CO2 Treaty Dead On Arrival
ejh at idcomm.com
Wed Jun 25 09:37:16 EST 1997
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997 22:32:44 -0500, John Alway
<jalway at icsi.net.SpamTransmogrifier> wrote:
> 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.
Spunds like you have a real bee in your bonnet!!
There's a very interesting article in the most recent Scientific
American about asbestos BTW and all the many things it was used for.
Don't you really believe that flakes of asbestos cause cancer? I
thought that was a fairly unconrtoversial conclusion.
As for the Challenger, blaming it's destruction on the decision to
remove asbestos from school buildings is quite a stretch!
Aside from that, asbestos is not banned, it could have been used in
> Note, the asbestos that was banned is the harmless
> variety (or virtually harmless, as almost nothing is
> truly harmless). In fact, the stuff they are making/
> made people take out of buildings (schools, et.c) is
> the harmless variety.
OK, whatever, but what does that have to do with global warming?
More information about the Ag-forst