RE: Why We'Re Sick
BY: John Meroth to Maz Levy on Mon May 06 1996 08:25:37
 > Hello Maz.
 > 
 > 27 Apr 96 18:59, Maz Levy wrote to All:
 > 
 >  ML> RE: Why We'Re Sick
 >  ML> BY: John Meroth to Doug Blakely on Fri Apr 26 1996 11:41:25
 > 
 >  >>  DB> Mercury is not a chemical, but an element found in
 >  >>  DB> nature. The term  "chemical" is used to label man-made
 >  >>  DB> substances. Give me an example of a  "proven" dangerous
 >  >>  DB> chemical, and the method used to determine the  danger.
 >  >>  DB> Maybe that would make this a bit easier to discuss.
 >  >>
 >  >> BENZENE
 >  >>
 >  >> MEK (Methel Ethel Ketone)
 > 
 >  ML> Just about every environmental pollutant contains some part of 
ercury
 >  ML> including all those coal fires we used to burn.
 > 
 > Not even close. Mercury IS NOT part of most pollutants.
Most chemicals considered dangerous do start from mercury, mercuric chloride
for example, just because they prefer to leave the word mercury out of it 
oes
does not mean its not there. Chemicals, drugs, disinfectants, herbicides, why
else are the health authorities in denial, because it might put America out 
f
big business. Over 2,000 tons are being released every day for the past 50
years. Then you add up everything that reacts with mercury from petrochemical
companies and you begin to see how smog works through ions, pressure and
temperature. Environmentalists are making a dent in industry and doing
something about the animals and fish, but medically it is covered up in 
denial.
Reports on the medical impact on individuals were ignored by the health
authorities whilst the CIA took a dozen. Mercury may have been the major 
factor
in military production but like nuclear testing it is at our expence. Thermal
nuclear testing resulted in excessive air pollution.
maz
--- Synchronet+SBBSecho v1.10
---------------