Where does our money go?

Great Debates
1

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001113/hl/coffee_4.html

Somebody is spending our money, studying filtered coffee influence on heart. In people drinking 1 liter/day(?). I do not know how much Brazilians drink (Smartt!), but I’d rather studied them or Turks for coffee effects: larger numbers, more reliable tesults.

Dr. Schecter found large quantities of Agent Orange in Vietnamese, but no disease. To me it means that AO is safe, but Dr. S. wants more money. What do you think?

Vietnam expected to seek aid for Agent Orange crisis
By Keith Mulvihill
BOSTON, Nov 14 (Reuters Health) - Vietnam plans to ask the US government to help combat toxic levels of dioxin, a component of Agent Orange, that persists in the environment from its use during the Vietnam War, a researcher said here Monday.
New research has found that blood dioxin levels of some Vietnamese people living in contaminated areas are 135 times higher than previously thought, according to Dr. Arnold Schecter of the University of Texas at Dallas…

{Edited for copyright infringement. --Gaudere}
[Edited by Gaudere on 11-14-2000 at 10:36 PM]

2

[Moderator Hat ON]

peace, don’t post the full text of copyrighted articles; a link and MINOR excerpts will do. This is the second time I have warned you within a short time period. Don’t do it again.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

3

Kennedy recently got $85 million in the 2001 Defense Appropriations Bill for a trio of projects benefiting defense contractors in his congressional district. The biggest recipient was the Raytheon Corporation, including $14 million for the SPS-73 Surface Search Radar. This project was not wanted by the Pentagon.

The other projects, $24 million for cold weather gear and $3.7 million for medical research at Rhode Island Hospital, were “zeroed out”, which means that the Pentagon requested that they receive no funding, because they did not want them. He gave it to them anyhow.

While many legislators jack up the budget with projects benefiting their hometown businesses, Kennedy’s work deserves special observation because of his admission that the projects were to benefit these corporations, not America’s defense priorities. Nothing like a little corporate welfare here with someone else’s money. Then, he bragged about it.

Kennedy’s greed for pork is even more outrageous in a time when some enlisted men and women in our military must take food stamps to feed their families and our readiness capabilities are in question. While many lawmakers balance limited funds to create a military capable of protecting our country, Kennedy apparently would rather use the budget as a slush fund for his home-state corporate welfare.

High-dollar defense contractors in Rhode Island are certainly grateful for Kennedy’s patronage, taxpayers around the country should not be.

(Paraphrased from:)
http://www.cagw.org/mediacenter/porker/mc.porker.00-06.htm

Sen. Stevens (Alaska)received a $750,000 grant to study grasshoppers.

$500,000 snatched from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease Control, given to Research and Training for an Alaska aviation safety initiative.

$18.4 million for 6 transportation projects, including a $3 million Alaska Intelligent Transportation System.

$15 million from the Defense budget for the development of a supersonic business jet by Gulfstream Corporation.
Last year, Sen. Stevens managed to gain an average of $273 per person back to Alaska–and that’s for a popultion of no more than 614,000 people.

(Paraphrased from:)
http://www.cagw.org/mediacenter/porker/mc.porker.12-99.htm

4

I agree, Reboot, that much of our money is spent for nothing. All Kennedys can say and do whatever they want. I lived in Mass and know how local people feel about them. One lady said on TV: “I’ll vote for Kennedy. Such a nice guy.” Pretty typical. Rhode Island Hospital is half hour drive from Boston’s south suburbs, one hour from downtown Boston, many people from Mass work there.
I wish each bill sponsor was required to contribute 0.00001% of the bill cost of her/is personal money to the sponsored bill. It would sharply curb spending. Oh, dreams, sweet dreams…
I posted the above not as a prove of wastfull spending. Appropriating money for a defense project, etc. requires some level of expertise, insight, familiarity with frequently classified information. Even human fear of a potential enemy may be a contributing factor. I thought that in qouted examples no rational was apparent, no special expertise was required. Yes, perhaps coffee (and milk?) can have ill consequences if consumed more than one liter/day. Before studuing one-liter-a-day drinkers, look at Brazilians and Turks, who drink more than we do.
The levels of dioxan (Agent Orange) were 135.5 times higher in people living in sprayed regions 30 years after the war. Presumably, more dioxan was in their tissues 30 years ago. Yet no desease was reported. Does it mean that dioxan has not done any harm in them? Or something is hidden in both studies and I am unable to dig it? I would be very grateful to anyone who would point this to me.

5

In short: no, no & no. Dioxin is fat soluble and accumulates in the food chain, so as time goes by those higher up the chain can get more and more exposure. Also, there is a big difference between being exposed to something in the short term and being exposed over a long period.

From the World Health Organisation’s factsheet on Dioxins and Their Effects on Human Health (first page of a google search BTW):

6

You are absolutely right, Picmr. But I thought that 30 years is at least intermediate term exposure (what’ the average life-span of Vietnamese, anyway?). And I naively thought that, despite fat-solubility, accumulation in the food chain, getting more and more exposure and even with the presice knowlege of the big difference in short and long term exposure, the absence of any desease after 30 years of exposure to high levels demonstrates that there is no health hazard. Perhaps, it did not demonstrate that there is no political hazard.