Living one day at a time we all have to deal with
real and imaginary hazards, brought forth by
all sorts or people, some qualified to do so and
some not so qualified. Distinguishing the one
from the other isn't easy. There is a fair amount
of legislation put into effect due to either a
well meaning minority group making big noise, bad
science, Or just plain outright greed.
Science is a method for deciding whether what we
choose to believe has a basis in the
laws of nature or not. (1).
The problem is that science advances while the general population
sits stagnant not understanding the what most
science is about. This was not a problem 550
years ago when Galileo made the statement that
the earth revolved around the sun, the
authorities at the time, "the church", merely
made him recant his findings and that was
it for another 200 years, the earth was flat and
the sun rotated around it. A finding comes
out from a lab today and we have Cold Fusion in a
bottle.... the media gets hold of it and the
world knows about it and then, ooops. not quite,
It's a phenomena that's hard to recreate,
although some have done it, but is not Cold
Fusion and it's not any much good for anything.
A more recent example is Ebola, which science
tells us is spread through physical contact,
has a whole lot of people that it can be
airborne, and it did not start with some two bit outfit
"When news broke that the Ebola virus had
resurfaced in Uganda, investigators in Canada
were making headlines of their own with research
indicating the deadly virus may spread
between species, through the air.(2)
And while the premise is correct one needs to
read and understand what the science is
saying. and yet we end up with these headlines;
"Ebola: Airborne spread among humans is strongly suspected Public Health
Agency of Canada, CDC, Others"
"ALERT: From Pigs to Monkeys, Ebola Goes Airborne. Nigerian doctor who
treated Ebola patient infected with virus. 8 in
Quarantine, 70 Under Surveillance"
This type of science was well meaning but the
results were meant for scientists who
understand the results not for general public consumption. In the meantime a
survey of 100 people walking down a major US city street over 60% thought or
knew it was airborne spread.
So lets take this one step further. The US EPA has a CPP "clean power plan".
Good, I'm all for it, oh wait a minute, let me
ask a few questions. While I know
coal fired power plants pollute, they also contribute to the economy in a major
way. so if we put the CPP into effect what effect
with that have on the economic
well being of those supported by the old method.
Although there is no solid data
at this time the EPA's Sponsored Study into the
CPP say they will save some 3000
plus lives but fail to report the down side of
all those put out of work including
long term health implications. So maybe I'm not
all for it. Maybe we should think
about doing that for the new plants that need to come on line as the old plants
come to end of life and in the meantime find put the money into finding the can
make coal less polluting.(3)
And I could go on and on and on with this. What really needs to happen is for
governments to look at all sides of the problem, not just from the noisy sides,
to balance the legislations so that we move towards a clean future where we
are doing as little harm to the environment as is feasible without harming the
people that live in that environment and without stopping the progress that is
going to be needed for future generations. A simple example was posted
earlier about the lead. Take it out of the paints and places where people
will come into direct contact with it, but taking it out of optics and solders
is at this time only preventing the advancement of science.
In reality most legislation is not thought out
well. It's a simple nature of politics.
Robert
(1) Marcia McNutt
(2)
http://www.healthmap.org/site/diseasedaily/article/pigs-monkeys-ebola-goes-airborne-112112#sthash.SOwVGobq.dpuf
(3) "
EPA Clean Power Plan May Do More Harm Than Good" Forbes.com
At 12:34 PM 9/15/2016, you wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, qbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
We have been regulating ourselves back to the stone age well before the Kyoto Accord but that was notice of things to come. And while Europe and most "Western" countries slowly strangle themselves with regulations, most Asian countries will go merrily down the path doing what they please.
Actually, most Asian countries are headed the same way we are, although at varying paces. China in particular is becoming very concerned about how much its runaway air and water pollution is starting to *cost* it. They are starting to make the same sorts of rules, although their enforcement processes need work.
An occasional blunder doesn't invalidate the whole idea, although it may suggest that people are being over-enthusiastic.
Henry
