Following up to Brimstone
They are potentially dangerous, especially the ones in the Thames estuary if you believe the press. Unless they have been made safe by water seepage. If a person was able to bring one to the surface and carry it on a tube train then you would have danger in a plant and a dangerous action in a person. If there was an explosion the person would be to blame, the plant would make the explosion, but wouldn't be to blame, you might want to blame the maker or the original dropper of course. persons are dangerous, just like drivers. person-driver, plant-road. All can be dangerous. Danger is the potential to do harm, it doesn't come and go and move from object to person, dependant on their actions and circumstances.
Take James Bond dealing with a ticking plant that will destroy the world. According to what I'm being asked to believe here, the plant is intrinsically dangerous because it will go off by itself. (or is it the timer that's dangerous?) so what happens when he snips the wire on the timer? According to this special theory of danger, the plant is no longer dangerous, the danger now resides in Mr Bond, in his responsibility in not doing something daft that would set it off.
Worst Driving Experience EverCessna172 came up with the following;: Why? I was in a fully loaded truck and managed to stop well in time, with even more traffic (maybe ten or twelve cars, so much shorter...
Its the unexploded plant that is dangerous, not the plant disposal team.
Once you get away from well rehearsed scenarios to do with driving with all its "the road doesn't jump out" nonsense, it becomes pretty clear that this redefinition of danger is pretty silly.
Are we all bored with this now? -- Mike Reid
