Jay,
The "rest of the world" does not use asbestos products, they have for a long time been prohibited in EU countries. They are also very many restrictions to minimize exposures to lead. It is many developing countries that do not have protection, because of corruption, lack of frame work or capacity. Many less scrupulous corporations are still dumping products in those countries aided and abetted by their less scrupulous and corrupted governments. I do not regard them as working with permission the "rest of the world" nor that the victims know what is going on. US is very active and we can only take the Bophal disaster as an example. Where more innocent people was killed, than the latest Iraq occupation. US is still protecting the corporate leaders from answering in court and help the corporation to cap claims on damages. That is US foreign policy. Many US jobs would not be exported, if US held their own corporations accountable for only proper minimum safety standard, or good business ethics. An innocent Iraqi life is worth maximum $2,500 in damages and it is plenty of easy rules and excuses for paying nothing. How can it be that the American public is surprised that it is some minor problems to "win the hearts and minds". In a country that 80% of the population are women or children under 15 years of age and not counting old age men. US cannot establish law and order with 100,000 to 150,000 of troops and enormous fire power, among around 4,000,000 able men. The you have US, who claim that the opposition to the occupation is a small minority, but of course, children and women have no say. LOL You only have to look at the numbers and apply a little bit logic and the propaganda machines are easily exposed. I have refrained from comments after the Iraqi war, this because it is difficult for me to do, without saying "what did I said". It is however never too late for US to start adopting responsible foreign policies. It is many countries, who is pillaging and utilizing the developing countries, but US stands out in this crowd. Hakan At 05:51 22/02/2004, you wrote: >In a message dated 2/21/04 8:13:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >writes: > > > Yes, we all know that lead and some asbestos is harmful to children if > they > > > > are sufficiently exposed to it. The point, however, is: is it worth $ > > millons > > to reduce a very small risk to zero when those millions could be better > > applied? How about spending the money on vaccinations (to reduce > sickness), > > or > > fixing pot holes (to reduce traffic deaths), or education (to reduce > poverty > > and > > stupid things like eating lead), soup kitchens and shelters (to reduce the > > death rate among the homeless), or any number of things other than > stirring > > up > > asbestos which is harmless painted over in the basement or removing lead > > paint, > > which is likewise harmless as long as it's paint, not food. (The Golden > > Gate > > Bridge is red because it was painted with lead paint. Do you want to risk > > lives to scrape it all off and repeaint with blue?) The world is full of > > people > > who want "zero risk" at any cost, as long as they don't have to pay the > > cost. > > > >Sigfried and Roy understood risk. They calculated the odds each time they >played with their tigers. And that was the point. They were exposed to risk >and they knew it. What you are talking about is completely >different. Asbestos >is a risk from a litigation perspective. Our government has decreed, by >golly, that it is hazardous to our health. Well, do you know what? If you >manufactured asbestos products, used them, recommended them or don't >disclose that >they are in your quaint cottage, they are dangerous to your health....your >financial health. The rest of the world uses asbestos products with >impunity and >thinks we're nuts for banning it. The cases of lung cancer or mesotheleoma >attributed to asbestos have dropped so low I can't even find a recent >reference. >In cases of asbestos exposure, the community so exposed is relatively small, >regardless of the lawyers claiming otherwise. For you to complain about >asbestos risk now is locking the barn after the animals have fled to greener >pastures. > >But then there is Lead. That stuff is a health hazard because it can replace >both calcium and iron in our bodies. Calcium in the bone and iron in the >heme portion of blood. The particles are ingested as dusts either by >inhalation >or consumption. They arise from flaking paint, proximity to highways where >leaded fuels were used --- even years ago -- and (get this) from the guys who >sat at their kitchen tables reloading shotgun shells while their kids >looked on. >And it doesn't just affect the exposed generation! Lead incorporated into >bone is mobilized during pregnancy and incorporated into the growing >fetus. It >can impact brain development as well as bone. Risk is just fine when you >have control over whether or not to accept it. But a fetus doesn't have a >choice. >Ditto kids. > >The dangers of lead were well understood way back when Dutch Boy paints bra >gged about the hiding power of their product. They didn't intend for it >to be >used indoors, but if Fred the Handyman ran out of an approved paint, why, >what >the hey! He just substituted some of that nice, creamy lead-based paint >instead. Did he know that the Missus' baby would gnaw on the window >ledges he >painted? Shucks, no! > >Today you can still find lead in products such as lead glazes, especiallly on >Mexican pottery and painted floor tile. One job I did a few years ago >involved a family all hot to sue their landlord because the school >reported their >kid had a high level of lead in his blood. After I tested the doors, >windows, >etc., and found zero, I began to inquire about little Jose's diet. Turns out >he had been secretly eating a type of candy packed in little pots made in >Mexico. The glaze was lead-based. Boy, were the parent's angry.....at >me! They >had to forget about suing the landlord and pay the retainer for the lawyer >they >had (prematurely) hired out of their own pockets. > >Removal of lead-based substances is the responsibility of whoever owns the >underlying material. Public sector or private, once determined, it should be >removed. Cost is not as great as you may believe, but costs to society at >large >for NOT removing it can be huge. Look what lead did to the Roman Empire. > >-- Jay Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
