Hi Robert, Apparently you MISSED the entire thesis of Stossel's report!
He was NOT commenting on the dangers of dioxin but rather on the "Politically Correct" yet illogical reasoning of "Ben & Jerry's". B&J were demanding their suppliers of carton's that pack their ice cream have no dioxin in them. B&J then distributed literature in their outlets informing consumers of such a "good deed" and their literature stated "any level of dioxin is dangerous". Yet B&J simply omitted telling the consumers of their products that their product itself has much more dioxin than the original containers ever thought of having! Stossel's thesis was that the level of dioxin in the ice cream probably wasn't harmful (he feeds his own kids B&J ice cream) but for B&J to declare B&J was so consumer health oriented to change their containers to protect their customers was simply ludicrous!!! In my humble opinion, B&J using such to window dress their public relations image is outrageous. So I also say: Give Me A Break! So, in reality, you should have restated the philosopher as "There are B&J's, damned B&J's, and statistics". _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: silver-list-requ...@eskimo.com -or- silver-digest-requ...@eskimo.com with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
