I think that we should definitely err on the side of having more reporters looking into things rather than less. Investigation and documentation is a very good thing.
On the other hand, I think that the Coast Guard was also trying to keep not only safety but also liability in mind with the buffers. How many of those photos showed beaches where parents were letting their kids play in the oil soaked water? I guess I'll give credit to the one lady who was wearing a respirator while sunbathing, but jeez, the combination of crude oil and chemical dispersant doesn't make for a very healthy environment. It is hard to balance the desire of investigative reporters who need access with the desire to keep people from unneeded exposure to environmental hazards. Judah On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Jerry Barnes <critic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Another implied issue was the booms. The restriction is based on the booms, > which could be placed anywhere, even areas not directly effected by the > spill or areas actively being cleaned. > > It's definitely a fine line. As stated, you don't want people in the way. > You don't want everything hidden from view either. One has to ask if the > new restrictions are excessive. Would 30 feet have been safe enough? > > Originally, the Coast Guard wanted 300 feet, but backed down to 65. Does > that imply anything about motive? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:322651 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
