Animal Rights Terrorism - the new Fascism?
E.C.Apling at SPAMbtinternet.com
Tue Jan 23 12:03:01 MST 2001
Lou has somewhat misunderstood what I was saying.
Of course often there can be no PROOF of harm - but action IS taken where
there is circumstantial evidence of harm from epidemiological
investigations, etc. - even the connection between lung cancer and cigarette
smoking is not PROVEN - but there is high correlation in epidemiology which
is taken as sufficient for considerable action to be taken. In terms of
such things as food additives, agricultural pesticides etc. regulatory
action is taken when there is toxicological evidence to suggest the
POSSIBILITY of harm - generally based on intakes by the test animals 100 (or
even higher often 100 x 100) times intakes possible by humans. In practice
toxic properties of synthetic chemicals in use is VASTLY less than those of
many natural materials that have never been submitted to regulatory action
because they have been used for yonks and are regarded as GRAS (generally
regarded as safe).
My point is that so many today are requiring PROOF of the ABSENCE of harm -
and such proof can NEVER be obtained.
NFHS Member #5594
Mailto:E.C.Apling at btinternet.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-marxism at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-marxism at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Louis Proyect
> Sent: 22 January 2001 19:41
> To: marxism at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: Animal Rights Terrorism - the new Fascism?
> Actually, there is no PROOF that such things as PCB's, etc. cause cancer.
> There can only be strong circumstantial evidence since science currently
> lacks the tool to show how in a given cell cancer can result from certain
> kinds of irritants. This is one of the reasons fights over the links
> between DU and leukemia, for example, can be so subject to industry or
> military red herrings. Obviously nobody can prove that depleted uranium
> automatically causes leukemia, etc.
> In a court of law there is a demand for proof as opposed to circumstantial
> evidence. In the battle for socialism, we are appealing to a
> different kind
> of jury, namely the masses who feel that their lives are being
> imperiled by
> corporations whose "technological breakthroughs" have more to do with
> profit rather than human welfare.
More information about the Marxism