So, lets assume that the US scrubs the Atlantis mission. Lets also assume that the mission would have been a go had the two satellites not collided?. If scrubbing the mission seals Hubble's fate, can the US go after Russia for compensation in an international court? After all, it was their out of control satellite that caused this particular mess. (Note that Russia's track record on orbital mission end-of-life has been less than stellar (pun intended)).

Problem Solved:

Send congressmen instead.

They're being retired anyway.

It's not going to ruin my dinner if seven congressmen buy the farm.

There will be seven less if something happens.

5. Comparing any item to Iraq expenditures does not bolster your argument, if anything a parrot would suffice.

Why not compare it to the fact we are willing to lose nearly FORTY THOUSAND people to vehicle deaths. The number of soldiers we lose in Iraq while deplorable by any count is minuscule compared to any other war of that scale let alone the deaths at home from stuff that should not happen in the first place.

First, nobody knows the underlying causes of autism. One of the exacerbating circumstances with this issue is that autism is a "spectrum disorder" -- there are probably multiple causes, and no particular treatment will work across the board.

Second, vaccines are tested much the same as any other medication -- a population is selected, (assuming a double blind study) some of the population is given the actual medication while the remainder is given a placebo, statistical methods are then applied to determine the safety level. While this method validates (or invalidates) the safety of any particular medication, it says nothing about the safety of medical cocktails. Young children (less than 2 years old) are often given multiple vaccinations during a single "well" visit. Nobody has even attempted to determine if these multiple, simultaneous vaccinations are safe.

Third, and to the point, there is scientific evidence that the rate of autism is more common now than in the past. Scientific heresy you say? Consider this: In 1975 a study was performed to look at bleeding during pregnancy as a risk factor for autism and childhood psychosis. Computerized records of 30,000 children born between 1959 and 1965 at 14 university-affiliated medical centers were examined (that is a huge sample). Fourteen children were identified as having autism (by the definition used in 1975) -- a rate of 4.7 children per 10,000. This rate matched perfectly with other contemporary studies. Additionally, 6 other children were labeled as disturbed, psychotic, autistic, or schizophrenic. The remaining children were considered cognitively normal. Labeling all the cognitively non-normal children as autistic gives a rate of 6.7 children per 10,000. This rate is _far_, _far_ below even the low-end estimate of 30 per 10,000 for autistic spectrum disorders today cited by the National Institute of Health. FYI, the study was published in the highly credible Journal of autism and Childhood Schizophrenia in 1975. This is an apples-to-apples comparison folks. The rate of childhood autism is definitely increasing.

Finally, the court can make any ruling it wants. That in no way determines the cause or treatment of autism or any other disease for that matter. What is does do is throw yet another monkey wrench into the lives of families that are already struggling to deal with their situations. Our tax dollars would be better spent on medical research to identify the true causes of diseases and effective treatments.

WRONG!!!!

First, nobody knows the underlying causes of autism. One of the exacerbating circumstances with this issue is that autism is a "spectrum disorder" -- there are probably multiple causes, and no particular treatment will work across the board.

Second, vaccines are tested much the same as any other medication -- a population is selected, (assuming a double blind study) some of the population is given the actual medication while the remainder is given a placebo, statistical methods are then applied to determine the safety level. While this method validates (or invalidates) the safety of any particular medication, it says nothing about the safety of medical cocktails. Young children (less than 2 years old) are often given multiple vaccinations during a single "well" visit. Nobody has even attempted to determine if these multiple, simultaneous vaccinations are safe.

Third, and to the point, there is scientific evidence that the rate of autism is more common now than in the past. Scientific heresy you say? Consider this: In 1975 a study was performed to look at bleeding during pregnancy as a risk factor for autism and childhood psychosis. Computerized records of 30,000 children born between 1959 and 1965 at 14 university-affiliated medical centers were examined (that is a huge sample). Fourteen children were identified as having autism (by the definition used in 1975) -- a rate of 4.7 children per 10,000. This rate matched perfectly with other contemporary studies. Additionally, 6 other children were labeled as disturbed, psychotic, autistic, or schizophrenic. The remaining children were considered cognitively normal. Labeling all the cognitively non-normal children as autistic gives a rate of 6.7 children per 10,000. This rate is _far_, _far_ below even today's low-end estimate of 30 per 10,000 for autistic spectrum disorders cited by the National Institute of Health. FYI, the study was published in the highly credible Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia in 1975. This is an apples-to-apples comparison folks. The rate of childhood autism is definitely increasing.

Finally, the court can make any ruling it wants. That in no way determines the cause or treatment of autism or any other disease for that matter. What is does do is throw yet another monkey wrench into the lives of families that are already struggling to deal with their situations. Our tax dollars would be better spent on medical research to identify the true causes of diseases and effective treatments.