SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
California will outlaw the use of a pesticide linked to developmental problems in humans after President Donald Trump's administration scrapped plans for a nationwide ban, state health officials said Wednesday.
The decision to ban chlorpyrifos in the agriculturally rich state follows "mounting evidence" of serious health effects for exposed children and other vulnerable people, two California health agencies said in a statement.
Toxic effects including "impaired brain and neurological development" occur at lower levels of the pesticide than previously thought, said the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR).
Farmers using the product will have 15 days to challenge the ban notice in court before it comes into effect, the DPR told AFP.
Virtually all residential uses of the pesticide has been banned since the end of 2001 throughout the United States.
[...] The European Commission announced this month it will recommend chlorpyrifos does not have its license renewed when it expires in January, following a negative assessment by the EU's food safety watchdog. Eight European countries have already individually banned products containing the pesticide.
(Score: 5, Funny) by c0lo on Friday August 16 2019, @05:54AM (30 children)
Why, of course! The Trump's administration didn't abdicate from the duty of care! They can still provide enough care to a brain-impair electorate... as long as they continue to vote them! (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 16 2019, @10:21AM (27 children)
The EPA is unconstitutional and should not exist. States regulating their own environments is exactly the type of thing the Tenth Amendment was intended to allow.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Friday August 16 2019, @11:59AM (25 children)
I can't express in human terms how little relevance the constitutionality issue matters when it comes to the nature/environment. Because, bottom line, you either stop shitting in your home (the planet Earth) or you will live with the stench the nature will throw back to you.
I don't know if you thought of this, so let me put it in words: unlike the human laws, the laws of nature are somewhat immutable - action/reaction, consequences, etc...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by deimtee on Friday August 16 2019, @12:13PM (14 children)
He has a point in that local management usually performs better than centralized. The people that live there generally don't want to screw up their home. The alternative is that the central government decides "for the good of the nation" that some place* gets designated the dumping ground for everyone else's shit.
* 'some place' being guaranteed not to be anywhere near any place said politicians live or own property.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday August 16 2019, @12:50PM (12 children)
I don't deny it**, but my point is that he makes his point from an absolutely irrelevant position - constitutionality.
Ummm... you mean a "place" like the atmosphere, in which individual states can dump unchecked whatever amount of CO2 or sulfur oxides by burning coal? I don't see how the states, acting individually, can exercise a better control, I feel it's too close to a "tragedy of the commons" scenario.
Besides, what you tabled is a "false dilemma" - many other configurations are possible. Like a central government that could pull the resources from the entire nation and find alternatives that don't create shit or find solutions to neutralize the shit everybody creates or... Not all governments act opposite to the interests of most of their citizens, like the US govt does. E.g. the Norwegian govt manages a pension fund of over $1T [wikipedia.org] on behalf of their citizens - that's about $200000/head irrespective of their age.
---
** not fully agreeing with it either. There's no lack of cases of building an irrigation dam upstream and depriving the communities downstream of water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by deimtee on Friday August 16 2019, @01:18PM (11 children)
It depends on the problem. Atmosphere is global and you want decisions regarding it pushed as far up the chain as possible.
Banning the pesticide in the article is appropriate at every level. You don't want it in your backyard - local. You don't want it downstream - State/neighbour. You don't want it in your food - Local/State/Federal/Global.
Different things have different rationales. Banning something that is harmful like that pesticide is appropriate at every level. If global warming is a problem, then the appropriate level is international.
Fully articulating my views on this would be a bloody long essay that I am not going to write. Short version is 'thou shalt not' should be a local as possible, 'thou shalt' should be as global as possible.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 16 2019, @01:33PM (10 children)
See? If you live long enough, inevitable some wisdom will stick to you.
As opposed to "govt always bad, Constitution supreme" mental shortcut (or is it shortcircuit?) - (large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday August 16 2019, @02:08PM (9 children)
Uh, isn't the Constitution part of the government? Doesn't it actually place restrictions on the government?
Look, I agree with you that we need serious federal environmental regulation. But I completely disagree with you that Constitutionality is irrelevant, if we want to live in a nation of laws and not anarchy. As the late Justice Scalia used to say, the "living Constitution" means a judge can wake up one morning and ask, "I wonder whether abortion is legal today? Hmm..."
From my perspective, progressives (with whom I agree on many issues) are now living with their legacy that they built using unconstitutional measures beginning under FDR and then greatly expanded under the Warren Court. Why? Because now we have a SCOTUS that's moving "right" and has been moving in that direction for the past few decades.
Which means that maybe some of those justices will wake up one morning and decide that Roe v. Wade was flawed, will decide that the EPA (and a boatload of other federal agencies) aren't actually allowed to exist under the Enumerated Powers, and whatever other crazy agenda the conservatives might want. All of that is in jeopardy because we live under a Constitution that is nominally the supreme law of the land, and because amendment was too difficult, progressives chose to ignore the problem and instead ignore the clear meaning of the Constitution or "interpret" it in ways that it had never been understood before by 150+ years of jurisprudence.
At least Roe v. Wade can argue that a "right to privacy" is one of those unenumerated rights of the people not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights. But many federal environmental regulations have absolutely no legal leg to stand on constitutionally. Sure, there's "interstate commerce," but viewed strictly, you'd need to prove interstate economic influence to apply that. And contrary to popular belief, "General Welfare" was always interpreted to mean only applying to taxes as a Congressional power prior to the FDR New Deal "Switch in Time to Save Nine."
So no, I absolutely do NOT agree that the Constitutionality argument is irrelevant, because under our current SCOTUS, we may be looking at said arguments potentially destroying our federal powers to regulate this stuff, which would be a complete environmental disaster.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 16 2019, @03:41PM (8 children)
Part of the governance? Yes, that's the basis of it, at least in a democracy.
Part of the government? You don't elect - directly or by representation - a new constitution every 4 (or whatever) years, do you?
Mmmm... I see [xkcd.com] (hint: hover over that cartoon, please)
Context: environment. How you take decisions about your life and the impact on the environment of your life is irrelevant from the point of view of the environment's reaction.
Bottom line: nature doesn't give a fuck you are a destructive democracy or a benign monarchy such as Buthan [wikipedia.org] or even an isolated tribe that kills anyone outside their island with wooden spears [wikipedia.org]. All it matters is how well you can maintain an environment in which your life is possible and, maybe, of a good quality. And I have a hunch that the isolated tribe in my 3rd example is better suited to the environment than the first.
So, actually, you can't disagree with me, because of different frames of context. I wasn't dwelling on how and why you do it (governance, that "nation of laws and not anarchy" you mentioned, being a mean to the purpose) but only what you do - that's all the nature care about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 16 2019, @03:49PM
Correction - please read as in the following
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 16 2019, @04:34PM (3 children)
Any care for environment, in a normal human being, is but an extension of that; as in "my life and lives of those dear to me will be better if X", X being cleaner air/water/food (first and foremost), and more and varied wildlife to look at in the free time (if the first is ensured and there IS enough free time). Period.
A human at nonexistent mercy of some abusive power, has no time nor reason to care about those things. Worse, those things are what his abusers enjoy while he cannot, and deserve destruction for that sole reason. If his own life is bad, everyone else deserves no better.
Self-haters who prefer insects and plants to human beings, while certainly existing and being rather loud, do not matter much, as their own behaviour works against them influencing regular people or propagating their own genes.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 16 2019, @05:14PM (1 child)
Oh, mate, what a wonderfully eloquent follow-up on the "condition of the human"
Hurry up, present it to the Nature, maybe she cares and decides to suspend her reaction to the man's action (large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 16 2019, @08:36PM
Now be informed that we of genus Homo do not care how accomplished in grimaces, red arse displays and other natural activities you lesser brethren are. Once you learn to understand written human language and respond in kind, you may try again.
When you do try, take note that no natural disaster to date harmed enough humans to even remotely compare with how many were done in by actions of fellow human beings given free reign.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 18 2019, @04:58PM
Not every human is a sociopath like you. Go ahead and re-read the definition before you get too offended.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 19 2019, @02:25AM (2 children)
Bottom line: We don't have to care that nature doesn't give a fuck either. There's plenty of slack in that "maintaining an environment". As to your "hunch", that isolated tribe is one common disease away from extinction. Not so with the "destructive democracy".
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 19 2019, @03:54AM (1 child)
The difference between you and nature: nature is not infatuated with its power** and, between you and it, it will be the nature to have the last word.
Nah, for the case of destructive democracy, it will be enough just a de-funding of the CDC to the level it can no longer shutdown unsafe army labs [soylentnews.org]. Then, it's just a matter of time. But, yeah, I don't assume this will keep you awake at night.
** don't anthropomorphize nature, it gets upset when you do so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 19 2019, @01:36PM
Unless, of course, that doesn't happen. Actually, that's the difference between you and nature. I'm not infatuated with nature's power.
I disagree. Disease even of the military-grade sort is something we've figured out.
(Score: 2) by bussdriver on Saturday August 17 2019, @05:29AM
Companies have ZERO problems messing up their homes. They live out of state or on the other side of town... or they know it won't harm anybody in 10 years and they will be elsewhere before it is a problem...likely at another corp. Some stupid ones with cognitive dissonance will believe their own BS hype and poison themselves simply because they won't accept the bad news!
The not-in-my-backyard problem is far easier to address nationally than locally. For some things it's better to keep it in 1 place than 50...
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Saturday August 17 2019, @11:55AM (9 children)
Everything shits on planet Earth. Yet we're not swimming in a bottomless sea of shit. You don't have to stop shitting, just don't shit more than your infrastructure and environment can handle. California regulators aren't an indication that has happened yet.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Saturday August 17 2019, @09:34PM (8 children)
Heh, can't expect khallow to get out of 'nothing happens until it happens' mind-set, even if he's usually fast to use the slippery slope args when it comes to capital.
Nature doesn't care whether or not you know that you shat too much.
How about [wikipedia.org]
Translation: can't avoid food-chain contamination and found unsafe at any level of exposure.
To practice your dismissal skills over the weekend, here's another: PFOA and PFAS ban looming [acs.org] over US [acs.org] - the latter finds that minimal risk levels are one order of magnitude lower than the currently approved limits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 18 2019, @01:14AM (4 children)
So what? Unsafe doesn't mean unsafe in the usual sense of the word, they're just making a claim about the slope of harm versus dose near zero - low dosage still means low harm. As usual, dose makes the poison and you've already noted that the vast majority of the US population doesn't get anywhere near the EPA's recommended threshold, much less a dangerous dosage level.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 18 2019, @12:38PM (3 children)
That's for you to discover.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 18 2019, @11:41PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 19 2019, @12:49AM (1 child)
I would, if I wanted to accept your application to a health-terminology class that I would supposedly teach.
As I actually don't intend to, we can let it there and a whole world of consequences suddenly opens: from you learn it yourself to the nature will sort it out irrespective if you learned it or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 19 2019, @01:15PM
It would be a waste of students' time. That's not health terminology to assert without any understanding of what "safe" and "unsafe" means that something is "unsafe at any level".
Not if those consequences never open up. You're just spouting a variant of the precautionary principle without, as usual, any evidence it should ever be applied. As already has been noted, nature doesn't care that you've consumed trace amounts of toxins. As of present, you have no evidence that you should care either.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 19 2019, @02:34AM (2 children)
Care to mention an example of that "slippery slope" argument?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 19 2019, @03:13AM (1 child)
Will keep your request in mind and signal to you for the future; apologies, I don't have time ATM for a search.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 19 2019, @01:21PM
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Friday August 16 2019, @05:17PM
It's not "their own environments". Pollution crosses the borders, and nobody asks for papers. Close to a quarter of California's air pollution comes from China. The feds have an obligation to at least control domestic pollution.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday August 16 2019, @11:44AM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 16 2019, @12:02PM
Alternatively, stock up some sense of responsibility [soylentnews.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford