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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Land Shark who wrote (10476)	3/16/2007 6:44:17 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 36918

Exxon should of course fund research into the effects of their products on other people. It would be negligent not to do so. Failing to do so could make them liable for damage they do to people. Which isn't to say they should mindlessly try to prove that CO2 is a bad thing just because there's ignorant mass hysteria. In my BP Oil days, [in the 1980s and 1970s] I used to advocate research into the effects of BP's products to ensure we weren't doing harm. Or, if there was harm, as there obviously was from emissions of soot, sundry carcinogens and general pollution, to quantify harm and figure out what should be done and make recommendations to governments to pass laws to determine acceptable levels of pollutants. Simply saying "None is acceptable" is silly. Not many people would accept that idea [not once they knew what it would cost them personally]. Psychopathic people who hate oil companies in particular and multinationals in general should be caged. They are a danger to themselves and others. Oil companies only do what their communities make legal. Anyone who is fraudulent or otherwise does illegal things can be gaoled and their property confiscated. My argument with BP Oil was that BP could profit from environmental laws. For example, if CO2 is collected from exhausts, liquefied and stored under the ocean in submarine lakes, that would take about 25% more energy, which means more oil would be burned and profits for BP would be greater. Maybe BP could go into the power station business too and make a load of money from investing in electricity generation. Maybe batteries and electric cars too. And electronic control systems for said cars to avoid having dopey humans controlling them, causing traffic jams and crashes. Similarly, in the cyberphone industry, I think QUALCOMM should fund research into the health effects of cyberphone radiation. The harm is obviously so low that it is not an economic issue. But it would be nice to know just how little harm there is. The physics of it [in my book] is such that there is some very slight harm to those unlucky enough to get brain cancer or other cancers from the radiation, but my guess is it's so trivial that it's not worth worrying about. But perhaps there might be some people who do get harm. At least the information would be quantified instead of the current. Studies so far have been looking for macro effects. The harm from people crashing due to having their attention on voices in their heads and what they are going to say next is vastly more than that from brain cancer. But that's a voluntary thing people choose to do in the way they use their phones. It's like blaming a radio for a crash because people tune it instead of watching what they are doing. Banning radios from being on in cars would be similar to banning cellphones being used in cars. It's how you use them that matters. Mqurice