True Left

OLD CONTENT contd.

And one more thing about lawns:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf_course#Environmental_impact

Environmental concerns over the use of land for golf courses have grown since the 1960s. Specific issues include the amount of water required for irrigation and the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers in maintenance, as well as the destruction of wetlands and other environmentally important areas during construction. The United Nations estimates that, worldwide, golf courses consume about 2.5 billion gallons/9.5 billion litres of water per day. Many golf courses are now irrigated with non-potable water and rainwater. In 1988, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency prohibited the use of Diazinon on golf courses and sod farms because of its negative impact on bird species.
...
In some parts of the world, attempts to build courses and resorts have led to protests, vandalism, and violence. Populists perceive golf as an elitist activity, and thus golf courses become a target for popular opposition. Resisting golf tourism and golf's expansion has become an objective of some land-reform movements, especially in the Philippines and Indonesia.

In the Bahamas, opposition to golf developments has become a national issue. Residents of Great Guana Cay and Bimini, for example, are engaged in legal and political opposition to golf developments on their islands, for fear the golf courses will destroy the nutrient-poor balance on which their coral reef and mangrove systems depend.

For once, the term "populist" is used accurately! Genuine populism is necessarily anti-Western.

Yet thanks to mainstream media semantic incompetence, this is whom most people today believe is a "populist":

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

---

Depleted uranium contamination:
www.globalresearch.ca/depleted-uranium-and-radioactive-contamination-in-iraq-an-overview/5605215

---

When reality is more absurd than parody:



---

www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/08/13/chipotle-sweetgreen-bowls-may-have-chemicals-linked-cancer/1942912001/

A story published last week by the New Food Economy, a non-profit newsroom that investigates food-related issues, reported the "cancer-linked" presence of PFAS, also called "forever chemicals," in the fiber bowls used at fast casual dining spots and other restaurants including Chipotle, Sweetgreen, Dig Inn and other locations in New York City.

The chemicals are being investigated by scientists and government officials amid concerns over links to cancer, obesity, reproductive health problems, immunotoxicity and other health problems. PFAS have been used in consumer goods since the 1940s, according to the Food and Drug Administration. They've also been found in water.
...
Why 'forever chemicals' don't go away

PFAS, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, is a family of man-made chemicals that contain carbon-fluorine bonds. The bonds don't break down easily, which is why PFAS are often referred to as "forever chemicals."

They have been used in the production of common goods since the 1940s, according to the FDA.

And PFAS are everywhere: Drinking water, food, cookware, paints, water-repellent fabrics, nonstick products, firefighting foams and more.

Because it doesn't break down, PFAS remain present in our groundwater, soil and in human and animal bloodstreams, the FDA said in a statement.

Screw this "man-made" bullshit. These are Western-made chemicals. They would never have existed if the Renaissance had not happened.
Every other civilization could have been left running for thousands of years more and not one of them would have ever come up with such chemicals. Western civilization and nothing but Western civilization poisons the world in this way.

There are nearly 5,000 chemicals in the PFAS group. Only a handful have been studied for toxicity, and the results are "very concerning," said Cox.

According to Marchewka, PFAS tend to move "through the entire ecosystem." Because such a chemical may not biodegrade, "it works its way through the entire life-cycle of anything it touches," she said.

---

edition.cnn.com/2019/02/14/health/us-glyphosate-cancer-study-scli-intl/index.html

Common weed killer glyphosate increases cancer risk by 41%, study says

edition.cnn.com/2018/08/15/health/glyphosate-oat-products-ewg-study/index.html

Unsafe levels of a weed killer chemical in oat products, report says

For reference:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate

In many cities, glyphosate is sprayed along the sidewalks and streets, as well as crevices in between pavement where weeds often grow. However, up to 24% of glyphosate applied to hard surfaces can be run off by water.[50] Glyphosate contamination of surface water is attributed to urban and agricultural use.[51] Glyphosate is used to clear railroad tracks and get rid of unwanted aquatic vegetation.[41] Since 1994, glyphosate has been used in aerial spraying in Colombia in coca eradication programs

We had been farming for thousands of years perfectly well with no weedkillers. Then Western civilization came along.

Everyone repeat after me: if Western civilization had never existed, none of this would be happening.

(Additional information:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbicidal_warfare )

---

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6886561/Cell-phone-tower-shut-elementary-school-eight-kids-diagnosed-cancer.html

Morris says he is not convinced that the tower is harmless.

But he also says other forms of contamination may be compounding factors, implying that a Nestle plant may have leaked toxins into the soil for years.

It's not just the tower that needs to be taken down, it's the whole of Western civilization which needs to be taken down.

---



---



---

news.yahoo.com/leaf-blowers-insects-german-government-200143209.html

Leaf blowers kill insects and cause pollution and should not be used, the German government has said.

The country’s Ministry for the Environment stopped short of an outright ban, but issued new guidance in response to a request by a German Green Party MP.
...
The guidance added that the devices are “fatal to insects in the foliage”.

The government said: “There is a risk that small animals are absorbed or blown and thereby damaged.”
...
In terms of insect biomass (the total weight of insects), the results were even more alarming, with a decline of 40% of insect biomass since 2008.

The whole world had been comfortable with using brooms* for thousands of years. Then Western civilization came along.

(* I have accidentally swept insects hiding inside debris using a broom on occasions, but the insects generally have time to move away - I try not to sweep too hard or fast in order to give them more time to react - and hence are unharmed. This is the superiority of manual tools.)

I don't like vaccuum cleaners either, for the same reason. (When I was a child, my parents used vaccuum cleaners on insects deliberately.)

---

You cannot be green while remaining Western:

qz.com/1759150/reusable-plastic-shopping-bags-are-making-the-problem-worse/

Over the past few years, reusable plastic shopping bags began showing up in grocery stores in many parts of the world. They are sturdier than the flimsy plastic bags that have become a symbol of the global movement against disposable plastics, and so can be used many times, lending to their marketing as the ethical choice for the environmentally conscious shopper.

But of course, these thicker bags require more plastic to make. That means they could only improve the overall situation if they led to stores handing out overall less plastic, by volume, than they would without them—by, say, replacing thousands of single-use plastic bags a shopper might otherwise use over the years. Because no matter the style of plastic bag, it will still contribute to the global problem of forever-trash entering the environment, and the greenhouse gases associated with manufacturing the bag from fossil fuels in the first place.

But it seems they haven’t. A new report from the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) and Greenpeace looking at grocery stores in the UK suggests that the plastic “bags for life” utterly failed to do the one thing they were ostensibly meant to. So far in 2019, the top 10 UK grocery stores reported selling 1.5 billion of these bags, which represents approximately 54 “bags for life” per household in the UK.
...
Overall, those same supermarkets increased the volume of plastic packaging they put out—including the “bags for life”—by 18,739 tons (17,000 metric tons) from 2017 to 2018. “It’s shocking to see that despite unprecedented awareness of the pollution crisis, the amount of single-use plastic used by the UK’s biggest supermarkets has actually increased,” the EIA’s Juliet Phillips told the Guardian. The grocery stores’ plastic-footprint increase was caused in part by the reusable plastic bags.

“We have replaced one problem with another,” Fiona Nicholls, a Greenpeace UK campaigner who is one of the report’s authors, told the New York Times.

Plastic itself is the problem. And guess who created this problem?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic#History

Parkesine (nitrocellulose) is considered the first man-made plastic. The plastic material was patented by Alexander Parkes, in Birmingham, England in 1856.[19] It was unveiled at the 1862 Great International Exhibition in London.[20] Parkesine won a bronze medal at the 1862 World's fair in London. Parkesine was made from cellulose (the major component of plant cell walls) treated with nitric acid as a solvent. The output of the process (commonly known as cellulose nitrate or pyroxilin) could be dissolved in alcohol and hardened into a transparent and elastic material that could be molded when heated.[21] By incorporating pigments into the product, it could be made to resemble ivory.

In 1897, the Hanover, Germany mass printing press owner Wilhelm Krische was commissioned to develop an alternative to blackboards.[22] The resultant horn-like plastic made from the milk protein casein was developed in cooperation with the Austrian chemist (Friedrich) Adolph Spitteler (1846–1940). The final result was unsuitable for the original purpose.[23] In 1893, French chemist Auguste Trillat discovered the means to insolubilize casein by immersion in formaldehyde, producing material marketed as galalith.[22]

In the early 1900s, Bakelite, the first fully synthetic thermoset, was reported by Belgian chemist Leo Baekeland by using phenol and formaldehyde.

After World War I, improvements in chemical technology led to an explosion in new forms of plastics, with mass production beginning in the 1940s and 1950s (around World War II).[24] Among the earliest examples in the wave of new polymers were polystyrene (PS), first produced by BASF in the 1930s,[2] and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), first created in 1872 but commercially produced in the late 1920s.[2] In 1923, Durite Plastics Inc. was the first manufacturer of phenol-furfural resins.[25] In 1933, polyethylene was discovered by Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) researchers Reginald Gibson and Eric Fawcett.[2]

In 1954, polypropylene was discovered by Giulio Natta and began to be manufactured in 1957.[2]

In 1954, expanded polystyrene (used for building insulation, packaging, and cups) was invented by Dow Chemical.[2] The discovery of Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is credited to employees of the Calico Printers' Association in the UK in 1941; it was licensed to DuPont for the US and ICI otherwise, and as one of the few plastics appropriate as a replacement for glass in many circumstances, resulting in widespread use for bottles in Europe.[2]