Doug wrote:
> On 30 Aug, 12:00, John Wright
pegasus.f2s.com> wrote:>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 26 Aug, 01:11, "nightjar" .me.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Doug"
riseup.net> wrote in message>>
>>
>>>>> On 23 Aug, 12:25, "nightjar" .me.uk>
>>>> ....
>>>>>> If, on the other hand, you are referring to the airport and the
>>>>>> Kyoto Protocol, a number of the original advisors on the
>>>>>> protocol have said that,
>>>>>> if they had known then what they know now, the Kyoto Protocol
>>>>>> would never have existed.
>>>>> Nevertheless there is now broad international agreement on
>>>>> reducing pollution, which Heathrow expansion contravenes.
>>>> The agreement, which is based on what increasing appears to be bad
>>>> science, is to reduce CO2 emissions. How the government goes about
>>>> that is its own business and nothing in the agreement precludes
>>>> expanding airports. Indeed, expanding an airport may be an
>>>> excellent way to reduce CO2 emissions. Few airports can accomodate
>>>> the Airbus A380 without expansion, but in a fairly modest 525 seat
>>>> configuration (it can seat over 800) it is said to achieve 75 gms
>>>> CO2 per passenger Km, compared to around 95 gm CO2 per passenger
>>>> km for a 747.
>>
>>> Which is more than offset by the increased air travel that the
>>> expansion will bring. So the government is not sticking to its
>>> agreement.
>>>> BTW on the subject of CO2 emissions, you haven't given your
>>>> explaination of why, despite CO2 level having risen by 4%% since
>>>> 1998, there has been no global warming in that decade and the
>>>> global average tempeartures actually dropped towards the end of
>>>> it. Because your unsourced claim is wrong. ...
>>
>>>>>> Digging up bodies without a licence from the Home Secretary is
>>>>>> illegal under
>>>>>> Statute Law,. Digging them up without permission from the Church
>>>>>> is illegal
>>>>>> under Canon Law and digging them up without the permission of the
>>>>>> relatives
>>>>>> is illegal under Common Law. Blackmail is illegal under both
>>>>>> Statute and Common Law. As for the ethics, only a few, very
>>>>>> disturbed, individuals would
>>>>>> agree with your views on that.
>>>>> So how come torturing animals is not illegal?
>>>> It is. However, what you like to emotively term torture is not,
>>>> for very good reasons. The law and most rational people accept
>>>> that there are occasions when experiments on animals have to be
>>>> carried out for the greater good of mankind. Therefore, in the UK,
>>>> such experimentation is strictly regulated to minimise any
>>>> suffering.
>>
>>> There are many animal rights people who would disagree with you and
>>> have the evidence to prove it. There is very uneven monitoring of
>>> animal labs, almost certainly because of commercial pressures. Also
>>> the science of animal testing is questionable, due to major genetic
>>> differences between species, hence thalidomide and similar cock-ups.
>>
>> If you knew the truth about thalidomide you wouldn't say that. Chemie
>> Grunenthal claimed they had done animal tests. They had not. This is
>> the main thing that brought in the testing of pharmaceuticals on
>> animals.
>>
>> Thalidomide is one of the arguments for animal testing not the other
>> way around. Look up Francis Kelsey on that one. She was the FDA
>> staff person who prevented thalidomide being given approval in the
>> USA.
>>
> You are wrong, as usual.
>
> The introduction of mandatory animal testing happened to coincide with
> Thalidomide testing. Also, Thalidomide is just one of many examples
> where animal testing has failed to predict harm to humans.
>
> "...Was thalidomide tested on pregnant animals before marketing? In
> all likelihood, yes (see Dark Remedy: The Impact of Thalidomide and
> its Revival as a Vital Medicine by Trent Stephens & Rock Brynner.
> Perseus: 2001). Specific teratogenicity testing may or may not have
> been done, but general animal tests certainly were. Roald Hoffmann
> writes;
>
>
