Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 Tandy Xenix 02/17/86; site gilbbs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020
From: mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: absolutely vs. relatively safe level
Message-ID: <49@gilbbs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Mar-86 07:19:22 EST
Article-I.D.: gilbbs.49
Posted: Fri Mar  7 07:19:22 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Mar-86 08:32:20 EST
References: <8603020307.AA00255@s1-b.arpa>
Organization: Gil's Place, Santa Rosa CA
Lines: 39
Summary: 'scientific distance' seen as poor excuse for human compassion

In article <8603020307.AA00255@s1-b.arpa>, REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
> BS> Date: 28 Feb 86 03:16:55 GMT
> BS> From: nike!topaz!harvard!bu-cs!bzs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barry Shein)
> BS> There seems to be a lot of agreement among the medical community that
> BS> there is NO SUCH THING as a safe level of exposure.
> 
> There is no such thing as an absolutely safe level of just about
> anything. A single drop of water in the wrong place can short circuit
> a weapon and kill someone. A more reasonable definition of safe level
> than what you seem to be referring to is whatever it takes to offset
> reproduction. When young people are killed off before they can
> reproduce, in such numbers that the ones that remain can't reproduce
> fast enough to make up for the ones that died, then we have a truly
> fatal dose of whatever it is. Anything less than that is just a
> painful way to slow down the population explosion. Yes, I don't want
> lots and lots of that pain, but a teensy teensy bit of it is nothing
> compared to the many other hazards we face today and not worth all
> this absolutist nonsense such as the NO SAFE LEVEL you claim.


   I would like to suggest to you that *YOU* volunteer to be amongst the first
to contribute your death the "slowing of the population explosion".  If you
are unwilling to do so, then **HOW DARE YOU** suggest that it is in any way
acceptable to visit this fate on some unknowing and probably unwilling soul?

   This is simply another case of "I don't care what the risks and costs of my
progress are, so long as *I* don't have to bear them" syndrome...becoming more
and more popular of late.

-- 

====================================

Disclaimer:  I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers.

tom keller
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020

(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)