treehugger.com— We have heard of climate deniers and chemical industry defenders, but now John Tierney of The New York Times joins the ranks of the Everything Deniers.
Jul 30, 2008View in Crawl 4
People need to really get their priorities straight. AC vs. No AC, or paper vs. plastic are not the questions we need to be asking ourselves. We need to be asking about energy independence (At least only North American dependence), we need to talk about bugets and Fed Debt (Around $33,000 per person (Including children) or around $9 trillion), we need to talk about sustanable farming, (Zero point recyling, where they sort it out of the trash for you). We need to talk about lowering power use and we need to talk about how to do it without dropping standard of living. I just don't get why people will talk about the little things like they are huge but are unable to talk about or deal with the huge things in any way. Lets start with all the low hanging fruit to improve the way we live while lowering our footprint both to the enviroment and the problems caused by our needs (middle east conflict, debt for our children, etc). Wake up people, forget this junk and lets deal with the big problems.
The phone uses very little power when on standby, that's why the battery doesn't run out in only a few hours like it would if you were having a conversation.
Yes, but if you tackle the small problems first, the big problems become a lot easier. It's easier to become energy independent if you're using a lot less energy.
This article is terrible and full of bias. The cell-phone stuff is very weak and is mostly public officials getting publicity for themselves by being "cautious". We have had cell phones in some communities for 25 years now. If there was a significant risk of brain cancer, it would be in the data. It is not. Ditto with plastic bottles. While our "understanding" may indeed change, it will not in this case. The chemicals used have been in the food supply for decades with no ill affects observed. The science may change. The data will not.This article may be good theatre. It is pretty useless as information.
blinkatronJul 31, 2008
If the e/m radiation emitted by cell phones does cause cancer... uh... then pretty much every electronic device known to man causes cancer.
cenobyte40kAug 1, 2008
People need to really get their priorities straight. AC vs. No AC, or paper vs. plastic are not the questions we need to be asking ourselves. We need to be asking about energy independence (At least only North American dependence), we need to talk about bugets and Fed Debt (Around $33,000 per person (Including children) or around $9 trillion), we need to talk about sustanable farming, (Zero point recyling, where they sort it out of the trash for you). We need to talk about lowering power use and we need to talk about how to do it without dropping standard of living. I just don't get why people will talk about the little things like they are huge but are unable to talk about or deal with the huge things in any way. Lets start with all the low hanging fruit to improve the way we live while lowering our footprint both to the enviroment and the problems caused by our needs (middle east conflict, debt for our children, etc). Wake up people, forget this junk and lets deal with the big problems.
nugz85Aug 1, 2008
watch penn and teller: evironmental hysteria is bulls**t
jonnyehAug 1, 2008
and more comfortable.
jonnyehAug 1, 2008
The phone uses very little power when on standby, that's why the battery doesn't run out in only a few hours like it would if you were having a conversation.
afireinside13tAug 1, 2008
Yes, but if you tackle the small problems first, the big problems become a lot easier. It's easier to become energy independent if you're using a lot less energy.
mrmudgeonAug 1, 2008
This article is terrible and full of bias. The cell-phone stuff is very weak and is mostly public officials getting publicity for themselves by being "cautious". We have had cell phones in some communities for 25 years now. If there was a significant risk of brain cancer, it would be in the data. It is not. Ditto with plastic bottles. While our "understanding" may indeed change, it will not in this case. The chemicals used have been in the food supply for decades with no ill affects observed. The science may change. The data will not.This article may be good theatre. It is pretty useless as information.