I actually think that this thread began with important and interesting
elements, regarding staffing and budget changes that might have
contributed to a reduction in safety standards and thus bad outcomes
in this dangerous industry.

Sadly, those idea-aiming comments have led to discussions about where
the fault lies, what the motives may have been and name-calling among
our community's participants.

I actually DON'T think the discussion needs to stop.

Let's avoid calling each other (and each other's comments) nasty
names... and try to focus at policy in the abstract. I see no problem
in debating (even vilifying) the Administration and its judgements,
programs and statements. It's a democracy, and their actions and the
potentially consequent outcomes require discussion.

An earlier post (Rory O'Neill's) was particularly thoughtful. I think
it's an interesting and (to me) unanswered question whether
enforcement and regulation works better than voluntary protection
programs (I Americanized his spelling!)...

Thanks to all.

- Gary Greenberg


--
Gary N. Greenberg, MD MPH    Sysop / Moderator Occ-Env-Med-L MailList
Duke Univ. Med. Ctr.   &   Univ. N. Carolina School Public Health
[log in to unmask]                       http://occhealthnews.net