This LTE appeared in the VDT 18 Jan 2011. -jsq

I was recently reading “Masterpieces of Eloquence,” which includes a
speech delivered by the fourth Earl of Chesterfield to the House of Lords in
Feb., 1743. “The bill now under our consideration appears to me to deserve a
much closer regard than seems to have been paid to it in the other House,
through which it was hurried with the utmost precipitation, and where it
passed almost without the formality of a debate. Nor can I think that
earnestness with which some lords seem inclined to press it forward here
consistent with the importance of the consequences which may with great
reason be expected from it.” He goes on to say, “surely it never before was
conceived, by any man entrusted with the administration of public affairs,
to raise taxes by the destruction of the people.”

I find this quote applies exactly, mutatis mutandis, to the present
situation. The effects of these toxic chemicals are far more devastating to
my mind than the effects of gin. The science panel assembled by Michael is
more credible than the assurances of the industrial authority expert. In
fact, the emissions from the plant are so close to the permit threshold that
they could easily exceed that threshhold on occasion. Would the IA expert
then continue to hold the position that there is “No health hazard to the
public?” I don’t think anyone who favors the proposal is aware of the
enormity that could result if the plant goes into operation. They have left
the public health out of their equation. They have just enough science, they
think, to push the deal through over the objections of an easily deceived
public.

Matt Flumerfelt

Valdosta