EF! Fined $1million in Idaho

charliew charliew at hal-pc.org
Mon Nov 11 20:53:25 EST 1996


In article 
<Pine.A41.3.95b.961111162759.19760E-100000 at homer09.u.washing
ton.edu>,
(cut)
>Hi Steve! I really shouldn't be wasting my time on this 
topic, but I
>thought I'd have some fun.  I will add that the oil 
industry has fought
>tooth and nail (willfully) against double-hulled tankers, 
tug escorts, and
>larger crew sizes.  The punative damages against Exxon 
weren't all that
>punative, in relation to the company's assets and cash 
flow.  The Valdez
>accident was only a matter of time-- and will be repeated.
>
>		Dave Braun

If you want to see a "really good recommendation", look in 
Scientific American, October, 1991.  There is an article 
entitled "Soiled Shores" that describes a technique known as 
hydrostatic loading, in which the authors advocate requiring 
tankers to sail only partially loaded to prevent oil spills. 
Unfortunately, the authors are totally full of crap, as 
their argument has a *big* scientific flaw in it.  Is it any 
wonder that people do not automatically flock to the 
environmental viewpoint?



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list