• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Sinn Féin and the Environment


Pidge

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
427
I've mellowed alot on Sinn Féin recently. I still won't vote for them, but I'm not as against them as before.

What I do find disappointing is that they seem to lack any sort of policy on the environment. The environment section of their website (which even pays prominent lip service to a united Ireland) deals with waste management (in a policy from 2001) and a movement towards local power.

There's nothing (as far as I can tell) on climate change, public transport, energy etc etc. I can understand to an extent that SF's focus lies elsewhere, but why is there virtually nothing? It seems fairly lacking for a fairly large party.
 


Coles

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
2,078
"The principal addition to our policy statement is the aim of creating a zero waste strategy in Ireland. This means that we believe that the main practical way in which the key dimensions of our existing environmental waste management strategy can be achieved is by demanding a zero waste strategy for the island. This zero waste objective will enhance our other policy objectives including such as a commitment to sustainable development, breaking the cycle of failure and increasing the role of the community in creating an environmentally sustainable future for Ireland."

If implemented, that would be a very significant step towards not only a cleaner environment, but would also lead to a complete shift in people's mindset with regards consumption, manufacturing, building, industry etc. What more do you want?
 

Pidge

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
427
Perhaps something on "climate change, public transport, energy"?

It's sparse and focuses on waste management only. That's got a big role to play, but it's hardly comprehensive in any way. Neither of the two policies in the environment section mention "carbon" or "climate".

A mention of either of those would be nice.
 

Coles

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
2,078
Climate Change? Has the debate not moved on Pidge? Surely the electorate is well aware of the issues with regards to greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide, and has been for years... What is needed is a shift in how people perceive the consumption of goods (and services). They need to be aware of the true cost of their consumption and what better way than to have a zero waste strategy? This change in mindset will benefit society and the environment in ways that can only be imagined. Ditch Gormley, Get on board the eco-friendly shinnermobile.
 

Pidge

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
427
I can't believe it. You're right, the debate has moved on - from 2001.

If you want to talk about climate change and preventing it, you have to use the word "carbon" or "climate" at some point. There isn't just one solution to all our environmental problems.

(Sorry if you're ripping the piss, by the way. It's difficult to tell.)
 

Coles

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
2,078
But seriously, you're probably right... There should be more detail in the SF manifesto particularly on energy usage, farming and public transport. No jokes about removing dye from agricultural diesel please.
 

Tomáis Joad

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
12
Actually as far as I know we have a much more detailed and up to date policy document on environmental issues than what would seem to be on the site. Climate change is mentioned in the manifesto but really its the policies on carbon reduction, lowering general waste accumulation and encouraging recycling that matter. Most people have accepted climate change is happening now we have to stop it.
 

Pidge

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
427
Tomáis Joad said:
Climate change is mentioned in the manifesto but really its the policies on carbon reduction...that matter.
:|

Pettiness aside, I'd be interested to see the SF policy. This is usually where cain1798 jumps in...

*glances to doorway*
 

eurocrat

Active member
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
231
Coles said:
They need to be aware of the true cost of their consumption and what better way than to have a zero waste strategy?
Eh, Carbon tax? Zero waste is not going to solve carbon emissions. Nice effort at muddling through by muttering random phrases related to environmental policy though - you're not Dick Roche are you?
 

Tomáis Joad

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
12
Totally understand it should certainly be on the site. Its called Towards Zero Waste and from 2004 apart from the specific dublin one I cant find the general document. It was used as the basis for the manifesto's environment section.
 

Tomáis Joad

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
12
well thats the title but i'm sure there's is more to it. We do have policies from past ard fheis's on carbon emissions and such. I'm npot big into environmental issues personally, so i'd be no expert on it as you might have gathered. basicly I'm just lookin for ways to avoiding doing much needed study.
 

NickyG

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
32
I agree with the sentiments expressed. SF should have the website reflect thier position accurately. It is a bit of a boo-boo if that is not the case, as environmental policy is just the sort of policy area people are likely to be making broad brush comparisons using the internet as a reserch tool. The SF website and blogs are good, but there would seem to be a slight lack of urgency in getting some of the info out there, and that's not like SF.
 

ao5gal

New member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
2
Worried about Fluoride in our water supplies

I have been with Sinn Fein for the last 2 years and I support them totally. They have a policy about environment but nobody including them are talking about the damage to our health that fluoride is causing. The councils are injecting tons of this acid that is taken from fertilizer waste and its poisoning us slowly. Damaging our kidneys, liver, and also something called pineal gland or our third eye, at the bottom of our brain. It shrinks it and makes us more docile. Hitler used it during the second world war to cull the population. There are enough scientific proofs that this acid is very damaging but the Irish Government is filling us with this compound. 97% of European countries made the use of fluoride in tap water Unconstitutional. I wrote to Sinn Fein twice including a detailed tab of what fluoride can cause to our health....they still not write back to me.

The following is the article that I sent to them.



1) 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.

2) Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water for the purpose of medication (to prevent tooth decay). All other treatment chemicals are added to treat the water (to improve the water's quality and safety - which fluoride does not do). This is one of the reasons why most of Europe has rejected fluoridation.

3) Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and '50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research.

4) Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water. Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade.

5)There are better ways of delivering fluoride than adding it to water. By adding fluoride to everyone's tap water, many infants and other at-risk populations will be put in harm's way. This is not only wrong, it is unnecessary. As western Europe has demonstrated, there are many equally effective and less-intrusive ways of delivering fluoride to people who actually want it.

6) Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride's benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.

Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses atttainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:

a) Risk to the brain.
b) Risk to the thyroid gland.
c) Risk to bones.
d) Risk for bone cancer.
e) Risk to kidney patients.

7) The industrial chemicals used to fluoridate water may present unique health risks not found with naturally-occurring fluoride complexes . The chemicals - fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride - used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Of these chemicals, fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is the most widely used. FSA is a corrosive acid which has been linked to higher blood lead levels in children. A recent study from the University of North Carolina found that FSA can - in combination with chlorinated compounds - leach lead from brass joints in water pipes, while a recent study from the University of Maryland suggests that the effect of fluoridation chemicals on blood lead levels may be greatest in houses built prior to 1946. Lead is a neurotoxin that can cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems in children.

8) Water fluoridations benefits to teeth have been exaggerated. Even proponents of water fluoridation admit that it is not as effective as it was once claimed to be. While proponents still believe in its effectiveness, a growing number of studies strongly question this assessment. According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, "The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance."

a) No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated countries.
b) Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops.
c) Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas.

9) Fluoridation poses added burden and risk to low-income communities. Rather than being particularly beneficial to low-income communities, fluoridation is particularly burdensome and harmful. For example:

a) Low-income families are least able to avoid fluoridated water.
b) Low-income families at greater risk of fluoride toxicity.

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered optimal for a full days worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry
 

Cooperate for freedom

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
3,701
I have been with Sinn Fein for the last 2 years and I support them totally. They have a policy about environment but nobody including them are talking about the damage to our health that fluoride is causing. The councils are injecting tons of this acid that is taken from fertilizer waste and its poisoning us slowly. Damaging our kidneys, liver, and also something called pineal gland or our third eye, at the bottom of our brain. It shrinks it and makes us more docile. Hitler used it during the second world war to cull the population. There are enough scientific proofs that this acid is very damaging but the Irish Government is filling us with this compound. 97% of European countries made the use of fluoride in tap water Unconstitutional. I wrote to Sinn Fein twice including a detailed tab of what fluoride can cause to our health....they still not write back to me.

The following is the article that I sent to them.



1) 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.

2) Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water for the purpose of medication (to prevent tooth decay). All other treatment chemicals are added to treat the water (to improve the water's quality and safety - which fluoride does not do). This is one of the reasons why most of Europe has rejected fluoridation.

3) Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and '50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research.

4) Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water. Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade.

5)There are better ways of delivering fluoride than adding it to water. By adding fluoride to everyone's tap water, many infants and other at-risk populations will be put in harm's way. This is not only wrong, it is unnecessary. As western Europe has demonstrated, there are many equally effective and less-intrusive ways of delivering fluoride to people who actually want it.

6) Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride's benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.

Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses atttainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:

a) Risk to the brain.
b) Risk to the thyroid gland.
c) Risk to bones.
d) Risk for bone cancer.
e) Risk to kidney patients.

7) The industrial chemicals used to fluoridate water may present unique health risks not found with naturally-occurring fluoride complexes . The chemicals - fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride - used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Of these chemicals, fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is the most widely used. FSA is a corrosive acid which has been linked to higher blood lead levels in children. A recent study from the University of North Carolina found that FSA can - in combination with chlorinated compounds - leach lead from brass joints in water pipes, while a recent study from the University of Maryland suggests that the effect of fluoridation chemicals on blood lead levels may be greatest in houses built prior to 1946. Lead is a neurotoxin that can cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems in children.

8) Water fluoridations benefits to teeth have been exaggerated. Even proponents of water fluoridation admit that it is not as effective as it was once claimed to be. While proponents still believe in its effectiveness, a growing number of studies strongly question this assessment. According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, "The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance."

a) No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated countries.
b) Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops.
c) Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas.

9) Fluoridation poses added burden and risk to low-income communities. Rather than being particularly beneficial to low-income communities, fluoridation is particularly burdensome and harmful. For example:

a) Low-income families are least able to avoid fluoridated water.
b) Low-income families at greater risk of fluoride toxicity.

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered optimal for a full days worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry
I'm not sure where you get the impression Sinn Fein don't talk about this issue. Brian Stanley TD for Laois Offaly talks about nothing else frequently on the radio.
 

friendlyfire

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2011
Messages
2,544
Maybe with all the scandals and cover-ups at the minute they will up the dosage.
But seriously, it has to be tackled as the above post highlights it is now irrelevant and should be stopped.
 

cottage_economist

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
527
In my Green Party days, which have been over now since 2011, I found myself attending a lot of the same events as our local SF. Their policy on the environment wasn't a lot different to ours, and I used to tip off SF councillor Therese Ruane if anything interesting was happening. I remember standing with her and others on a freezing cold day in Castlebar in an outdoor meeting about global warming.

As a result I'm quite happy to vote SF in the local elections at least.
 

The Fellow

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
317
Every party just copied the greens on the environment. Hence they lost their niche.
 

Glanshanacuirp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
1,650
"The principal addition to our policy statement is the aim of creating a zero waste strategy in Ireland. This means that we believe that the main practical way in which the key dimensions of our existing environmental waste management strategy can be achieved is by demanding a zero waste strategy for the island. This zero waste objective will enhance our other policy objectives including such as a commitment to sustainable development, breaking the cycle of failure and increasing the role of the community in creating an environmentally sustainable future for Ireland."

If implemented, that would be a very significant step towards not only a cleaner environment, but would also lead to a complete shift in people's mindset with regards consumption, manufacturing, building, industry etc. What more do you want?
What exactly is a zero waste strategy?
 

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top