Friday, June 15, 2012

Parts of Yosemite Deemed Hazardous

This article, although not remotely related to tobacco in any shape or form, reminds me of the current mindset that is put forth by Tobacco Control bureaucrats everywhere:
With the removal of lodging from highly problematic areas and increased awareness, risk can be reduced by up to 95 percent, Stock said. "That's a huge reduction, but it's not possible to reduce all risk in the park."
Ok, maybe the comparison to tobacco control is a bit of a stretch, for Greg Stock, a staff geologist for Yosemite, states that there actually is a way to reduce up to 95% of the risk that is posed to park visitors. This is a good thing, for if there is a way to make people safer (without coercion), then it is the right thing to do.

However, if this had been a story about a safer cigarette, it would have never even made the news in the first place, as there is no such thing as a (100%) safe cigarette (sayeth the bishops of TC) ; never mind that research has found that the risk from active smoking can be reduced by up to 90%!

No, the park, or any park for that matter, will never be 100% free of risk, but people need nature so they will always be attracted to the park's beauty. Similarly, there may never be a 100% risk free cigarette. There will always be people who smoke, just as the park will always have visitors; hence, the right thing to do would be to get behind any and all research available that supports risk reduction.

Greg Stock is not calling for the closing of the entire park, he is calling for practical measures to make the park safer. Denying millions of annual visitors entrance to the park would be an inappropriate and unwelcomed measure. The tobacco bishops of the 21st century could stand to learn a thing or two from Mr. Stock.

Rock risk forces Yosemite closures - Yahoo! News

No comments:

Post a Comment