From: Max M (maxmcorp@worldonline.dk)
Date: Thu Dec 14 2000 - 17:47:10 MST
From: Damien Raphael Sullivan
>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.
>Soot particles don't accumulate in fish at 2000x environmental
concentrations,
>as far as I know. Some radioactive waste does; radioactive dumping is
banned.
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
that is experience speaking. But nobody could know beforehand that they
where wrong.
Neither can we always know it today when trying new stuff out. Proving a
negative is practically impossible. So we are back to the gamble again. Take
a chance but try to balance the risk with the possible reward.
>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.
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.
>> 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.
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.
>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.
I am still not wealthy enough to live "forever". Until I am there is nothing
gained for me to slow any economic/technological growth.
More TV sets, more cars, bigger houses etc. are really nothing compared to
the wealth of a (really)long life to me.
>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.
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
fanatics.
(Not counting you in as one ;-) I DO mean the real fanatics.)
Regards Max M Rasmussen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:23 MST