Our local paper is celebrating the improvement in air quality cause by three major plant closures soon to be followed by a fourth. The huge hit to Mobile's economy is of course not mentioned.

Not content with these nessages they are conducting a smear compaign against a superfund cleanup program at my plant that was voluntary and agreed to by the company and regulatory agencies. It appears the program has been less successful than planned, but the paper has painted a false picture of absolute failure and failure to take responsibility when in fact the company and the regulatory agencies had every intention of follow-up work if 5 year targets were not met.

The paper seems particularly incensed that forested area was not destroyed in order to remove all traces of DDT to prevent wildlife from being contaminated. The original decision that some risk due to contamination was preferable to wholesale habitat destruction just makes no sense to the papers technological geniuses. The studies on the actual minimal impact on wildlife of contamination prior to the cleanup by independent environmental experts was not mentioned.

Folks chemicals are often dangerous and do have side effects like health effects and global warming. They also do a great deal of good like curing diseases, providing protective equipment, composing the bulk of most consumer products, and making things work better. It's all a matter of trade offs. Do the benefits outweigh the negatives. Focusing solely on the negative side of a choice never results in a rational choice.

Regards,
Mark