A lot of hot air

/

Here’s the hysterical headline touting a new assault on gas stoves:

Common appliance raises kids’ cancer risk nearly twice as much as adults’ — and it’s in 2 out of 5 US homes

aww, it even includes a picture of an adorable little cancer victim — gas stoves kill again!

Benzene, a harmful chemical found in gasoline, cigarette smoke and paint strippers, is a known carcinogen. Long-term exposure to high levels of benzene has been linked to leukemia and other blood-related cancers.

Now, a new study out of Stanford University reports that benzene-caused cancer risks are significantly higher — especially for children — in homes with medium to high usage of gas stoves and inadequate ventilation.

“Natural gas and propane stoves emit benzene, a known carcinogen through combustion,” the researchers explained in the forthcoming July issue of the Journal of Hazardous Materials.

“To our knowledge, ours is the first study to assess the carcinogenic health risks from benzene formed during gas combustion from stoves, as well as leukemia cases attributable to gas stove use.”

Gas stoves have come under fire in recent years as studies suggested they emit pollutants like nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, benzene and formaldehyde, which can trigger asthma and potentially increase the risk of heart disease and other health problems.

The stoves have fueled heated debate about health and environmental concerns and government overreach with limitations or bans.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in January that “safeguards the American people’s freedom to choose from a variety of goods and appliances,” including gas stoves.

The order followed a watered-down rule from the Biden administration requiring some gas and electric stoves to be more efficient.

Other restrictions have had more teeth. In 2023, New York became the first state to ban the installation of new gas stoves in most new homes and buildings. It’s set to take effect in 2026 for buildings under seven stories and in 2029 for larger structures.

NYC also has a ban on natural gas in new buildings — the ordinance was upheld in federal court in March.

Meanwhile, research on the potential effects of gas stoves continues. About 38% of American households, or roughly 40 million homes, have these appliances.

Stanford scientists say that 6.3 million Americans are exposed to the top 5 % highest benzene-emitting gas stoves.

They measured emissions in 87 homes across 14 counties in Colorado and California for a 2023 study.

For this new study, they simulated different cooking scenarios involving varying burner intensities and oven temperatures with minimal or no ventilation.

When there’s no ventilation, benzene exposure in kitchens and living rooms is highest in smaller apartments, followed by manufactured homes, attached homes and detached homes, the researchers found.

“Particularly concerning were the elevated risks in bedrooms, where people typically spend the most time,” they wrote.

Their analysis also suggested that children’s cancer risk from gas stove exposure is 1.85 times higher than adults.

The researchers noted that children generally breathe faster and take in more air — and therefore more pollutants — relative to their smaller body size.

“Since there is no safe limit for benzene’s carcinogenic effects, it is crucial to further evaluate the health risks associated with these effects,” the study read.

Ventilation plays a key role in reducing benzene concentrations — the researchers recommend opening windows and using good-quality outdoor vent hoods. Homeowners could also switch to electric stoves.

“The study underscores the importance of addressing combustion-related indoor air pollutants to protect public health, particularly in households with limited ventilation,” the study authors wrote.


It’s a bunch of bullshit, with “tests” conducted in airless, unventilated cubicles, and with the usual failure to mention what, exactly a “1.85 X higher risk of cancer means in actual numbers, so I asked GROK. Bottom line: you can keep your stove, if the Greens will let you.

Q: “a new study "suggests: that children’s cancer risk from gas stove exposure is 1.85 times higher than adults. That's pretty useless information without knowing what the actual risk is that's being increased; can you give some numbers in layman's terms?”

Grok:

The study you’re referring to, published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials in 2025, evaluates benzene exposure from gas stoves and its associated cancer risks, particularly for children. The 1.85 times higher risk for children compared to adults sounds alarming, but without context on the baseline risk, it’s hard to gauge its real-world impact. Let’s break it down with the available data, explained in plain terms.

What the Study Says

The study focuses on the top 5% of benzene-emitting gas stoves in the U.S., affecting about 6.3 million people. Benzene is a known carcinogen linked to leukemia and other blood cancers. The researchers used a model to estimate how much benzene people are exposed to in homes with these high-emitting stoves, especially under medium to high usage (e.g., cooking with one burner for 30 minutes twice a day for medium use, or multiple burners and the oven for high use) and poor ventilation.

The key finding is that children’s Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk (ILCR) from benzene exposure is 1.85 times higher than adults’ in these scenarios. This is because children breathe more air relative to their body size, spend more time indoors, and have developing bodies that may be more vulnerable to carcinogens.

Actual Risk Numbers

The study provides some specific estimates, though they’re framed in technical terms. Here’s what we can extract in layman’s terms:

  • Cancer Risk Threshold: The World Health Organization (WHO) sets a “safe” cancer risk threshold at 1 in 1,000,000 (or 1E-06, meaning 1 additional cancer case per 1 million people exposed over a lifetime). Risks above this are considered elevated.

  • Children’s Risk: In homes with high gas stove use and poor ventilation (e.g., no range hood or open windows), the study estimates that for every 1 million children, up to 16 additional cancer cases could occur due to benzene exposure over their lifetime. This is specifically for kids in non-ventilated apartments with the worst 5% of benzene-emitting stoves.

  • Adults’ Risk: Since children’s risk is 1.85 times higher, we can estimate adults’ risk by dividing. For adults, the risk is roughly 8-9 additional cancer cases per 1 million in the same high-exposure scenario (16 ÷ 1.85 ≈ 8.65).

  • Range of Risk: Across different home types (apartments, detached homes, etc.) and usage scenarios, the risk for children in non-ventilated homes with medium to high stove use is 4 to 16 times higher than the WHO’s safe threshold. So, the cancer risk could range from 4 to 16 cases per million children compared to the “safe” 1 case per million. For adults, this would be roughly 2 to 9 cases per million.

Putting It in Perspective

  • Baseline Risk: Without gas stove exposure, your lifetime risk of developing leukemia (the main cancer linked to benzene) is about 1 in 200 (or 5,000 per million) for the general population, based on American Cancer Society data. The additional risk from gas stoves in these worst-case scenarios (4-16 per million for kids, 2-9 for adults) is a tiny fraction of that—adding less than 0.01% to your overall leukemia risk.

  • Worst-Case Scenario: The 16-per-million risk for kids applies to:

    • Homes with the top 5% most polluting gas stoves.

    • High usage (e.g., cooking with multiple burners and the oven for hours daily).

    • No ventilation (no range hood, no open windows).

    • Small homes or apartments where benzene concentrates more.

  • Typical Homes: In homes with low to medium stove use or good ventilation (e.g., using a high-efficiency range hood or opening windows), the risk drops significantly, often below the WHO’s 1-per-million threshold. For example, high-efficiency hoods can reduce benzene exposure by 75% or more, and open windows can cut it by up to 99%.

Limitations and Caveats

  • Modeling, Not Real Cases: The study uses a computer model (CONTAM) to estimate benzene exposure, not actual measurements in thousands of homes. Real-world risks could vary.

  • Not All Stoves: The findings apply to the worst 5% of gas stoves, not every gas stove. Most stoves emit less benzene, and risks are lower with proper ventilation.

  • Estimates, Not Certainties: The 16-per-million figure is an estimate, not a count of actual cancer cases. It’s based on assumptions about lifetime exposure and benzene’s potency.

  • Other Sources of Benzene: Benzene is also in cigarette smoke, gasoline, and industrial emissions. Gas stoves are just one contributor, and their impact is small compared to, say, smoking or working in a refinery.

Bottom Line

In the worst-case scenario (high stove use, no ventilation, top 5% benzene-emitting stoves), gas stoves might increase a child’s lifetime cancer risk by about 16 cases per million (0.0016%) and an adult’s by 8-9 cases per million (0.0008-0.0009%). This is a small addition to the baseline leukemia risk of 5,000 per million. For most homes with moderate stove use and good ventilation, the risk is much lower, often negligible. Ventilation and reducing stove use are easy ways to minimize exposure.

Because who knows better how to run a business than a politician, especially a Democrat?

/

Hartford Yahoos draft anti-Amazon bill

HARTFORD — Warehouse workers would have added protections on quotas, breaks and reprimands under legislation approved along party lines in the House of Representatives on Wednesday.

The bill, which next heads to the Senate, was aimed at promoting better working conditions, said Rep. Manny Sanchez, D-New Britain, co-chairman of the Labor & Public Employees Committee. It would require employers to inform workers of production quotas and allow workers to request related information. It would also assure legally mandated meal and bathroom breaks.

The legislation passed 97-48 after a four-hour-long afternoon debate.

Who needs the Department of Labor, when we can bring in the full prosecutorial force of the state? William Tong and the UAW are licking their chops at the prospect of busting a non-union shop

House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford: “It creates a process by which civil action can be sought, either by the attorney general or by individual employees in court." Sue, sue, sue.

Minority Republicans charged that the bill was tailored to apply to Amazon, which is planning a 3.2 million square foot warehouse straddling the Waterbury and Naugatuck border.

"This is a terrible message to send," said Rep. Steve Weir of Hebron, a ranking member of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. "Make no mistake, it's all about the messaging. The biggest of the big is Amazon. Non-union Amazon is right in the cross hairs. This bill is the Amazon bill. Everything this bill demands, Amazon is doing today."

Weir said that since the bill would apply to warehouses with more than 100 workers, it seems specifically written for Amazon, which has a growing number of warehouses throughout Connecticut. He said that during a recent tour of an Amazon facility, the warehouse seemed exceedingly clean with adequate safety wear and medical facilities for on-the-job injuries.

He said that new procedures have decreased injuries and increased productivity at Amazon facilities. "This business model is great for customers, it's great for the sellers," he said, stressing that pay starts at $20 an hour. "It's great for the consumer."

Weir warned that the legislation would "stifle competition" and discourage economic development and jobs coming to the state. "All we want them to do is come to Connecticut," Weir said. "Why are we doing this to businesses that are spending time and effort here? This bill is anti-business and anti-consumer at the same time."

After more than an hour of questioning Sanchez, Weir said he was concerned that complaints could strain the office of the state attorney general and offered an amendment that would remove a related section of the bill. The amendment lost in a 97-48 party-line vote.

Weir then called another amendment that would delete more references to the attorney general, shifting some legal responsibilities to the Department of Labor. That also failed along party lines, 99-47.

Veteran state Rep. Tom O'Dea said the overall bill would technically turn Amazon into a union shop without a majority vote of employees. "We should not be unionizing by legislation," he said, adding that throughout the country there is no unionized workforce at the sales giant. He predicted that if the bill becomes law, it would repel other companies from possibly locating in the state.

"What we're really doing is killing jobs," said Rep. Anne Dauphinais, R-Danielson.

Rep. Tim Ackert, R-Coventry, said he doesn't like the idea of warehouses but would vote against the bill. "We're the warehouse capital," he said. "And what are we going to do? We're going to over-regulate the industry. We need to take a serious look at what we're doing as a legislative body."

Oh, I’d say the Democrats have already taken a serious look at what they’re doing, and this bill is the result. Champagne Socialist AOC still proudly boasts of her single-handed victory blocking Amazon from establishing a headquarters building in her borough at the cost of 25,000 lost jobs. Our own Me-too Democrats have obviously watched and learned.

Q: Why aren't their face masks stripped off when they're perp-walked to jail (where they’ll be released in seconds)?

/

Dozens of masked anti-Israel protesters arrested after storming Columbia library — and Rubio vows to review visa status of ‘pro-Hamas thugs’

I don’t know what good it would do, but if it’s important to these goons to keep their identity hidden from the public, then we shouldn’t accommodate them.

Dozens of masked anti-Israel protesters arrested after storming Columbia library — and Rubio vows to review visa status of ‘pro-Hamas thugs’

Dozens of anti-Israel rabble rousers protesting inside Columbia University’s Butler Library were hauled out by NYPD cops Wednesday — and Secretary of State Marco Rubio vowed to review the visa status of the “pro-Hamas thugs.”

Around 80 agitators were taken into custody Wednesday evening, sources told The Post, as the Ivy League school faced another chaotic day on its Morningside Heights campus that officials said left a pair of school safety officers injured.

Video obtained by The Post showed a line of protesters led out in zip ties by NYPD cops and into waiting police buses. 

“We are reviewing the visa status of the trespassers and vandals who took over Columbia University’s library,” Rubio said on X.

The mob of demonstrators initially shoved past a security guard at the library’s front entrance, according to footage of the scene – disrupting students who were attempting to gear up for final exams.

Once inside, they draped large signs over bookshelves, one declaring the library a “liberated zone” and another bearing the name of Bassel al-Araj, a Palestinian activist killed by Israel Defense Forces in a 2017 raid in the West Bank — though they misspelled his first name as “Basel.”

Trump announced he'll be cutting the staff at the CIA by 1,200; that’s probably not nearly deep enough to dig out the rot

/

Deep State Intel Staffers Once Again Leaking Classified Info To Stop Trump’s Agenda

U.S. intelligence chiefs ordered agencies to tighten surveillance on Greenland, the first tangible step toward President Donald Trump’s oft-stated goal of bringing the Arctic island under American control, sources leaked to The Wall Street Journal.

The directive instructed the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), National Security Administration (NSA) and the CIA to identify Greenlandic and Danish figures who might back U.S. objectives and to gauge public sentiment toward American resource extraction, the outlet reported Tuesday. Its emergence triggered immediate pushback from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who accused unnamed officials of leaking in order to thwart the administration.

From the details reported below, the current plan to trim the CIA seems to be to accomplish it through voluntary retirements and reduced hiring, but passiveness won’t do it, with this crowd.

Trump administration to cut thousands of jobs from CIA and other spy agencies

CIA to lose 1,200 while NSA among other agencies reported to face downsizing amid president’s drive to shrink federal workforce

Speaking of RINOs

/

RINOS GOTTA RINO: Thom Tillis’ Reason for Blocking Ed Martin’s Confirmation Will Make Your Blood Boil.

He wanted hard time for every single Jan. 6 protestor who entered the Capitol. He got his wish, initially, but then they were released. He blames Ed Martin.

Yesterday, Ed Morrissey explained what’s at stake:

Could 'President' Boasberg Pick His Own US Attorney for DC?

Ed Morrissey 10:40 AM | May 06, 2025

Donald Trump -- who last I checked was the duly elected president of the United States -- nominated Ed Martin to serve as US Attorney for Washington DC, and also has him serving as interim US Attorney. With only a simple majority needed for confirmation, there should have been no problem getting Martin in place before the May 20 expiration of his interim appointment. However, Martin apparently got sloppy with his disclosures, and some Senate Republicans are now balking:

Apparently, the big worry is around Sen. Thom Tillis, and not for the first time this year, although he may not be the only worry:

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis, who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told CNN last week he has “serious questions” about Martin, given his previous comments denigrating police officers who defended the US Capitol during the January 6, 2021, attack.

… GOP Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, who also serve on the panel, have also privately expressed concerns about supporting Martin, a source familiar with the process told CNN. Cornyn told CNN on Monday that Trump had not reached out to him, and he declined to say how he would vote on the nomination.

Normally, we could chalk this up by saying nominate in haste, repent at leisure. Trump simply needs to go back to the drawing board and find a new nominee. However, this situation has a complication, thanks to the decision to have Martin serve as interim US Attorney. If that position is not filled within 120 days by a Senate-confirmed appointment, the chief judge of the circuit can appoint an interim US Attorney to serve until that confirmation takes place.

And guess who is the current chief judge of the DC Circuit? Oh, let's not always see the same hands  ...

Twenty-three state attorneys general sent a letter to Senate leaders on Monday urging lawmakers to swiftly confirm President Donald Trump's nominee to serve as United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin, ahead of a May 20 deadline, when judges on a court led by Trump-antagonist Judge James Boasberg could select a temporary replacement. 

"To put it bluntly, the District of Columbia is broken. And four years of alleged corruption, mismanagement, and derelictions of duty in the U.S. Attorney’s Office under President Biden’s appointees are in many ways to blame. The District should be made safe again. The District should have a U.S. Attorney who replaces the rule of lawfare with the rule of law. Ed Martin is the man to achieve those goals. We strongly encourage the Senate to confirm him at the earliest possible date," reads the letter, which was first exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital.  ...

If an interim U.S. attorney is not confirmed by the Senate within 120 days, judges on the federal district court for that district can name a new interim U.S. attorney until a nominee is confirmed, Department of Justice documents show. Trump antagonist Judge James Boasberg, an Obama-appointed judge at the center of legal efforts targeting Trump's deportation efforts, is the current chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 


Thus we have a truly absurd situation. Forget how we arrived at it; this is a constitutional conflict. How can an Article III official appoint an Article II official who will almost certainly appear before him? That's not just a constitutional conflict, it's a conflict of interest. Bosberg will essentially appoint his own prosecutor for cases that directly involve inherent Article II powers and authority. Absurd doesn't do this situation justice; imagine this in the context of criminal prosecutions. If the prosecutor owes his job to the judge and the judge chose him to prosecute, how can that possibly be seen as impartial for the defendant?

In the long term, this process has to be changed to keep Article II officials accountable to the Article II authority -- the president and/or his designees, such as the Attorney General. Having judges appoint prosecutors who will appear before them is simply bizarre. And in this case, it gives Boasberg the chance to short-circuit Trump administration policy by perverting the constitutional order rather than addressing legal challenges through the impartial application of law and the Constitution. 

In the short term, the only way to address this absurdity is to confirm Martin. The controversy could have been avoided had Martin been more disciplined about his disclosures and/or Trump had vetted Martin more thoroughly, but nothing in these issues suggests that Martin is corrupt, incompetent, or unfit for office either. Tillis et al need to swallow their objections and get Martin in place. 

“Addendum: It doesn't look like Tillis will budge:”

Well of course they did; they're grifters first, Republicans in name only

/

“This is far too valuable to give back to mere chumps, when our friends need it more”

SERIOUSLY? Rep. Thomas Massie Says Congress CANCELED Votes on DOGE Spending Cuts

In early 2025, House Republican leaders tentatively planned to vote on a rescissions package proposed by President Donald Trump during the week of May 5, 2025. The package, expected to be sent to Congress in April 2025, aimed to cancel $9.3 billion in previously approved funding, primarily targeting foreign aid programs, the State Department, and public broadcasting entities like PBS and NPR. The rescissions process, governed by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, allows the President to propose canceling appropriated funds, which Congress must approve within 45 days of continuous session via a simple majority vote in both chambers. This fast-tracked procedure was seen as a way to formalize spending cuts, particularly those pushed by the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, while avoiding legal challenges to unilateral executive actions.

I suppose if you pay $1.8 million + for the land, you'll have to charge a lot for your spec house, but $5 million on Mallard?

/

Well, maybe, but if 42 Mallard Drive does get its $5.2 million asking price, it will certainly break the record for that street. Here are the previous highest sales from the past 10 years. Obviously, the market has skyrocketed over that decade, and perhaps the appeal of living on a speedway has increased lately, so who knows?

These people, or worse, will return; we can only hope to delay their arrival as long as we possibly can

/

energy-waste warden at the door

Dems at Climate Forum: Ban Everything!

September 2019:

Democrats appearing at CNN's marathon 7-hour global warming forum have a plan to solve a changing climate: Ban everything!

Over the course of the television extravaganza, Democrats' leading 2020 presidential candidates floated a variety of proposals to cut Americans' energy use and, ostensibly, to stop the climate from changing.

Among them: Bans on plastic straws, red meat, incandescent lightbulbs, gas-powered cars, nuclear energy, off-shore drilling, fracking, natural gas exports, coal plants, and even "carbon" itself.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), asked if she supports banning fracking, said "of course."

"There's no question I'm in favor of banning fracking, so yes. And starting — and starting with what we can do on day one around public lands, right? And then there has to be legislation, but yes — and this is something I've taken on in California. I have a history of working on this issue. And to your point, we have to just acknowledge that the residual impact of fracking is enormous in terms of the impact on the health and safety of communities."

When she was asked if she'd ban plastic straws, she also answered affirmatively: "I think we should, yes. I’m going to be honest."

Sen. Warren said she'd ban new nuclear plants: "We’re not going to build any nuclear power plants and we’re going to start weaning ourselves off of nuclear energy and replacing it with renewable fuels. We’re going to get it all done by 2035."

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said he'd ban fracking, off-shore drilling, and, eventually, fossil fuels themselves: "Absolutely, yes, I will ban offshore drilling. Why? Because, again, where have we seen these leases — this is why I’ve been fighting, doing demonstrations on the Jersey shore, to stop new licenses. Because when we know they drill, they spill. ... If my goal is to get our electricity zero carbon emission, that means phasing off of fossil fuels. If we’re going to get there to net zero carbon emissions by 2045 for our whole nation we have to get off of fossil fuels. So why would I allow new leases? But this is not just offshore drilling, this is things like fracking on public land.”

Sen. Harris said she would update government food guidelines to try to phase out eating red meat: "The answer is yes. I’ll also say this. The balance that we have to strike here, frankly, is about what government can and should do around creating incentives and then banning certain behaviors. To be honest I love cheeseburgers from time to time. I just do. And, but there has to be also what we do in terms of creating incentive that’s we will eat in a healthy way. We will encourage moderation. And we’ll be educated about the effect of our eating habits on our environment. And we have to do a much better job of that. And the government has to do a much better job of that.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) went the furthest, saying we should try to minimize human life itself to help the environment. Sanders said he'd use taxpayer money to help fund 3rd world population-control programs:  "The answer has everything to do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions. And the Mexico City agreement, which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control to me is totally absurd."

Former Vice President Joe Biden said he'd shut down coal plants and work to eliminate gas-powered cars: "Everybody knows where the world is going. Just like we set out the rules for what kind of plant, coal-burning plants — we have to shut down the ones we have but nobody is going to build a new one. Guess what? ... We have to vehicles off the road as quickly as we can but that create a significant number of jobs and opportunities for people.”

Most incredible: CNN asked most candidates if they support a "carbon-free America" and every candidate answered in the affirmative. How America can become "carbon-free" as every living thing on Earth contains carbon was never discussed or explained.

Here’s a supercut showing what we’ve held off, so far: