From: dyoung@ecst.csuchico.edu (Douglas Young)
Subject: Re: To be, or Not to be [ a Disaster ]
Distribution: na
Organization: California State University, Chico
Lines: 77
NNTP-Posting-Host: grotus.ecst.csuchico.edu

In article <philC5Ls4A.MEA@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <612@vega.iii.com> rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russ) writes:
>    >In article <philC5Ht85.H48@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 20 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.
---)----------                                                ----------(---
