In the News

Excerpted from March 1998 issue
I Couldn't Have Said It Better
At no time in history has a group of scientists been handed the right to establish public policy. No group of elected or self-anointed officials ever sent scientists out to sign a treaty binding a country to anything whatsoever. The people who agreed to the Montreal Protocol limiting freon production and use were not scientists. The people who went to air-conditioned hotel conference rooms at Rio de Janeiro's Earth Summit to worship mosquitoes were not scientists. And those who went to Kyoto to legislate against energy consumption were not scientists. But don't take my word for it. 

"Scientific issues were not discussed much in Kyoto. ...  Instead, political and technical issues were in focus." 

... Bert Bolin, Past Chairman, International Panel on Climate Change [1]
[1] Bert Bolin, "The Kyoto Negotiations on Climate Change: A Science Perspective," Science 279, pp. 330-331 (16 January 1998) 
When a quantity of toxin is fed to animals, the effect depends upon the amount given. For a certain toxin fed to a given species, a certain amount, called the LD50, is the amount that is fatal to 50% of those who receive the dose. Toxicologists also use other values, such as the LD10, the amount that is a fatal dose for 10% of the animals who receive it. The degree of toxicity is thus expressed by such parameters. 

At a meeting of toxicologists in Cambridge, Massachusetts, last year, there were a number of greenies present. After hearing about LD50 for this chemical, LD50 for that chemical, LD50 for this species, LD50 for that species, one of the greenies chimed in, "Well, if the LD50 is such a problem, why not get rid of that chemical?"

Excerpted from March 1998 The Energy Advocate
 To main Energy Advocate Index 
Copyright © The Energy Advocate 1997. All rights reserved.