On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:35:01 +0100
"Max M" <maxmcorp@worldonline.dk> wrote:
> I am only happy that our forefather didn't apply the cautionary principle.
> Then we would still be dirt poor and living in the dark ages.
So we should dump everything at will into our little cage and see what
happens?
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?
> - No electricity. (Do you know how many people are getting killed by that,
> - No cars. They cause emission, and roadkill.
> - No fertilizers, they cause loss of oxygen in the oceans.
Straw men; none of these is persistent and bioaccumulative. OTOH, fertilizer
runoff is a major pollution problem. Perhaps more thought would have led to
more stable forms, or requirement of runoff neutralization. Cars _were_
subjected to a precautionary principle: early cars had to go very slowly, and
sometimes behind a guy with a red flag. And look, dumping lots of lead and
sulfur into the air wasn't such a hot idea. Hey, maybe the precautionary rule
would have prevented a bunch of kids from growing up with lead poisoning.
And we know more chemistry and ecology than we did then; we're in a better
position to evaluate before we try.
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:36 MDT