David, Mark, and Dr. Bill

[Patricia Dines <73652.1202@CompuServe.COM>]

Hello all - 

I was fascinated by David Ross' critique of Mark Rabinowitz' email, and want to
add my voice to those supporting the value of Mark's comments and asking who
David works for.  I think Mark's recent response to Dr. Bill was clear and
cogent, nothing near the indecent that David feels it was.

Perhaps underneath David is questioning the group's focus, and perhaps that
needs to be restated by the list owners.  My understanding was that it was to
support people being activists on the dioxin issue.  While I agree that it's
important to have accurate facts in doing that kind of work, I don't feel that
scholarly scientific overly-cautious dry examinations are neccessarily always
the most useful approach.  In my experience, the scientific viewpoint can
sometimes be so focussed on minutae as to miss the forest for the trees -
especially if they only happen to mention facts that support the bias of their
employers and industry and don't appear to hear that others look at other very
worrisome facts, might have different levels of proof before action, and might
have different levels of acceptable risk they're willing to expose others to
involuntarily and with insufficient scientific examination.  

I feel that Dr. Bill makes just these types of scientific errors, and am nearly
always relieved to hear Mark's illumination, even if he does have emotions (oh
no! not that!!) mixed in with the science.  If one earnestly wants further
supporting information on Mark's premises, I'm sure one only has to ask.  And
perhaps sometimes I wish he'd mention the facts under one of his assertions.
But often he does, and at least he doesn't feel the need to include the whole
PhD paper each time when just a simple point is being made.  More importantly, I
see him seeking to get a broader sense of the overview importance of this issue
and its impact on our survival.  This is not just a dry theoretical exercise
that we can wait decades to get perfect facts about before acting - not when the
exposure is so broadscale and when so many lives - and the survival of our
species - are at stake.

On the other hand, I find that the bias and narrow focus of Dr. Bill's emails
make them only exhausting to read, no matter how hard I try to be open to them,
and I don't find them illuminating, useful, or consistent with what I understand
to be this lists' activist goals.  The Chlorine Council putting me on their
private list a while back without my asking to be on it did nothing to endear me
to Dr. Bill; neither did his snooty judgemental response when I asked to be
taken off.  

David says that because of Mark, real scientists don't participate in this list.
Wow, who knew he had such power!?  Well, from my view, I see Dr. Bill blocking
discussion more than I see Mark, but if people on either side of the issue
aren't willing to just step in and say their different point of view - which is
really the point of an open list like this anyway - then that's really their
responsibility isn't it?  If they can raise the level of the discussion, I'd be
glad to see it!

I strongly believe in free speech, if it doesn't impinge on our ability to get
our work done on this list. If the group wants to include Dr. Bill's point of
view, I accept that - despite my feelings, I've never said otherwise.  But to
have his framing block the activist voices that I thought this list was intended
for, well that would be just too ridiculous for words!!  Rather, if there are
more voices that could support the goals of this list, I for one would encourage
them to speak up and add their thoughts to this conversation and not be so
intimidated by what is after all just one point of view.

If having a place where different voices can be heard doesn't work for David,
and if he's not willing to support what I understand to be this lists'
definition, then perhaps he'd be happier if he started his own list for the kind
of scientific conversation he seeks, so that we activists can reclaim the focus
of this list and get our work done.  

P. Dines

P.S.  It might be nice if those pro-chemical people watching this list and in
the world at large might spend more time trying to openly understand why we're
upset and the real reasons for concern, and act to drastically reduce the harm
of their actions, vs. trying to defend and disempower our decisions to try to
act to improve the situation.  Just a thought....