When taken to task for asking this question (by our other good friend, Peter K.) in the comments, Kevin replies:
Preach on, my brother. That's all I have to say.
Actually, my purpose was to provoke thought by pulling together an extreme corollary between absurd artificial environmental standards which take precedence over practicality and concern for human life.
The foam problem apparently did not exist (or if it did, not to a dangerous extent) prior to the politically correct replacement of a substance which successfully functioned as designed, to one which frankly cannot perform the function but makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy inside because it's tree-huggingly environmentaly safe. Group hug, everyone?
Do you not see the absurdity of indefinitely freezing any possible return on the investment of a billion-dollar program to spend years and millions more dollars attempting to resolve a self-caused issue strictly based on environmental policy-- policy based on theory which has never actually proven that man-made chemicals have a greater effect on the Earth's atmospheric temperature cycles than a 1,400,000 km diameter ball of fire burning 11,000* F at it's coolest which the Earth happens to orbit at close proximity, and for much longer than mere people have been around to notice it's effects?
And further more, the absurdity of attempting to force an inferior product to perform like it's superior predecessor which was removed strictly because of it's political correctness, regardless of the death toll caused specifically by that product's known inferiority?
If it maligns my Christianity to place human life at a higher value than worshipping at the alter of the unproven religion of environmentalism, then that's a cross I'll just have to bear.
Sorry, Peter, you had that one coming...
