I also dislike hysterical rhetoric for political or monetary gain, but
it cuts both ways. I've found that the worst evironmentalists are no
more hysterical than industry PR is in reverse (completely playing down
dangers of its products or byproducts).

I hate people that create terror in an attempt to gain political
power. The anti DDT, anti nuke, anti Freon, anti lead, anti mercury,
anti gun, anti any chemical man knows how to make group fits this
pattern.

I'm sensing a lot of hate there Chuck - maybe you should go and hug
your trees

Do I take it that you also think DDT, nukes, lead, mercury and guns are
not as bad as most people make out or are 'fairly harmless'?

wrote:
I also dislike hysterical rhetoric for political or monetary gain, but
it cuts both ways. I've found that the worst evironmentalists are no
more hysterical than industry PR is in reverse (completely playing down
dangers of its products or byproducts).


I hate people that create terror in an attempt to gain political

power. The anti DDT, anti nuke, anti Freon, anti lead, anti mercury,
anti gun, anti any chemical man knows how to make group fits this
pattern.

I'm sensing a lot of hate there Chuck - maybe you should go and hug
your trees

The "I hate people" in the above statement is really a bad figure of
speech. It probably should be something more along the lines of "I am
truly disappointed when"...

I love my trees, but I don't worship them. When you have only one or
two trees, you tend to think they are each special, after a few acres
of trees, they start to become distinct only in groups, or clusters,
after the first dozen acres, they start to become a blurred mass, and
after the first 100 acres it is a little hard to get too personally
connected to any individual tree...sometimes it is a little hard to
even find an individual tree more than once...at 200 acres, well, that's
a heck of a lot of trees...

While you think I am some kind of environmental devil, in actuality,
through the careful management of the acreage I own, I do more for the
environment than any 1000 people.

Do I take it that you also think DDT, nukes, lead, mercury and guns are
not as bad as most people make out or are 'fairly harmless'?

Most anything can be harmful when it is misused, or improperly disposed.
It is long past time to include the full price of disposal of a product
in the retail cost of the product. If one was to do that, plastics would be
too expensive to use.

Mercury is a terrifically useful element. Without it, fluorescent and
compact fluorescent lamps (the fair haired child of the enviro movement)
would be non existent. Would that be a good, or a bad thing?

Lead brought us the only hybrid and electric cars yet on the road. Without
lead, they would be unaffordable. Without lead, you would still have to
hand crank your car to start it. Would that be a good, or a bad thing?

Guns save more lives, in the US, each year than they cost... by a factor
of more than 100 to 1. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

The banning of DDT was the political entry point of the international
environmental movement. It was the political brain child of Ruckleshaus.
He banned DDT in spite of science that did not support his conclusions,
and in spite of his own EPA committee's recommendation *NOT* to do so. The
fix was in. It has been said that the US ban on DDT has amounted to genocide
in third world countries. The blunt instrument used? Mosquitoes. The
victim? Children.

US Nuclear power plants have a safety record that is unmatched by any other
form of power generation... yet thanks to the enviro's, you cannot commission
a new nuke plant in the US. You cannot even upgrade an old nuke plant in the
US. The current generation of nuke plant only extracts a small portion of
the available energy from the fuel rods. Yet thanks to the enviros, you cannot
reprocess the spent fuel rods to extract the rest of the power. You cannot
even remove the "spent" fuel rods from the reactor facility for storage in
a better protected location.

Coal fired plants have killed thousands from air pollution and plant accidents,
and yet they are just ducky... Well, except for that global warming thing.
I know, wood fired power plants!

I am very fond of the environment. Probably much more so than you. I long
ago put my money where my mouth is. I am not at all fond of those that call
themselves environmentalists.

My contribution to this thread has long since past the point of being a
reasonable side tracking. This is my last posting on this subject... for now.

-Chuck

Chuck Harris wrote:


I am very fond of the environment. Probably much more so than you. I long
ago put my money where my mouth is. I am not at all fond of those that
call
themselves environmentalists.

My contribution to this thread has long since past the point of being a
reasonable side tracking. This is my last posting on this subject...
for now.

-Chuck

Well since you're bailing I feel safe in agreeing with you because I
neither want to belabour an argument in whats good can be bad or vice versa.

But...

I worked a while in NE Oklahoma. Asbestos mines, lead mines. Pretty
much under the radar of the environmentalists who seem to need someplace
snazzier than Picher, Oklahoma to drive home their point.

I found the local conditions appalling. Maybe because I was constantly
reminded about don't drink the water...or inferences that "hell, thats
the way those crazy Okies are". I worked in direct contact with people
and it seemed as though EVERYBODY had a mentally defective family member
hidden away in a back room and there was certainly no shortage of
borderline cases outside and on the street. Anybody from outside would
notice it.

I'm 100% against the Kerry-camp type of "sky is falling" kneejerk
reaction to anything that isn't mountain spring water (imported from
France) so I'm not speaking from that context.

It would seem to me, an eternal Devil's Advocate, that there are indeed
issues with 'public level toxicity' that get totally overshadowed by
both extreme camps. The guy that puts on a hazmat suit to work on his
boatanchor or the politician that claims that they are producing honey
if the industry benefits his district. Both come off as fanatics
deflecting concern from the real world aspects.

So yeah, these scenarios really do exist but not because an old radio is
leaking fluids. If you want to save the earth you can start by saving
Picher, Oklahoma and forget about the miniscule implications of your
weenie little capacitors.

-Bill

Really interesting to hear your views on all this and thanks for taking
the time to express them (I don't think you're an environmental devil at
all by the way). Your trees sound lovely, truly jealous. Spent a while
in British Columbia not long back, everything seemed comparitively dead
when I left there....but this is all way OT now, so thanks again.

Andy

Bill wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote:


I am very fond of the environment. Probably much more so than you. I
long
ago put my money where my mouth is. I am not at all fond of those
that call
themselves environmentalists.

My contribution to this thread has long since past the point of being a
reasonable side tracking. This is my last posting on this subject...
for now.

-Chuck

Well since you're bailing I feel safe in agreeing with you because I
neither want to belabour an argument in whats good can be bad or vice
versa.

But...

I worked a while in NE Oklahoma. Asbestos mines, lead mines. Pretty
much under the radar of the environmentalists who seem to need someplace
snazzier than Picher, Oklahoma to drive home their point.

I found the local conditions appalling. Maybe because I was constantly
reminded about don't drink the water...or inferences that "hell, thats
the way those crazy Okies are". I worked in direct contact with people
and it seemed as though EVERYBODY had a mentally defective family member
hidden away in a back room and there was certainly no shortage of
borderline cases outside and on the street. Anybody from outside would
notice it.

I'm 100% against the Kerry-camp type of "sky is falling" kneejerk
reaction to anything that isn't mountain spring water (imported from
France) so I'm not speaking from that context.

It would seem to me, an eternal Devil's Advocate, that there are indeed
issues with 'public level toxicity' that get totally overshadowed by
both extreme camps. The guy that puts on a hazmat suit to work on his
boatanchor or the politician that claims that they are producing honey
if the industry benefits his district. Both come off as fanatics
deflecting concern from the real world aspects.

So yeah, these scenarios really do exist but not because an old radio is
leaking fluids. If you want to save the earth you can start by saving
Picher, Oklahoma and forget about the miniscule implications of your
weenie little capacitors.

-Bill


--
Get your free morse ringtone at http://www.planetofnoise.com