Paul,
This is probably not the correct forum for this, but I agree with your
sentiments below completely. There is very little room in the middle of
the environmental debate anymore (if ever), and practical considerations
of what things are "the lesser of two evils" are rarely even discussed.
In several online discussions (not here) in the past I have been
massacred by both "sides" in even suggesting a middle of the road,
pragmatic approach to the sticky problems such as GMOs, herbicide use,
nuclear power, and/or global economics.
I admire your type of independant thinking, as well as those courageous
people like Patrick Moore, who don't necessarily accept the sometime
extremists positions of either "side" of this battle. (If you're not
familiar with them already I suggest you look into the Union of
Concerned Scientists for further research and followup on topics like
these. I've found them very insightful and fair.)
This is truly not meant to be an insult to anyone here, just a
confirmation to Paul that I understand exactly where he's coming from.
And the fact your buddies/practical neighbors with Gene, I'll try not to
hold that against you ;-)
Greg
"Paul S. Hetrick" wrote:
> There is an article at
> http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19991225/drtruth.html
> that started me thinking. The discussion here about
> nuclear power seems to have confirmed part of what I thought.
snip...
