Chuck Harris wrote:


I am very fond of the environment. Probably much more so than you. I long
ago put my money where my mouth is. I am not at all fond of those that
call
themselves environmentalists.

My contribution to this thread has long since past the point of being a
reasonable side tracking. This is my last posting on this subject...
for now.

-Chuck

Well since you're bailing I feel safe in agreeing with you because I
neither want to belabour an argument in whats good can be bad or vice versa.

But...

I worked a while in NE Oklahoma. Asbestos mines, lead mines. Pretty
much under the radar of the environmentalists who seem to need someplace
snazzier than Picher, Oklahoma to drive home their point.

I found the local conditions appalling. Maybe because I was constantly
reminded about don't drink the water...or inferences that "hell, thats
the way those crazy Okies are". I worked in direct contact with people
and it seemed as though EVERYBODY had a mentally defective family member
hidden away in a back room and there was certainly no shortage of
borderline cases outside and on the street. Anybody from outside would
notice it.

I'm 100% against the Kerry-camp type of "sky is falling" kneejerk
reaction to anything that isn't mountain spring water (imported from
France) so I'm not speaking from that context.

It would seem to me, an eternal Devil's Advocate, that there are indeed
issues with 'public level toxicity' that get totally overshadowed by
both extreme camps. The guy that puts on a hazmat suit to work on his
boatanchor or the politician that claims that they are producing honey
if the industry benefits his district. Both come off as fanatics
deflecting concern from the real world aspects.

So yeah, these scenarios really do exist but not because an old radio is
leaking fluids. If you want to save the earth you can start by saving
Picher, Oklahoma and forget about the miniscule implications of your
weenie little capacitors.

-Bill