Re: Apologies to Mark and other

[Patricia Dines <73652.1202@CompuServe.COM>]

Hi David -

Thanks for the graciousness of your note to all of us.  I'm sorry that you
couldn't find a way for the diversity of voices on this list to be an asset in
what you were seeking to find and offer.  Best wishes in your further endeavors!
I'm sure the group would be most interested in what you come up with for safe
incineration alternatives, and hope you'll let us know.

P. Dines

P.S.  I feel the need to comment on your perception that we are suspicious,
including of corporate scientists.  It was an interesting point, but I think one
quite understandable in this domain.  

Given the context that we're all human and bring our own range of perceptions,
experience, etc., stll I'd say that people who've worked on this issue for a
while have perhaps grown cautious and willing to question things, often from the
school of hard knocks.  I for one am not suspicious of science per se, but I do
know it's limitations, and have seen it used by corporate scientists in ways
that sicken me and I feel are in no way good representations of good science -
misused, key facts discarded, etc. - just bad science.  Over and over we've seen
corporate money buy the results they want and refuse to fund universities, etc.
that don't provide their desired answers - and won't let the university publish
if they get a different answer than the corporation wants.  See the book
Pesticide Conspiracy and you'll see it's been going on a long time.  

Is all science on this subject worthless? Of course not.  But given the track
record in this domain, I think it's sensible to apply critical thinking to data
that's presented.  Often the so-called scientists' pandering to the sponsor is
just embarrassing.  

Many of the people I know involved in toxics issues are involved because they
directly see the harm these toxins do, and they see the bad corporate-sponsored
science as stopping necessary action to protect the involuntary exposure and
harm.  

One example I know pretty well is Risk Assessment for pesticides, which presents
itself as a science that can protect us while allowing farmers and others to use
these toxins with a small "acceptable" amount of harm.  Yet this so-called
science ignores major issues like drift, assuming the physical impossibility of
no off-site drift, when studies have shown that even with the most responsible
operator 30-65% of the pesticides drift off-site, depending on application
method.  The result is things like the farmworker being given a moon suit while
the child plays unprotected on the field on the other side of the fence - and
the parents are powerless to use the system that says it's "safe enough" to stop
it.  And widespread penetration of pesticides into every place (including the
artic!) and every body on earth.

This is but one example of many that leads the veterans in these issues to raise
an eye at corporate scientists.  Hopefully, we consider and weigh their
information, but we don't consider it gospel.  

And there are good scientists out there, thank g-d - but with so much of the
research money coming from polluting corporations, I'm pretty sure from the
evidence I've seen that it's a lot harder supporting oneself if one is willing
to find out that these toxins do harm.

Anyway, I can't speak for everyone, and we can all refine ourselves better in
listening to different views and presenting quality information, but if you find
suspicion among us, perhaps there's very good reasons.  Can you say
"bivwood..."?

P.P.S.  I just read eric hummel's email - well-said!  I agree strongly with this
statement of his:
"I remain sceptical and submit that if "if at last real, a sound solution
 to the problem arose",  industry would very likely be the LAST
 to embrace it."

I find industry much more resistant to the less-toxic options than I find
activists.  A glance at pesticides and ag provides plenty of evidence of that!
For example, chemical manufacturers keep saying there are no alternatives to
Methyl Bromide and thus keep asking politicians to keep extending the already
generous phaseout schedule of this Class One ozone deplete - while skin cancer
rates skyrocket and people cower in fear of the lifegiver sun, now made
dangerous.  They appear completely ignorant, though I know it's been mentioned
many times, of the report of the international gathering of the world's top
scientists (U.N. sponsored I believe) showing alternatives 90% of MB uses, or
the many farmers etc. producing their results just fine without it.

On the other hand, I see activists getting excited every time an alternative is
mentioned, developed, or refined - and there are many, despite chemical
manufacturers selective research.  The activists I know don't need this toxics
issue to feel whole and would be absolutely delighted if it were resolved.  We
sacrifice a lot of their lives for this, usually for little or no money, give up
a lot personally, just because of how deep our concern is for the harm being
done, because of our concern for our families and communities, because we've
seen the direct harm in people we know made ill, deformed, or killed.  That's
what drives their passion and efforts. I know very few activists for whom this
is a theoretical endeavor...