Replies

I share beckett's concerns. In comparing the two articles (Commoner vs. Bailey), I found Bailey's to be more slanted, or "value-charged" if you will, and consistent with his less than complimentary title: Is Biologist Barry Commoner a Mutant? Equally, though, Commoner's conclusionary phrases were not missed -- he's pushing the envelope.

Whoever it was above that commented to the effect that a clock is right twice a day may be right with regard to Commoner in this instance. I am aware that Commoner and his pet environmentalism are left-wing and that I am not. But, again, he has raised concerns that I share for reasons above-noted. But effective rebuttal, to me, means countering what he has written and not the man himself.

What Commoner is doing (and this is typical) is to say that there are unknowns with X which could cause horrible problems and that until we know what they are and that X can be proven to be safe we should tightly control X (according to his definitions of "safe" and "control"). Constructing a possible boogie-man and then portarying himself and his program (whatever that happens to be) as the means of keeping people safe from the (as-yet-unproven) dangers of the boogie-man (or even that he exists) is entirely self-serving. To point this out is not to "attack the man rather than to answer his questions". There are many things in common use which are definitely not safe, which are actually dangerous, but which are indispensable in daily life. To say that someone must answer his concerns when his concerns are of a nature that they are inherently unanswerable (or unreasonable) is itself unreasonable. That's awfully close to "Can you prove that you're not a witch? Ah ha. You refuse to answer this reasonable question. Only someone with something to hide, such as his being a witch, would refuse to furnish proof.Your silence just shows that my question was reasonable from the outset."