Re: Evidence of Harm movie

[Guest guest]

,

I think it takes

quite a long time to make a film from beginning to end but it’s really

exciting that the screen play will be done by the beginning of 2007. I

saw An Inconvenient Truth and agree it’s fantastic. I also saw Al

Gore on Oprah and one of the things he was talking about was the redistribution

of water and how wild fires have really increased in certain areas. I

thought at that moment how powerful together it would be with that speech with

Al regarding this and the one with on how forest fires are where some

of the worst amounts of mercury go up into the environment. It’s

about time that the environment headed to the top of Politian’s lists

rather than the bottom. I have said it before, I would still vote for Al

in a second and think he would be a great advocate for all environmental causes

including mercury.

-

From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of Dachel

Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006

7:53 PM

EOHarm

Cc: jdachel@...

Subject: Evidence of Harm

movie

Hi, This is from Wisconsin.

I was wondering when will the movie come out? Will it be at certain theaters in

certain cities? I found out that Al Gore's movie " An Inconvenient

Truth " was in certain theaters in certain cities. It was not showing where

I am. I think Al Gore's movie would have the same reaction as the

" Evidence of Harm " movie will be. I believe that global warming is

real that CO2 is a big problem. Has anyone seen " An Inconvenient

Truth " ?

[Guest guest]

Al Gore in a hearbeat.

RE: Evidence of Harm movie

,

I think it takes quite a long time to make a film from beginning to end but it’s really exciting that the screen play will be done by the beginning of 2007. I saw An Inconvenient Truth and agree it’s fantastic. I also saw Al Gore on Oprah and one of the things he was talking about was the redistribution of water and how wild fires have really increased in certain areas. I thought at that moment how powerful together it would be with that speech with Al regarding this and the one with on how forest fires are where some of the worst amounts of mercury go up into the environment. It’s about time that the environment headed to the top of Politian’s lists rather than the bottom. I have said it before, I would still vote for Al in a second and think he would be a great advocate for all environmental causes including mercury.

-

From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of DachelSent: Friday, December 08, 2006 7:53 PMEOHarm Cc: jdachelmsnSubject: Evidence of Harm movie

Hi, This is from Wisconsin. I was wondering when will the movie come out? Will it be at certain theaters in certain cities? I found out that Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" was in certain theaters in certain cities. It was not showing where I am. I think Al Gore's movie would have the same reaction as the "Evidence of Harm" movie will be. I believe that global warming is real that CO2 is a big problem. Has anyone seen "An Inconvenient Truth"?

[Guest guest]

,

I did not see the movie, An Inconvenient Truth, but I did read the

book. Very powerful. I think that knowing about this " controversy "

in regards to mecury/vaccines made me freak out a bit more after

reading the book than the average Joe citizen might. I have seen

the bullsh*t, the cover-ups, the denial... I didn't need to imagine

that this could possibly happen on such a huge scale. On another

list that I am on, many in the group were suggesting that it was

impossible that such a thing could be happening, etc. So this one

genius sends out this article by this guy named Tom (a global

warming skeptic). He went on and on about how this guy knows the

truth, this guys seems to really know his stuff. It took me about 2

minutes to find out that they guy works for a lobbyist firm for

energy companies and has some associations with ExxonMobil. Then

someone else sent out a press release which looks pretty

professional:

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=77195

Looking closer though you see that the company issuing the press

release is funded by ExxonMobil. Great.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/

It's a crazy would we live in....

ps. An Inconvenient Truth is produced by the same company that is

going to be producing Evidence of Harm You can now get the movie

(An Inconveniet Truth) on DVD...

Sue M.

>

> Hi, This is from Wisconsin. I was wondering when will the

movie

come out? Will it be at certain theaters in certain cities? I found

out that Al Gore's movie " An Inconvenient Truth " was in certain

theaters in certain cities. It was not showing where I am. I think

Al

Gore's movie would have the same reaction as the " Evidence of Harm "

movie will be. I believe that global warming is real that CO2 is a

big

problem. Has anyone seen " An Inconvenient Truth " ?

>

>

[Guest guest]

I am going to buy this movie for our family. Some of my kids have seen it at school, but we have one who missed it, because he was off sick when it was being shown to his classmates. It is an important documentary, and I would love to have it on hand, to discuss with all of our kids. My youngest son's science teacher said that the students will be viewing this video in the near future, after "Day After Tomorrow". Strangely enough, we do have a copy of this movie at home, also. I can hardly wait to read about students' thoughts about these movies. Aasaceliacdaughter <suemisiaszek@...> wrote: , I did not see the movie, An Inconvenient Truth, but I did read the book. Very powerful. I think that knowing about this "controversy" in regards to mecury/vaccines made me freak out a bit more after reading the book than the average Joe citizen might. I have seen the bullsh*t, the cover-ups, the denial... I didn't need to imagine that this could possibly happen on such a huge scale. On another list that I am on, many in the group were suggesting that it was impossible that such a thing could be happening, etc. So this one genius sends out this article by this guy named Tom (a global warming skeptic). He went on and on about how this guy knows the truth, this guys seems to really know his stuff. It took me about 2 minutes to find out that they guy works for a lobbyist firm for energy

companies and has some associations with ExxonMobil. Then someone else sent out a press release which looks pretty professional:http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=77195Looking closer though you see that the company issuing the press release is funded by ExxonMobil. Great. http://www.exxonsecrets.org/ It's a crazy would we live in.... ps. An Inconvenient Truth is produced by the same company that is going to be producing Evidence of Harm You can now get the movie (An Inconveniet Truth) on DVD... Sue M. >> Hi, This is from Wisconsin. I was wondering when will the movie come out? Will it be at certain

theaters in certain cities? I found out that Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" was in certain theaters in certain cities. It was not showing where I am. I think Al Gore's movie would have the same reaction as the "Evidence of Harm" movie will be. I believe that global warming is real that CO2 is a big problem. Has anyone seen "An Inconvenient Truth"?> >

[Guest guest]

I find it hard to listen to Al Gore talk about the environment when

he's chartering flights all over the place and getting toted around in

limmos. When he starts taking mass transit I'll listen to him a little

more. I wonder if he takes the bus when he's in Nashville? I bet he

doesn't. Also, a lot of stuff he said on Oprah was pretty lame. What

person actively seeks out an energy-inefficient washer/dryer? Those

who can afford it get the best they can. Those who don't wouldn't have

the money anyway. I also found his thing about buying fresh trees

instead of artificial a bit questionable. I understand all about

emissions from making the trees, but I have 2 artificial trees I've

had for at least 15 years. I can't see over that period of time that

it's more pollution than the effects of hauling & cutting 30 Christmas

trees.

According to my chemistry class I just took that was nothing short of

a PSA that we're all about to die any day now from climate changes,

the air quality, except for a couple of regions, has improved over the

last 20 years pertaining to sulfur and nitrogen.

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp05/2005report.pdf The book I

used, " Chemistry In Context " also showed graphs of better air quality

regarding CO2 since around 1998.

Debi

[Guest guest]

The debate still rages on about the environmental issues. It is a real debate. Al Gore has somewhat hyped the issue, because there is a measure of hypocracy about some/much of the things he says, versus some of the things he does.

Notwithstanding that, on balance, his stance is supportable/desirable because, at the end of the day, we have 6+ billion people living on this planet with the Indian and Chinese and other third world economies exploding in growth as hundreds of millions of people move from an agrarian lifestyle to a more urban lifestyle with greater dependence on hydrocarbon based fuels for energy (note they are also moving very heavily into uranium based energy production).

At some point, the environmental balance tilts in a very bad direction. We are already moving in a bad direction. How far along we are on this path is clearly debatable, although inevitably, without modification, shit will hit the fan.

So, notwithstanding the clear hypocracy of Al Gore on some aspects of this issue- his message is a good/healthy one- because it will lead to a healthier environment (compared to the alternative), energy independence (movement toward uranium based electricity generation is inevitable and disconcerting here), greater security as we rely less on importing hydrocarbon based fuels from insecure/hostile nations, and new technology-based environmental science industries (think Bill Gates and the development of the personal computer in the late 1970's-early 1980's), which can fuel economic growth in a healthy direction. Al Gore's message is prescient even if personally hypocritical.

Note also that in this debate, it is a little disconcerting that much of the funding/grants for the groups which contend global warming is nonsense/ a hoax comes from oil interests and the Russians, who are now the world's biggest exporter of hydrocarbon based fuels and rely on those markets for much of their hard currency.

More unbiased research is called for.

Where will that come from?

I nominate the CDC.

Heh.

Re: Evidence of Harm movie

I find it hard to listen to Al Gore talk about the environment when he's chartering flights all over the place and getting toted around in limmos. When he starts taking mass transit I'll listen to him a little more. I wonder if he takes the bus when he's in Nashville? I bet he doesn't. Also, a lot of stuff he said on Oprah was pretty lame. What person actively seeks out an energy-inefficient washer/dryer? Those who can afford it get the best they can. Those who don't wouldn't have the money anyway. I also found his thing about buying fresh trees instead of artificial a bit questionable. I understand all about emissions from making the trees, but I have 2 artificial trees I've had for at least 15 years. I can't see over that period of time that it's more pollution than the effects of hauling & cutting 30 Christmas trees.According to my chemistry class I just took that was nothing short of a PSA that we're all about to die any day now from climate changes, the air quality, except for a couple of regions, has improved over the last 20 years pertaining to sulfur and nitrogen. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp05/2005report.pdf The book I used, "Chemistry In Context" also showed graphs of better air quality regarding CO2 since around 1998. Debi

[Guest guest]

Did you SEE " An Inconvenient Truth? " It's extremely persuasive. I was impressed

by the ice

core data on CO2 levels over the last 600,000 years... and the analysis of

global

temperatures over that time as well.

And you can't ignore the presentation on glacial ice loss. If this is ignored, I

find it

plausible that NYC and much of Florida will be flooded by the time our kids are

middle

aged.

>

> I find it hard to listen to Al Gore talk about the environment when

> he's chartering flights all over the place and getting toted around in

> limmos. When he starts taking mass transit I'll listen to him a little

> more. I wonder if he takes the bus when he's in Nashville? I bet he

> doesn't. Also, a lot of stuff he said on Oprah was pretty lame. What

> person actively seeks out an energy-inefficient washer/dryer? Those

> who can afford it get the best they can. Those who don't wouldn't have

> the money anyway. I also found his thing about buying fresh trees

> instead of artificial a bit questionable. I understand all about

> emissions from making the trees, but I have 2 artificial trees I've

> had for at least 15 years. I can't see over that period of time that

> it's more pollution than the effects of hauling & cutting 30 Christmas

> trees.

>

> According to my chemistry class I just took that was nothing short of

> a PSA that we're all about to die any day now from climate changes,

> the air quality, except for a couple of regions, has improved over the

> last 20 years pertaining to sulfur and nitrogen.

> http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp05/2005report.pdf The book I

> used, " Chemistry In Context " also showed graphs of better air quality

> regarding CO2 since around 1998.

>

> Debi

>

[Guest guest]

ROFL!

Debi

> More unbiased research is called for.

> Where will that come from?

>

> I nominate the CDC.

> Heh.

>

[Guest guest]

No I haven't seen it and don't plan on it. The last 300 pages of

chemistry text talking about global warming was enough to do me for a

while.

I don't ignore the presentation of global ice loss. I do argue that we

do not have definitive records of weather history over the course of

our world. Heck, they can't even agree on how old the world is, so how

can it be that we know. We've only been keeping definite weather

records for the last 100+ years. Sure we have written history

accounts, but that's about it. I do agree that we are polluters, and

we need to stop/significantly reduce our pollution. I just don't think

you can take a few pieces of data and equate it to death in a couple

of decades.

The best meteorologist I've ever heard, Joe Bastardi, has said our

current weather cycle is mimicking the 50-60s. There was also a big

industrial increase during that time. Can we equate the weather to

industrial increases based on 2 pieces of data? No, we just don't know

enough. It is said the Appalacians I live near were once under water.

Why are they so high now? It's certainly not because man was burning

us up with SOx & NOx production. Of course, if you're a believer in

the Great Flood that every society in the world has documented in

their history, that would explain it.

Be environmentally friendly yes, panick we're all going to burn to

death in a decade or 2, I'm just not ready to do.

Debi

>

> Did you SEE " An Inconvenient Truth? " It's extremely persuasive. I

was impressed by the ice

> core data on CO2 levels over the last 600,000 years... and the

analysis of global

> temperatures over that time as well.

>

> And you can't ignore the presentation on glacial ice loss. If this

is ignored, I find it

> plausible that NYC and much of Florida will be flooded by the time

our kids are middle

> aged.

>

[Guest guest]

AccuWeather: Science for Hire? http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Accu-Weather's_science_for_hireDebi <fightingautism@...> wrote: No I haven't seen it and don't plan on it. The last 300 pages ofchemistry text talking about global warming was enough to do me for awhile.I don't ignore the presentation of global ice loss. I do argue that wedo not have definitive

records of weather history over the course ofour world. Heck, they can't even agree on how old the world is, so howcan it be that we know. We've only been keeping definite weatherrecords for the last 100+ years. Sure we have written historyaccounts, but that's about it. I do agree that we are polluters, andwe need to stop/significantly reduce our pollution. I just don't thinkyou can take a few pieces of data and equate it to death in a coupleof decades.The best meteorologist I've ever heard, Joe Bastardi, has said ourcurrent weather cycle is mimicking the 50-60s. There was also a bigindustrial increase during that time. Can we equate the weather toindustrial increases based on 2 pieces of data? No, we just don't knowenough. It is said the Appalacians I live near were once under water.Why are they so high now? It's certainly not because man was burningus up with SOx & NOx production. Of course, if you're a

believer inthe Great Flood that every society in the world has documented intheir history, that would explain it.Be environmentally friendly yes, panick we're all going to burn todeath in a decade or 2, I'm just not ready to do. Debi>> Did you SEE "An Inconvenient Truth?" It's extremely persuasive. Iwas impressed by the ice > core data on CO2 levels over the last 600,000 years... and theanalysis of global > temperatures over that time as well.> > And you can't ignore the presentation on glacial ice loss. If thisis ignored, I find it > plausible that NYC and much of Florida will be flooded by the timeour kids are middle > aged.>

[Guest guest]

Debi-

It's best to use discernment when reading info. from textbooks published by large publishing companies. Info. does not become "fact" simply because it is published and purchased in large quantities for public consumption.

"Chemistry in Context" is published by McGraw-Hill. McGraw-Hill also owns Standards and Poors and BusinessWeek (think mainstream media). There is also a very long history with McGraw-Hill and the Bushes. Guess which publishing company is raking in the majority of the big bucks from state's high stakes tests for Bush's worthless No Child Left Behind Act?

I've linked just one source, but you should be able to search and find many more sources.

www.wsra.org/assets/pdf/NCLBOH.doc.pdf

>> I find it hard to listen to Al Gore talk about the environment when > he's chartering flights all over the place and getting toted around in > limmos. When he starts taking mass transit I'll listen to him a little > more. I wonder if he takes the bus when he's in Nashville? I bet he > doesn't. Also, a lot of stuff he said on Oprah was pretty lame. What > person actively seeks out an energy-inefficient washer/dryer? Those > who can afford it get the best they can. Those who don't wouldn't have > the money anyway. I also found his thing about buying fresh trees > instead of artificial a bit questionable. I understand all about > emissions from making the trees, but I have 2 artificial trees I've > had for at least 15 years. I can't see over that period of time that > it's more pollution than the effects of hauling & cutting 30 Christmas > trees.> > According to my chemistry class I just took that was nothing short of > a PSA that we're all about to die any day now from climate changes, > the air quality, except for a couple of regions, has improved over the > last 20 years pertaining to sulfur and nitrogen. > http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp05/2005report.pdf The book I > used, "Chemistry In Context" also showed graphs of better air quality > regarding CO2 since around 1998. > > Debi>

[Guest guest]

If you really want to get bummed out about what's in textbooks- read The Language Police by Diane Ravitch-how pressure groups restrict what students learn. Maurinesearchingforserenity111 <searchingforserenity111@...> wrote: Debi- It's best to use discernment when reading info. from textbooks published by large publishing companies. Info. does not become "fact" simply because it is published and purchased in large quantities for public consumption. "Chemistry in

Context" is published by McGraw-Hill. McGraw-Hill also owns Standards and Poors and BusinessWeek (think mainstream media). There is also a very long history with McGraw-Hill and the Bushes. Guess which publishing company is raking in the majority of the big bucks from state's high stakes tests for Bush's worthless No Child Left Behind Act? I've linked just one source, but you should be able to search and find many more sources. www.wsra.org/assets/pdf/NCLBOH.doc.pdf >> I find it hard to listen to Al Gore talk about the environment when > he's chartering flights all over the place and getting toted around in > limmos. When he starts taking mass transit I'll listen to him a little > more. I wonder if he takes

the bus when he's in Nashville? I bet he > doesn't. Also, a lot of stuff he said on Oprah was pretty lame. What > person actively seeks out an energy-inefficient washer/dryer? Those > who can afford it get the best they can. Those who don't wouldn't have > the money anyway. I also found his thing about buying fresh trees > instead of artificial a bit questionable. I understand all about > emissions from making the trees, but I have 2 artificial trees I've > had for at least 15 years. I can't see over that period of time that > it's more pollution than the effects of hauling & cutting 30 Christmas > trees.> > According to my chemistry class I just took that was nothing short of > a PSA that we're all about to die any day now from climate changes, > the air quality, except for a couple of regions, has improved over the > last 20 years pertaining to sulfur and nitrogen.

> http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp05/2005report.pdf The book I > used, "Chemistry In Context" also showed graphs of better air quality > regarding CO2 since around 1998. > > Debi>

Everyone is raving about the all-new beta.

[Guest guest]

DOn't worry, this book was anything but pro-Bush. This book really

put me off regarding the course. I think it's fine to try and use

real-life issues to help comprehension of coursework, but each

chapter was 3/4 global warming, 1/4 chemistry concept. I signed up

to take chemistry, not global warming. I'm very glad I'm taking

organic chemistry from a different program next semester.

Not that I'm glad to be taking organic chemistry, lol!

I spend a fair amount of my time each semester looking up " autism "

in the index then emailing the authors to complain about their

inaccuracies and ask them to contact the publisher to correct.

That's a lot of why I mention stuff I'm learning in school 'cause I

don't trust it much, lol.

Debi

>

>

> Debi-

>

> It's best to use discernment when reading info. from textbooks

published

> by large publishing companies. Info. does not become " fact " simply

> because it is published and purchased in large quantities for

public

> consumption.

>

> " Chemistry in Context " is published by McGraw-Hill. McGraw-Hill

also

> owns Standards and Poors and BusinessWeek (think mainstream media).

> There is also a very long history with McGraw-Hill and the Bushes.

Guess

> which publishing company is raking in the majority of the big

bucks from

> state's high stakes tests for Bush's worthless No Child Left

Behind Act?

>

> I've linked just one source, but you should be able to search and

find

> many more sources.

>

> www.wsra.org/assets/pdf/NCLBOH.doc.pdf

> <http://www.wsra.org/assets/pdf/NCLBOH.doc.pdf>

[Guest guest]

One of the worst was a sociology textbook I had. It was full of out

and out lies. I didn't even read it after chapter 2. Lol, still made

an A.

Debi

>

> If you really want to get bummed out about what's in textbooks- read

The Language Police by Diane Ravitch-how pressure groups restrict what

students learn.

> Maurine

>

[Guest guest]

I can forgive Al Gore the usage of fossil fuels in getting his message across because he is getting it across, finally ,and is causing a lot of debate and discussion which is what a healthy democracy should have . Opinions and ultimately behaviours may change in the US which is where it is needed most as they have one forth of the world population yet consume one quarter of the world resources!!!

You say nobody would deliberately buy a more energy inefficient washing machine, I wouldnt be so sure if it was sold as some sort of penile extension or status object to the masses they will do anything. Look at those idiots that drive round in Hummers and light up half their front yard with christmas lights whilst the Africans are dying of climate change induced starvation and the greenlanders are watching their way of life melt away.

What stupid ,gross, inefficient and inhumane waste of precious energy.

I do not regard the EPA as any sort of independant watchdog of environmental safety and would not believe anything they put out without a thorough vetting of scorce, motive, information etc . They are all about protection of the status quo much the same as the FDA in the health arena.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1128-05.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0823-03.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1202-01.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0829-02.htm

Regarding Al Gore,

This guy is trying to give you the only chance you are going to get to try and stabilise the future of your children and most likely yourself. i would start listening!!!

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1210-02.htm

Ange

Re: Evidence of Harm movie

I find it hard to listen to Al Gore talk about the environment when he's chartering flights all over the place and getting toted around in limmos. When he starts taking mass transit I'll listen to him a little more. I wonder if he takes the bus when he's in Nashville? I bet he doesn't. Also, a lot of stuff he said on Oprah was pretty lame. What person actively seeks out an energy-inefficient washer/dryer? Those who can afford it get the best they can. Those who don't wouldn't have the money anyway. I also found his thing about buying fresh trees instead of artificial a bit questionable. I understand all about emissions from making the trees, but I have 2 artificial trees I've had for at least 15 years. I can't see over that period of time that it's more pollution than the effects of hauling & cutting 30 Christmas trees.According to my chemistry class I just took that was nothing short of a PSA that we're all about to die any day now from climate changes, the air quality, except for a couple of regions, has improved over the last 20 years pertaining to sulfur and nitrogen. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cmprpt/arp05/2005report.pdf The book I used, "Chemistry In Context" also showed graphs of better air quality regarding CO2 since around 1998. Debi

[Guest guest]

Yeah, but we're talking about what's actually happening. People

(people without money, that is) don't go into Lowe's and look for a

washing machine that takes more water or more electricity. We look for

the cheapest machine that will use the least amount of utilities &

clean the most amount of clothing, 'cause we don't wanna pay more on

our utility bills.

As to Christmas lights, my burning Christmas tree lights has no effect

on the tribal governments of Africa hoarding HIV drugs for weapons

sales. <sigh> I wish it did, then I'd be able to do something to help.

My daughter with autism is named for my cousin who was a high-ranking

FDA employee who died of AIDS. There's nothing funny about AIDS,

that's for sure.

I've lived in TN my entire life. Al Gore not yet wanted to listen to

the problems that are effecting my kids, I seriously doubt the world

is about to implode or we're about to drown. I'll tell you what, if Al

Gore would meet with me for a couple of hrs to talk autism, I'd be the

first one to join in the fear tactics of global implosion. When he

starts talking autism, then I'll listen. He can present his message

more " carbon friendly " if he wants to, he just doesn't want to give up

the luxury of big house living, chartered flights, and limmo riding,

which is a big sign of a fraud.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1034077.cms

Read this one written back in the 1970's about how we're all about to

freeze to death.

http://www.time.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

What we do know is when more pollutants are released, the air quality

is worse. We know when the air quality is worse, people get sicker. We

need to clean our air quality so people don't get sicker. We don't

need the hype that we're all going to drown or freeze.

Debi

>

> I can forgive Al Gore the usage of fossil fuels in getting his

message across because he is getting it across, finally ,and is

causing a lot of debate and discussion which is what a healthy

democracy should have . Opinions and ultimately behaviours may change

in the US which is where it is needed most as they have one forth of

the world population yet consume one quarter of the world resources!!!

>

> You say nobody would deliberately buy a more energy inefficient

washing machine, I wouldnt be so sure if it was sold as some sort of

penile extension or status object to the masses they will do anything.

Look at those idiots that drive round in Hummers and light up half

their front yard with christmas lights whilst the Africans are dying

of climate change induced starvation and the greenlanders are watching

their way of life melt away.

>

> What stupid ,gross, inefficient and inhumane waste of precious energy.

>

> I do not regard the EPA as any sort of independant watchdog of

environmental safety and would not believe anything they put out

without a thorough vetting of scorce, motive, information etc . They

are all about protection of the status quo much the same as the FDA in

the health arena.

>

> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1128-05.htm

> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0823-03.htm

> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1202-01.htm

> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0829-02.htm

>

> Regarding Al Gore,

> This guy is trying to give you the only chance you are going to get

to try and stabilise the future of your children and most likely

yourself. i would start listening!!!

>

> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1210-02.htm

>

>

> Ange