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