possibilities as possible.

I also stated that rushing into things is bad. For instance in my opinion electric cars are an absolute failure. They are not safe, they are not enviormentally clean, they are not affordable. Here is why I think that. First they are not safe because they require alot of juice, batteries, which have alot of battery acid. It is one thing to have a small battery in an engine compartment to having them within the car in different places, be it the back or underneath etc. There weight is a problem, they contain lead and I would say a good amount of that lead will end up burried in the earth and that is not good. They will require ALOT of recharging which means you will have to have more electric produced to charge them in the first place. So what you may have saved in emmisions from a gas car and now moved to electric plants. There is not much you can do with an electric car to begin with as far as hauling anything so you still need something to replace the truck or SUV. If you have a family that goes on vacation and they can't fit in one electric car now you need two or them, which may replace ONE SUV. So now you need twice the amount of power produced by the electric plant. Do you see where I am going with this.

It was not logically thought through. Someone came up with the idea, told the public "look this thing is clean" but failed to inform them that buy buying it they will possibly cause more damage to the enviorment, and spew more crap in the air (electric companies) then the guy driving an F150. Seriously think about what I said about the electric car. To be honest these enviormental wackos with these stickers that read "I hate air" should be slapping them on all the electric cars. Now some may come on here and say as far as lead being burried in the earth is BS, and say all the batteries are recycleable, or which they are, but being honest about it the fact remains there will be MORE lead from batteries burried in the earth, to harm drinking water then now is. No one can tell me for a fact that not one car battery has not ended up burried in the earth.

 

Rugby3

Let's not pull a Dennis. It's nice that your job involves safety programs, but that doesn't make you an asbestos or fiberglass expert. Let's not get into an asbestos debate, but their is MORE than enough recent evidence on fiberglass to support my theory (doesn't mean I'm right, just means you are wrong that what you say are facts). Let's not let your understanding (or rather misunderstanding) of theory induce you to believe you are speaking facts.

Sorry about the length, I know you can find studies verifying your position (so I know they exist, no need to having a posting contest). My only point is that people need to stop adopting theories as facts ---

Asbestos is a naturally-occurring fibrous material that can be woven into cloth, does not burn readily, has excellent properties for thermal insulation, and therefore came into common commercial use during this century.[2,pgs.390-392] Fiber glass has many of the same characteristics as asbestos….

In 1938, the Owens Corning Fiberglas Company was formed, and three years later, in 1941, evidence of pulmonary disease was reported by Walter J. Siebert, who investigated the health of workers with the cooperation of Owens Corning.[1,pg.292] That same year another investigator reported finding "no hazard to the lungs" of workers exposed to glass fibers in the air. Scientific disagreement of this sort has characterized the study of fiber glass ever since; meanwhile fiber glass production has increased steadily.

In 1941, the U.S. Patent Office issued patents for 353 glass wool products. Glass wool, fiber glass, fiberglas, fibrous glass, and glass fibers are all names for the same thing: man made thin, needle-shaped rods of glass.

Fiber glass is now used for thermal insulation of industrial buildings and homes, as acoustic insulation, for fireproofing, as a reinforcing material in plastics, cement, and textiles, in automotive components, in gaskets and seals, in filters for air and fluids, and for many other miscellaneous uses. More than 30,000 commercial products now contain fiber glass.

As asbestos has been phased out because of health concerns, fiber glass production in the U.S. has been rising. In 1975, U.S. production of fiber glass was 247.88 million kilograms (545.3 million pounds); by 1984 it had risen to 632.88 million kilograms (1392.3 million pounds).[1,pg.302] If that rate of growth (10.4% per year) held steady, then production of fiber glass in the U.S. in 1995 would be 436 million pounds.

Fiber glass is now causing serious health concerns among U.S. officials and health researchers. Dr. Mearl F. Stanton of the National Cancer Institute found that glass fibers less then 3 microns in diameter and greater than 20 microns in length are "potent carcinogens" in rats; and, he said in 1974, "it is unlikely that different mechanisms are operative in man." A micron is a millionth of a meter (and a meter is about three feet). Since that time, studies have continued to appear, showing that fibers of this size not only cause cancer in laboratory animals, but also cause changes in the activity and chemical composition of cells, leading to changes in the genetic structure in the cellular immune system. Although these cell changes may be more common (and possibly moreimportant) than cancer, it is the cancer-causing potential of glass fibers that has attracted most attention.

In 1970, Dr. Stanton announced that "it is certain that in the pleura of the rat, fibrous glass of small diameter is a potent carcinogen." The pleura is the outer casing of the lungs; cancer of the pleura in humans is called mesothelioma and it is caused by asbestos fibers. Stanton continued his research and showed that when glass fibers are manufactured as small as asbestos fibers, glass causes cancer in laboratory animals just as asbestos does. [4] Asbestos is a potent human carcinogen, which will have killed an estimated 300,000 American workers by the end of this century. [5] The finding that fiber glass causes diseases similar to asbestos was chilling news in the early 1970s, and an additional 25 years of research has not made the problem seem less serious. Workers in fiber glass manufacturing plants are exposed to concentrations of fibers far lower than the concentrations to which asbestos workers were exposed, yet several industry-sponsored epidemiological studies of fiber glass workers in the U.S., Canada, and Europe have reported statistically significant elevations in lung cancers. [6]

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), of the World Health Organization, listed fiber glass as a "probable [human] carcinogen" in 1987. In 1990, the members of the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP)-representatives of 10 federal health agencies-concluded unanimously that fiber glass "may reasonably be anticipated to be a carcinogen" in humans. NTP members were preparing to list fiber glass that way in the Seventh Annual (1992) Report on Carcinogens, the NTP's annual listing of cancer-causing substances, which is mandated by public law 95-622. But industry intervened politically.

Four major manufactures of fiber glass insulation campaigned for three years to prevent their product from being labeled a carcinogen by NTP. They managed to delay the publication of the NTP's Seventh Annual Report on Carcinogens for more than two years, but on June 24, 1994, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Donna E. Shalala, signed the Report and sent it to Congress, thus making it official policy of the U.S. government that fiber glass is "reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen." In the U.S., fiber glass must now be labeled a carcinogen.

Announcing this decision, government officials tried to play down its significance. Bill Grigg, a spokes-person for the U.S. Public Health Service (a subdivision of Health and Human Services) told the Washington Post ,"There are no human data I'm aware of that would indicate there's any problem that would involve any consumer or worker." [7] To make such a statement, Mr. Grigg had to ignore at least six epidemiological studies showing statistically-significant elevations in lung cancers among production workers in fiber glass factories.[6] Indeed, according to researchers fiber glass is a more potent carcinogen than asbestos.[8,pg.580]

Fiber glass is now measurable everywhere in the air. The air in cities, rural areas,[1,pgs.311-314] and remote mountain tops [4] now contains measurable concentrations of fiber glass. If the dose-response curve is a straight line (that is to say, if half as much fiber glass causes half as much cancer) and if there is no threshold dose (no dose below which the cancer hazard disappears), then exposing the Earth's 5.7 billion human inhabitants to low concentrations of fiber glass will inevitably take its toll by causing excess cancers in some portion of the population.

According to OSHA researchers, an 8-hour exposure to 0.043 glass fibers per cubic centimeter of air is sufficient to cause lung cancer in one-in-every-thousand exposed workers during a 45-year working lifetime.[8,pg.580] In rural areas, the concentration of fiber glass in out-door air is reported to be 0.00004 fibers per cubic centimeter, about 1000 times below the amount thought to endanger one-in-every-thousand fiber glass workers.[1,pg.314] But people in rural areas breathe the air 24 hours a day, not 8 hours. Furthermore, a human lifetime is 70 years, not the 45 years assumed for a "work lifetime." Moreover, one-in-a-thousand is not adequate protection for the general public; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency uses one-in-100,000 or one-in-a-million as a standard for public exposures. (And in urban air, there's 10 to 40 times as much fiber glass as in rural air.) Therefore, the amount of fiber glass in the outdoor air in the U.S. and Europe (and presumably elsewhere) already seems higher than prudent public health policies would permit. Assuming a straight-line dose-response curve and no threshold, there is ample reason to be concerned about the human health hazards posed by fiber glass in the general environment.

It has been 25 years since researchers at the National Cancer Institute concluded that fiber glass is a potent carcinogen in experimental animals. During that time, additional research has confirmed those findings again and again.[8] During the same period, the amount of fiber glass manufactured has increased rapidly year after year. Ninety percent of American homes now contain fiber glass insulation. All of this fiber glass will eventually be released into the environment unless special (and very expensive) precautions are taken to prevent its release. The likelihood of Americans taking such precautions is nil. Billions of pounds of fiber glass now in buildings will eventually be dumped into landfills, from which it will leak out slowly as time passes. Elevated concentrations of fiber glass are already measurable in the air above landfills today.[4]

In 1991, Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, a standard reference book on work-place safety and health, said about fiber glass, "...it is prudent for industrial hygienists to treat these materials with the same precautions as asbestos." [1,pg.324] How do we treat asbestos? In the U.S., all new uses of asbestos have been banned. A ban of fiber glass is long overdue.