Doug wrote:
> On 30 Aug, 12:00, John Wright
pegasus.f2s.com> wrote:>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 26 Aug, 01:11, "nightjar" .me.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
No I'm not.
> 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.
Thalidomide triggered the compulsory testing of pharmaceticals on
animals. The laws that resulted said what to do and how to do it.
> "...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;
>
> “Indeed animal testing for teratogenicity of new drugs was routine in
> the major pharmaceutical companies. Hoffmann-LaRoche’s Roche
> Laboratories published a major reproductive-system study of its
> Librium in 1959. Wallace Laboratories did so for Miltown in 1954. Both
> incidents antedate the thalidomide story.” (Roald Hoffmann, The Same
> And Not The Same, Columbia University Press 1995 p136)..."
>
> and
>
> "...Thalidomide, recently re approved by the FDA, is a classic
> example. During the lengthy trial of the manufacturers in 1970,
> numerous court witnesses, all animal experimenters, stated under oath
> that the results of animal experiments are never 100 per cent valid
> for human beings. However, because the manufacturers performed the
> required animal safety tests, and because these tests did not show any
> evidence of danger, the manufacturers of thalidomide were found not
> guilty by the court of consciously making a harmful drug..."
>
> Despite all of this, those who campaign against such animal torture
> are routinely persecuted by police and State.
Once again your definition of torture is, like George W Bush's,
different from the accepted meaning of the word.
--
John Wright
"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?
You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin
