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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (38098)	9/11/2003 2:30:27 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

CB, if the asbestos results were faked for some reason, then I'd have thought that in the USA, that would leave those who either negligently [if the test results for asbestos were mistakenly reported at safe levels] or fraudulently gave the results open to lawsuits. There are standard levels of asbestos [and other chemicals and hazardous materials] which are used as being safe enough. The news report bundles asbestos in with the other materials, which weren't reported at the time - maybe a bit of journalistic license there [journalists are about as reliable as governments]. No materials produced by fires are safe. Given the circumstances, the best that the EPA could say was that in their opinion, the smoke was at reasonable levels of harmfulness such that people could go about their business without unreasonable risk given the circumstances. But the White House is obviously full of crooks who will distort, manipulate and otherwise deceive the public to suit their own purposes. So, I'd take their [and any other government's] assurances with a grain of iodized salt. We were in the UK when the Chernobyl cloud came over. The public was assured that radiation was at safe levels. I didn't believe them and immediately bought a lot of milk powder [produced before the cloud arrived] and selected radiation free products [peas, potatoes and other wrapped foods]. I didn't go as far as buying potassium iodide. Subsequently it turned out that in some areas the radiation levels were actually harmful. Similar false assurances were made about salmonella in eggs, bovine spongiform encephalopathy [mad cow disease] and anything else the public might worry about. Then, when it suits the purpose of worrying the public, governments will do shroud waving, such as Wolfowitz's "bureaucratic" warnings about the dreaded "Weapons of Mass Destruction", which never seemed to me to be much of a concern from Saddam, if true at all. Back in 1990, I thought he might well have some pretty nasty stuff, like maybe even a nuke, which he would launch at Tel Aviv if the USA came into Baghdad, as a lever to stay in charge. But over the 1990s, it became apparent that anything he had wasn't much of a deal. I doubt the cloud of smoke and dust was particularly dangerous, though I would not have been inhaling it. I've got a good mask with activated charcoal filtration for such occasions. A cloud of smoke from a chemical factory or other industrial fires would be much more scary. I would run a mile until I knew what the heck is in the smoke. Think of Bhopal for how dangerous things can be. Mqurice