Christmas Tree Trimming Parties, Easy On The Budget

Do you Agree or Disagree? Have a Comment? POST IT!

Reader Opinions

04/06/15 - 6:16:05 AM - Dursun Not supported by real world data......+++++++++++++++++++Do you ever read ainnhytg before you shoot your mouth off?I depend on no such thing. I agree that the greens have no concept of the economic consequences of insisting on zero pollution.You are however wrong about low doses. Low doses of bioaccumulators are hazardous. So are low doses of compounds that act more by chance than by toxicity. If you put x number of particles of asbestos in contact with lungs you will get y intances in which the asbestos triggers a reaction. It is the number of particles, not the concentration that counts, asbestos being basically inert.If you have 20 PPM of one chemical and 40 PPM of another, you cannot say that it is twice as likely that one chemical killed the fish.I spent ten years as an environmental analytical chemist, measuring real world data, so I am data driven. I came to the conclusion that greens are making env ironmental conditions WORSE by wasting resources on too much clean up of some things and not enough on others. Fanatical greens and fanatical anti-greens are both wasteful of other peoples resources, and neither attitude should be tolerated.It is a simple situation: the optimum pollution to have is whatever amount causes damages equal to what is spent on prevention. That changes over time, so no ppm standard is correct. Cleanup costs change and damage estimates change, and therefore the correct pollution to tolerate changes.I agree that we are spending too much on some things because of wild damage estimates, and too much application of the precautionary principle.But that in no way suggests we should be spending nothing.This is a situation in which NO ONE benefits if EITHER side "wins the argument" with bad data. And the data is constantly changing, as we learn more.Money is a good proxy for resources used. If you are spending too much on pollution damage or too much on pollution control, then you are wasting money and resources, and that is never " green".Obviously we cannot extract resources AND have everything just as before, but that is the fantasy greens chase. No one benefits from an adversarial position on this. There are a few right answer and a bunch of wrong ones. We may as well agree on a way to seek out the right ones.Rather than a flat declaration that wind energy is never and could never be cost effective ( demonstrably false) we ought to be seeking the conditions where it does work, and not push it where it doesn't. 04/05/15 - 4:58:13 AM - Samra Keep on writing and chguging away! Submit your comments and they will be posted here. Make this comment Public or Private to the Author only: Name: Email: *Your email will NOT be posted. This is for administrative purposes only. Comments: *Your Comments WILL be posted to the AUTHOR ONLY if you select PRIVATE and to this PUBLIC PAGE if you select PUBLIC, so write accordingly.   Please enter the code in the image: