On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:44:43 EST
Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> Damien, My major problem with this attitude on the part of the Swedes is that
> I don't know hardly anything that is completely safe. Do you suppose that as
> they start to notice the harmful aspects of common household and industrial
> substances they will begin outlawing those substances retroactively? Will
Note they're not banning _everything_. They're saying substances which are
persistent and bioaccumulative are banned unless they can be shown to not be
toxic. Does that really seem like a bad idea?
"I have this great new chemical, it'll make production much cheaper.
"It never degrades and will get collected up the food chain. What's it do to
the things it accumulates in?"
"Let's try it and see!"
People worry about gray goo, but think checking of persistent chemicals or
released GM organisms is evil government interference?
The article didn't discuss the Swedish rules in detail, but I could imagine
allowing a company to use dangerous chemicals if it showed that it wasn't
letting them be released into the environment. Closed loop manufacturing, or
detoxifying the waste.
I don't like wondering how much mercury is in my seafood. I think this is a
good thing.
As for household substances, we've already moved a lot of the way to phosphate
free detergents. Maybe we should think again about dumping chlorine compounds
and excess nitrogen into our water as well.
> they get all the way back to caveman days do you suppose? Can you imagine a
> caveman chipping an arrowhead while wearing safety goggles to prevent stone
> chips from blinding him?
What's the point of this analogy? What's it an analogy to?
And I could imagine someone with good motor control closing his eyes at the
moment of striking. Not having struck flint I can't weigh the risks of losing
an eye vs. mashing a thumb.
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:36 MDT