CO2 Treaty Dead On Arrival
rfoy at netcom.com
Tue Jun 24 10:58:42 EST 1997
In article <33AF3FDC.7E78 at icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier>,
John Alway <jalway at icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier> wrote:
>Richard Foy wrote:
>> In article <3D0E9D2FB0E713A7.E275B1BBDE9E967F.AE6008F485588F5C at library-proxy.airnews.net>,
>> Steve Conover, Sr. <Xscsr at airmail.net> wrote:
>> >If "brain-dead reasoning" means ignoring some of the side effects
>> >of a given political policy, because it is politically
>> >counterproductive to include them, you are correct. Here are
>> >some examples:
>> >* The banning of asbestos helped kill the seven Challenger
>> But the primary cause was a management decision to fly at a
>> termperature below which the rocket engines had been certified for.
> The asbestos was more resilient than its replacement,
> and thus would have kept the challenger accident from
> occurring. I recall Feynman noted this lack of resilience.
> So, thus far we have environmentalists responsible for the
> deaths of 2 million per year in India, and the deaths of
> the Challenger astronauts.
This is a bit of very fascinating reasoning. The NASA managment knew
the temperature that the rocket cases had been qualitifed for. The
temperature at the time of launch was well below that temperture.
The design engineers point out that fact to the management who
decided to launch anyway. Management killed the astronauts.
Your arguement is like saying that the designers of guns are
responsible for the gun related murders in the US.
By the way how much below the launch temperature would the asbestos
sealed motors been qualified for?
"When we talk to God we are praying; when God talksto us, we
are schizophrenic." -- Lily Tomlin
More information about the Ag-forst