"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

Send your environmentalists to take a sample of any roadway. With the
spilled oil, antifreeze, etc. I can guarantee that under their
regulations, every roadway in the US should be disposed of as well,

Uh, this IS the goal of environmentalists.

That's silly

As silly as trying to outlaw 5ppb of a "toxin" when the salmon's natural
habitat has 1,000 times that level? Oh, right - that's not silly, it's
sick.

What's silly is that you lump all environmental groups into one comment.
I'll wager that you cannot name 10 such groups and describe the difference
between their goals and approaches.
1) Local County inspector said that concrete seawall being used as fill was
an environmental hazard. I asked him if he knew what concrete was? He
didn't, I informed him that it's oyster shells (limestone) that have been
ground and kiln dried. Then pushing the issue I asked him if oyster shell
are a hazard ( we live in Florida). He then said that concrete has
additives that are a hazard. I informed him that the additives were also
products mined from the earth like Silica (sand) and Gypsum neither of which
are hazards.

Point! We are being regulated by the ignorant who are reacting to the
pressure from well meaning sometimes ignorant environmentalists. In the
long term, oil and many "pollutants" are not a danger. Short term and in
concentration just about anything can kill. Mercury, lead, arsenic
contaminate the food chain and are a danger to our children and their
children. Carbon dioxide is not a danger to our children. It might
inconvenience some people but it won't hurt them...to the contrary, cancer
rates and fires should decrease.