Monona et al,
A good point.
Safety is as safety does. Whether we are a cancer-ridden generation may be questioned, as some statistics (3 kind of lies: Lies,&n bsp;Damned Lies, and Statistics) might suggest that many kinds of cance r are actually decreasing in incidence and prevalence, while others may b e increasing. If we knew all the answers, folks should be praying to us and while I'd like to know, I don't want to be prayed to.
As to the "Good Ol' Boy" school of "Well, we survived.": o nce I was an ambulance driver in a small town in northern Indiana when I wa s 16. I had 2 qualifications: I had an Indiana Driver's Lic ense and I lived next door to the funeral parlor. That was it.  ; We had a call; I wiped the old grease and oil off my hands from fixin g and old motor scooter or car engine out in the garage. We scraped up the patient, picked up an ol' Ford Police Interceptor, and drove th e ambulance (curtains pulled back and certain other modifications to make i t not seem too much like a hearse) to the hospital up the road at 140 to 16 0 mph. It actually worked, sometimes. And I didn't get ki lled doing it: this does not mean it was SMART. This was we ll before modern EMS and Emergency Medicine in which I have had some small role. Great story to tell at high school renunions, and dumber th an doog doo in retrospect (the Retrospectoscope being 100% accurate and 100 % useless.). Just because you did it and got away with it doesn't m ean it was safe or smart. In old Air Force speak: "We like to have the number of take-offs roughly resemble the number of landings."
But let's also remember Edith Effron and "The Apocalyptics". True:& nbsp; just because the world didn't end yesterday according to some doesn 't mean it never will. Entropy just is. But all the horribl e predictions from Nostradamus on seem to leave a self-correcting chaos the ory world still spinning. Glad I am a "Citoyen du Monde."&nb sp; So far, nobody has had to tell the robot GORT the code words.
So lets all agree with Monona: Safety is ALWAYS a good idea.  ; Learn it the hard way (injured or dead) or learn it from US at CHAS.&nb sp; While Darwin had a point, simple survival does not guarantee smarts or continuing smarts in the ways we work or teach. Risk taking is NOT "COOL", and according to Dave Barry, those of us over 50 really nev er have to be concerned with being "COOL" again; we seemingly cannot be s o. Although, perhaps in the fullness of time, we will all be "C OLD".
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 13:21:04 -0400
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Oxidizing Agents
It sort of soun ds like some of us old timers are subscribing to the George Burns theory of toxicology. He drank a fifth of gin a day and was never without a cigar in his mouth and lived to age 100. The truth is not, my fri ends, in those of us who survived our exposures, it's in the statistics . We are a cancer-ridden generation and we don't live as long as pe ople in some 30 other industrialized countries.
It's fine to rejoic e in our survival as long as our bravado doesn't inspire others to think th is kind of risk-taking is cool.
In a message dated 5/22/2011 11:34:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Alvaldenio**At_Symbol_Here**AOL.COM writes:
Ed, I recently attended t
he 50/60-year member luncheon of the Delaware Section. 27 members w
ere honored which is amazing since we all worked with benzene, carbon tet
, chloroform, etc. Al Denio
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post