Report Inappropriate Comments

While pointing fingers is a grief relieving exercise, pollution and human health consequences are a murky area of the law and lacking in sound, pathological evidence. Intent to do wrong and usual and customary practices of industrial production are on two sides of a legal spectrum. The case will be interesting. Finger pointing relieves guilt and anger, for a while.

If consumers, the people who create the market for a product, use or demand by use a product which causes pollution, exposes them to pollution, and there are provable pubic health consequences from that exposure, then, principles in the discharging unit should bear provable consequences. If, on the other hand, epidemiological correlation of exposure and an atypical incidence of sickness, disease, death are sufficient evidence to prosecute, then the law opens the door to penalty by suspicion, inference, and statistics, rather then a causal chain of events.

As in all statistical arguments, assumptions are the basis.

1. A person drinks a lethal dose of a poison. Death ensues. Cause of death: poison

2. A person consumes a named carcinogen for a period suspected to lead to the types of cancer associated with that chemical, develops cancer. However, no epidemiological physiological pathway has ever been established in medicine. The cause can only be assumed, not proven. This example is the extent of my knowledge on the matter after years of study and the publication of the Haw River Drinking Water Survey, a publication by the Haw River Assembly in 1985. Commonly called the Bynum cancer study.

If statistical correlation is strong enough to bring prosecution, then we could avoid war based on the known result that war causes death. Death is undesirable and unacceptable (assumption.)

Lawyers, please correct me if I am wrong.

From: BREAKING: Pittsboro commissioners vote to investigate and pursue litigation against PFAS and 1,4-Dioxane polluters

Please explain the inappropriate content below.