Do we have to prove that these compounds are dangerous, in order to get them out of the environment?
You have to demonstrate that there's a fair reason to suspect danger, then further tests are warranted. Every new chemical that will reach a consumer should have some testing, but to prove that it's harmless is an unreasonable restriction. There's always going to be some tradeoff between safety and other concerns.
We could ban any use of silane, it's a very dangerous chemical. Oops, no more semiconductor industry.
Congress has granted the IOC special trademark privileges for exclusive use any linked ring motif
That must be really irritating to Audi, and also the maker of Ballantine's beer.
Once you get a federal judicial appointment, you are set for life.
Within limits. Commit murder and your judgeship is moot.
So the Republicans who voted for McCain in the primary elections did so in order to insure a Republican loss? I know that was the effect, but to claim that was the purpose defies sense.
"Can't we all just get along" might as well have been McCain's motto, and it's the refrain of someone who's been beaten about the head, not a winner.
According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.