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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (503713)	12/5/2003 8:50:10 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769668

However, it is difficult to prove a public health hazard when public health is good......... That is not a strong argument and I suspect you know it. If it were, taking your argument that pollution can't be a health hazard because life expectancy has been expecting over the past decades, one could also say that smoking is not dangerous to health. Or exposure to sun during peak noon hours. Both are, of course, quite untrue. Of course we both know that is not true. Life expectancy has been rising over the past couple of decades, primarily as a result of the better understanding of and combating against diseases. Period. There was a time when your first major infection would likely be your last. Not anymore. Now we can diagnose the problem and cure it, in some cases even BEFORE the symptoms arise, through routine checks. THAT is why life expectancy has increased. NOT because higher pollution doesn't cause respiratory system difficulties and possibly even cancer. Pollution IS a health danger - there are myriad studies showing just what each of its likely components cause. Just like smoking is now recognized as a health danger and measures are being taken to limit its harmful effects, ALTHOUGH LIFE EXPECTANCY IS HIGHER NOW THAN WHEN CIGARETTES WERE FIRST COMMERCIALIZED, so is pollution.