Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:05 am Posts: 51 Location: Venice, Italy
|
Johhny Electriglide wrote: Do you think even rats will survive the AETM ELE in 500 years from not reducing emissions 90% by 2023? The most important thing is not AR BS. It is reducing emissions by going solar, one or no children, hybrid or electric car, composting and gardening. Then, maybe, if we avoid the horrors of extinction, and save millions of species the same fate, then you can go on your diatribe about animal vivisection. Remember, first, it will be the horrors of the 2040s population crashing at 400 million per year, and avoiding your own vivisection. By creating herds of cloned animals that have the same genetic composition, either entirely or with respect to some particular traits, the diversity of those animals is significantly reduced. As a consequence, cloned animals and herds may be more susceptible to disease and less able to withstand an outbreak. This could have serious repercussions for the population as a whole and for the agriculture industry. The range of potential environmental impacts associated with the proliferation of cloned animals has not been thoroughly investigated and is largely unknown and uncertain.[1] http://www.aavs.org/site/c.bkLTKfOSLhK6 ... lib8ZRBtjoIn order to make these poisons acceptable to the public, the chemical, pharmaceutical, and petroleum empires take refuge in vivisection. Look around you, in your home and your workplace there are scores of chemical products that have been proclaimed "safe" and/or "acceptable" for our use. Have you ever wondered where these safety assurances come from? These "safety" assurances have all been fabricated in vivisectionist laboratories.3 Rats, mice, guinea pigs, hamsters, squirrels, gerbils, rabbits, fish, toads, frogs, lizards, insects, dogs, cats, monkeys, apes, wild birds, quails, pigeons, turkeys, ducks, chickens, cows, goats, and horses are among the animals used. Numerous types of toxicity tests (LD, LC, LDLo, TDLo, TCLo, MTD, etc.) are performed under the banner of toxicity testing. Other research includes skin and eye irritancy tests (the infamous Draize Test), carcinogenicity (cancer) and mutagenicity (genetic mutation) studies, teratogenicity (birth defects) and reproductive toxicity studies, hepatotoxicity (liver damage) and nephrotoxicity (kidney damage) studies, neurotoxicity studies, etc.
From these studies, staggering amounts of ambiguous, contradictory, and invalid data are compiled which allows the "scientists" to draw their "scientific" conclusions. For example, if they want to "prove" that a particular chemical is not a carcinogen, all they have to do is present the evidence from those animal tests that supports this view. On the other hand, if they wish to prove that the same chemical is a carcinogen, they produce other laboratory tests that show the product to be carcinogenic.The fraud of animal research extends beyond the process of chemical production and marketing and applies to the entire field of "environmental protection." Risk assessment studies, aimed at proving or disproving the dangers associated with toxic emissions from an incinerator into the air, discharge of wastewater from a sewage treatment plant into the ocean, discharge of chemicals from an industrial plant into a creek, or application of pesticides on crops, are examples of environmental research where vivisection is routinely used to justify varying and contradictory conclusions--depending on the vested interests of those who foot the bill. Other cases of environmental laws and policies which involve vivisection, are the government established/enforced safe drinking water standards, safe air quality limits, safe worker exposure levels (TLV's, PEL's, TWA's, and STEL's), regulation of pesticides, and the requirements of Material Safety Data Sheets for tens of millions of industrial chemicals.
Unfortunately, far from safeguarding the public and the environment, these "safety" measures make it very safe and very legal for polluters to pollute -- so long as they do so within the boundaries of the law. The reason is as follows: In order for any regulation to protect the public and the environment, it must be founded on sound scientific grounds. The scientific community claims to accept this basic premise. In fact, it is often in conflict with the regulatory community because it claims that instead of establishing regulations based on scientific knowledge, regulators establish them based on economic considerations (i.e., cost to industry for compliance with the laws). However, what the scientific community fails to admit is that what it calls "science," is nothing but fiction. And, since today's environmental laws are based on unscientific data obtained from erroneous animal tests, the tragic result is that far from protecting the public and the environment, such laws and regulations protect the industry and allow the existence of carcinogens, teratogens, and toxicants of all sorts in our food, air, water, home, and workplace. Vivisection is the hidden cause of our environmental pollution and public health problems. Let us destroy the myth and medieval ritual of vivisection for the sake of pursuing real science, true progress and civilization, and the assurance of a safe and poison-free environment for ourselves and the generations to come. http://www.notdoctors.com/epol.html
|
|