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.
>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.
>> - 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.
Maybe not as much as some other toxins. But they are none the less.
Electricity isn't created out of thin air you know, soot particles from gas
and coal, radioactive waste, magnetic fields around High Voltage wires
causing cancer, or maybe not. Shouldn't we have stopped using electricity
when that suspision arrived?
Cars are build of toxic materials that are poorly reused and have spewed
lead for decades. There is also small soot particles especially from
kerosene that is suspected af causing respitorial problems.
Fertilizers certainly are accumulative and is killing the low waters around
here.
Our forefathers couldn't know how toxic the above items would beforehand. In
the meanwhile the chance they took has payed of imensely. Beside, there is
many more examples these where just a few.
It's all a balanced gamble. Hopefully it will be balanced enough to prevent
disasters.
Historically it has looked like this:
slow development/low risk fast development/high risk
<------------------------------------------------------------------>
poor society wealthy society
My problem with the precautionary principle is that it is used for non
ecological political goals here in Denmark, where the left wing is strongly
against any technological development more complicated than wind mills.
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.
The ideological high brows of the enviromental mob, are so easily abused for
something else.
>And we know more chemistry and ecology than we did then; we're in a better
>position to evaluate before we try.
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.
Darn ... I sound more and more like Michael Lorrey :-)
Max M. W. Rasmussen, Denmark. New Media Director
private: maxmcorp@worldonline.dk work: maxm@normik.dk
-----------------------------------------------------
Specialization is for insects. - Robert A. Heinlein
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:36 MDT