> In and of itself, what is actually incorrect about that statement? +1- the statement as phrased seems to be correct. The issue here seems to be one of dismi

> In and of itself, what is actually incorrect about that statement? +1- the statement as phrased seems to be correct. The issue here seems to be one of dismissing legitimate safety concerns rather than that statement itself. They quit adding safety before they reached the "pure waste" point.