Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Jan 2000 20:48:17 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera.com*stopspam*
|
Viewed:
|
2481 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 17:23:30 GMT, Frank Filz <ffilz@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps they shouldn't have dumped stuff, which they didn't know what
> > its effects might be, in an unsecured area. Think about how we handle
> > radioactive waste. Some of it, we don't really know what effect it will
> > have, so be bundle it up to make sure it doesn't leak.
>
> Oh come now. You're acting like it never happens that a
> previously-thought-unharmful stuff is later considered extremely
> harmful. cf Asbestos. Greatest thing since sliced bread, right up
> until the fourties when the studies came out.
>
> I really don't think it would be fair to necessarily have the person
> who installed something be financially responsible.
I agree with you.
I don't think that's the argument, though. I would expect that a defense
of "we truly believed this was a good insulator, our research aligned
with everyone elses" ought to carry some weight. Not get the company off
scot free, mind you, but there is a difference between being assessed
part of the clean up cost (with part going to the victim of the
incident, or their insurance companies) and being assessed for all of it
PLUS punitive damages.
Now, I suspect that one might advance the tobacco company case as
counterpoint.. their defense is "we truly believed that cigarettes did
not cause cancer and were not harmful" which will carry the day up to
about the mid 50s or so... at that point they were lying and they knew
it. So hang them. Somewhere in between is the right answer.
Do you have the right to emit anything into the air that you wish,
without regard to whether it's safe or not? almost certainly not. You're
being reckless.
Do you have no right whatever to emit anything into the air even if
current research says it is 100% safe and natural? Again, almost
certainly not. You're being prevented from doing valid things with your
property.
Somewhere in the middle is the proper balance of rights.
But Frank's original point (remember that there ARE insurance companies,
that is what they are there for, to buy off risk for a price) that the
dumper (or his insurance company) ought to take some responsibility once
it becomes clear what the truth of the matter is, strikes me as valid.
--
Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Perhaps they shouldn't have dumped stuff, which they didn't know what its effects might be, in an unsecured area. Think about how we handle radioactive waste. Some of it, we don't really know what effect it will have, so be bundle it up to (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
