From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: The hidden costs of Environmentalism : A case study
Keywords: r-12, cars, big bucks
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:52:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.163359.4916@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver) writes:
>In article <1993Jan28.033347.6511@psg.com> michaels@psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>>
>>On figuring the costs to the enviroment:
>>
>>Skin cancer rates have quadrupled in the last decade.  CFC's stay
>>in the atmosphere for a ridiculously long time, centuries at
>>the least.



	Prove it.  Further, show me the figures that take into account
	the fantastic growth in sunbathing.


>>Now then:  add to the damage done to humans the damage done
>>to animals and plants.  Just as you wouldn't buy milk from
>>Chernobyl, you might get a little nervous about food from
>>Argentina or Australia if the ozone hole gets a little bigger.
>
>I haven't heard anything which discusses the connection between a ozone hole
>and the quality of foodstuffs grown in temperate regions.  


	Why even bother?  He's obviously an idiot.

	Some people are so ignorant, and yes--they actually exist as
	our friend shows--that they di not understand that radiation
	does not carry.  If I expose an apple to super-high radiation
	and then take the apple and put it in my lunch bag and eat it
	at work, I will be perfectly fine.

	Irridation doesn't make foods radioactive/poisonous/whatever.
	People who claim that it does are, quite simply, dunderheaded 
	numbskulls.  The situation of increased radiation from 
	ozone depletion (actually *good* for evolution, if bad for
	individuals) is in NO way parallel to Chernobyl.  In the latter,
	the concern was the radioactive graphite which had been distributed
	and *eaten* by the cattle in grazing.  It is the *graphite* 
	that causes problems, because the cows excrete it in the milk.
	If you managed to somehow filter it out, the milk would be fine.


>>Okay, that is a worst case scenario.  Lets compare it with
>>a few other expenses set aside for the "worst case scenario".
>>How much was spent on nuclear fallout shelters?


	Not much.  


>>How much do we spend on car/house/health etc.. insurance?


	For some people, not enough.  The leeches--those with 
	chronic sicknesses--should pay their fair share, and they
	typically do not.  Instead, they leech off of the healthy (who
	recieve no benefit from insurance).  


>>We spend a lot of money on "worst case scenarios" and insurance
>>companies still _make_ money.  Obviously we spend more moeny
>>than we need to if _they_ are making a profit off our fears!


	They should make a profit.  They provide a useful
	service that people want, but in no way "need" or
	"deserve" or"have a right to".  Insurance is a *luxury*,
	not a right.

	[...]



-- 
Attempts to lessen the burden of proof in rape | Why not put me in your kill
trials are violent assaults on civil rights.   | file?  add: "/: rsrodger/h :j"
  =====boycott=is=coercion=is=censorship=is=closed minded=is=cowardice=====
Pyramid schemes are illegal unless you're the US government.| Evolution works.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,uiuc.politics