On Tue, 20 May 2003 12:08 am, Keith Addison wrote: > Hi Todd > > >Another proponent of "acceptable risk" I see.
hang on. That's stretching it a bit, don't you think? I am a proponent of the "social contract", the idea that a society is not a bunch of individuals, nor a state devoid of individualism, but a delicate balance between the rights ( a poor choice of word, being as loaded with multiple meanings as it is) of individuals and the rights of the state. so to accuse me of being an avocate of "Acceptable Risk" is a stretch at best, and an insult at worst. Or was it meant to be humour? lets cut through the rhetoric for a second shall we. firstly, the implication from the statement seems to be that AR is a baaaad bad thing. secondly that I, as a proponent of AR, am a misguided and simple minded fool, to be the subject of amused derision or outright contempt. so lets look at why someone might think that AR is a bad thing. AR can, as I am sure you all agree, be used for good or evil. we ALL use it. we all make judgements using it every day, and most of those are completely irrational judgements based on a willingness to trade risk for expediency. Every time we ride our bikes or hop in a car we take a calculated risk that we will not get killed today. So, are you being a risk-taking fool for riding a bike rather than driving in a care, since the risk of suffering death or serious injury from riding is much higher than a car (last time I looked). So why do people ride bikes? perhaps it's for reasons other than risk? Gosh! who'd have thought. Acceptable risk as a governence technique is, surely, poorly practiced because it equates risk with financial risk and rarely takes into account environmental or social impacts of actions. so, perhaps rather than attacking a tool, one should attack the improper use of that tool? Or is that too hard? too challenging? The biggest problem today with trying to get progress on environmental and social reform is the assumption that people are stupid. (I mean, tehy are, as a mob, very stupid). the answer to this from politicians and media saave corporations is to obstreficate and/or rely on the simple message to express a misleading reasonable sounding opinion to what is in reality a complex and multifacited problem. People understand complexity! they face it every day! they don't want to hear it, but that is besides the point! the simple message, such as "AR = bad", not only mis-represents the issue, but does irreperable damage to the process of rectifying a given situation, since properly applied AR seems to me to be the only useable tool we have for addressing sensiblely a lot of complex social and environmental problems. In addition, it perpetuates the misuse of the media to allow people to remain simple and comfortable and not to think! > >For those not in the loop, "acceptable risk" (AR) is not a matter of "if" > >anyone (or anything) gets ill, dies or is otherwise compromised, it's > > simply a matter of "who" and "when." > > > >Which brings to question exactly why toxic pastimes that are deemed oh so > >"acceptable" relative to "risk" predominantly located in poorer districts > >and neighborhoods. see, now your accusing me of wanting to poison the poor. > > > >AR is also the primary reason that cumulative risk has become such an > >expanding problem. no, not true. Poor and incomplete application by govt and corporations with a vested interest in a particular outcome is what has lead to the problem. see, now you've pushed me into a position where I am required to defend AR in order to defend myself! Shame on you. Society legislates risk down to "acceptable" levels > >(which are quite frequently more politically based than health rated) on > > an instance by instance basis, which lends to the false security of > > "relative" safety, all the while the reality of cumulative exposures are > > not taken into account more often than not (whether by professional, > > political or private), as we've already been following "safe" practices > > in the singular. > > > >But we should all be pleased and "accept" whatever risk is ascribed, > > because our overall lifespans are greater than our grandparent's? > > I think this is the real comparison here, I'm sure the listers who > know about it (quite a few) will agree: > > http://journeytoforever.org/text_price.html > The Darwin of nutrition O - K.... sure, back up your arguement with an article on your own web site! nice! (damn it, now I am getting accusitory! see how this rhetoric attack stuff works! it sucks you into arguements that you didn;t want, wastes your time, drags you into vitrolic personal attacks against people you'd rather just ignore or get along with!) > > >Tell that to those who are the casualties of AR. > > Indeed... but we all are, only a matter of degree, and the whole biosphere > too. Right.... casualty. badly done by. do you have clean drinking water? nice car? education? peaceful society and police? you can't throw the baby out with the bath water you know. every thing comes at a price. are you unwilling to pay that price? what are you going to do about it then? > From: "paul van den bergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fwd: [prep2003discuss2] Toothpaste as poison > > > > > I think you all missed my point. and still missing it. once more, with feeling. you will not get altzimers (sp?) from the aluminium in your toothpaste. period. trust me, I'm an engineer. be more worried about picking up Al from the Al salts in your deoderant, or in the cooking water from your pan. Not to mention the fact that the association with Al exposure and degenerative diseases is at best tenative, at worst, non-existant. Or is it all a govt. conspiracy? (this is an insult, implying that the people who disagree with me are fools who believe in things like the US govt. having aliens from Roswell) -- Dr Paul van den Bergen Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures caia.swin.edu.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] IM:bulwynkl2002 "And some run up hill and down dale, knapping the chucky stones to pieces wi' hammers, like so many road makers run daft. They say it is to see how the world was made." Sir Walter Scott, St. Ronan's Well 1824 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
