In article <philC5Ls4A.MEA@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >In article <612@vega.iii.com> rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russ) writes: >    >In article <philC5Ht85.H48@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil >    >Ronzone) writes: >    > >    >>Not at all. You are apparently just another member of the >    >>Religious Left. >    >> >    >Not at all. I am not a member of the Religious Left, Right, >    >or even Center. In fact I don't consider myself very >    >religious at all [ this will probably result in flames now :) >    >]. In fact Phil, you should leave religion out of it. It just >    >clouds the issue. > >The religous left worships trees, rivers, the planet, and hates people.  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.  >    >>Show me all these environmental "disasters". Most of them >    >>aren't. And the natural disasters we have had individually >    >>far outweigh the man-made ones.        [Russ's response deleted to save space]  >I guess you missed the newspaper articles this week about Exxon presenting >evidnce (through the ASTM) on the issue of the Valdez incident. Seems >that Valdez is mostly recovered, despite the Religious Left's cries of       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >"hundreds of years".  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?  >Then again, the Relgious Left claimed it would take 20 yearsb to put out >the Kuwait oil fires... [...] >                          You should face the facts. Love Canal >was not, and is  not, an environmental disaster, nor even a problem. > >Nor is Times Beach and TMI and acid rain killing trees and ....  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.  >--  >There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of >environmental disaster. Weird, eh? > >These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)