Monthly Archives: March 2012
What was killing all those honeybees in recent years? New research shows a link between an increase in the death of bees and insecticides, specifically the chemicals used to coat corn seeds.
People put cell phones up to their heads without ever giving a thought to health effects. Phones transmit with about .4 watts of power. EACH cell tower antenna outputs about 100 watts EACH. Four antennas is equal to the power of a microwave oven.
But what about standing too close to a cell antenna at ground level and not know about it?
Are there always warning signs posted?
How close can you get to one without even knowing it?
€2-per-liter gasoline has arrived! More precisely, it has arrived at a gas station in the Rue Saint-Antoine in Paris, not far from the Bastille, in the 4th arrondissement.
The Justice Department on Thursday issued a 60-day stay of execution for hundreds of thousands of public pools which had been required to install ramps and wheelchair lifts by today or else face lawsuits over violating disability laws.
New Scientific Data Forces Government to Reverse Its Stance on Fluoride in the Water Supply | The Alliance for Natural Health USA
EPA and HHS now recommend the level of fluoride in drinking water to be set “at the lowest end of the current optimal range”—that is, no more than 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water instead of the current recommended range which goes as high as 1.2 milligrams.
Municipalities will be wise to revisit their water fluoridation policies in light of new studies that address safety and efficacy of fluoride in drinking water to allegedly reduce tooth decay. While topical application of fluoride directly to the tooth enamel may prevent cavities, it has been shown that ingesting fluoride has the opposite effect, damages teeth and all major organ systems. Surely, cities can find an alternate means to dispose of the by-products of aluminum production? If the answer is no, they are not trying hard enough.
A major city is getting ready to implement a rule banning the feeding of homeless on public property. According to Merrian Webster dictionary, the following defines the word “public”:
1a : exposed to general view : open
b : well-known, prominent
c : perceptible, material
2a : of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state
b : of or relating to a government
c : of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation
3a : of or relating to people in general : universal
b : general, popular
4: of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs : social
5: devoted to the general or national welfare : humanitarian
6a : accessible to or shared by all members of the community
b : capitalized in shares that can be freely traded on the open market —often used with go
7: supported by public funds and private contributions rather than by income from commercials
As can be seen from this unedited definition, public property can be considered to be that property that relates to “people in general”, “community interests”, “devoted to the general or national welfare: humanitarian”, “supported by public funds and private contributions” (which outreach groups define); and, most notably, “accessible to or shared by ALL members of the community.” (Emphasis mine).
This means that this property belongs as much to the homeless as to the taxpayers, no more and no less. I wonder if they were asked to vote on this measure? Taxes are paid to even the playing field. And unless the mayor offers a solution that enables outreach groups to feed the hungry poor, as God instructs us, he is acting immorally. Rather than address the problem, the Mayor is hiding it from view. This will only postpone the urgency of the need for the City to find solutions to social problems.
For example, does this measure include a measure, implementable in 30 days, that provides for sanitary homeless shelters to be constructed? Additionally, as a revenue producer for the city, on the backs of the homeless the selfsame city government is meant to serve, can the $150 fines be credited, at the least, to services for the poor and homeless, such as shelters, employment training and health services?
How nice for him to allow large family groups to partake of bodily sustenance on public property!
It is nice to see that more than 70% of readers do not agree with the Mayor’s decision to ban the feeding of homeless on public property, whereas nearly 30% do agree. What are YOUR thoughts?