People for the West -Tucson

Newsletter, September, 2019

PO Box 86868, Tucson, AZ 85754-6868


Real environmentalism can go hand in hand with natural resource production, private property rights, and access to public lands



Interesting Stats on Gun Violence

(H/T William McKillop)

Main takeaway: Every place that has banned guns (either all guns or all handguns) has seen murder rates go up.

[Note to readers: This information, received via email, is posted on several websites (here for instance), but I could not find the original source. The statistics are attributed to the research of Dr. John Lott , who is a noted expert on gun laws and statistics, a professor, Fox News contributor, and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. I have made some edits to the original email.]

There are about 30,000 gun related deaths per year. The U.S. population is 324,059,091. Do the math: 0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.

15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.

17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.

3% are accidental discharge deaths.

So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many?

Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.

480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago

344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore

333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit

119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C.

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So, if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assaults are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?

40,000+ die from a drug overdose.

36,000 people die per year from the flu.

34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities.

200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!

710,000 people die per year from heart disease.

So, what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.).

A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides. So, you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns?

It’s pretty simple:

Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace. Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So, the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.” ☼

From the Crime Prevention Research Center: Murders in US are very concentrated: 54% of US counties in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders.” Read the article and see the maps on distribution of murder by guns. Another interesting statistic:

Every place that has banned guns (either all guns or all handguns) has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it’s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland. (Source) ☼

Related, from the Patriot PostDefensive Gun Uses Abound Nationwide, during July, 2019:

A South Carolina man shot a drunken attacker. A disabled Florida senior was wounded by four armed men who broke into his home, but he used an AR-15 to kill two of them while sending the two others fleeing. A San Diego man killed an assailant who was stabbing his father. A North Carolina woman killed an ax-wielding attacker. A Tennessee Uber driver shot a man who had fired on his vehicle, defending himself and his passenger. A Louisiana man shot an attacker attempting a carjacking. Others in Kentucky, New Hampshire, Arizona, and elsewhere merely brandished their guns or held would-be burglars at gunpoint and awaited police. In 2013, even Barack Obama’s Centers for Disease Control affirmed studies showing that perhaps millions of lives are saved every year by the lawful defensive use of firearms. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” ☼

Mass Shootings: The Elephant in the Room

By Taylor Day

America desperately needs to have a conversation, and it’s very different than the one we have been having when reflecting on mass murders. Despite the hysteria that these events cause, there is no significant upwards trend. These crimes have been a part of the public sphere in the U.S. since the country’s inception. While most studies reflect the better-recorded data in the latter half of the 20th century, mass killings were just as prevalent in the 1920s and 30s, although the use of a firearm was less common.

Sometime in the last few decades, Americans have lost to ability to think rationally about mass killings. We are collectively trying to blame some other factor besides the individuals themselves. However, access to guns has never been cited as a reason for a mass shooting and mass killings share no correlation in ideology. No one political party, no one race or ethnicity, no one religion, etc. is a constant factor, but there are specific commonalities between mass shooters that are never widely discussed over the calls for gun control and party reform.

There are five stages that culminate in a perfect storm that leads to individuals committing these massacres (also known as the Levin & Madfis model). This is gravely important for our society to know, as identifying these factors can lead to prevention of these atrocities.

Stage one: Chronic strain – the individual has a range of negative experiences over time. There is no one specific factor except that there is a history of adverse exposure. It could be a history of mental illness, although the vast majority of mass shooters have never been diagnosed, and further those with mental illnesses are actually less likely to commit any crimes compared to those who do not. However, there must be some trouble that reoccurs or is generally unmanaged whether it is a history of sexual abuse, family violence, torment at school, drug abuse, financial problems, etc.

Stage two: Uncontrolled strain — person has negative experiences coupled with the lack of appropriate coping strategies and pro-social relationships. The individual will often be thought of as an introvert or “loner” and their personal time is not spent on appropriate or healthy outlets.

Stage three: Acute strain – a single and serious event happens, and the person perceives it as worse than it really is, often catastrophic. This could happen directly to the individual, but it may just be an event that happens to others (like an act of terrorism or election loss), yet they feel they are personally invested — especially if it coincides with beliefs they already have. This is the culmination and breaking point.

Stage four: Planning — each mass shooter spends time preparing. Massacres are not done in moments of passionate rage. Red flags are most observable to others at this point. 90% of all mass shooters were surrounded by people who noticed warning signs like personality changes in the individual that tend to seem more positive than their usual mood. Some made comments that indicated upcoming action such as “they’ll be sorry,” “watch out on Tuesday” or “soon, this won’t be a problem anymore”. They can be similar to the signs of an upcoming suicide, like withdrawing from personal relationships or giving belongings away, especially when the shooter plans on killing himself afterwards. If you notice a pattern of these behaviors in someone you know, you should report it to your local police.

Stage five: The attack — Mass shooters choose a location that is familiar and also where they believe people they are disgruntled with personally or disagree with generally will gather, whether the disagreement is political, religious or any other ideological beliefs. (Read more) ☼


Study: No Link Between School Spending, Student Achievement

Decades of increased taxpayer spending per student in U.S. public schools has not improved student or school outcomes from that education, and a new study finds that throwing money at the system is simply not tied to academic improvements.

The study from the CATO Institute shows that American student performance has remained poor, and has actually declined in mathematics and verbal skills, despite per-student spending tripling nationwide over the same 40-year period.

The study, State Education Trends: Academic Performance and Spending over the Past 40 Years, by Andrew J. Coulson analyzed how billions of increased taxpayer dollars, combined with the number of school employees nearly doubling since 1970, produced stagnant or declining academic results.

“The performance of 17-year-olds has been essentially stagnant across all subjects despite a near tripling of the inflation-adjusted cost of putting a child through the K-12 system.”

Data from the U.S. Department of Education incorporating public school costs, number of employees, student enrollment and SAT scores was analyzed to explore the disparity between increased spending and decreasing or stagnant academic results.

Congressional mandates and the provision of comprehensive special education, after school programs and increasing technology costs have increased public education budgets. This is in contrast to private schools, where students excel over public school peers, but manage to operate at budgets about 34 percent lower than taxpayer-funded schools, US Finance Post reports.

Public schools spend, on average, $11,000 per student, per year. An Arizona study showed that the average per-pupil spending at private schools was only about 66 percent of the cost of public schools. It’s really impressive how disconnected spending and achievement have been in our state public systems.

The 60-page report confirms data showing that American students have remained internationally mediocre since 1970, even amid a tripling in inflation-adjusted dollars being spent per-student. A National Public Radio analysis finds that U.S. students are not in the global top 20 for math, reading or science scores.

“That is remarkably unusual,” Coulson wrote, “In virtually every other field, productivity has risen over this period thanks to the adoption of countless technological advances — advances that, in many cases, would seem ideally suited to facilitating learning. And yet, surrounded by this torrent of progress, education has remained anchored to the riverbed, watching the rest of the world rush past it.”

The study includes charts comparing national versus state-level spending increases that suggest “that there is essentially no link between state education spending (which has exploded) and the performance of students at the end of high school (which has generally stagnated or declined),” Coulson writes.

However, the CATO Institute-funded study also showed that lowering per-student spending has no affect to overall student performance.

“At one time or another over the past four decades, Alaska, California, Florida and New York all experienced multi-year periods over which real spending fell substantially (20 percent or more of their 1972 expenditure levels),” Coulson wrote. “And yet, none of these states experienced noticeable declines in adjusted SAT scores.” (Source) ☼

What Will They Learn at College?

By Walter E. Williams

What will my youngster learn in college? The American Council of Trustees and Alumni provides some answers that turn out to be quite disturbing. ACTA evaluated every four-year public university as well as hundreds of private colleges and universities. That’s more than 1,100 institutions that enroll nearly 8 million students, more than two-thirds of all students enrolled in four-year liberal arts schools nationwide. The ACTA assigned grades tell some of the story. Just 23 (2%) of the over 1,100 colleges earn an A grade; 343 colleges (31%) earn a B grade; 347 (31%) get a C grade; 273 (24%) earn a D; and 134 (12%) colleges earn an F. If you’re thinking that your youngster will get a truly liberal arts education, you are sadly mistaken. It turns out that less than half of the schools studied require courses in traditional literature, foreign language, U.S. government or history and economics. At some colleges, students can fulfill their humanities requirement with a course titled “Global X: Zombies!” A U.S. cultural pluralism requirement can be fulfilled with “The Economics of ‘Star Trek.'” And an Arts and Literature requirement can be fulfilled with either the “History of Comics” or “Game Design for Non-Majors.” (Read more) ☼


Trump ESA reforms emphasize species recovery over endless red tape

By Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

For decades, the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) has hovered like a giant Sword of Damocles over broad swaths of rural America. If some unfortunate farmer, rancher, fruit grower, or any other landowner was found to be harboring a threatened or endangered species on his or her property, all bureaucratic and litigation hell could break loose – and usually did.

The administration’s actions target two sections of the ESA, 4 and 7, that have been at the center of the abuse. In section 4, the administration now stipulates that the criteria used in determining whether a species should be removed (delisted) from the endangered species list or reclassified from endangered to threatened or vice versa are the same as those used in adding a species to the list. This will keep officials at FWS and NMFS from arbitrarily adding criteria that keep species on the ESA list long after they have recovered.

Another crucial area of ESA section 4 undergoing much-needed clarification concerns critical habitat. The Trump regulations reinstate the requirement that areas where threatened or endangered species are present at the time of listing be evaluated first before unoccupied areas are considered. This reduces the potential regulatory burdens that results from designations where species are not present in an area.

In addition, the regulations impose a heightened standard for unoccupied areas to be designated as critical habitat.

The major regulatory change to section 7 of the ESA does away with a unilateral decision made by FWS several years ago that essentially treated threatened and endangered species the same way.

By any reasonable measure, the ESA has been an abject failure. Of the 1,661 species listed as threatened or endangered since 1973, only 3% have been recovered. Endless litigation has tied up resources that could have gone toward species recovery. (Source) ☼ Good start, but more needs to be done.


Why Welfare Hasn’t Cured Poverty

by Genevieve Wood, The Daily Signal

When President Lyndon Johnson launched his War on Poverty in the 1960s, he pledged to eliminate poverty in America. More than five decades, several welfare programs, and $25 trillion later, the welfare system has utterly failed the poor. The poverty rate remains mostly unchanged, and tens of millions of Americans are dependent on government assistance. We’re clearly spending a lot of money, so why have we not ended poverty? Our welfare system discourages work. It discourages families from staying together. And it encourages dependence on government. In other words, welfare keeps the poor poor. (Read more) ☼


The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time — Part XXIV

by Francis Menton from his Manhattan Contrarian blog:

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time is the fraud committed by the keepers of official world temperature records, by which they intentionally adjust early year temperature records downward in order to support assertions that dangerous human-caused global warming is occurring and that the most recent year or month is the “hottest ever.” The assertions of dangerous human-caused global warming then form the necessary predicate for tens of billions of dollars of annual spending going to academic institutions; to the “climate science” industry; to wind, solar and other alternative energy projects; to electric cars; and on and on. In terms of real resources diverted from productive to unproductive activities based on falsehoods, this fraud dwarfs any other scientific fraud ever conceived in human history. (Read more) This is Part XXIV of my series on this topic. To read Parts I through XXIII, go to this link. ☼

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time — Part XXV

by Francis Menton

This post deals with satellite temperature measurements versus surface temperature measurements. “NOAA has spent billions of taxpayer dollars to send up satellites to monitor the weather and thus climate of the Earth. It pays two different scientific groups, UAH and RSS to produce global temperature data sets of the Earth’s atmosphere, but routinely ignores them when it needs to push Climate Catastrophism.” The satellite recorded temperatures generally put the lie to the “hottest ever” contentions of obsolete surface measurements. (Read more) ☼

Some Perspective on Melting Ice and Sea Level

When you hear the propaganda about Greenland melting, remember this: According to the Danish Meteorological

Institute, melting of 100 billion tons (110 billion U.S. tons) of ice corresponds to a 0.28 mm (0.01 inch) rise in global sea level.

From The B-School: A Plan To Win The Millennials’ War On Carbon

by Timothy Nerenz, Ph.D.

The bottom line is this: the millennials’ war on carbon might actually be winnable in a 20-year time span, but only if they are willing leave college and devote their working lives to producing the roughly $53 trillion of Green New Things which must be in place before carbon energy can be banned without completely collapsing the U.S. economy and starving the population.

It would require:

• doubling of the current U.S. industrial base: building new factories, steel mills, mines, refineries, power generation facilities, and logistics terminals to produce Green New Things.

• deconstruction of 65% of post-secondary education: repurposing of students, faculty, and staff to industrial mobilization, replicating the intellectual bandwidth of the 1940s mobilization workforce.

• roll-back of the regulatory climate to 1940 levels: re-creating the conditions under which wartime mobilization was entrusted to the capable hands of capitalist industrial entrepreneurs. (Read full article) ☼

Climate Bias Leads Billions Into an Imaginary Climate Crisis

by Vijay Jayaraj

The climate change issue, like any other issue of public interest, has been subject to numerous biases. Here are just a few and why they have misled us in a big way.

Confirmation Bias: The act of referencing only an opinion or evidence that fuels one’s pre-existing view, while dismissing any contrary evidence or opinion—no matter how valid.

This bias became very evident during the past two decades, when the computer climate models used by climate scientists failed dramatically in their climate forecasts. Biased scientists and politicians completely ignore the failure.

Almost all of the current policy discourse in climate change is entirely dependent on these faulty models. Instead of admitting a grand failure in their predictions, the scientists and political leaders continue to use these faulty forecasts for policy decisions.

There are people with confirmation bias in the other end of spectrum as well. Also known as climate deniers, they deny climate change entirely. They don’t believe in the gradual yet safe warming that has been scientifically proven to be prevalent since the 18th century.

Groupthink Bias or Bandwagon Effect: For the sake of avoiding conflict, people may agree upon a given perspective without critical evaluation. The society as a whole may agree upon theories that deviate from the truth.

This is the biggest of all biases to haunt the climate change issue and has proved to be the biggest hurdle for the progress of climate sciences.

Just as in the days of Galileo, we have swathes of academic and political institutions that suppress critical assessment of their dominant doomsday perspective. Groupthink bias has provided the fodder for their attitude to suppress dissenting voices.

A classic fallout of this bias is the recent school strike by children across the globe. None of the children have graduate level education in climate sciences, and they merely chose to adopt the groupthink mentality without critically evaluating the issue at hand—a task for which they lack the adequate factual knowledge and theoretical understanding anyway. Some children did try to question the whole school strike movement, but they were quickly reprimanded and put to silence.

The Bias of Clustering Illusion: This bias occurs when we look innately for patterns in random data, eventually making conclusions based on a small sample set or pattern, rather than assessing them in context with the entire data.

A denier is likely to pick short-term cooling patterns and use them as reasons to say that the world is not warming. Likewise, a climate alarmist is prone to exaggerate short-term warming patterns and incorrectly use them as evidence for dangerous warming. Unfortunately, clustering bias has become very common in the climate debate. (Read more) ☼


Renewable Energy Hits the Wall

By Norman Rogers

[This article is a good summary of the problems with wind and solar electricity generation. Here is an excerpt]

Wind and solar are erratic sources of energy. The output depends on the weather. Solar doesn’t work at night. Because they are erratic, there have to be backup plants, generally natural gas plants, that balance the erratic flow of electricity from wind or solar. The backup plants increase output when renewable energy output declines and vice versa. Because both wind and solar are subjected to periods of near zero output, the backup system has to be able to carry the entire load of the electric grid without the wind or solar. Neither wind nor solar can replace conventional plants. If you hear that a utility is replacing fossil fuel plants with wind or solar, that can’t happen. The most that can happen is that the fossil fuel plants will use less fuel when the wind or solar is generating electricity. For a natural gas plant, the gas to generate a megawatt-hour of electricity costs about $20. That $20 is the economic value of each megawatt-hour generated by wind or solar. Unsubsidized, wind or solar electricity, either one, costs about $80 a megawatt-hour to generate. The difference between $80 and $20 is the subsidy that has to be paid in order to use wind or solar. As long as the percentage of electricity that comes from wind or solar is small, the grid can handle the erratic nature of that electricity. But if the penetration becomes large, severe problems start to emerge. (Read full article) ☼

Walmart Sues Tesla

This is a breach of contract action arising from years of gross negligence and failure to live up to industry standards by Tesla with respect to solar panels that Tesla designed, installed, and promised to operate and maintain safely on the roofs of hundreds of Walmart stores.

Why were multiple Walmart stores located all over the country suddenly catching fire? The answer was obvious and startling: the stores all had Tesla solar panels installed by Tesla on their roofs. At each location, the fire had originated in the Tesla solar panels. (Read more) ☼

If You Want ‘Renewable Energy,’ Get Ready to Dig

By Mark P. Mills

Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of plastic.

Democrats dream of powering society entirely with wind and solar farms combined with massive batteries. Realizing this dream would require the biggest expansion in mining the world has seen and would produce huge quantities of waste.

“Renewable energy” is a misnomer. Wind and solar machines and batteries are built from nonrenewable materials. And they wear out. Old equipment must be decommissioned, generating millions of tons of waste. The International Renewable Energy Agency calculates that solar goals for 2050 consistent with the Paris Accords will result in old-panel disposal constituting more than double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste. Consider some other sobering numbers:

A single electric-car battery weighs about 1,000 pounds. Fabricating one requires digging up, moving and processing more than 500,000 pounds of raw materials somewhere on the planet. The alternative? Use gasoline and extract one-tenth as much total tonnage to deliver the same number of vehicle-miles over the battery’s seven-year life.

When electricity comes from wind or solar machines, every unit of energy produced, or mile traveled, requires far more materials and land than fossil fuels. That physical reality is literally visible: A wind or solar farm stretching to the horizon can be replaced by a handful of gas-fired turbines, each no bigger than a tractor-trailer.

Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of nonrecyclable plastic. Solar power requires even more cement, steel and glass—not to mention other metals. Global silver and indium mining will jump 250% and 1,200% respectively over the next couple of decades to provide the materials necessary to build the number of solar panels, the International Energy Agency forecasts. World demand for rare-earth elements—which aren’t rare but are rarely mined in America—will rise 300% to 1,000% by 2050 to meet the Paris green goals. If electric vehicles replace conventional cars, demand for cobalt and lithium, will rise more than 20-fold. That doesn’t count batteries to back up wind and solar grids.

Last year a Dutch government-sponsored study concluded that the Netherlands’ green ambitions alone would consume a major share of global minerals. “Exponential growth in [global] renewable energy production capacity is not possible with present-day technologies and annual metal production,” it concluded.

The demand for minerals likely won’t be met by mines in Europe or the U.S. Instead, much of the mining will take place in nations with oppressive labor practices. The Democratic Republic of the Congo produces 70% of the world’s raw cobalt, and China controls 90% of cobalt refining. The Sydney-based Institute for a Sustainable Future cautions that a global “gold” rush for minerals could take miners into “some remote wilderness areas [that] have maintained high biodiversity because they haven’t yet been disturbed.”

What’s more, mining and fabrication require the consumption of hydrocarbons. Building enough wind turbines to supply half the world’s electricity would require nearly two billion tons of coal to produce the concrete and steel, along with two billion barrels of oil to make the composite blades. More than 90% of the world’s solar panels are built in Asia on coal-heavy electric grids.

Engineers joke about discovering “unobtanium,” a magical energy-producing element that appears out of nowhere, requires no land, weighs nothing, and emits nothing. Absent the realization of that impossible dream, hydrocarbons remain a far better alternative than today’s green dreams.

Mr. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a partner in Cottonwood Venture Partners, an energy-tech venture fund, and author of the recent report, “The ‘New Energy Economy’: An Exercise in Magical Thinking.” (Source) ☼

In Australia, Electric Vehicles are powered by diesel generators

From JoNova blog

It’s becoming a joke all around the world — the EVs in Australia powered by dirty diesel. But what’s the difference? Most EV’s in Australia are running on fossil fuel — the generators are just hidden behind longer extension cords. (Ones that carry 240,000V). EV’s on our grid are running on 80% fossil fuels every day. See photo of portage diesel generator recharging EVs. (Source)



Fraud and corruption bring big payoffs

California judges provide stage for kangaroo court justice over Roundup weedkiller

by Paul Driessen

San Francisco area juries have awarded cancer patients some $80 million each, based on claims that the active ingredient in Roundup weedkiller, caused their cancer – and that Bayer-Monsanto negligently or deliberately failed to warn consumers that the glyphosate it manufactures is carcinogenic. (It’s not.) Judges reduced the original truly outrageous awards of $289 million and even $1 billion per plaintiff!

Meanwhile, ubiquitous ads are still trolling for new clients, saying anyone who ever used Roundup and now has Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma or other cancer could be the next jackpot justice winner. Mass tort plaintiff law firms have lined up 18,500 additional “corporate victims” for glyphosate litigation alone.

Introduced in 1974, glyphosate is licensed in 130 countries. Millions of farmers, homeowners and gardeners have made it the world’s most widely used herbicide – and one of the most intensely studied chemicals in history. Four decades and 3,300 studies by respected agencies and organizations worldwide have concluded that glyphosate is safe and non-carcinogenic, based on assessments of actual risk.

Reviewers include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, European Food Safety Authority, European Chemicals Agency, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Germany’s Institute for Risk Assessment, and Australia’s Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. Another reviewer, Health Canada, noted that “no pesticide regulatory authority in the world considers glyphosate to be a cancer risk to humans at the levels at which humans are currently exposed.” Therefore no need to warn anyone.

The National Cancer Institute’s ongoing Agricultural Health Study evaluated 54,000 farmers and commercial pesticide applicators for over two decades – and likewise found no glyphosate-cancer link.

Only the France-based International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC), says otherwise – and it based its conclusions on just eight studies. Even worse, IARC manipulated at least some of these studies to get the results it wanted. Subsequent reviews by epidemiologist Dr. Geoffrey Kabat, National Cancer Institute statistician Dr. Robert Tarone, investigative journalist Kate Kelland, “RiskMonger” Dr. David Zaruk and other investigators have demonstrated that the IARC process was tainted beyond repair. (Read more) ☼

See also: EPA Says Glyphosate Is Not Harmful to Humans

5 Chemicals Lurking in Plant-Based Meats

The Center For Consumer Freedom Team

Veggie burgers don’t grow in the ground. They’re made in factories. Here are some things you might not know are in that veggie burger:

Tertiary butylhydroquinone. TBHQ is a synthetic preservative that prevents discoloration in processed foods. The FDA limits the amount of TBHQ allowed in foods because studies of laboratory animals has found an association with TBHQ and cancer.

Magnesium carbonate. Remember when some bread was accused of having a yoga mat chemical? Well, magnesium carbonate, used in foods to retain color, is also used in flooring, fireproofing, and fire-extinguishing compounds.

Erythosine (Red #3). Red #3 is an artificial food coloring. The FDA banned the use of Red #3 in products such as cosmetics in 1990 after high doses of the substance were linked to cancer. But it can still be used in foods like fake meat.

Propylene glycol. Propylene glycol is an odorless, colorless liquid used as a moisturizer. It’s also used as a liquid in e-cigarettes and is the primary ingredient in antifreeze.

Ferric orthophosphate. Also called iron phosphate, this chemical is used to fortify foods. It can also be used as a pesticide to kill slugs and snails. While generally considered safe (for people) in food in small quantities, it can be a skin and eye irritant and may cause an upset stomach. (Source) ☼



“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” —Federal Farmer (1787)

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”—Soren Kierkegaard

“There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who do not want the patient to get well, because

as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an

easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.” —Booker T.

Washington (1856-1915)

“If by the liberty of the press were understood merely the liberty of discussing the propriety of public measures and political opinions, let us have as much of it as you please: But if it means the liberty of affronting, calumniating and defaming one another, I, for my part, own myself willing to part with my share of it.” —Benjamin Franklin (1789)

“I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”- Martin Luther King jr.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” —Cesare Beccaria

“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.” – Thomas Sowell


* * *


Our Mission

1) Support private property rights.

2) Support multiple use management of federal lands for agriculture, livestock grazing, mining, oil and gas production, recreation, timber harvesting and water development activities.

3) Support a balance of environmental responsibility and economic benefit for all Americans by urging that environmental policy be based on good science and sound economic principles.


Newsletters can be viewed online on Jonathan’s Wryheat Blog:



See my essay on climate change:



The Constitution is the real contract with America.

* * *

People for the West – Tucson, Inc.

PO Box 86868

Tucson, AZ 85754-6868


Jonathan DuHamel, President & Editor

Dr. John Forrester, Vice President

Lonni Lees, Associate Editor


People for the West – Tucson, Inc. is an Arizona tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) corporation. Newsletter subscriptions are free.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.