You have reached iGreens.org.uk. In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards. Click here to follow us.
|
You have reached iGreens.org.uk. In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards. Click here to follow us. |
|
An editorial in today's New York Times about roller coasters offers a perfect glimpse of the newspaper's reflexive attitude in favor of more government regulation. The editorial says that recent injuries and one death "suggest that the amusement park industry needs stricter oversight and that riders need stronger protections." The editorial concludes that "For the millions of Americans who enjoy amusement parks, roller coasters and other rides are statistically safer than riding in a car. But that does not mean that Congress should not move quickly to make these rides even safer." (Nothing like not avoiding the double negative for a stirring concluding sentence of an editorial.) The Times gives no estimate of what it would cost
the taxpayers to set up a network of federal roller-coaster inspectors. And it
doesn't consider whether that money could save more statistical life-years if,
instead of being deployed on roller-coaster inspections, it were spent on, say,
high blood-pressure screening, or seat-belt awareness campaigns, or cancer
research. It's as if, to Times editorialists, spending priorities and
cost-benefit analysis aren't worth considering. To them, the fact that someone
has been injured is in and of itself sufficient justification to call for an
expansion of the federal government's regulatory regime in an effort to prevent
such injuries.
|
|
You have reached iGreens.org.uk. In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards. Click here to follow us.
Send mail to enquiries@igreens.org.uk
with
questions or comments about this web site.
|