Quote:
Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy
Thank you, that worked!
After reading it, I have to disagree with the gov. I think it is the responsibility of the state to warn people. It then falls to the individuals to do their research and determine if the risk is acceptable to them. If the state has evidence of a “toxic” bloom and fails to notify the potentially impacted population I believe that puts them at liability for negative impacts that arise.
However, I have to agree with his concern for the use of the word “toxic.” It is one of the most overused & often misused words out there. I spent 40 years in the hazardous waste cleanup & disposal business and always had issues with environmentalists use of “toxic” for every chemical they came across. Yes, a lot of the waste we dealt with were dangerous but, I wouldn’t call them toxic unless one consumed a lot more than was humanly possible.
Dangerous puts people on warning, toxic scares the crap out of them.
Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app |
It's sad to see the governor, who tries to portray himself as a reasonable guy, to be so off base here. Nobody said this would kill you, but it can give you a very bad rash, and REALLY mess you up if you are a child, dog, asthmatic, or otherwise compromised.
While we might debate the candidates to replace Sunnunu, I hope we can all agree that the next governor should take this more seriously and protect our lakes