2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

This discussion is largely missing the point. The arguments that offering a tax credit will help people is a scam. The truth is a person like the lady with the brain bleed will likely be unable to even get insurance. She is shut out of the system because the insurance companies know they will never make money off of her.

The only way to fix teh problem is have government sponsered care, so ALL people have a chance to receive care. Rather than offer a tax credit, use money to fund a national program. This would eliminate the cost issue as well because the government could negotiate with healthcare providers for the best price because the government would collectively negotiate for everyone. In other words, if the healthcare providers don't reduce thier price they would be out all together.

Its the same technique the PPO and HMO employ, but it would be on a much larger scale, and their wouldn't be someone in the middle milking the system for a profit.

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context

I gained some weight as a result of smoking cigarettes years ago. When I quit cold turkey, I was 180 pounds. To help me quit I started running and riding my bike to keep me moving. I did this because I typically smoked when I was relaxing at home. I also did not change my eating habits at all. In spite of normal diet and extra exercise I still gained 60 pounds. Since quitting it seems like my weight has stabilized but I can't seem to lose the extra pounds. My dad who shares my same body type had the same thing happen to him. He eventually fell off the wagon and has started smoking again. As a smoker he was bragging about losing weight and being 180 lbs again. To me the choice seems like a choice between smoker or overweight. So i find it frustrating. Its not always a matter of exercise and diet and I think people don't really understand that.

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context

One problem I see with the cap and trade approach is that although target carbon levels will be held uniform across the region, the result will be localized air problems as opposed to regional problems.

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

I am always surprised by the degree of skepticism regarding scientific literature. The sole purpose of peer reviewed journals is to ensure the integrity of the science itself. The peer review process is designed specifically to eliminate bias and propaganda. Articles published in peer reviewed journals are reviewed anonymously by multiple scientists to ensure the validity and scientific integrity of the study. That said you still get people like the oyster farmer in Willapa Bay arguing against this sea of knowledge. As an ecologist I am receptive to contradictory evidence. If two scientific studies run contradictory it is imperative to question the validity of both. In the case of the ecological threat of Spartina or in the environmental threats of treatments, there is no sound scientific reasoning to question their validity. If you doubt these claims simply examine the arguments that the oyster farmer from Willapa Bay cites. Each of these accounts are based on speculation and anecdotal accounts rather than factual support. Just because your opinions differ from the overwhelming scientific evidence does not mean that all scientists and organizations that adopt that opinion have ulterior motives or are operating some propaganda machine. The truth is much simpler. The arguments and actions of the oyster farmer in Willapa Bay are not based on facts but are the personal misgivings of one man against a sea of evidence against him.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

The deleterious effect of invasive [i]Spartina[/i] on shorebirds and other wildlife has so much evidence that it is no longer even under debate. I cannot see how Steve Herman can justify his position that [i]Spartina[/i] doesn't harm waterfowl. Just do a Google Scholar search for "[i]Spartina[/i]" and "shorebirds" and you will find 1,280 entries on the topic. Many of these articles are peer-reviewed and they paint a clear picture that invasive [i]Spartina[/i] harms shorebirds. Steve Herman's contention that [i]Spartina[/i] does not adversely effect shorebirds is indefensible and an outright fabrication. I realize that OPB sought out Steve Herman for the sake of debate, but the debate is over and the evidence is overwhelming.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

The sad part is that just growing it on your property doesn't mean your not spreading it. Birds eat the berries of ivy and void the seeds in distant locations. This is how the species disperses. Even if you think that your keeping it your yard, your spreading seeds on the wings of birds.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Sam Chan or Tania Siemens are good candidates, but I am sure you are aware of these folks already since Sam was featured on the Silent Invasions. Other good guests would be Mandy Tu from the Nature Conservancy, Vern Holm from the Northwest Weed Management Partnership,or Dan Hilburn from ODA.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

First let me express that I am extremely pleased to have OPB and Think Out Loud cover the issue of invasive species. I am a professional weed ecologist, and am intimately familiar with invasive species issues here in Oregon.

I am always troubled when otherwise reasonable folks express reservations about controlling invasive species. Whether it be due to herbicide concerns or some other guttural response, the simple fact is that invasive species are one of the most destructive forms of [i]pollution[/i]. Invasive species are analogous to an oil slick or a toxic waste spill, but with the added threat of being able to increase in size. Imagine an oil spill that not only spreads but actually converts water into more oil. This is reality of invasive species.

Plants and animals are killed by invasive species. People lose their land and livelihoods to invasive species, and the result is an Oregon that less "Oregon-like". When people think of invasive species, they might think of a dandelion, or some other garden weed. The reality is much more ominous. We are looking at weeds that disrupt entire ecosystems. Ivy and Kudzu destroy entire forests. Starthistle, Pepperweed, or Cheatgrass can convert prairie and grasslands into ecological deserts with no value to plants, animals, or humans. Inaction is simply not an option.

Now the problem with many of the ominous invaders is that there is no sure fire methodology for eradication. Ecologists use techniques like burning, digging, mowing, and pulling whenever possible. Unfortunately with some species these are not effective strategies. With these problematic species, often the only effective technique is herbicides.

Now I am sympathetic to the gentleman in Willipa Bay that is concerned about the toxicity of the herbicide. I would would be weary about spraying any chemical on my property, but the herbicide that is used on [i]Spartina[/i] has a very low toxicity. Specifically it has an LD50 (Lethal Dose of 50%) of 5000 mg/kg. For comparison table salt is more toxic at a LD50 of 3750 mg/kg. When you stop to consider that there is roughly 35,000 mg of salt per liter of saltwater, you will recognize that the saltwater itself is toxic. Now I am certain that that gentleman doesn't worry about the salt shaker at the dinner table or the incoming tides washing over his oyster beds. The sad truth is that people are fearful of what they don't understand.

Unfortunately the gentleman in Willipa Bay hasn't taken the time to educate himself. Now, I am not out to sell herbicides or boost profits for some company. My only concern is in preserving the biodiversity and ecological integrity of the Pacific Northwest, and the actions taken at Willipa Bay are top notch and based on sound science. It is a real success story amongst a myriad of oversights and failures. It is just sad to see people trying to undermine the efforts of folks at Willipa Bay to stop the colonization of invasive [i]Spartina[/i].





LD50 references
[url]http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Maintenance/pdf/imazapyr.pdf[/url]
[url]http://www.aces.edu/pubs/docs/A/ANR-0846/[/url]

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context