Before the forum is closed, it seems appropriate to make a
few more comments on issues which were repeatedly -- and
often -- mentioned in many discussions. Those are:
pollution, environment, "lobby the government for favorable
status or exceptions from pollution control or tax" (in
various semantic forms), and alike.

It seems that the farther
people are from these issues (practically, that is
technically or legally), the more categorical the people
are. They tend to generalize these issues, they sound like
they are ABSOLUTELY against ANY effect on the environment,
ANY favorable status, ANY exception from pollution control,
without specifying WHAT effect and WHAT KIND of pollution
they are talking about. That is what I called "diverting"
from the subject(s) of this discussion.

Let me explain.  Our very existence on this planet causes
"pollution" and "the environmental damage", do we like it or
not. Every new house built, every new road, etc. etc. causes
environmental damage.  It is hard to believe but even the
house/apartment where the staunchest fighter for the
environmental protection lives, is located on a place
where some beautiful creatures used to live.:-)  And they
are gone because of that very house.  My point is - to build
that, or a similar house, we must have some kind of
exception from things related to the environment,
otherwise nothing and nowhere would have been built,
constructed, born, educated, fed, and so forth.
We need not a denial, but a balanced action with respect to
the environment.

Every time, before a project is started, we
need to consider a number of options for the projected
environmental damage (which is unavoidable, do we want it or
not) and choose the OPTIMAL situation including the
minimized damage.  MINIMIZED/optimized environmental damage
should be a key word, not "no damage at all".  In this
context, one should be more careful with denial of "lobbying
government", "favorable status", or "exceptions from
pollution control" in all forms, since some of those actions
might be well justified.  Some of them might be based on
that minimized/optimized approach with respect to the
environment, could be overall positive, but still need some
explanation or education of decision-makers. Call it
lobbying or whatever. Or, being overall positive, they still
cannot meet some stringent requirements imposed by legislators in
the past. Call it getting favorable status or exceptions.
But please be specific and consider it case-by-case, not
generally.  Again, it is more difficult, it takes real
expertise, it is more responsible approach, compared with
general statements like "no more environmental damage" --
which is easy to make, does not take any expertise, and
carries no responsibility whatsoever.

Balanced approach, good expertise, economic considerations,
environmental care, and no general slogans - that sounds
like a reasonable basis (conclusions -- are up to Jacky) for
the subject at this forum.

Best regards,
Anatole A. Klyosov
aklyosov@warren.med.harvard.edu