In article ,
Martin wrote:
On 19 Aug 2004 21:01:30 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

All right. They work, and they are all equally nasty, in different
ways. One advantage of creosote is that it is fairly harmless to
the wider environment, though extremely nasty to the local one.
I do not subscribe to the carcinogenesis fetish - that is a creation
of the tabloids and their dependent politicians.

So in your opinion creosote isn't carcinogenic?

I don't think that you are a complete idiot, so please don't post
like one.

There are three aspects to the carcinogenesis fetish:

1) Regarding carcinogenetic properties as being inherently worse
than other harmful effects, such as "gender bending", teratogenesis,
the induction of early-onset Alzheimers and so on.

2) Regarding any evidence of carcinogenetic properties as being
grounds for banning things, irrespective of whether the evidence is
based on immense exposure or whether the estimated incidence is
negligible.

3) Ignoring the fact that many essential chemicals and other
factors are carcinogenetic, and that excluding everything that has
been shown to be carcinogenetic would be lethal in short order.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.