[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Proposed anti-plant legislation


Richard Sexton said:

> Whenever anybody claims something is "scientifically proven" it 			> usually means it isn't.

I would add, that it means that there is ONE study that "proves" it and
that study is cited. But another *umpteen* studies that disprove it are
not ever mentioned!

krandall at world_std.com wrote:

> I think it is very encouraging that the people who will decide which > plants should be banned are people with training and an interest in > aquatic plants.  We will _NOT_ be in the position of having 				> legislators make blanket decisions on things they don't understand. > (which is what happened in N.H.)

I am afraid that this is wishful thinking! The scientists certainly will
*propose* which plants to include in the ban, but after the lobbyists
and lawyers get through with that list -- nobody will recognize it.

This is exactly what happened to "Priority Pollutants" legislation. The
EPA lawyers' version was so bad, scientifically wrong and technically
impossible, that a court issued an injunction. The EPA scientists
finally had to straighten it out before the legislation was passed!

At least one thing can be counted as "good" about this proposed
legislation: It advocates a positive list, i.e. which plants are
excluded from importation, not a list of plants *allowed* to be
imported, as happens in some European countries.


George S