Politics and environmental issues

["Edwards, Richard W" <Richard.Edwards@PSS.Boeing.com>]

I recently (i.e., Saturday) attended a political convention during which a large number of resolutions and platform planks regarding environmental issues were proposed. Quite a few of them read something to the effect of:

"In the absence of total certainty that <insert your favorite perceived danger> is not harmful to <insert your favorite target, such as 'our children', 'salmon', etc.>, we should err on the side of caution and ban any use of <favorite danger> until it is proven safe for <the favorite target> and the environment as a whole."

By the way, I was successful in my request to have these items held over for discussion rather than being approved by a rubber-stamp vote. Unfortunately (or maybe not...depends on your viewpoint), everyone went home before they ran out of things they could agree on without discussion. 

I've been wondering if anyone has had any success with moderating positions such as these from "the inside" of a nominally "anti-" group. 


Rick Edwards, Analyst
The Boeing Company
richard.w.edwards@boeing.com
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html