"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Hound Dog" wrote in message
...

Where did you get your degree in science? The same place you got your
delusion of grandeur?

YOU would not understand anything I wrote anyway.

Like it or not, we're not talking about junk science here. It's old news.
PCBs & dioxin are nasty compounds that don't belong in our drinking water.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/pcbhealth.html

Too late, though:
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/d...healthadv.html


The problem with pollution, is it's a classic example of the tragedy of the
commons. If i were to dump a bottle of motor oil in the an unpolluted
river, the pollution impact to the entire river would be minimal.
On the otherhand if somehow, we could take all the fresh water in the world,
divide it equally by number of people on earth, and made it so that anything
you did, affected only your personal allotment of water, people would behave
far differently.

I once took an economics class, one section we studied environmental
economics. The focus of environmental economics is, an attempt to answer the
question "how clean, is clean enough?" At what point do you face diminishing
returns that cleaning up the pollution is no longer cost effective to clean
it up, compared to the quality of life improvement.

Snooze

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 18:37:33 -0500, Snooze wrote
The problem with pollution, is it's a classic example of the tragedy of the
commons.

Garrett Hardin's 1968 article is itself one of the important 20th
century classics. It applies to issues it specifically mentions (such
as population growth and pollution) and to many others as well. I've
often recommended it as the best essay ever written on spam. Full text
is available at

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../162/3859/1243

Edward