Re: Last straw

[Mark Robinowitz <mrobinowitz@igc.org>]

At 03:04 PM 10/4/96 -0400, you wrote:
>                      Subject:                              Time:  11:05 AM
>  OFFICE MEMO         Last straw                            Date:  10/4/96
>
>I have read Mark Robinowitz's comments over the past months, and have barely
>tolerated his exaggerated and unbalanced take on dioxin matters.  His recent
>response to DrBill, however, goes beyond decency and reasoned comment.
>
>While I do not favor censorship of any form in this medium, I raise the
>question of whether the list, and the goals the list members seek, are well
>served by Mark's participation.  I point out that professional acquaintances,
>whose participation would be welcome and could move the technical level of the
>list discussion forward, elect not to bother with the list because of the kind
>of rhetoric we see from Mark and some others.  
>
>David Ross
>
>


the dioxin list, to my understanding, was set up to be a public discussion
among people who are working to reduce and eliminate dioxin production

over the past several months, it has mutated into a forum for Wise abUse
industry groups who seek to thwart restrictions upon the right to pollute
that the chlorine industry currently enjoys

(for example, I live downwind and downstream from a huge chlorine bleaching
paper mill that has poisoned the beautiful Potomac River with dioxins and
other organochlorines, the source of drinking water for over a million
people -- yet they have more legal "right" to pollute than do citizens do to
sue them to stop.  Same with the recently opened garbage incinerator that is
even closer -- the powers that be declared that even people living 2,000
feet away have no right to sue in a court of law.)

issues of morality in the random compulsory genetic alteration caused by the
chlorine industry are more important than the precise number of molecules of
2,3,7,8-tcdd that are belched from their smokestacks and discharge pipes.
The arguments advanced by the industry spokespeople are akin to medieval
discussions of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin --
completely divorced from reality.  Our inalienable human rights include the
right to life and liberty from involuntary pollution and population wide
experimentation.  If the industry people get so upset that medical ethics
are raised in relation to the indiscriminate dumping of hormone altering
substances into the biosphere, that says a lot about the morality of their
actions.

The true question:  would representatives of the chlorine industry be
willing to drink effluent from a chlorine using paper mill, or inhale
undiluted incinerator emissions?


By the way, National Public Radio just reported that the Antartic ozone hole
is larger than the one created in 1995.  Without Dupont's advanced chlorine
based technology, that would not have been possible.  As Ronald Reagan said,
it's no skin off my nose ...



"Who permitted them to permit?"
-- Dr. Albert Schweitzer