Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: coug who wrote (8003)	3/8/2001 12:15:25 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 82486

As I was saying, EPA costs are more like protection money. If we didn't have the EPA you know Dow Chemical would just dump its stuff into the ole Miss (like they used to in East St. Louis). I agree with Neo (I can't believe it!) that the Nature Conservancy is doing great stuff. They are in my will. If my wife and I have no survivors (i.e., our kids), they get it all. Talk about putting your money where your mouth is.

To: coug who wrote (8003)	3/8/2001 12:27:03 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Thinking about the topic of cost benefit analysis when it comes to environmental issues.. I think of the movie, "Erin Brockovich" when she asked the woman attorney from PG&E, "What her uterus was worth?". The male attorney, "What his spine was worth?" and on and on.. In actual cases such cost benefit analysis usually involves statistical estimates of probabilities of deaths or damage rather then someone you can point to and say "they where damaged". In one case (sorry I can't find the link right now) the estimated probability is such that there might be a 50% chance of saving one life over the next thousand years at a cost of about $7trillion. In my opinion saving even one life is a worthwhile goal but that $7tril even if used rather inefficiently would probably save more lives (even if it was not spent specifically for that purpose the extra wealth would probably save some lives). In other cases no regulation is even needed to impose large costs. All that is needed is a few celebrities to say they are scared that X will hurt "our children", and if X is found out to be completely safe later on the company that makes it has probably all ready been forced to drop it, or perhaps it has gone out of business. This is not to say that there are not real environmental threats or that federal regulation has no role to play in reducing or eliminating them, just that such regulation should depend on careful consideration of both the costs and the benefits Here is a couple of links to further describe the kind of things that I am talking about. I know that anyone here could post links to examples of environmental damage or well designed and implemented environmental law and regulation, however I think most people are all ready aware of many environmental dangers and know that regulations can have benefits. The costs are discussed less often and usu. with less vehemence. You have lobbyists talking about it but there is no equivalent of the green party of "Earth First" nationalcenter.org cato.org

To: coug who wrote (8003)	3/24/2001 9:11:14 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

>>And the movie brought out other issues to me.. Here a outspoken and brash person recognizes the morality of an issue before most, makes waves and p!sses people off.. Until it turns out, she was right.. And then I imagine, ALL people jump on the morality band wagon, after it was SAFE.. I imagine the polite establishment people, would not dare take a stand like this in real life, but cheered her on in the Virtual..because it was SAFE. Yes, it does sound like the typical made-for-TV movie. ....The Hinkley case is hardly the first in which huge amounts of money have been handed to sick or allegedly sick plaintiffs and their lawyers without scientific proof or even strong evidence. Dow Corning handed trial lawyers and their clients billions even though the evidence that silicone implants are safe has become overwhelming. PG&E simply made the monetary decision that giving up a third of a billion which it could then (unlike Dow) simply pass on to utility rate payers, made more sense than leaving things up to the whims of an arbitrator trained not in science or medicine but in law. Brockovich and Praglin think they have a smoking gun in the words of PG&E's CEO, that the utility "did not respond to the groundwater problem as openly, quickly, or thoroughly as it should have. . . . It is clear, in retrospect, that our company should have handled some things differently. . . ." Sorry guys, that's called simple good PR language, without the least admission of any harm to health. The real story of Erin Brockovich is simply this. A woman with no medical background goes to a small town and convinces residents that virtually every illness they've ever had, from cancer to rashes, are all related and all caused by a nearby corporation worth almost $30 billion. Join our suit, she says, and I'll get you megabucks. They do, they get a settlement, and Brockovich's colleagues snatch away a cut of over $133 million. Brockovich gets more than $2 million. Only in Hollywood could such a person be made a heroine. fumento.com