re to be or not to be a disaster in article philc ls a mea netcom com phil netcom com phil ronzone writes in article vega iii com rhockins enrico tmc edu russ writes in article philc ht h netcom com phil netcom com phil ronzone writes not at all you are apparently just another member of the religious left not at all i am not a member of the religious left right or even center in fact i don t consider myself very religious at all this will probably result in flames now in fact phil you should leave religion out of it it just clouds the issue the religous left worships trees rivers the planet and hates people and the religious right worships engines smokestacks landfills and hates people what does this name calling have to do with anything you are claiming about the truth of environmental disaster nothing that i have read in this thread nor heard from anyone i have talked to would suggest to me that people fit the definition you give of the religious left come off it phil a prime motivation for protecting our environment is so that we people can continue to live in it healthily we just disagree on what is necessary to maintaining a healthy environment for people show me all these environmental disasters most of them aren t and the natural disasters we have had individually far outweigh the man made ones russ s response deleted to save space i guess you missed the newspaper articles this week about exxon presenting evidnce through the astm on the issue of the valdez incident seems that valdez is mostly recovered despite the religious left s cries of hundreds of years what they have already repaired that old hulk wow i suppose you mean the alaskan shores that were devastated by the valdez accident i haven t seen the articles what do they say exactly has mostly all the ocean and shore life returned the sands are mostly as clean as they were before the microbial samples are mostly back to a normal balance the fish and fowl populations have mostly returned what then again the relgious left claimed it would take yearsb to put out the kuwait oil fires you should face the facts love canal was not and is not an environmental disaster nor even a problem nor is times beach and tmi and acid rain killing trees and not a problem would you move to three mile island i would imagine there is some cheap property available the naturally occurring catastrophic events disasters that destroy property ie hurricanes tornados earthquakes do not usually leave toxic wastes that prevent people from re building their lives there the man made disasters oil spills toxic dumping radioactive waste dispersions cause death and make an area unliveable far beyond the initial event there are actually people that still believe love canal was some kind of environmental disaster weird eh these opinions are mine and you can t have em but i ll rent em cheap douglas young dyoung ecst csuchico edu i don t know why but i seem to expect a serious discussion on the net
