David Smythe: Yes, yes, exactly.
PH: If I could just ask quickly about how the debate is framed in Cumbria… in your experience during the lectures that you delivered and with the people that you spoke to, the position that you are advocating is one of explicitly saying ‘no’, and the opposing view, which the consultation partnership is espousing is a lot more wooly; it’s about uncertainty and saying ‘we need more investigation.’ Do you think they have a rhetorical advantage by
being perceived to be more open-minded?
DS: It’s a pseudo-rhetorical advantage. What they’re saying is “we don’t know enough, we must do more research – professors Smythe and Haszeldine haven’t got the full story, we need to go in and start drilling etc.’ But of course you can always say that, and it’s the same argument used by the tobacco lobby, and was used by the asbestos…
View original post 323 more words