 | | | 
 |  | 
| |  | | (This debate is closed and is a read-only archive.) | | Contributors to this debate reveal a hodgepodge of concerns
[8-Nov-2005]
| According to Peter Mobley of the self-styled Wednesbury Action for the Removal of Telephone Masts, 'if any experiment is inconclusive, it follows that there's as much likelihood of a positive as there is of a negative - that is, a 50/50 chance that there's a cause for concern over harmful adverse health effects'. With such statistical insight, one presumes that Mobley fears meeting aliens on a daily basis. After all, the possible outcomes on any one day are either that you will or that you won't meet aliens, a 50/50 chance if ever there was one. Scary!
| Other contributors to this spiked-debate - Catherine Gamba and Eileen O'Connor - dwell on the infantile. Gamba urges us to 'think of the children'. I encourage her to watch the Simpsons episode 'Much Apu About Nothing', where the same phrase is repeated systematically throughout.
| Numerous other contributors reveal a hodgepodge of concerns relating to trust, independence, toxic food, environmental chemicals, the kitchen sink, Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all. What is their point, exactly? Or is it better to have lots of points, just in case? After all, according to this logic, having lots of points must improve their odds of being right.
| Bill Durodié, researcher, UK
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
