From: wpenrose@customsensorsolutions.com (William Penrose)
Newsgroups: sci.chem
Subject: Re: Uncle Al's Ignorance
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 21:37:05 GMT

On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 15:47:33 GMT, realchemist@hotmail.com (Your name)
wrote:

>    	Get real Uncle Al.  Another last word of ignorance.
>
>"Environmentalism - expensive, shoddy, deadly."
>
>The calibre of this comment is low and only a person without understanding
>would say such a comment.  Enviromentalism employs chemists such has
>yourself to figure out earths problems.  Why do you buck enviromentalists?

Uncle Al speaks in hyperbole, but I was an environmental chemist for
ten years. The reason I'm not, is that the influence of scientists has
been marginalized. Today's environmentalism is about money, power, and
politics. That's why Al says (correctly) that the same data set can be
used to support any side of an environmental argument.

Twenty years ago, we studied a series of major oil spills and came up
with the conclusion that the toxic effect on marine species other than
birds was minimal. The major effects were found to be on the *ability*
to fish and on the market for fish. The report was never released
because it conflicted with the prevailing view that oil spills had to
be all bad.

This was 20 years ago. I've worked in radioactive waste disposal, too,
and run into the same problem. There is no room for science.

Bill Penrose

From: wpenrose@customsensorsolutions.com (William Penrose)
Newsgroups: sci.chem
Subject: Re: Uncle Al's Ignorance
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 23:03:02 GMT

On 22 Dec 2000 23:57:17 GMT, snumber6@aol.com (SNUMBER6) wrote:

>>From: wpenrose@customsensorsolutions.com  (William Penrose)
>
>>Twenty years ago, we studied a series of major oil spills and came up
>>with the conclusion that the toxic effect on marine species other than
>>birds was minimal.
>
>That huge environmental disaster ... the Exxon Valdez ... How many people were
>directly harmed by it ?? None is certainly close to the correct number ...

The Amoco Cadiz off Brittany in the '70's caused serious cases of
asthma and other breathing difficulties in people ashore. There was a
large impact on the tourist trade, and other industries. My experience
was with the fisheries industries only.

My point, perhaps poorly made, was that when the science ran counter
to the political, the political won. Worse, the science was expected
to change to adapt to the political.

>... Not
>bad for the environmental disaster of the century ...

There have been worse. This one just happened to be on US soil.

Bill Penrose

From: wpenrose@customsensorsolutions.com (William Penrose)
Newsgroups: sci.chem
Subject: Re: Uncle Al's Ignorance
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 23:05:19 GMT

On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 05:18:08 GMT, Josh Halpern
<vze23qvd@mail.verizon.net> wrote:

>> politics. That's why Al says (correctly) that the same data set can be
>> used to support any side of an environmental argument.
>
>Gee Bill, then I repeat to myself, DuPont, ICI, Monsanto, OMM, and
>hey, chemistry is about money power and politics.  Sorry that's like
>baying at the moon.  If you want purity, go be a physicist.

Honesty, not purity. I don't tilt at windmills. I chose not to waste
any more of my life pursuing knowledge that would not be used and
would inject me into political arguments I could not win.

Bill Penrose