On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:54:42 +0100
"Max M" <maxmcorp@worldonline.dk> wrote:
> From: Damien Raphael Sullivan
> >So we should dump everything at will into our little cage and see what
> >happens?
>
> That's not exactly what I am arguing for is it? It is not what is happening
> now either.
How not? A company uses a new chemical, dumps it, and if and when sufficient
evidence is found against it then it may be banned. But lots of new chemicals
are produced, probably outpacing regulatory inspection.
> >Proving that something is safe may be impossible. But at least looking at
> >persistent stuff to see what it might do seems only intelligent. Look
> >before you leap, yes?
> Yes and we do that.
Again, how so? Perhaps I'm ignorant of standard procedure; how do we look
ahead?
> Electricity isn't created out of thin air you know, soot particles from gas
> and coal, radioactive waste, magnetic fields around High Voltage wires
Soot particles don't accumulate in fish at 2000x environmental concentrations,
as far as I know. Some radioactive waste does; radioactive dumping is banned.
The usual scientific argument against the fear of transmission wire fields is
that the radiation is too pathetic to plausibly have any effect; if statistics
proved there was an effect, it'd be New Science. The plausibility of a
persistent and accumulative chemical causing damage is way higher. In fact, I
wonder how many chemicals meet Sweden's definition and are harmless?
> Fertilizers certainly are accumulative and is killing the low waters around
> here.
I don't think they are accumulative. They get used as food. They don't
poison things, they feed algae which swamp the area.
> slow development/low risk fast development/high risk
> <------------------------------------------------------------------>
> poor society wealthy society
And now that we're wealthy we can afford to be more cautious. Especially as
the greater wealth gives us more power to fuck up if the risk happens.
> We have (very high) taxes on cars, gas, electricity, fertilizers, pesticides
> and consumption in general. None of these "enviromental" taxes are used to
> better the enviroment. But to further their own agena.
Regulations can be abused. But in the US I think the EPA has done a good job
of making things better. Not that we're likely to adopt the precautionary
principle, especially with Bush in office.
> Fair point. The safer the better. Only problem is that the greens are
> attacking the test fields and destroying the crops. They don't want safe
> development, they want no development.
Well, I hardly agree with experiment-breaking. That's evil. But not all
people concerned with the environment are anti-science Greens. Some of them
are scientists.
Hmm, I wonder what Greg thinks of this?
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:36 MDT