is it just me or does anyone else see the flaw in this quote

[whiteghost]

"Nutrient pollution is pollution in itself and it can have a lot of unforeseen consequences, generating the wrong sorts of organisms and harming marine life rather than enhancing it. Anything you introduce to the marine environment that shouldn’t be there is generally going to have some unforeseen and adverse consequences."

 

[whiteghost]

ergo : do we stop swimming in the sea?

 

[Andrew Fergus]

Isn't the term 'nutrient pollution' a euphemism for human excrement? (I know, another euphemism for ****). If so then we shouldn't go swimming.....

Isn't this : "Anything you introduce to the marine environment that shouldn’t be there is generally going to have some unforeseen and adverse consequences"
stating the obvious? How'd they come up with that one?

A

 

[PaddyD]

"...unforeseen and adverse consequences."

If the consequences are unforeseen, it would be impossible to determine, a priori, whether they were beneficial or otherwise. The only way to avoid this is to define any consequence as deleterious - but the author says "... is generally going...", so they clearly haven't taken the definitional option.

Q.E.D. the author is talking meaningless crap.

 

[whiteghost]

Isn't the term 'nutrient pollution' a euphemism for human excrement? (I know, another euphemism for ****). If so then we shouldn't go swimming.....

Isn't this : "Anything you introduce to the marine environment that shouldn’t be there is generally going to have some unforeseen and adverse consequences"
stating the obvious? How'd they come up with that one?

A

that's so called ac(ACK)cemedics for you