>-----Original Message-----
>From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] 
>Sent: 17 October 2006 17:47
>To: piclist@mit.edu
>Subject: Re: [OT] Your ooohs and aaahs are killing the planet, people
>
>
>Sergey Dryga wrote:
>
>> Looking at the page I became utterly confused.  It is either 
>(1) I got 
>> chemistry seriously wrong, or (2) person who wrote the 
>"facts" on this 
>> page got it wrong.
>
>> It is sometimes funny, and sometimes scarry when people who have no 
>> idea what they are talking about get on the bandwagon and try to 
>> "protect" everybody.
>
>I'm not really good at chemistry (I could research the issues 
>but I'm not /that/ interested), but I can't get rid of the 
>nagging feeling that the "facts" presented in the messages in 
>this thread trying to discredit that page (whatever its 
>credits may be) are not much better presented or better 
>researched or are carried by a much better idea of the real 
>facts than the criticized page.
>
>IMO the most efficient way to criticize lack of facts or wrong 
>facts is to present the missing or the correct facts. Anything 
>else just feels odd. And that doesn't seem to have happened so far... 

The trouble is that the facts are sometimes simply not available, and the primary reason that this page is being discredited is that it appears to claim fact when they are blatantly guesses, estimates or just plain made up.  Compound this with what is clearly "bad science" and confidence in the information presented is reduced to the point where it is worthless.

It's very easy to say that fireworks "may" have put 90 tons of polution into the air, but where are the facts?  There are no research references to say where this number was derived from, so we have to conclude it's a guess.

Claiming that certain substances produced by or used in the construction of fireworks are radioactive without any context is simply "scaremongering" and has no place in a factual or useful document.  Everything around us contains some radioactive isotopes so it's mere presence is unimportant, the actual amount of radioactivity produced would be informative, but the author fails to mention any numbers, guessed or otherwise.

The page is nothing more than a joke.  In typical media style, the author has gone for shock tactics rather than presenting factual, accurate information that would enable his readers to make up their own minds.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist