From: Damien Raphael Sullivan (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 14 2000 - 19:29:33 MST
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 01:47:10 +0100
"Max M" <maxmcorp@worldonline.dk> wrote:
> >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.
> Oh perhaps you are talking US law. I am talking Danish law which is
> certainly more strict than the US then.
Well, originally I was talking about Swedish law, they being the ones making
the specific change (and eager to get the EU to come along.)
> I was trying to show a point by providing a range of examples, that should
> illustrate my meaning when seen together from a little higher view. The next
> meta level so to speak. You are counter arguing by trying to show that every
> little example is wrong. I know that some of these examples are wrong, but
Wrong and irrelevant. The new Swedish rules (as reported) are aimed at
particular attributes of substances, attributes which are a priori highly
indicative of being dangerous.
To make an analogy of my own, it's not "all new chemicals are bad", but "all
new chemicals which are close relatives of cyanide are probably bad". Except
instead of "cyanide" it's "persistent and accumulates in living creatures".
> that is experience speaking. But nobody could know beforehand that they
> where wrong.
Afterhand, however, we've learned that strange things which accumulate up the
food chain tend to cause problems.
> As I said before. We know this now. We didn't before. Should we have stopped
> electricity until we knew what we know now? Because then we would never had
> known what we know now about electricity. Sort of a catch 22.
I suspect we knew EM waves pretty well before high power transmission lines
became feasible.
> If there is no movement in the water, as is the case in some of the low
> waters here, and the removal of the fertilizers happens slower than the
> amount added each year, I would call that accumulative. But then again it is
> not really the point here.
It is the point. Sure, they're accumulating in still water. They're not
bioaccumulative. They don't concentrate more and more in each creature up the
food chain, ending in us; they get eaten and turned into plant matter.
> I am still not wealthy enough to live "forever". Until I am there is nothing
> gained for me to slow any economic/technological growth.
What if pollution increases the chance you'll die soon more than the
technology bought by the pollution decreases that chance?
> I am as concerned about the enviroment as the next guy. That is not really
> the point. I just don't want us to be overly cautious because of some eco
And I don't see how the Swedish rules, as stated, are anything close to being
overly cautious.
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:23 MST