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: 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.