
And the religious right worships engines, smokestacks, landfills,
and hates people.

What does this name-calling have to do with anything you are claiming about
the truth of environmental disaster?  Nothing that I have read in this
thread, nor heard from anyone I have talked to, would suggest to me that 
people fit the definition you give of the religious left.  Come off it, Phil.
A prime motivation for protecting our environment is so that we, 
people, can continue to live in it healthily.  We just disagree on what
is necessary to maintaining a healthy environment FOR PEOPLE.


      [Russ's response deleted to save space]

      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What!? They have already repaired that old hulk!!!?  WOW!!! ;-)

I suppose you *mean* the Alaskan shores that were devastated by the
Valdez accident?  I haven't seen the articles.  What do they say exactly?
Has [mostly] all the ocean and shore life returned?  The sands are [mostly]
as clean as they were before?  The microbial samples are [mostly] back to 
a normal balance? The fish and fowl populations have [mostly] returned?  What?

[...]

Not a problem?  Would you move to Three Mile Island?  I would imagine 
there is some cheap property available!  

The naturally occurring catastrophic events [disasters] that destroy 
property (ie: hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes) do not usually leave 
toxic wastes that prevent people from re-building their lives there.  
The man-made disasters (oil spills, toxic dumping, radioactive waste 
dispersions) cause death and make an area unliveable far beyond the 
initial event.


