RE: 911 Responders

RE: 911 Responders (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 9:49:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I would be shocked completely out of my mind if sam agreed with you on that. Especially in the face of the increased grotesque birth defects as a result of the DU. If you wish to argue the effects of DU (or the existence of GWS) please start your own thread. I've argued both over the last decade, several times (although I don't remember if I've ever done it in the CM forums). It's been a couple of years since the last time, and maybe there is more evidence now, then there was then, I dunno, but I doubt it. I may or may not participate in any such thread. Firm

Real0ne -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 9:54:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: It's called "due diligence", something which strictly emotional appeals fail to do. I wish to point something out here. If the responders had used "due diligence" they never would have responded. that said it all right there well said taz But their sense of patriotism and humanity to party's whom have none was their downfall.

kalikshama -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 10:05:33 AM)
quote: she has severe respiratory distress when exposed to things ranging from diesel exhaust to perfume. She hasn't worked since 9/11 effectively because office environments make her ill. She can't go near patients if they are potentially wearing perfume or have been exposed to solvents. Hi Sam, I've had Multiple Chemical Sensitivities for 11 years, after working in a building with toxic mold. I had to make drastic changes in my life but am happy where I ended up. I wasn't able to work in traditional jobs initially, but am much better now. I'm fortunate to have a supportive work environment where they've outlawed perfume and let me work at home if there is painting going on, etc. PM me if you'd like some resources for your sister. Best, KK

TreasureKY -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 10:12:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl To start a finger pointing war as to whose responsibility it is to ensure the care os these people is, to me, a waste of time they dont have and an embarrassing position for our contry. Personally, I should think the agencies who employed the people would be the ones to be embarrassed. While I agree that assigning blame after the fact doesn't provide help for those in need, it does establish future expectations and helps to ensure that the situation is not repeated. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Thrusting it off on FEMA is just another federal program. Its not making any State responsible. I believe its the Federal Governments responsibility to look after these people who put their health on the line when a national disaster occured. If im not mistaken, this was declared a federal emergency due to a terrorists act. That sums it up for me... Government responsibility. But what is happening is that no one is wanting to step forward and accept responsibility for these people. NY isnt at fault, they did nothing wrong. Manhattan isnt at fault. Trying to sue the country whose fault it stemmed from wont work, it was a terrorist group. If we go after the money from the terrorist groups bank accounts, that would b a long legal battle. These people have waited years already and lost much in the process. Looking at it from that angle, these responders are losing, or have lost, everything, including their health and a portion of their lives. Lets not even go into how many responders lost their lives. I didn't advocate "thrusting off", I suggested if they need assistance, they should apply. Assistance is helping, not taking responsibility for the entirety. And what would be the purpose of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is it isn't there to turn to in the event of a "federal emergency" and "national disaster"? Don't get me wrong, I fully believe that the individuals affected should receive assistance for the damage they've suffered. However, I believe that assistance should be provided immediately by the organization that employed them in the first place. As far as responsibility goes, I would never fully assign it to the Federal Government (and by extension, each and every citizen thereof). The local and State entities should have programs already in place to see to the needs of its workers. The workers themselves should have some plans in place owing to the dangerous and risky occupation they chose. I can see some assistance being provided by the Federal Government due to the shear scope of the event being beyond any normal contingency plans, however. quote: ORIGINAL: PyrotheClown Workers comp has failed them miserably, the city has failed them, the state has failed them.. so there's only one place to go now, and that's the fed they weren't soldiers, yet they got caught up in a war zone While not denying the scope of the event (considering the shear number of people involved), I fail to completely see where this situation was significantly more dangerous than smaller disaster and rescue missions. Do firemen not routinely risk their health an lives by entering burning buildings on the verge of collapse? While I understand that each situation has unique factors that increase or decrease risk, was there really any part of 9/11 that made the rescue environment significantly more dangerous? I'll concede that the size of the impacted area was exponentially larger, as well as the number of people affected. I'm sure that, plus the general air of panic and uncertainty surely added to an already dangerous situation, as well as complicated logistics. But what I'm trying to understand is where navigating within the vicinity of a collapsed office building is any more health damaging than crawling through the corridors of a burning factory in search of trapped victims. Particularly when firemen are provided equipment to help protect their safety. As far as metaphorically comparing the site of 9/11 with a war zone, I have no problem doing so to an extent. However, it was not similar to environments that our soldiers face in a fighting war zones. In some ways it was better (there was no enemy shooting at them) and in some ways it was worse. Where the soldier analogy is strongest is when you consider that soldiers volunteer to fight and expect the government to take care of their needs in the event they are injured... in the same way, firemen and policemen volunteer to perform the services they do and should expect their needs to be taken care of should they be injured. Where I see the distinction is from whom those individuals expect the majority of support. quote: ORIGINAL: samboct That's why I posted my sister's story. In practice what's happened is that my family has been supporting her since 9/11. Is that right? If a soldier comes back wounded from Iraq- who's responsibility is it to care for him/her? If we ask these people to lay their lives on the line in public service, then I think its our obligation- ALL OF US- to ensure that they have a modicum of dignity if they are injured in the course of their duties. Its why I'm so angry about this Republican filibuster, and I think you should be as well. Debate- fine. Filibuster? Basically denying these peoples needs for political gain? Shameful. I do understand the difficult situations that people face in times of crisis. It would be wonderful if life was fair and equitable. To me, ideally the responsibility for an injury should rest upon three shoulders... the person responsible for the situation, the entity who placed the individual in harm's way, and the individual (presuming they volunteered to work in a risky occupation). Of course, I realize life isn't so simple and easily defined. I agree that it is distasteful when people are used political tools.

Real0ne -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 10:28:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I would be shocked completely out of my mind if sam agreed with you on that. Especially in the face of the increased grotesque birth defects as a result of the DU. If you wish to argue the effects of DU (or the existence of GWS) please start your own thread. I've argued both over the last decade, several times (although I don't remember if I've ever done it in the CM forums). It's been a couple of years since the last time, and maybe there is more evidence now, then there was then, I dunno, but I doubt it. I may or may not participate in any such thread. Firm Firm if you dont want the thread sidetracked then dont invite it with off topic side statements as fact. Otherwise they are fair game for attack. I dont even see it as a topic for discussion frankly as radiation is poison and I am not sure how anyone can defend it.

tazzygirl -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 10:42:50 AM)
quote: Personally, I should think the agencies who employed the people would be the ones to be embarrassed. While I agree that assigning blame after the fact doesn't provide help for those in need, it does establish future expectations and helps to ensure that the situation is not repeated. quote: Don't get me wrong, I fully believe that the individuals affected should receive assistance for the damage they've suffered. However, I believe that assistance should be provided immediately by the organization that employed them in the first place. Im not sure many are aware that some of those responders were off the clock. Regardless, employers wont pay because it was an act of terrorism. Not their fault. quote: The workers themselves should have some plans in place owing to the dangerous and risky occupation they chose. I can see some assistance being provided by the Federal Government due to the shear scope of the event being beyond any normal contingency plans, however. I never would expect in the course of my nursing duties to encounter toxic air particles that may permanently damage my lungs. But, thats just me. quote: I'll concede that the size of the impacted area was exponentially larger, as well as the number of people affected. I'm sure that, plus the general air of panic and uncertainty surely added to an already dangerous situation, as well as complicated logistics. But what I'm trying to understand is where navigating within the vicinity of a collapsed office building is any more health damaging than crawling through the corridors of a burning factory in search of trapped victims. Particularly when firemen are provided equipment to help protect their safety. Its not just firemen. Not just EMS workers. All walks of life aided in that event. Nurses, Doctors, Policemen. Some on the clock, some not. And there was not enough equipment to go around.

rulemylife -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 10:47:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg so rml and sambo are very clear. THere was no issue with 911 responders untill the Repulicans took over power. And it is a "Hitler Big Lie" to notice that the Dems did not pass this law while they controlled both houses and the presidency (with a filibuster proof majority). Dems had power and did nothing on this issue, and it was goood. Now they are using it for politics, and that is also good. You know, the problem with even trying to discuss something with you is that either don't read or don't understand what you read. You had information presented to you, that you asked for, that clearly showed what you said was not true. Then you simply ignore it and proclaim that what disproves your point is actually proving it. The Republicans have continually blocked any effort to pass any legislation to aid the 9/11 responders, going back to the original Zadroga Act of 2006 and including Hillary Clinton's legislation in that same year. And by the way, you keep mentioning how the Republicans took over power, in case you haven't looked lately the Democrats still control both houses of Congress until January. S. 3891 [109th]: James Zadroga Act of 2006 *"Sick Ground Zero Workers Need $2 Billion in Treatment, Sen. Clinton Says". Fox News. September 15, 2006* NEW YORK — Thousands of sick ground zero workers need nearly $2 billion in long-term treatment for ongoing health woes, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday in the U.S. Senate as she offered legislation creating a long-term medical program. Clinton, D-N.Y., brought an amendment to a ports security bill seeking to create a five-year, $1.9 billion treatment program for those still suffering the after-effects of the toxic dust, debris and fumes they endured at ground zero after the 2001 terror attacks.

rulemylife -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 11:54:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY "I'm not against helping the 9/11 responders, and truthfully (without doing a deep analysis of the bill to find out if it actually does what it purports to do) have no problem with it being passed. The you better get off here and start working on that deep analysis using scientific methodology. We'll be waiting for your results. quote: You and others claim that it's been 9 years, and nothing has happened, and therefore it is the Republicans fault, although the Democrats held control of the Congress for the last four years, and a veto proof majority and the Presidency for the last two years ... yet you assign no blame or onus to them. Democrats have been attempting to pass this legislation since 2006. I'm assuming you are referring to a filibuster-proof majority, and you may want to check your time line on that. About That Filibuster Proof Majority Well, let's at least get our history straight. Until Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, the Democratic caucus in the Senate stood at 59. After that it was technically up to 60, but Ted Kennedy hadn't cast a vote in months and was housebound due to illness. He died a few weeks later and was replaced by Paul Kirk on September 24, finally bringing the Democratic majority up to 60 in practice as well as theory. After that the Senate was in session for 11 weeks before taking its winter recess, followed by three weeks until Scott Brown won Kennedy's seat in the Massachusetts special election. So that means Democrats had an effective filibuster-proof majority for about 14 weeks. quote: I am familar with another case of "something is making everyone sick!" i.e. the dreaded "Gulf War Syndrome" of which I am part of the tracking database, and which has been proven not to exist, despite the massive publicity otherwise. The same with the "deadly dangers of depleted uranium". So emotional appeals, no matter how heart-rending, are invalid. And no one - in the video on from the OP, nor none of the "Republicans are heartless" crowd have offered one iota of real proof that this is anything different in this case. Did anyone say that you were supposed to take the video as proof? This is not secret information. It is widely available. This legislation was proposed in the first place on the basis of positive scientific proof. Initially the Bush administration denied there was any link between the numerous illnesses and Ground Zero, as did the city of New York, and Congress accepted that for years. Then people started to die, and the autopsies linked their deaths to breathing in the toxins from the collapsed buildings. Instead of wringing your hands and saying "Well, we really don't have enough information" why don't you go look it up? The reality is you don't have enough information, and you are trying to cloud the issue when you admittedly lack knowledge on the subject.

rulemylife -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 12:12:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I would be shocked completely out of my mind if sam agreed with you on that. Especially in the face of the increased grotesque birth defects as a result of the DU. If you wish to argue the effects of DU (or the existence of GWS) please start your own thread. You are telling him to start his own thread when you were the one that brought the subject up? He was only responding to your post. More tap dancing, huh Firm? You bring up something to supposedly back your point then when you get called on it you try to claim it's not relevant to the discussion.

samboct -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 12:45:55 PM)
Treasure "While not denying the scope of the event (considering the shear number of people involved), I fail to completely see where this situation was significantly more dangerous than smaller disaster and rescue missions. Do firemen not routinely risk their health an lives by entering burning buildings on the verge of collapse? While I understand that each situation has unique factors that increase or decrease risk, was there really any part of 9/11 that made the rescue environment significantly more dangerous? " Actually, what the medical findings are showing is that while firemen often experience reduced lung function following exposure to a fire, this reduction is generally short lived. 9/11 with its extremely high volumes of particulates and lack of protective gear has caused much more lasting damage. EMTs generally don't have to deal with such hazardous working conditions either. My comment is that 9/11 was a national disaster- not a New York disaster. The Feds have done jack all about it, and that's very much a reflection on the administration in charge at the time and for the year's following. As a counter example of federal action in time of crisis, when Hurricane Rita hit New Orleans in the mid 1960s, there were a bunch of scared people cowering in a bar in the dark. The president grabbed a flashlight, strode into the wet, turned the flashlight on his face and announced. "My name is Lyndon Baines Johnson. I'm your goddamned President. What you need to know is that my office and the entire population of the United States stand with you." (might not be exact.) The US Army Corps of Engineers helped to rebuild the dykes around New Orleans IIRC. OK, they weren't perfect and certainly could have used some maintenance, but it was a good attempt. Why can't you and Firm admit that the Republican party has screwed the pooch on this one and help hold their feet to the fire? RO- you're not going to like my response on the depleted uranium sideline- although it may be instructive as to how Republican administrations deal with the treatment of large numbers of people who have been exposed to toxins. As I understand it, the valuable isotopes of uranium, which I think is primarily U-235 and U-234 are extracted from uranium ores leaving behind U-238 which isn't radioactive- hence the term, depleted uranium. It is however, quite dense. Once the 234 and 235 are out of the ore, the remaining 238 (and smaller volumes of 235 and 234) are less radioactive than naturally occurring uranium ore so we have to worry about their chemical toxicity, but less about ionizing radiation. On the other hand- uranium chemistry is still poorly understood and the toxicity of uranium can vary dramatically based on oxidation state. I'm very familiar with metals that have this property- my thesis work was on hexavalent chromium which is a carcinogen, although chromium (III) is not- and may actually be an essential trace element. If the data lumped all depleted uranium into one basket and didn't look at the chemistry of individual exposures, you could draw some erroneous conclusions. In terms of the troops being exposed to nasty stuff in Iraq...I can understand how scary depleted uranium can sound. But the Iraqis were burning wells, and I suspect that the gases, metals, etc. from those releases may have been a lot more problematic. All of this is very reminiscent of the issues of Agent Orange- a defoliant widely used in Viet Nam. While Agent Orange was reasonably safe for humans to handle, some of the manufacturers did a lousy job and allowed it to get contaminated with PCBs or some other similar nasty organic. So the problem became that some troops exposed to Agent Orange had no issues whatsoever, and others, exposed to the contaminated batches of Agent Orange, developed cancers, chloracne, nerve damage etc. The administration claimed that Agent Orange was safe and wouldn't cause those illnesses (true), but some batches weren't clean. I don't know if any vets ever collected on that one either.... I don't know enough about how the depleted uranium shells were handled to comment as to whether some shells might have had something nasty like osmium as a contaminant. The breakdown of radioactive materials produces just about everything in the periodic table- and osmium is both very expensive (great catalyst) and really nasty IIRC. It's also a breakdown product of uranium IIRC. Firm- did people look at what the oxidation state of the uranium was when people were exposed? The stuff is pretty reactive- it's clear that there are some oxidation states which will readily be taken up and reside in organs long term. So one hypothesis might be that dry depleted uranium dust, not very toxic. But uranium dust mixed with water and acid? Might lead to some different results. Heavy metals can certainly be teratogenic. Sam

FirmhandKY -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 1:10:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY You and others claim that it's been 9 years, and nothing has happened, and therefore it is the Republicans fault, although the Democrats held control of the Congress for the last four years, and a veto proof majority and the Presidency for the last two years ... yet you assign no blame or onus to them. Democrats have been attempting to pass this legislation since 2006. I'm assuming you are referring to a filibuster-proof majority, and you may want to check your time line on that. About That Filibuster Proof Majority Well, let's at least get our history straight. Until Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, the Democratic caucus in the Senate stood at 59. After that it was technically up to 60, but Ted Kennedy hadn't cast a vote in months and was housebound due to illness. He died a few weeks later and was replaced by Paul Kirk on September 24, finally bringing the Democratic majority up to 60 in practice as well as theory. After that the Senate was in session for 11 weeks before taking its winter recess, followed by three weeks until Scott Brown won Kennedy's seat in the Massachusetts special election. So that means Democrats had an effective filibuster-proof majority for about 14 weeks. So, I guess that the Democrats, while in charge of the Congress, and the Presidency, passed no legislation at all, huh? quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I am familar with another case of "something is making everyone sick!" i.e. the dreaded "Gulf War Syndrome" of which I am part of the tracking database, and which has been proven not to exist, despite the massive publicity otherwise. The same with the "deadly dangers of depleted uranium". So emotional appeals, no matter how heart-rending, are invalid. And no one - in the video on from the OP, nor none of the "Republicans are heartless" crowd have offered one iota of real proof that this is anything different in this case. Did anyone say that you were supposed to take the video as proof? This is not secret information. It is widely available. This legislation was proposed in the first place on the basis of positive scientific proof. Initially the Bush administration denied there was any link between the numerous illnesses and Ground Zero, as did the city of New York, and Congress accepted that for years. Then people started to die, and the autopsies linked their deaths to breathing in the toxins from the collapsed buildings. Instead of wringing your hands and saying "Well, we really don't have enough information" why don't you go look it up? The reality is you don't have enough information, and you are trying to cloud the issue when you admittedly lack knowledge on the subject. rule, unlike some people I don't pretend to know everything about everything. When someone starts a thread and takes a position, normally the assumption is that part of the reason is to make other people aware of the issue. Being an ass, and claiming "everyone knows" seems, then, just to be a method to avoid justifying your position. All I did was ask simple questions, and only Sam responded in a matter that made any sense to me. As I said, Sam and I often disagree, but we've never got into pissing contest, because he knows how to present his position and facts, and is an honest person and poster. That doesn't mean we agree, but it does mean that we respect each others opinion. Try treating people with whom you disagree with a little respect, and perhaps you'll find that not everyone that disagrees with you is such an ass. Projection is a real bitch, otherwise. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 1:15:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I would be shocked completely out of my mind if sam agreed with you on that. Especially in the face of the increased grotesque birth defects as a result of the DU. If you wish to argue the effects of DU (or the existence of GWS) please start your own thread. You are telling him to start his own thread when you were the one that brought the subject up? He was only responding to your post. More tap dancing, huh Firm? You bring up something to supposedly back your point then when you get called on it you try to claim it's not relevant to the discussion. I brought it up as an illustrative example. If you and RO wish to discuss it in detail, either start another thread, or get tazzy's permission to discuss it in this thread. She's the OP, and I defer to her wishes on the subject of what is appropriately "on-topic". Firm

Real0ne -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 1:25:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Treasure That's why I posted my sister's story. In practice what's happened is that my family has been supporting her since 9/11. Is that right? If a soldier comes back wounded from Iraq- who's responsibility is it to care for him/her? If we ask these people to lay their lives on the line in public service, then I think its our obligation- ALL OF US- to ensure that they have a modicum of dignity if they are injured in the course of their duties. Its why I'm so angry about this Republican filibuster, and I think you should be as well. Debate- fine. Filibuster? Basically denying these peoples needs for political gain? Shameful. Sam would it have been any different if a dem was in the chair? truth is no. george carlin love him or hate could not have said it better in his american dream skit just before he passed away.... apparently the only time you can exercise your right to "free speech" freely. I feel badly for you and your sis. Now I never give legal advice and nothing I say is to be construed as legal advice but purely for educational and and fun purposes of banter. That said there was a public official who stood up in front of God and the world and claimed it was safe to go in. Now there are some that would say a "proclamation" like that set up a "constructive trust" that caused people to act other then they would have normally acted based on that proclamation. There are others who would say the articles of confederation are still 100% operational and I think it has something to do with the united states being created by the AOC and without the AOC the united states and all the states created under the united states could not exist and the declaration of independence are all intertwined supporting law but I digress...... meaning that the purpose of governments is to protect life liberty rights happiness etc. Of course in taking something like that to court the gub being the honest joes that they are certainly will try and pull a gonzales and claim the person making the proclamation was not the authorized person to so so therefore is indeminfied. All people today care about is "me" and if it did not happen to them well its your problem. sad state of affairs in this country. You may want to consider taking her to a naturalist, there are many herbals that can really help to reduse the effects of toxicity. There were many submicron metals in the air small enough to get into the mitochondria and wreak havok. High (therapeutic) doses of certain herbals can help purge the toxins. Correctly formulating herbals can also bring the body back into balance. the longer a persons body remains out of balance the harder it is to get back if ever.

Real0ne -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 1:27:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I brought it up as an illustrative example. If you and RO wish to discuss it in detail, either start another thread, or get tazzy's permission to discuss it in this thread. She's the OP, and I defer to her wishes on the subject of what is appropriately "on-topic". Firm So did I firm did you ask her if you could bring it up? Point of order, its ok for firm to bring it up but not ok for anyone to comment on it. noted for the record.

TreasureKY -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 2:48:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Im not sure many are aware that some of those responders were off the clock. Regardless, employers wont pay because it was an act of terrorism. Not their fault. I hate to sound callous about this, but if they were off the clock and volunteering, then I'm afraid I'd say it was on them to take care of themselves (or some charity organization comprised of voluntary donations.) I don't want to diminish these peoples' heroism and sacrifice... we are fortunate indeed that so many people are willing to look beyond their own safety and reach out to others in a time of need. I have and will continue to do so myself, but I would never expect anyone else to compensate me if I get hurt. It's on my own dime and at my own risk. I'm personally responsible for me and the actions (including risking my health and my life) that I take. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The workers themselves should have some plans in place owing to the dangerous and risky occupation they chose. I can see some assistance being provided by the Federal Government due to the shear scope of the event being beyond any normal contingency plans, however. I never would expect in the course of my nursing duties to encounter toxic air particles that may permanently damage my lungs. But, thats just me. And I'm sure that there are office workers who would say they never expected to be mowed down by a crazed gunman during the work day, too. I don't expect my house to get hit by a tornado, but I'm certainly covered in the event it does. As for any other "act of God" or unexpected accident that may happen in my life, I deal. I don't expect others to take care of me... particularly if I've voluntarily placed myself in a risky situation. Again, it isn't that I don't believe these people should not be helped. I'm just not convinced that making it a Federal government responsibility is the appropriate way to do it. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Its not just firemen. Not just EMS workers. All walks of life aided in that event. Nurses, Doctors, Policemen. Some on the clock, some not. And there was not enough equipment to go around. I grant that it is unlikely that there was sufficient safety equipment to cover all the volunteers. I'm not sure what the best answer for that kind of situation is. We certainly don't want to discourage generosity of spirit within people during a time of need. All I can say is that it gives me a bad taste in my mouth when people abdicate responsibility for their own actions and expect the government (or someone else) to make things right for them. I do agree there are times when people need to have their feet held to the fire to make them live up to their obligations, but it seems all to often people who've suffered a loss are adamant that someone... anyone other than themselves must be held accountable and pay. Sometimes accidents are just accidents. Shit happens. You deal.

rulemylife -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 3:23:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY So, I guess that the Democrats, while in charge of the Congress, and the Presidency, passed no legislation at all, huh? More tap dancing. If you have a point make it, if not don't waste my time. quote: rule, unlike some people I don't pretend to know everything about everything. When someone starts a thread and takes a position, normally the assumption is that part of the reason is to make other people aware of the issue. Being an ass, and claiming "everyone knows" seems, then, just to be a method to avoid justifying your position. All I did was ask simple questions, and only Sam responded in a matter that made any sense to me. As I said, Sam and I often disagree, but we've never got into pissing contest, because he knows how to present his position and facts, and is an honest person and poster. That doesn't mean we agree, but it does mean that we respect each others opinion. Try treating people with whom you disagree with a little respect, and perhaps you'll find that not everyone that disagrees with you is such an ass. Then I guess we can conclude that I don't respect your opinion. You came on this thread and offered your "opinion" that this was bad legislation while offering nothing else to support it. You came on this thread acting all wide-eyed and naive about a subject that has been in the news for the past 9 years. A subject that has been on this board before, as recently as a few months ago. Yet you claim to know nothing about it and expect to be spoon-fed the information. It only takes a quick search to find all you need to know. And yes, at this point it is pretty much an accepted fact that these illnesses were caused due to the debris. You need only think about the asbestos that was in the air to realize it. You are not disagreeing, you are just questioning mindlessly, like a 4 year-old asking why the sky is blue, so that you can muddle the issue because you know there are no facts to back you or back the GOP's position.

samboct -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 3:23:54 PM)
Treasure You're bringing up a point which is largely irrelevant here- the point of if a volunteer is injured, who is responsible. But the reality is that during 9/11 first responders were asked by their employers to show up and help deal with the situation. Furthermore, what you're suggesting sets a horrible precedent. Should first responders not respond to a situation when they're not on the clock because they might get injured? I think first responders have a reasonable expectation that if they lay their lives on the line, that if they're injured, their injuries will be dealt with responsibly regardless of whether or not they've been assigned to the task. Otherwise you risk the equivalent of a bloody minded strike- I'm not getting paid, so I'm not going in there. Is that what you want? These people weren't down there because they were promised large sums of cash- they were there because they viewed it as their civic duty. If they hadn't been injured- they wouldn't be hitting people up for additional money. But they were injured, and its our civic duty to make sure that they are treated with dignity. Being turfed out on the street after being unable to work doesn't hack it in my book. Same problem as homeless vets- it's intolerable. Isn't it enough that people sacrificed their health to help others? Should they have to have sacrificed their finances as well? Remember what Oliver Wendell Holmes said about paying taxes? Pay them happily- its the price of civilization. Well, paying for the care of first responders who've been injured on the job is the price of having first responders. You don't get to change the rules after people have been hurt. Sam

rulemylife -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 3:33:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife You are telling him to start his own thread when you were the one that brought the subject up? He was only responding to your post. More tap dancing, huh Firm? You bring up something to supposedly back your point then when you get called on it you try to claim it's not relevant to the discussion. I brought it up as an illustrative example. If you and RO wish to discuss it in detail, either start another thread, or get tazzy's permission to discuss it in this thread. She's the OP, and I defer to her wishes on the subject of what is appropriately "on-topic". Firm You are hilarious Firm. I haven't heard such amazing spin since Sanity was here. You bring up something that is off-topic as an example then refuse to discuss it because it is off-topic.

Real0ne -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 4:01:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct RO- you're not going to like my response on the depleted uranium sideline- although it may be instructive as to how Republican administrations deal with the treatment of large numbers of people who have been exposed to toxins. As I understand it, the valuable isotopes of uranium, which I think is primarily U-235 and U-234 are extracted from uranium ores leaving behind U-238 which isn't radioactive- hence the term, depleted uranium. It is however, quite dense. Once the 234 and 235 are out of the ore, the remaining 238 (and smaller volumes of 235 and 234) are less radioactive than naturally occurring uranium ore so we have to worry about their chemical toxicity, but less about ionizing radiation. On the other hand- uranium chemistry is still poorly understood and the toxicity of uranium can vary dramatically based on oxidation state. I'm very familiar with metals that have this property- my thesis work was on hexavalent chromium which is a carcinogen, although chromium (III) is not- and may actually be an essential trace element. If the data lumped all depleted uranium into one basket and didn't look at the chemistry of individual exposures, you could draw some erroneous conclusions. In terms of the troops being exposed to nasty stuff in Iraq...I can understand how scary depleted uranium can sound. But the Iraqis were burning wells, and I suspect that the gases, metals, etc. from those releases may have been a lot more problematic. All of this is very reminiscent of the issues of Agent Orange- a defoliant widely used in Viet Nam. While Agent Orange was reasonably safe for humans to handle, some of the manufacturers did a lousy job and allowed it to get contaminated with PCBs or some other similar nasty organic. So the problem became that some troops exposed to Agent Orange had no issues whatsoever, and others, exposed to the contaminated batches of Agent Orange, developed cancers, chloracne, nerve damage etc. The administration claimed that Agent Orange was safe and wouldn't cause those illnesses (true), but some batches weren't clean. I don't know if any vets ever collected on that one either.... I don't know enough about how the depleted uranium shells were handled to comment as to whether some shells might have had something nasty like osmium as a contaminant. The breakdown of radioactive materials produces just about everything in the periodic table- and osmium is both very expensive (great catalyst) and really nasty IIRC. It's also a breakdown product of uranium IIRC. Nope I am all for correct answers. You are right with regard to the toxicity. If we set a chunk on a shelf it is of no danger to anyone. On the other hand if we shoot it at 7000+ ft / second it creates sub micron particles that are capable of not nly being ingested but once ingensted lodges "inside" the mitochondria and really raises hell no only from a toxic standpoint but the occasional but constant firing of gamma through your body. thats the danger. thats why so many people are so p'o'ed at chemtrails is because this stuff can be spread in the air, no one would ever know it because its nearly impossible to pick up in urine samples. Here is a quick link to take a look at that gives a generic overview. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dod/du_factsheet_4aug98.htm places indiana and other places in the us where the stuff was played with have 6 legged frogs 3 eyed birds but the biggest problem was what was known in the gulf war as gulf syndrome. Which is radiation poisoning. I made the effort to chase that down and it got to the director of the fda who refused to comment to me on the matter. I was led there because troops who were in DU areas "and their stateside wives" were not allowed to donate blood. This was unwritten btw which intrigued me to look into it as to "why". Thats is the reason. Sub micron particle contamination that granted were not highly radioactive but over long term and in the body resulted in cancer, various sensitivities, birth defects, and a host of just "strange" unexplainable issues.

Aylee -> RE: 911 Responders (12/19/2010 4:27:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I was led there because troops who were in DU areas "and their stateside wives" were not allowed to donate blood. This was unwritten btw which intrigued me to look into it as to "why". I have donated blood I have no idea how many times and there is no spot on the paperwork that tells what your spouse does.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625