Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 27 Mar 2014 08:35:10 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>
> >What interests would have these people to falsely accuse the chemical
> companies?
Ghislain, the article was about innuendo, rather than false accusation.
> >If they tell lies, why are they not called to order?
>
Whether lies have been told is up to our knowledgeable regulators, who have
all the data at hand, and plenty of public pressure behind them, to
determine. I am suspect of any determination of "truth" by writers with an
agenda, who do not have actual data at hand, and who have not necessarily
done their homework.
> >We must not be naive. You know as well as I what the real world is about.
>
No one that I've yet met in the regulatory process is naive in any way. It
is all about the assessment of actual risk. Each person accepts different
levels of risk.
Re the precautionary principle, I know of some who willingly sit at the
front of steel vehicles hurtling at 65 miles per hour, balanced on rapidly
spinning thin rubber tubes filled only with compressed air, with thousands
of pounds of hives behind them, facing similar vehicles driven by impaired
idiots heading directly at them at the same speed only a few feet away in
the opposite direction. How could anyone in their right mind even consider
doing such a risky thing? Any reasonable application of the precautionary
principle would certainly shut down our highways.
--
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
|
|