Politics, Industry and pollution

From The desk of: Rosemarie Dundon
Date: November 15, 2010

ON The issues regarding climate change, pollution and industry:

Ladies and Gentlemen:

My suggestion is to change the processes with which we dispose of wastes; this is of course not a new idea in principle...

Question: How else will we dispose of the toxins and emitions that are hazardous to our well
being? Namely, emitions should be filtered, captured and disposed of.

WHAT? I believe that we are not about to stop the ways we manufacture,but we can change the way we dispose of wastes. I write to directly introduce a starting point idea. Our manufacturing does not necessarily have the change today; how we pollute the environment does need to be adaptable.


Simple is best? Since our world economy is dependent on manufacturing and it's processes,'
we need to move toward conservation, responsible disposal of emitions and address the effects on our environment.

Filtration and disposal are more likely to be accepted as modes of operations; these would not interfere with the manufacturing, instead, what is being offered: a new process which is seeking a responsible manufacturing that contributes to clean air and less harmful emitions.

Let's shelve the idea in principle that we are going to STOP emitions completely for now. Instead, let's circumvent the processes' that make emitions, pollution and bio-hazards.

Let's make filtration systems, what comes immediately to mind is filtering the toxins and wastes. Let's capture the pollutants, and dispose of these filtration filters that would “hold” the toxins.

i.e.Automobiles:
Idea: Trap and dispose of emitions as solid waste.
Just make a “Sock” which would cover the tailpipe, filter the emitions and change the filter often.

The word “Sock” is used deliberately, because you take your socks on and off. You change them when their dirty, right?

WHAT?

Other ancillary ideas:

Next Question:

If each factory, eliminated their emitions of toxins, or lowered them with filtration, how much better off would the world be?

Simple is best, is it not?

The first idea is: How much easier it would be if we created either an antidote for or a filtration system for, (or optimally for both), to trap these emitions /toxins and chemicals?


WHAT? I hope I have the facts correct. Is it not true that EVERY item on the Periodic Table of Elements has an anti-dote?

This is the First idea or first phase:
On that principle,why have we not “cured” pollution by using chemical antidotes to each element?

Why, if the former is not possible, why cant
we “TRAP” THE EMITIONS, WITH A SPECIFICALLY FORMULATED “ANTI-DOTE” DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED, OR DEVELOP A FILTRATION SYSTEM THAT RENDERS THE TOXINS CAPTURED AND DISPOSABLE.

Next Question:
Why, if we cannot find the antidote, why cant we
simply develop a filter that will trap the toxins and figure out how to dispose of these dirty filters as a
solid waste management feature?

WHAT? Ideas in sum:

1)Develop a antidote, and reverse the chemical makeup of each particular toxin, emition or hazard.
2)Develop a filtration system to trap air toxins,
and dispose of same as a solid waste an easier thing to dispose of?
3)Develop a filtration system for each toxin,
create the antidote to the toxin; dispose of the filter as solid waste.

Again, further, on the principle on the Periodic Table of Elements, I understand that each element has an antidote. Therefore, I submit the following ideas.

Other applicable General Concepts on Pollution:
Pollution, can we not add vitamins to our water supply? I understand that fluoride, in large dosages is a cancer causing agent. We use it to help keep our water clean now.

We need clean safe and healthy water. Why not introduce vitamins into our water supply for general health advocacy?

Basic Concept Extrapolations:
Can we not reverse or “Cure” polluted water with the same idea discussed earlier ? ~ Reverse pollution by reversing the elements in the water that are harmful.

WHAT? Make our water supply clean and healthy.
Or not.

Campaigne finance reform

From the desk of: Rosemarie C. Dundon
November 11, 2010
Page 1 of 3 ~
A WORD ON CAMPAIGNE FINANCE REFORM

In fairness to all who aspire to elected office, let no one be disadvantaged by finances, instead let he/she be disadvantaged by their issues, ideas and basic philosophy.
Let those who best understand American Values win!

HOW? Remember FDR rode into city by city, making his platform and rhetoric known? He pulled up on the train route, made his speeches and went onto the next town. The key item in an election is exposure.

Well,ok, but today we have media and a lot of money invested in each candidate. So? How do we level the playing field, make everyone running for office (be) heard, and how do we make sure it is fair to each candidate, their constituents and society as whole?

Campaigne Finance Reform:

Cooperation is needed from all involved; the candidate, the constituents and media.
Page 2 of 3 ~.

What? Make no further personal campaigne finance contributions. Instead, initially as the race begins, make all contributions equally shared by all who are running for office. At the end you would make the bulk of money go back to the winning party-candidate. Make no mistake, each candidate will be heard, the general party platform will be be established for the coming election,and no one will lose because he/she could not finance their campaigne.

Instead of a candidate running for office, it should be that he/she best represents the party, the people and country.

HOW? All donations are to pay for air time/media/press for all candidates; until such time as the party candidate is chosen.

At that end of the campaigne cycle we will have heard from everyone, we will have made our decision, and we will have a party-candidate we totally support.

For example: the democratic party would fund all ads for the party;the candidates will get equal time providing a few loose ends are eliminated.


Page 3 of 3 ~
How then will begin traveling town to town is: Everyone will be heard! Point two: the approach to any election should be based on party-variables.

Town to Town debates can take place and be distributed worldwide candidate by candidate. The entire approach toward elected office would be: A narrowing down of our idea of a candidate for elected office.Our basic value system will be established.

Debates can naturally take place and take on a process of elimination; in other words: Each candidate will debate with all the others, because the party-itself will pay the expenses.
That is not to say that media should not have to front some of the costs. Politics is news.

Air time for a debate is prime time for advertising. Therefore, media should be mandated to fund telecasts to some extent.

WHAT? Just the latest from a girl from Queens.