Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Toxic Air Pollution Particles Found In Human Brains (theguardian.com)

Posted by msmash on from the reasons-to-worry dept.

Damian Carrington, writing for The Guardian: Toxic nanoparticles from air pollution have been discovered in human brains in "abundant" quantities, a newly published study reveals. The detection of the particles, in brain tissue from 37 people, raises concerns because recent research has suggested links between these magnetite particles and Alzheimer's disease, while air pollution has been shown to significantly increase the risk of the disease. However, the new work is still a long way from proving that the air pollution particles cause or exacerbate Alzheimer's. "This is a discovery finding, and now what should start is a whole new examination of this as a potentially very important environmental risk factor for Alzheimer's disease," said Prof Barbara Maher, at Lancaster University, who led the new research. "Now there is a reason to go on and do the epidemiology and the toxicity testing, because these particles are so prolific and people are exposed to them." Air pollution is a global health crisis that kills more people than malaria and HIV/Aids combined and it has long been linked to lung and heart disease and strokes. But research is uncovering new impacts on health, including degenerative brain diseases such as Alzheimer's, mental illness and reduced intelligence.

64 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. First bottled water, next bottled air by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    I need to switch to bottled air. The natural stuff is getting to dangerous.

    1. Re:First bottled water, next bottled air by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 1

      Spaceballs did it

    2. Re:First bottled water, next bottled air by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Close enough?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:First bottled water, next bottled air by geekmux · · Score: 1

      I need to switch to bottled air. The natural stuff is getting to dangerous.

      Ironically, we label bottled water that we store in BPA-infused containers as some kind of safe alternative...

    4. Re:First bottled water, next bottled air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most bottled water and reusable consumer plastic water bottles are BPA free. You are far more likely to eat food that has absorbed BPA by eating anything from a metal can than you are from your bottled water.

    5. Re:First bottled water, next bottled air by garyoa1 · · Score: 1

      Me too. There's an air bottling factory next to the magnetite factory that bottles some amazing stuff.
      Just as safe as bottled water.

      --
      Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
    6. Re:First bottled water, next bottled air by Falos · · Score: 1

      You jest, but fearthink sells. If adults won't buy it* for themselves, put kids on the box. Spending more on babytech means you were a better parent.

      * air purifiers, ionizers, filters, humidifiers, dehumidifiers, picture hangers, paper cutters, waffle irons, [striketag]antibacterial gluten-free canned air[/there is no strike tag]

    7. Re:First bottled water, next bottled air by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I'll quit buying their products when I'm dead, then the invisible hand of the market can correct this.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    8. Re:First bottled water, next bottled air by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      And now I see the business model for Oxygen bars. What a way to spend a Friday evening out with the guys...

  2. Moms basement by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Moms basement must be pretty polluted with these particles based on all the stupid posts I see on here.

    1. Re:Moms basement by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Take the survey

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Moms basement by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Agreed, many of the posts coming from you fall into this category.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  3. Makes sense by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Toxic Air Pollution Particles Found In Human Brains

    That actually explains a lot.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. Correlation does not imply causation by JoeyRox · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is particularly true for Alzheimer's, where research has had several false starts trying to correlate cellular-level brain observations to the disease.

  5. Almost certainly a factor, if not the cause by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Frankly, we haven't done a good job managing pollution. Not enough research - generally because entrenched interests fight attempts to do the research. And too much partisan politics involved. Issue got pegged as liberal vs conservative rather than healthy vs non-healthy

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Almost certainly a factor, if not the cause by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The dirty little secret is that majority rule causes brain damage...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Almost certainly a factor, if not the cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It should be easy to test. Extremely polluted countries or regions (Bangladesh, parts of India, parts of China) should have higher incidence or earlier onset or both of Alzheimer's if this is true. If they don't - then it must be some other factor. Perhaps it is the same thing that allows Alzheimer's to form Amyloid plaques also allows these particles to cross the blood-brain barrier? In which cause there is only correlation and no causation.

    3. Re: Almost certainly a factor, if not the cause by jsh1972 · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps if they don't show higher incidence or earlier onset they're polluting with something other than magnetite?

    4. Re:Almost certainly a factor, if not the cause by shaitand · · Score: 1

      And crazy everything natural/organic/non-gmo/animal rights people pollute the waters and prevent rationale discussion that is actually based on science. Unfortunately, certain subjects draw extremists like flies, the possibility of extraterrestrial life, anything negative the government might be doing, global banking, private prisons, etc.

      Just look at what the NSA was doing, geeks knew about the FBI programs in the 90's, they knew where the tech was and could "follow the money" so to speak. Assuming the NSA works like any person or organization and does whatever it can do and get away with to further its interests and/or those of its leaders we might not have known exactly what they were up to but that they were up to something which violated the rights of citizens and was counter to our interests was pretty much a given. Try to point it out and you immediately got lumped in with every nutjob who claims there are pyramids on Mars.

    5. Re:Almost certainly a factor, if not the cause by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Problem is that those areas have generally poor levels of health and healthcare anyway, and people don't live long enough to see the expected effects. If it brings on problems 10 years earlier but the subject dies of something else first...

      It's very difficult to do controlled studies on humans like this, which is why mice are often used. Also, you don't have to wait decades to see the results in mice.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Almost certainly a factor, if not the cause by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      I'm glad how far we've come since Nixon created the EPA. Back then we had rivers catching on fire. Lead in gasoline and detectable on the side of the road - easily. Smog. Fish floating to the surface of the Potomac river that flows by Washington. Bad times. Used to be you wouldn't swim in the Hudson by NYC. Now you can.

      I think we have a ways to go, however.

  6. Chemtrails! by ashshy · · Score: 2

    Right? :)

    --
    #o#
    O Moo.
  7. plastic bottles are toxic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Too bad plastic bottles have been proven toxic. Air or water in toxic bottles would be a poor way to evade toxins.

  8. Spoiler Alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When you look at first world rates of cancer/Alzheimers, is this really surprising? Like, at all?

    SOMETHING out there is causing it, and writing it off as a "disease of age" isn't going to bring us any closer to a solution.

    Takes me back to my time working at a paint store. The company went to great lengths to make their paint formulas as environmentally safe and healthy (as low VOC) as possible for the environment/customer.

    Try and tell that to the customer, though... and the response was always "that sh!t don't work" or "that sh!t don't hold up" gimme the "good stuff". We also need to convince people that this is something worth fighting/changing our ways for.

    Maybe the evidence that all this pollution and who-knows-what-the-hell-else is actually showing up in our brains will be the push people need.

    1. Re:Spoiler Alert! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And at the end of all the low VOC and gluten free shit... you're going to die, just like everyone else

      But more comfortably, due to better lung function. So no, not just like everyone else. Better.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Spoiler Alert! by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Well there is a lot of truth there. Something like paints might make a poor example of it but most environmentally friendly efforts are snake oil. Everyone also looks out for their own interests. A paint manufacturer might charge more for that environmentally safe and healthy paint and/or choose the options that result in paint with a less durable finish and/or poorer coverage with the net result being that people pay more for paint. Even if the paint manufacturer isn't intentionally using environmentally friendly paint as a way to milk a higher profit the manufacturers of the more environmentally friendly paint might be doing just that, they might even be the snake oil vendor, just like a drug manufacturer, tweak a molecule so you have a new thing you can patent and that hasn't been proven to be unsafe yet and then sell that claiming it is more environmentally friendly than X which has already been shown to be unsafe.

      What is the difference between the company footing the costs to make safer paints and the consumer? First, companies are greedy profit machines and will milk the consumers not for the cost but for as much perceived value increase the market will accept, and second it disproportionately attacks those with less wealth rather than evenly spreading the cost to match wealth. Spreading according to wealth doesn't just minimize the real impact to quality of life, it also better correlates to who ultimately ends up getting the most value from all the painting being done.

    3. Re:Spoiler Alert! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The only way is to ban the bad stuff, otherwise people will just act selfishly as often as not. It's human nature.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  9. Look on the brtight side by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    When a zombie eats your brain you can take some satisfaction from knowing that he's going to die. Again.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  10. Nuclear Testing. by zenlessyank · · Score: 2

    I'm sure all those nuclear tests and all that nuclear material that got blasted into the upper atmosphere has had NO effect on humanity. I am also sure that the underwater detonations in the ocean had no effect either.

    1. Re: Nuclear Testing. by bonedonut · · Score: 1

      Didnt that contribute to the van Allen belts, and is part of the reason why astronauts get so much radiation exposure?

    2. Re: Nuclear Testing. by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

      Not sure about that but I would not doubt anything anymore. I know it wasn't good for us. And since the half-life on some radiation is measured in thousands of years.

    3. Re: Nuclear Testing. by GESUS · · Score: 1

      The whole planet is radioactive, the the universe outside is even more so.
      Those tests almost certainly had no lasting effect, the amounts of material was minute. The average life time consumption of bananas will outstrip any effect of any radioactive waste you will encounter in your lifetime. Unless you expose yourself on purpose.

      I am Swedish and I remember when Chernobyl went pop, it was forbidden to sell meat where the winds spread radioactive dust. In the end though, no increase in cancer has been measurable.
      It has also been proven that no radiation is not good for your immune system, it apparently needs the stimulation to function properly.

  11. Democracy Always Fails To Avoid Social Problems by alternative_right · · Score: 2

    Democracy is really good at promising welfare and benefits for individuals, because those vote in groups, but not for avoiding actual problems, which will inconvenience someone.

    Think about what must be done to reduce air pollution: someone must give up their cars, or not get one, or have them be too expensive; somebody's imports must cost more because we limit sea shipping; someone will have their dreams dashed because they cannot engage in landfill-producing or energy-intensive practices to launch their interpretive dance studio or artisanal dildo factory.

    Limiting our impact is anti-democratic because it is anti-individualistic. And no one wants to be the first to live in poverty without cars, cheap imports or foolish vainglorious hopes and dreams.

    --
    Alternative Right.
    1. Re:Democracy Always Fails To Avoid Social Problems by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Democracy has the same purpose every government structure has, keeping the majority from revolting while the elite remain elite and live off their labors.

    2. Re:Democracy Always Fails To Avoid Social Problems by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      You are making poor assumptions about it being a zero sum game.. Specifically, you are assuming that what we do now is the best we could possibly do.

      We don't need to "give up" cars, we could switch to less polluting cars. Doesn't even have to be electrical, just smaller ones.

      We can EASILY limit our impact WITHOUT being anti-indivualistic. All you need to do is set up well designed taxes and laws and ENFORCE them.

      A simple carbon tax applied universally would drive the price of more polluting methods - i.e. coal plants, gasoline burning cars, while encouraging people to use alternative methods.

      This lets all of have CARS, cheap imports, foolish vainglorious hopes and dreams, albeit slightly less fast and use them slightly less often.

      It is not an all or nothing game, no matter how much people like you make the claim. Government taxes WORK when you use them properly.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    3. Re:Democracy Always Fails To Avoid Social Problems by stephenmac7 · · Score: 1

      Democracy has the same purpose every government structure has, keeping the majority from revolting while the elite remain elite and live off their labors.

      Instead of divine right, we must now accept this because it's the "will of the people." As the libertarian political theorist and economist Rothbard put it,

      The intellectual arguments used by the State throughout history to “engineer consent” by the public can be classified into two parts: (1) that rule by the existing government is inevitable, absolutely necessary, and far better than the indescribable evils that would ensue upon its downfall; and (2) that the State rulers are especially great, wise, and altruistic men—far greater, wiser, and better than their simple subjects. In former times, the latter argument took the form of rule by “divine right” or by the “divine ruler” himself, or by an “aristocracy” of men. In modern times, as we indicated earlier, this argument stresses not so much divine approval as rule by a wise guild of “scientific experts” especially endowed in knowledge of statesmanship and the arcane facts of the world. The increasing use of scientific jargon, especially in the social sciences, has permitted intellectuals to weave apologia for State rule which rival the ancient priestcraft in obscurantism. For example, a thief who presumed to justify his theft by saying that he was really helping his victims by his spending, thus giving retail trade a needed boost, would be hooted down without delay. But when this same theory is clothed in Keynesian mathematical equations and impressive references to the “multiplier effect,” it carries far more conviction with a bamboozled public.

      The government merely takes from one group to give to another, usually benefiting the rulers:

      State power, as we have seen, is the coercive and parasitic seizure of this production—a draining of the fruits of society for the benefit of nonproductive (actually antiproductive) rulers. While social power is over nature, State power is power over man.

      --
      "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
  12. He's Not Trolling by alternative_right · · Score: 1

    He's a bug chaser.

    --
    Alternative Right.
  13. Wait and see by bonedonut · · Score: 1

    Let's wait and see how bad Alzheimer's is for this and the next generation of Chinese... They have the such bad air pollution, and it may mirror what happened to the earlier generation of Americans, when goods(and major pollution) were still being produced in the USA.

  14. Re:toxic by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    Not to worry. Someone is making money, so it's fine if pollutants kill our brains and bodies. All that matters is the rich get richer with as few impediments as possible.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  15. Re:Pollution yes but by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Translation: I don't like what science says, so I'll declare them "progressives" and that way I don't have to use my very small neural capacity to try to come up with an actual critique.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  16. effect can't be too dramatic by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    If the effect were strong, it would have been picked up by epidemiological studies long ago. There are much more pressing medical issues that require reducing particulate emissions, which is why many countries have already cleaned up their act: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...

    1. Re:effect can't be too dramatic by mlegatt · · Score: 3, Informative

      It has been - e.g., http://www.apa.org/monitor/201.... Because they're caused by ultrafine particulates (something which is harder to track relative to the larger PM10 and PM2.5), it takes long term exposure and accumulation to be better detectable. Also UFPM moves different than PM10/2.5 relative to wind, and is emitted in inconsistent ratios (e.g., from combustion across natural gas, coal, petroleum, etc.). For example, the two main sources of UFPM from driving an internal combustion vehicle are due to combustion (out of the tailpipe), and the metals released from frictional breaking. Since EVs and hybrids tend to rely on regenerative breaking and use less/no gasoline, both sources are addressed.

    2. Re:effect can't be too dramatic by rch7 · · Score: 1

      Heavy long range battery cars are worse than ICE on PM.
      "Non-exhaust sources account for 90% of PM10 and 85% of PM2.5 from traffic."
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
      That is average, but if you take performance cars with excessive acceleration capability and soft tires, PM emissions are increasing drastically due to acceleration. It may get worse than some "clean diesel" economy car.

    3. Re:effect can't be too dramatic by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      It has been - e.g., http://www.apa.org/monitor/201... [apa.org].

      No, it wasn't picked up "long ago". The article you point to shows research since the 2000's, doesn't talk about magnetite, and shows weak associations after people specifically looked for this effect. So, the effect may be real, but it can't be all that strong, otherwise it would have shown up much earlier.

      For example, the two main sources of UFPM from driving an internal combustion vehicle are due to combustion (out of the tailpipe), and the metals released from frictional breaking. Since EVs and hybrids tend to rely on regenerative breaking and use less/no gasoline, both sources are addressed.

      See, I think you reveal the real reason this story is being pushed: people are looking for justifications to push electric cars. And, as usual, people accept preliminary science and weak effects when it suits their political agenda, and reject it when it does not.

  17. Ultrafine particulate matter in general by mlegatt · · Score: 1

    This research and its scary implications has been going on for quite some time, and ties to ultrafine particulates that are small enough to pass through the blood-brain barrier (e.g., Calderon-Garcuidenas et al, 2008 - , and APA Monitor on Psychology 2012.

  18. Re:Pollution yes but by geek · · Score: 1

    Translation: I don't like what science says, so I'll declare them "progressives" and that way I don't have to use my very small neural capacity to try to come up with an actual critique.

    Oh look. A progressive calling people that disagree stupid. So...... original.

  19. Re:Invisible Hand by shaitand · · Score: 1

    "Given a chance, the free market would fix air pollution."

    Given that those environmental agencies came to exist because the free market was doing the opposite when unregulated I doubt that very much.

    "Unfortunately, it is hamstrung by "environmental agencies" that permit corporations to pollute without consequences."

    Unfortunately the issue is complicated by the fact that both this AND what I said above are true. The free market has taken control of environmental agencies, the result being intentionaly flawed standards that amount to snake oil and companies doing the bare minimum to manipulate products to comply with those standards. The result being a bunch of snake oil products that aren't really any better, cost only slightly more to make, but which companies then charge a hefty premium for. Because they complied with standards they can then point to that and be proof against liability for their actions.

  20. Found, now what? by buck-yar · · Score: 2

    So toxic particles are in our brains, how do we get them out, chelating?

    1. Re:Found, now what? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Got the following from here: http://articles.mercola.com/si...

      Your body has a system to efficiently remove mercury and other heavy metals, as long as your detoxification system is working properly. The problem is, many have one that's broken, and one of the principal causes is inflammation. Your genetic makeup is another factor.

      The glutathione system is your body's main detoxification system. Glutathione binds to heavy metals, but it doesn't do it alone, it requires the assistance of enzymes, antioxidants, and transport proteins.

      Old age, impaired genetics, poor diet, and toxic exposures of all kinds â" aflatoxin, chloroform, DDT, organic nitrates, radiation, and others â" impair your glutathione system. Some people try to supplement with glutathione or its precursors and expect the system to jump up to speed but for the most part this doesn't work very well as typically this is done orally with non-liposomal forms or done with IV glutathione, which is very expensive, inconvenient, and only marginally more effective. A far more effective strategy is to upregulate the expression of the genes that produce the enzymes and transport proteins that assist glutathione in doing its job.

      Efficient detoxification depends on a series of seamless reactions that bind toxins to shuttle molecules and "escort" them out through a series of doors. Specifically, in order for your glutathione detoxification system to operate well, it requires the following three elements. If you have a shortage of any one of these three key elements, your cells lose their resistance to mercury, so it can accumulate and make you sick:

      1. Glutathione in your cells: Your body has to manufacture most of its own glutathione (biosynthesis), so it needs adequate building blocks

      2. Glutathione s-transferase (GST): An enzyme responsible for prying the mercury OFF the cellular proteins, then linking it TO the glutathione in the cell

      3. Transport proteins: A series of transport proteins (multi drug resistant proteins, or MRPs) are responsible for getting the conjugated mercury out of your cells and into your blood, as well as from your blood into your liver and small intestine, and into other places so it can be eliminated

    2. Re:Found, now what? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Mercola spends his time peddling new-age-sounding and medical-sounding fraud. Trusting him is like trusting Enron on running an electrical grid.

    3. Re:Found, now what? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      So toxic particles are in our brains, how do we get them out, chelating?

      An extremely through colon cleanse.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    4. Re:Found, now what? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Thanks.
      From other reading, it does seem that there's a lot of potential positives to trying to supplement/strengthen your body's glutathione system though. Its not as simple as taking Glutathione orally as it doesn't get absorbed so consider alternatives, such as taking it nasally or supplementing the inputs to your own glutathione production.

    5. Re:Found, now what? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "Mercola" is the technical Latin term for 'complete shit'.

  21. Re:Pollution yes but by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    I have no idea what "progressive" means. What I do know is that people who just discard research simply because they're contrarians or don't like what the research points to are indeed, for lack of a better word, stupid. You don't like the term,. then stop being stupid.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  22. Re:Pollution yes but by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Oh look. A progressive calling people that disagree stupid. So...... original.

    I agree that "progressives" didn't start this.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  23. laser printer nanoparticles by HongPong · · Score: 1

    Makes you wonder how bad the health effects of indoor laser printer pollution will turn out to be. The toner nanoparticles are much more dense in operation than people realize. See serious academics:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
    http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-co... "Effects of Laser Printer–Emitted Engineered Nanoparticles on Cytotoxicity, Chemokine Expression, Reactive Oxygen Species, DNA Methylation, and DNA Damage: A Comprehensive in Vitro Analysis in Human Small Airway Epithelial Cells, Macrophages, and Lymphoblasts"
    http://www.scientificamerican....
    https://www.arb.ca.gov/researc...

    --
    --hongpong.com
  24. EM sensitivity explained? by pz · · Score: 1

    Any chance that EM sensitivity is really caused by magnetic particles in the sufferer's brain?

    One pre-mortem way to look for evidence is to see if there's a correlation between length of time spent in zones of high air pollution and complaint severity. Heck, if magnetite is found in the brain, then it must be in the blood stream, too, and other tissues as well. There's potentially some serious science to be done here.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  25. Re:Honest question. by castus · · Score: 1

    It's noteworthy (not astonishingly) because it has been linked to Alzheimer's and it's been found in quite high concentrations in the brain.

    Actually, the fact that a chemical is found in your body doesn't necessarily mean it can be found in your brain, because the blood-brain barrier selectively allows some chemical groups into the brain and rejects others (I don't think magnetite nanoparticles would be accepted, but they might be actively transported across, or I might just be wrong).

    I don't think it's fair to call magnetite particles toxic either, but what kind of journalist would waste a chance to use the t-word?

  26. While correlation is not causation by generic_screenname · · Score: 1

    Here is a map of air pollution in the United States http://www.nws.noaa.gov/airqua... Here is a map of mental illness in the United States http://www.medicaldaily.com/sa... If toxic particles from the air are getting into human brains, could this be related?

  27. The Differences Between Parasites And Leaders by alternative_right · · Score: 1

    I would not mind this, if our leaders were also good and took only a reasonable amount. Instead, they take almost everything, and they seem to be some combination of incompetent, perverse, pathological, megalomaniac, and deranged.

    A parasite takes for itself and gives back only as much as it has to; a leader serves the interest of the civilization, which he sees as bound up with his own success.

    --
    Alternative Right.
  28. Replacing The State by alternative_right · · Score: 1

    Sounds about right. But we need some form of leadership; what replaces the State?

    --
    Alternative Right.
    1. Re:Replacing The State by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Personally, instead of trying to minimize government I'd rather minimize the scale of government. Just like the free market concept stops working when there are two few choices and consumers have too little mobility so does government. A much weaker federal structure and stronger states would help this but breaking it further into weaker states and stronger voting district size chunks would be much better. Don't like the policies where you live, move to another district.

      The current system where there is a strong and overreaching federal power and 50 mini clones of the same structure provide very little choice to the populace and very little incentive for states to actively compete to provide citizens with a better quality of life.

  29. Re:Pollution yes but by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    Progressive, conservative, liberal, it doesn't matter.

    Calling people who disagree with you stupid isn't the signature of any political faction. It's a signature of human nature.

  30. language, counts. by Walter+White · · Score: 1

    I hope, we don't, run out of commas.