About Lies and Untruths...

...I must share a recent reader's comment, posted on my March 30 blog entry. Thank you for sharing your opinion with us. Not only did you point out some of the latest lies being expressed by Lonetree and it's leaders, but visiting their site prompted me to view their 1986 flood pictures! If that flood was motivation for a few residents to sue Dow and get their panties in a bundle about dioxin, it shows what sorry little puppies the extremist version of environmentalists really are! My backyard looks like that every year... at the beginning stages of the spring thaw floods. 1986 gave us almost six feet of water in our house... complete with a few snakes and frogs!

About the liars... They complain that Jim Sygo was from the old Engler era. Well, duh! Wasn't the whole Michigan DEQ created by Engler? Looks to some of us like the governor, when she assigned the whole mess to Lt. Governor John Cherry to handle our dioxin mess, did the right thing. You don't try to reinvent the wheel when it's already three-quarters done! Steve Chester and his new group were undoubtedly chosen from a more extreme version of environmentalists and really were not open to anything Dow scientists had to say. The more involved they got the more futile the whole project became. The way our local extreme environmentalists have treated him recently, I believe the past two years have been a learning experience for Mr. Chester.

One of the biggest differences between the old DEQ and the new is something called The Precautionary Principle. What is that? Boiled down to simplistic terms, environmental extremists believe the average human cannot take care of her/himself. The ideal environment is one with no risk. Although the concept was growing for some time, having begun in Germany earlier, it all became a standard to live by when a group of academics got together in a fancy convention center called Wingspread. They put together a document referred to as the Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle. This statement has become their gospel.

Now that I've shown you the extremist viewpoint, you must also read a bit of common sense, expressed in the following article published in July 2003... Challenging the precautionary principle - How has society come to be governed by the maxim 'better safe than sorry'? ...by Helene Guldberg.

Following quote is from the Wingspread Statement:

The principle of precautionary action has 4 parts:

1. People have a duty to take anticipatory action to prevent harm.
(As one participant at the Wingspread meeting summarized the essence
of the precautionary principle, "If you have reasonable suspicion that
something bad might be going to happen, you have an obligation to try
to stop it.")

2. The burden of proof of harmlessness of a new technology, process,
activity, or chemical lies with the proponents, not with the general
public.

3. Before using a new technology, process, or chemical, or starting
a new activity, people have an obligation to examine "a full range of
alternatives" including the alternative of doing nothing.

4. Decisions applying the precautionary principle must be "open,
informed, and democratic" and "must include affected parties.

Meanwhile... many, or even most, environmental groups gather together with others of their kind - like they did at Wingspread - and plan, or connive. Not only do they want to block new technology, they want to oppress technologies already developed. How do you feel about technology? Me? I prefer modern medicine, modern technology and all the wonderful stuff the real scientists create. Real scientists create; wannabe scientists destroy. Who do you believe?
Shucks folks... that Wingspread Statement created by all those 'brilliant' academics, was already done..... beginning back in 1811 in England by followers of Ned Lud, and the most recent infamous Luddite was know as the Unabomber!