🚀 go-pugleaf

donb@keystone (Don Baccus) writes:

>Steven J. Milloy (milloy@cais.com) wrote:

>Besides, it's too hard to read HONEST statements when the margin is
>set to 100 characters, much less a pack of lies.

I saw nothing in the post that would qualify as a falsehood. It was a
summary of the group's opinions. Why must you start with this type of
attack?

>Let's see.  If the polluter doesn't pay, who does?  Let me guess, the
>public, right?  Hope you didn't mind my putting your post into
>readable form...

>"It's not fair for the polluter to pay, so the taxpayer should".

The issue of fairness is at the root of the Superfund dilemma. I hope
the environmental movement will eventually come around and realize that
justice and fairness are essential to the attainment of any goals 
that they have. If you are really interested in environmental cleanup,
then you must deal with the issues of retroactivity and joint liability.
It is not good enough to simply say, "We don't care who it hurts or
how unfair it is, we just want it cleaned up." Superfund is proving
every day that our society cannot and will not implement such an approach.
Yes, in many cases, these cleanups should be public works projects.
How this is funded should be seriously debated. Polluter pays is good
for the attorneys not for the environment.

>: 1. In the remedy selection process, policy-based risk assessment should
>: be replaced by science-based risk assessment.

>Sounds like a high-faultin' goal to me, great!  Let's see what you
>REALLY mean though:

>: 3. Site cleanups should be prioritized on the basis of current risk and
>: future risk as determined by reasonably foreseeable land use.

>"Foreseeable land use" is science?

Is this really so difficult? The alternative of cleaning everything to
background (which is impossible anyway), is not scientific either.

>: 4. At this time, ecological risk assessment should be a process based
>: in observation and common sense.

>science.  "common sense" is science?  Of course not!  

I have to agree with you here, but I think the author despairs too quickly
of this problem. We should strive to protect human health AND the environment.
We should use risked based approaches on both.

>I know you have a political definition.  Probably similar to the
>"common sense" definition of wetlands which excludes damn near
>everythiing but oceans, rivers and lakes.

I think the wetlands issue is also foundering on injustice and unfair
treatment. 

Regards - Jim (jnm@saf.com)
-- 
James N. McClatchey (Southern Aluminum Finishing Co, Atlanta, GA, USA)
Architectural Aluminum. Custom Fabrication. Paint, Powder Coating, Anodizing.
jnm@saf.com  Compuserve: 76167,2535  Voice: 404-355-1560 Fax: 404-350-0581