@thanatokephaloides
tend to think alike. In fact great minds tend to be very quarrelsome with one another. Not infrequently, they even come to blows.

The way the People’s Temple cult, in fact any rotten cult, worked was that Jones was the Bringer of A Noble Mission. So he got his dick sucked and great cars and whatever he wanted when he wanted it. And his followers… and his followers…. got to indulge in harming others because “The Great Mission.”

To go all Transactional Analysis on you: It was a deal between Jones and his followers. “I provide you cover to indulge in bad things, and it’s all washed away in light of the great cause we serve together.” For some reason my mind drifts to the KKK and their mirror image Antifa at this point.

Mine drifts towards the "Prosperity Gospel" churches and Scientology; but other than that, as the ancient saying goes, "great minds think alike"!

@native

The dividing line between what is considered to be a Cult, and what is considered to be a Religion, is anything but clear-cut.

However, Isaac Bonewits made some giant strides in just that direction with his Cult Danger Evaluation Frame (the Advanced Cult Danger Evaluation Frame today), at least in my humble opinion. He systematized the analysis of the factors which make a belief system and its associated community into a dangerous cult, thus moving the discussion away from "a Cult is a belief system you don't like" and towards something with actual meaning.

and their various histories. I find them to be endlessly fascinating, and often a bit scary. The dividing line between what is considered to be a Cult, and what is considered to be a Religion, is anything but clear-cut. The number and variety of alternative "belief-systems" that have been, and still are, being successfully peddled to Americans is astounding. In many ways, we are a nation in search of Spiritual Truth. And we're not having a great deal of luck in finding it.

@Pluto's Republic

It is a monumental wasting of people's lives, unrivaled since the complete displacement and virtual extermination of the American Indian population in North America.

It’s more like ‘a torturing’, or ‘a brutalizing’ of people’s lives. It’s inhumane. It’s uncivilised and unmerciful.

Thank you Pluto, for articulating the essential nature of the unfortunate side of life.

"Help the poor. Help the suffering, Be decent. Be kind. Leave people better than you found them."

We know these things. People have been writing about these values for five thousand years, and probably talking about it from the dawn of consciousness. Prehistoric grave sites tell us that care and kindness was already here when homo sapiens arrived. Sentience probably cannot even evolve in a species without inherent altruism.

All humans are born into communism. It takes 20 years of communal sharing, across society, to build a good adult, and during that time, the maturing human must be supported, nurtured, sacrificed for, and invested in. Thus, humans have always grouped cooperatively into tribes or societies, where work sharing and communal resources made them secure and resilient. I imagine the individuals involved felt both personally complete and also part of something big.

During the 100-thousand-years' migration to populate the planet — "Be decent. Be kind. Care for others." was probably just another instinct related to the complex system of survival. As you say, Jim, it's not complicated. Helping others makes things better. Self-interest is always served when the group benefits from having its weak spots strengthened.

But then it started malfunctioning. The instinct for survival is out-of-order.

Capitalism, a very recent arrival, is probably the culprit. Everything got monetized, from a sip of water to a slightly better view. Even caring and kindness became commodities. The environment became a zero sum pursuit. Grab as much as you can or someone else will get it and have more than you. The world is grossly overpopulated and it's resource scarce in the extreme. The distribution of goods is radically unequal. The harder you work the less you are valued. Most people do not feel secure whether they are on the grid or off; plugged in or unplugged. Without very tight regulation, capitalism becomes a cannibal. When unregulated or monopolized, it is fully predatory in the moment, until there is nothing left.

I think people know they are not part of something big, anymore. They sense they are among the throwaway people, the discards. I'm not sure tough love helps:

...There’s this spate of self-induced suffering upon hearing something ugly... It springs from the well of early childhood when one cries to get people around them to do, or not do, something. Babies can’t run the world.

Being an adult requires facing hard things; that most of the world isn’t really interested in how anyone feels. Life brings objective and difficult choices to make. Being an adult comes from exercising the “conscience” muscle; not the “what about me?” reflex.

I think people feel pinned by a looming unfairness coming their way, even if their complaints are small and self-absorbed. It's likely that their lives are being wasted. They have scant security in the fact that they are American because they are estranged from their government. And they know what their government is capable of: Last year a record 65.6 million people around the world were displaced, forced from their homes. Many are now stateless with no right to any help or nurturing, anywhere. The US is responsible for most of this via its military and by a foreign policy of economic harm through sanctions. In addition, special operations were deployed in 124 countries last year in the interests of Empire. The majority of the displaced and refugees come from places that the US has destabilized. It is a monumental wasting of people's lives, unrivaled since the complete displacement and virtual extermination of the American Indian population in North America.

They say that people under 55 vote their hopes, and people over 55 vote their fears. The victims are the youngest generations, who must live with the consequences of those fearful votes. The voters who consigned the young to their destiny, the one's who borrowed their against their futures indenturing them — they will be dead. I suppose we should have bracketed the ages of the voters with more consideration. The votes of those who have the greatest number of years ahead of them should count for more than the votes of those who are soon to leave. Not that there is anything to vote for that rights the wrongs. They say that if it changed anything, it wouldn't be on the ballot.

[edit: Last paragraph, completed thought on generational sovereignty.]

@Pluto's Republic Excellent comment, Pluto.

"Help the poor. Help the suffering, Be decent. Be kind. Leave people better than you found them."

We know these things. People have been writing about these values for five thousand years, and probably talking about it from the dawn of consciousness. Prehistoric grave sites tell us that care and kindness was already here when homo sapiens arrived. Sentience probably cannot even evolve in a species without inherent altruism.

All humans are born into communism. It takes 20 years of communal sharing, across society, to build a good adult, and during that time, the maturing human must be supported, nurtured, sacrificed for, and invested in. Thus, humans have always grouped cooperatively into tribes or societies, where work sharing and communal resources made them secure and resilient. I imagine the individuals involved felt both personally complete and also part of something big.

During the 100-thousand-years' migration to populate the planet — "Be decent. Be kind. Care for others." was probably just another instinct related to the complex system of survival. As you say, Jim, it's not complicated. Helping others makes things better. Self-interest is always served when the group benefits from having its weak spots strengthened.

But then it started malfunctioning. The instinct for survival is out-of-order.

Capitalism, a very recent arrival, is probably the culprit. Everything got monetized, from a sip of water to a slightly better view. Even caring and kindness became commodities. The environment became a zero sum pursuit. Grab as much as you can or someone else will get it and have more than you. The world is grossly overpopulated and it's resource scarce in the extreme. The distribution of goods is radically unequal. The harder you work the less you are valued. Most people do not feel secure whether they are on the grid or off; plugged in or unplugged. Without very tight regulation, capitalism becomes a cannibal. When unregulated or monopolized, it is fully predatory in the moment, until there is nothing left.

I think people know they are not part of something big, anymore. They sense they are among the throwaway people, the discards. I'm not sure tough love helps:

...There’s this spate of self-induced suffering upon hearing something ugly... It springs from the well of early childhood when one cries to get people around them to do, or not do, something. Babies can’t run the world.

Being an adult requires facing hard things; that most of the world isn’t really interested in how anyone feels. Life brings objective and difficult choices to make. Being an adult comes from exercising the “conscience” muscle; not the “what about me?” reflex.

I think people feel pinned by a looming unfairness coming their way, even if their complaints are small and self-absorbed. It's likely that their lives are being wasted. They have scant security in the fact that they are American because they are estranged from their government. And they know what their government is capable of: Last year a record 65.6 million people around the world were displaced, forced from their homes. Many are now stateless with no right to any help or nurturing, anywhere. The US is responsible for most of this via its military and by a foreign policy of economic harm through sanctions. In addition, special operations were deployed in 124 countries last year in the interests of Empire. The majority of the displaced and refugees come from places that the US has destabilized. It is a monumental wasting of people's lives, unrivaled since the complete displacement and virtual extermination of the American Indian population in North America.

They say that people under 55 vote their hopes, and people over 55 vote their fears. The victims are the youngest generations, who must live with the consequences of those fearful votes. The voters who consigned the young to their destiny, the one's who borrowed their against their futures indenturing them — they will be dead. I suppose we should have bracketed the ages of the voters with more consideration. The votes of those who have the greatest number of years ahead of them should count for more than the votes of those who are soon to leave. Not that there is anything to vote for that rights the wrongs. They say that if it changed anything, it wouldn't be on the ballot.

[edit: Last paragraph, completed thought on generational sovereignty.]

@Pluto's Republic

"Help the poor. Help the suffering, Be decent. Be kind. Leave people better than you found them."

We know these things. People have been writing about these values for five thousand years, and probably talking about it from the dawn of consciousness. Prehistoric grave sites tell us that care and kindness was already here when homo sapiens arrived. Sentience probably cannot even evolve in a species without inherent altruism.

1. So go fuck yourself, Ayn Rand!
2. Five thousand years? A trifle. Fucking lions, wolves and meerkats (among others), species far older than ours, show altruism to their own. Therefore:
3. See Item 1, above.

And you're right: sentience probably cannot even evolve in a species without inherent altruism.

"Help the poor. Help the suffering, Be decent. Be kind. Leave people better than you found them."

We know these things. People have been writing about these values for five thousand years, and probably talking about it from the dawn of consciousness. Prehistoric grave sites tell us that care and kindness was already here when homo sapiens arrived. Sentience probably cannot even evolve in a species without inherent altruism.

All humans are born into communism. It takes 20 years of communal sharing, across society, to build a good adult, and during that time, the maturing human must be supported, nurtured, sacrificed for, and invested in. Thus, humans have always grouped cooperatively into tribes or societies, where work sharing and communal resources made them secure and resilient. I imagine the individuals involved felt both personally complete and also part of something big.

During the 100-thousand-years' migration to populate the planet — "Be decent. Be kind. Care for others." was probably just another instinct related to the complex system of survival. As you say, Jim, it's not complicated. Helping others makes things better. Self-interest is always served when the group benefits from having its weak spots strengthened.

But then it started malfunctioning. The instinct for survival is out-of-order.

Capitalism, a very recent arrival, is probably the culprit. Everything got monetized, from a sip of water to a slightly better view. Even caring and kindness became commodities. The environment became a zero sum pursuit. Grab as much as you can or someone else will get it and have more than you. The world is grossly overpopulated and it's resource scarce in the extreme. The distribution of goods is radically unequal. The harder you work the less you are valued. Most people do not feel secure whether they are on the grid or off; plugged in or unplugged. Without very tight regulation, capitalism becomes a cannibal. When unregulated or monopolized, it is fully predatory in the moment, until there is nothing left.

I think people know they are not part of something big, anymore. They sense they are among the throwaway people, the discards. I'm not sure tough love helps:

...There’s this spate of self-induced suffering upon hearing something ugly... It springs from the well of early childhood when one cries to get people around them to do, or not do, something. Babies can’t run the world.

Being an adult requires facing hard things; that most of the world isn’t really interested in how anyone feels. Life brings objective and difficult choices to make. Being an adult comes from exercising the “conscience” muscle; not the “what about me?” reflex.

I think people feel pinned by a looming unfairness coming their way, even if their complaints are small and self-absorbed. It's likely that their lives are being wasted. They have scant security in the fact that they are American because they are estranged from their government. And they know what their government is capable of: Last year a record 65.6 million people around the world were displaced, forced from their homes. Many are now stateless with no right to any help or nurturing, anywhere. The US is responsible for most of this via its military and by a foreign policy of economic harm through sanctions. In addition, special operations were deployed in 124 countries last year in the interests of Empire. The majority of the displaced and refugees come from places that the US has destabilized. It is a monumental wasting of people's lives, unrivaled since the complete displacement and virtual extermination of the American Indian population in North America.

They say that people under 55 vote their hopes, and people over 55 vote their fears. The victims are the youngest generations, who must live with the consequences of those fearful votes. The voters who consigned the young to their destiny, the one's who borrowed their against their futures indenturing them — they will be dead. I suppose we should have bracketed the ages of the voters with more consideration. The votes of those who have the greatest number of years ahead of them should count for more than the votes of those who are soon to leave. Not that there is anything to vote for that rights the wrongs. They say that if it changed anything, it wouldn't be on the ballot.

[edit: Last paragraph, completed thought on generational sovereignty.]

@Pluto's Republic

Since most unaware humans find it impossible to understand the invisible and dangerous mental handicap of psychopaths, missing as they are the capacity for humanity and viewing others as lesser to themselves in every way, their skill at facile and often-highly-convincing lying, ruthlessness, lack of empathy and conscience has too often enabled them to overpower those less physically strong or prepared for any such alien and destructively selfish viewpoint, to claw their way into power positions over others and to alter cultures into a pathological state to better suit themselves.

A link from one of Creosote's recent comments:

https://cassiopaea.org/cass/political_ponerology_lobaczewski_2.htm

Political Ponerology: A Science on The Nature of Evil adjusted for Political Purposes
by Andrew M. Lobaczewski
with commentary and additional quoted material
by Laura Knight-Jadczyk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8SVyHS3jZU

Dacher Keltner - Survival of the Kindest
The Mind Science Foundation

We would never have survived as a species without empathy and compassion. The psychopath takes advantage of what s/he regards as a weakness in normal humans and destroys what s/he cannot understand, being incapable of realizing that s/he might possibly suffer from the results of his/her own 'brilliant' actions.

"Help the poor. Help the suffering, Be decent. Be kind. Leave people better than you found them."

We know these things. People have been writing about these values for five thousand years, and probably talking about it from the dawn of consciousness. Prehistoric grave sites tell us that care and kindness was already here when homo sapiens arrived. Sentience probably cannot even evolve in a species without inherent altruism.

All humans are born into communism. It takes 20 years of communal sharing, across society, to build a good adult, and during that time, the maturing human must be supported, nurtured, sacrificed for, and invested in. Thus, humans have always grouped cooperatively into tribes or societies, where work sharing and communal resources made them secure and resilient. I imagine the individuals involved felt both personally complete and also part of something big.

During the 100-thousand-years' migration to populate the planet — "Be decent. Be kind. Care for others." was probably just another instinct related to the complex system of survival. As you say, Jim, it's not complicated. Helping others makes things better. Self-interest is always served when the group benefits from having its weak spots strengthened.

But then it started malfunctioning. The instinct for survival is out-of-order.

Capitalism, a very recent arrival, is probably the culprit. Everything got monetized, from a sip of water to a slightly better view. Even caring and kindness became commodities. The environment became a zero sum pursuit. Grab as much as you can or someone else will get it and have more than you. The world is grossly overpopulated and it's resource scarce in the extreme. The distribution of goods is radically unequal. The harder you work the less you are valued. Most people do not feel secure whether they are on the grid or off; plugged in or unplugged. Without very tight regulation, capitalism becomes a cannibal. When unregulated or monopolized, it is fully predatory in the moment, until there is nothing left.

I think people know they are not part of something big, anymore. They sense they are among the throwaway people, the discards. I'm not sure tough love helps:

...There’s this spate of self-induced suffering upon hearing something ugly... It springs from the well of early childhood when one cries to get people around them to do, or not do, something. Babies can’t run the world.

Being an adult requires facing hard things; that most of the world isn’t really interested in how anyone feels. Life brings objective and difficult choices to make. Being an adult comes from exercising the “conscience” muscle; not the “what about me?” reflex.

I think people feel pinned by a looming unfairness coming their way, even if their complaints are small and self-absorbed. It's likely that their lives are being wasted. They have scant security in the fact that they are American because they are estranged from their government. And they know what their government is capable of: Last year a record 65.6 million people around the world were displaced, forced from their homes. Many are now stateless with no right to any help or nurturing, anywhere. The US is responsible for most of this via its military and by a foreign policy of economic harm through sanctions. In addition, special operations were deployed in 124 countries last year in the interests of Empire. The majority of the displaced and refugees come from places that the US has destabilized. It is a monumental wasting of people's lives, unrivaled since the complete displacement and virtual extermination of the American Indian population in North America.

They say that people under 55 vote their hopes, and people over 55 vote their fears. The victims are the youngest generations, who must live with the consequences of those fearful votes. The voters who consigned the young to their destiny, the one's who borrowed their against their futures indenturing them — they will be dead. I suppose we should have bracketed the ages of the voters with more consideration. The votes of those who have the greatest number of years ahead of them should count for more than the votes of those who are soon to leave. Not that there is anything to vote for that rights the wrongs. They say that if it changed anything, it wouldn't be on the ballot.

[edit: Last paragraph, completed thought on generational sovereignty.]

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

But the problem is that that guy you talked to on the web was not the problem.

The problem was his boss' boss' boss' boss' boss.

I don't know what framing would be appropriate for psychopaths like that guy.

A gallows, perhaps?

had no problem doing that, back in the day. You feel better when I call it carbon pollution? No problem! You'd rather hear about how it's giving little kids asthma than how it's going to render the planet uninhabitable for more than 1/2 billion people? No problem!

But the problem is that that guy you talked to on the web was not the problem.

The problem was his boss' boss' boss' boss' boss.

I don't know what framing would be appropriate for psychopaths like that guy.

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal @Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

Industrial pollution is destroying human and environmental health and literally killing the planet, nearly all of this directly due to profiteering industry itself, rather than consumers. Carbon pollution is only one aspect of this, but we almost never hear about the rest anymore - because it's 'cost-saving' for giant corporations, even if at the cost of everyone else's health and lives.

There is no longer any place on Earth which is pristine and devoid of industrial pollution. Sea-bird shit has long been toxic because sea life has been so loaded with industrially-produced toxins, (we did hear years back about the accumulated level of mercury in larger fish restricting the amount considered safe to eat weekly, but not much about the myriad others) as is much of everything on sold ground. Yet there is no mention of how this damages and ultimately destroys the ecology, acidifies water and soil, of how many per hundred thousand people can be expected to sicken/lose function//die prematurely due to exposures to each and every separate toxic mineral/chemical (don't think it's officially estimated anymore, at least not where accessible on the internet, as it once was some years back, although I've also not looked for some years now) and never any idea as to what ongoing environmentally occurring petrochemical combinations may produce by way of previously unknown chemicals or of what diseases/disorders they might produce, because there are too many potential combinations, which are too numerous and constant, and constantly changing as new chemicals/mixtures enter the market and environment.

Although money can be made from hazardous waste by polluting industry, while introducing toxic/hazardous waste packaged and sold as fertilizer directly into the soil/food/water supply, this including home gardens, lawns and parks where children play in what sometimes is discovered to be, for example, dioxin-soaked soil, once symptoms and sources are investigated. This saves on corporate costs, thereby increasing profits for them.

(Bolding mine)
http://www.pirg.org/toxics/reports/wastelands/

WASTE LANDS: THE THREAT OF TOXIC FERTILIZER

Report by
Matthew Shaffer,
Toxics Policy Advocate
CALPIRG Charitable Trust
The State PIRGs

May 3, 2001

Download the Report || Executive Summary
Press Release || U.S. PIRG

Executive Summary

The recycling of hazardous industrial wastes into fertilizers introduces several dozen toxic metals and chemicals into the nation's farm, lawn and garden soils, including such well-known toxic substances as lead and mercury. Many crops and plants extract these toxic metals from the soil, increasing the chance of impacts on human health as crops and plants enter the food supply chain. This report documents the highly toxic substances found by testing fertilizers, as well as the strict regulations needed to protect humans and the environment from these toxic hazards.

Between 1990 and 1995, 600 companies from 44 different states sent 270 million pounds of toxic waste to farms and fertilizer companies across the country. 1 The steel industry provided 30% of this waste. Used for its high levels of zinc, which is an essential nutrient for plant growth, steel industry wastes can include lead, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, nickel and dioxin, among other toxic substances. Although the industrial facilities that generate these toxic wastes report the amount of chemicals they transfer off-site to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) Toxics Release Inventory every year, they only report the total amount of a given chemical contained in wastes transferred over the course of a year, making it difficult to determine the chemical make-up of a given waste shipment.

With little monitoring of the toxics contained in fertilizers and fertilizer labels that do not list toxic substances, our food supply and our health are at risk.

TESTED FERTILIZERS CONTAIN HARMFUL TOXIC METALS
California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) Charitable Trust and Washington’s Safe Food and Fertilizer tested 29 fertilizers from 12 states 2 for 22 toxic metals. This report documents the results of these fertilizer samples, demonstrates that the problem of toxic fertilizers is widespread, and details concerns with proposed regulations for the practice.

Twenty-nine tested fertilizers contained twenty-two toxic heavy metals. These metals are linked to either ecological or human health hazards. Most noticeable is the wide array of toxic metals that exist in fertilizers. ...

... All commercial fertilizers made from recycled materials such as hazardous wastes, and produced for the general public’s use are subject to the federal Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs). 3 Land disposal restriction standards, which are levels of concern that are limits for keeping hazardous wastes from leaching from a lined landfill, exist for thirteen of the twenty-two metals for which we tested. 4 Land disposal standards do not protect human health and the environment. While exceeding these levels of concern is not an indication that a fertilizer has violated the law, such exceedences indicate that some tested fertilizers have the potential to violate federal regulations.

Twenty fertilizers tested higher than levels of concern. One fertilizer, The Andersons 0-0-0, 36% Zinc (from Michigan) exceeded six levels of concern. It also contained the highest levels of antimony, cadmium, chromium, nickel, silver and lead of any fertilizer we tested and the second highest levels of beryllium, selenium and mercury. In all, the twenty fertilizers exceed levels of concern for nine toxic heavy metals. The most frequently exceeded levels of concern were for cadmium, chromium and vanadium.

These results indicate that fertilizers often contain high levels of harmful toxic metals that exceed levels of concern and could violate federal law.

Labeling is inadequate. Because fertilizer labeling laws only require beneficial nutrients, like zinc or phosphate, to be listed, fertilizers are sold directly to the public and farmers without warnings or information that informs consumers about the presence and quantity of toxic metals. Also, there is no indication on fertilizer labels as to whether or not the fertilizers we tested have been further treated to meet federal land disposal standards. ...

... TOXIC FERTILIZERS THREATEN AGRICULTURAL SOILS, FOOD SAFETY AND WATERWAYS
As demonstrated in this report, the tested fertilizers contain toxic substances at high levels. These substances can accumulate in agricultural soils, become available for plant uptake, and run off into waterways.

AGRICULTURAL SOIL QUALITY
Farming, especially single-crop farming, requires consistent and dependable soil conditions. The introduction to farm soils of toxic substances like lead and cadmium can adversely affect growing conditions and result in increased toxic accumulation as these metals are highly persistent in soils. This can negatively affect critical growing requirements, such as soil acidity or the solubility of beneficial metals like zinc in the soils.

PLANT UPTAKE
Some crops are more likely than others to absorb non-nutrient toxic substances from soils. For example, fruits and grains can absorb lead, and lettuce, corn and wheat can absorb cadmium from soils. 6 This means that our food supply is at risk of contamination by toxic substances that could threaten human health.

WATER QUALITY
The overall health of the nation’s waterways has declined dramatically over the last quarter-century. Forty percent of our rivers, lakes, and estuaries are still too polluted for safe fishing or swimming 7 . Agricultural runoff is a common cause of waterway pollution. A 1998 U.S. EPA report found that metals are the second most common pollutants found in lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and estuaries. In fact, agriculture is the industry most responsible for lake pollution. 8 The introduction of toxic substances from fertilizers to agricultural environments will only add to their concentrations in waterways that state and federal agencies are working to make safe for fishing and swimming.

MISGUIDED POLICIES AND TOXIC LOOPHOLES

Labeling is inadequate. Fertilizer labeling laws do not require listing toxic metals like lead, cadmium and chromium that are not essential to plant and crop growth. Without listing all the ingredients present in fertilizers, consumers cannot make decisions that will protect their soils, crops and plants, or their health.

Existing standards for toxic metals in fertilizers are inadequate for protecting our soils, crops, plants, water, air and health. All commercial fertilizers made from recycled materials, such as hazardous wastes, and produced for the general public’s use are subject to the federal Land Disposal Restrictions. 9 10 The U.S. EPA’s federal Land Disposal Restrictions, which are applied to zinc fertilizers 11 that contain toxic waste, are intended to ensure that toxic substances are properly treated before the waste is disposed of in heavily regulated, lined landfills. Land Disposal Restriction standards are technology-based standards, which means that they are designed to predict the ability of a hazardous waste to leach from these landfills.

These standards are not risk- or health-based standards. Using these standards for fertilizers can result in unacceptable health risks because of unanticipated uptake by plants, migration of toxic substances to groundwater more easily than would occur from a lined landfill, generation of airborne dusts, or exposure to humans, including children and farmworkers. Land Disposal Restrictions are inadequate for regulating the application of hazardous wastes, via fertilizers, to farms, lawns and gardens or for use as animal feed.

As hazardous wastes continue to burden regulatory agencies, municipalities, and the industries that generate them, regulators are under increasing pressure to find ways to treat, handle, and dispose of wastes. U.S. EPA encourages the reuse and recycling of industrial wastes, including hazardous wastes, as a way of handling increasing waste quantities, when such wastes can be used as substitutes for virgin, raw materials. 12

Unfortunately, the recycling of hazardous wastes into fertilizer products does not always include the process of treatment or cleaning of hazardous waste, but rather dilution of the waste. Dilution involves adding substances to a waste to reduce the concentration of toxic substances that are present in the waste. Dilution does not reduce the toxicity of the hazardous constituents. 13 Federal law specifically prohibits dilution as a form of treatment. 14 ...

Thanks to NAFTA, this particular form of profitable polluting industry poisoning, rather than having to pay for sealed (if short-term) containment of such hazards, was made 'legal' in Canada as well.

But I feel that even just this one little aspect demonstrates the degree of concern for human and environmental health among the Psychopaths and Parasites That Be and the degree of cover-up and distraction necessary to cover for a continuous and accumulating poisoning-for-additional-profit of planetary life, now undergoing a massive and snowballing die-off rate far faster than previously realized in this current anti-science and pro censorship corporate/billionaire-controlled regimes.

And my computer's back to repeatedly claiming that it can't find the server at DuckDuckGo to let me look up anything till remaining on the net about the dioxin poisoning of children playing on hazardous-waste fertilizer-poisoned park and lawn soil in the US...

Going to see if this much will post...

And edited for a mangled word and letter-typo after a lengthy wait. My poor computer, lol.

had no problem doing that, back in the day. You feel better when I call it carbon pollution? No problem! You'd rather hear about how it's giving little kids asthma than how it's going to render the planet uninhabitable for more than 1/2 billion people? No problem!

But the problem is that that guy you talked to on the web was not the problem.

The problem was his boss' boss' boss' boss' boss.

I don't know what framing would be appropriate for psychopaths like that guy.