NationStates Jolt Archive

i am all against animal cruelty,i am also a gun owner and ex-hunter,i stopped hunting because i cant kill a innocent animal,i just did not have the stomach for killing animals.
if i was starving,then i would probably hunt(probably why my dad taught me how to hunt)but not now..i can go to the superfresh for food.

i also have nothing against hunting for many reasons,it is a personel choice i made for many reasons.

but a few years back i remember peta yapping about how the rash of shark attacks were due to the sharks revenging themselves on humans,what they were revenging themselves on us eludes me..as does the fact they probably dont have the capacity for vengeance

it scares me how normal intelligent people can get so fucking caught up with their cause,that simple logic escapes them?

i understand treehugging,loving animals,etc.

i also understand people want dwellings and meat.

but to go around the bend cause you believe something and say bye bye to logic is baffling.

now they are in a snit about some 140 pound kid wrestling a 600 pound bear.

at first i thought maybe the bear was tied up and such nonsence...but after reading the article...i was incorrect.

by the way,when i am in the mountains camping and hiking..i do carry a weapon,because there are bears there,and i will obviously avoid hurting one to almost extreme measures...but i am gonna not throw away logic and let a bear eat me cause i am in his woods...logic again i suppose.

sooo..do you really think peta has any point here..or is it some round the bend nutjobs?

i got chased by a bear once..to my car,and actually i worked with them for a summer on a safari,all i can say is they are quite strong and very dangerous.

my opinion is the kid wrestling the bear is not hurting it or being cruel to it,more then likely,like he said,the bear might actually enjoy it,like my dog does when we wrastle.

curious about other opinions that differ from me,i may be missing something not in the short article.


ok..i am a twit..i forgot to post the article..damn...sorry

By M.R. KROPKO, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 3 minutes ago



CLEVELAND - Lance Palmer, a 140-pound high school wrestler and four-time state champ, taps into his substantial skills whenever he takes on Ceaser Jr. Skill comes in handy when your opponent is a 650-pound black bear.

ADVERTISEMENT

Palmer recently wrestled Ceaser at the annual Cleveland Sport, Travel & Outdoor Show, pinning the animal on its back.

Although he says he never hurts the bear, Palmer and the bear's owner have been criticized by animal rights groups.

Norfolk, Va.-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has sought to make owner Sam Mazzola a focal point of its national efforts to ban bear wrestling.

PETA is demanding that the U.S. Department of Agriculture revoke Mazzola's license to exhibit exotic animals. For a small fee, Mazzola allows people to wrestle the bear or have a picture taken inside a cage with his other bears or a tiger.

"Sam Mazzola continues to flout federal regulations and expose the public to very real danger," said Debbie Leahy, PETA director. "Bear wrestling is as ludicrous as it sounds, and it's high time that it was relegated to the dustbin of history."

PETA said bear wrestling is banned in 20 states, but not in Ohio.

Mazzola said bear wrestling has been part of his business — World Animal Studios Inc., in Columbia Station in northeast Ohio — for over 20 years, and he has no intention of stopping now. Most of his shows are at county fairs within the state.

"To be able to bring an animal out into the public and do what we do is not easy. I mean we're talking about a bear! Do you even realize how much work, time and love we put into that? It's like nobody stops to realize that," Mazzola said.

Randy Coleman, a USDA inspector, attended Saturday's wrestling match but declined comment.

Palmer, 19, a senior at St. Edward High School in the Cleveland suburb of Lakewood, has been wrestling bears since he was four years old. His father is an animal trainer for Mazzola.

Palmer, who gets paid by Mazzola, said animal rights activists are misguided.

"Bears are probably eight times stronger than people," said Palmer, who is headed to Ohio State as a collegiate wrestler. "If they wanted to, they could do a whole lot of damage to people. But if they are having fun, like Ceaser was, then they will play with you all day.

"To them it's just fun, because they are not using all of their strength," he said. "Maybe I might use all of my strength to pin him, but he's just playing around."

Palmer said he's had a few scratches and bruises wrestling bears, but no serious injuries. He views it as another training method, even if there's potential for danger.

Ceaser doesn't wear a muzzle during the wrestling matches with Palmer.

"It helps the bear out to not have to keep his mouth closed the whole time," Palmer said. "It's kind of unfair to the bear to keep him muzzled. We want it to be fun. We don't want it to be a sport. That's why the animal activists don't know what they are taking about when they come out here and try and go against what we do."

but a few years back i remember peta yapping about how the rash of shark attacks were due to the sharks revenging themselves on humans,what they were revenging themselves on us eludes me..as does the fact they probably dont have the capacity for vengeance

I think you misinterpreted. When sharks are caught for their fins (shark fin soup being a delicacy in many of the same places where rhino horns are aphrodisiacs), they are then thrown back into the water. Without their fins, they cannot prey on any victims with a fair turn of speed... but swimmers do nicely. It is not revenge, just survival.
A year back though, the president of one PETA society went on a campaign announcing that killing animals is like killing people... since we're just animals. Of course, she ran into a bit of a problem when she was asked about the Holocaust...

I think you misinterpreted. When sharks are caught for their fins (shark fin soup being a delicacy in many of the same places where rhino horns are aphrodisiacs), they are then thrown back into the water. Without their fins, they cannot prey on any victims with a fair turn of speed... but swimmers do nicely. It is not revenge, just survival.
A year back though, the president of one PETA society went on a campaign announcing that killing animals is like killing people... since we're just animals. Of course, she ran into a bit of a problem when she was asked about the Holocaust...

thanks for the info..i just remember someone saying the sharks were attacking humans out of revenge,which to me was plain silly.
however your explanation makes alot of sense.
oh,and i find the practice of cutting off the fins and tossing them back...sickening and barbaric.

like my dad always said,if you kill any animal(even if they are like a tree with no feelings..supposedly)you owe nature and the victim of the kill,the respect to use every piece of it possible,and waste nothing if possible.

thats why i stopped hunting,but i have friends that hunt,they use the fur,the meat..everything..i have no problem with that.

why waste a whole shark just for it's fins...thats as bad as killing a deer for it's rack!

PETA went around the bend awhile ago.

Which is a shame, since fighting against animal cruelty is a good cause, but the extreme methods PETA has used does not help them in the short or long run.

I think PETA actually STARTED around the bend, and has now passed several more extreme bends on its quest to find the ultimate bend to go around, which likely has to do with lobbying for alligators to make luggage out of humans.

PETA is not an animal welfare organization. PETA spends less than one percent of its multi-million dollar budget actually helping animals.
They are nothing more than an umbrella group that provides advertising and criminal defense for associated "non profit" animal rights scams. It is about making money without working and finding useful idiots to collect it for them.

PETA went around the bend when they

- Claimed the killing of chickens was worse than the Holocaust
- Said they wouldn't support a cure for AIDS if it was tested on animals
- Wrote a letter to Yasser Arafat telling him not to use animals in his suicide bombings and said nothing about humans
- Gave money to the Earth Liberation Front, a known domestic terrorist organization

And yet people still join this "environmentalist" group. What whackjobs.

PETA went around the bend awhile ago.

Which is a shame, since fighting against animal cruelty is a good cause, but the extreme methods PETA has used does not help them in the short or long run.
Plus having a leader who announced she wnats her skin made into a wallet when she dies doesnt help anyones cause.

Plus having a leader who announced she wnats her skin made into a wallet when she dies doesnt help anyones cause.

I think we should subject her to poetic justice and sell her skin wallets at the zoo.

most environmentalist orgs/movements are off kilter. Sure, I support the environment and there are some industries where certain animals may not be treated very well. But to go so far as to hold the rights of animals above those of reasoning beings (namely humans), or to protest technologies such as nuclear energy because the short term affects of overhauling a nuke power plant might be harmful to the environament. Once you start down that path, you've gone too far.

I dislike nuclear power, but that might be because I live within 100 miles of Yucca Mountain. for the uninformed, Yucca Mountain is where they are planning on storing alot of nuclear waste permanantly. Once you discovered the faked safety reports and all the lying, you'd probably never wished we ever discovered the atom. It's all fun and games until Al quieda gets a shovel and a map to Yucca Mountain.

As for environmentalism, I support it. It uses science and logic to make our world safer and more usable for us humans for just the small cost of a few minor inconveniences. Sure, if they win, we might have to walk short distances instead of driving there and we might actually have to start not leaving lights on all day and night. And don't even think about smoking. Those death sticks contain some of the most lethal tars and rat poisons imaginable. But won't being able to see our god damn feet be worth it? Won't not dying of lung cancer and heart attacks as much be worth it? won't those eco-tourism dollars be worth it?

Oh, and ban PETA. Those damn criminals.

PETA is an American Al Qaeda. Ban it and arrest everyone involved with it.

If the US energy comission had the balls to face down Greenpeace and the Sierra club and all those other fringe eco-teurs then we wouldn't need Yucca mountain. Bejeezes, we already have the technology to reprocess all the waste except light nuclear waste (which, BTW isn't even really harmful enough to even cause mild radiation poisoning in a person in regular quantities, and no amount could be used to make a practical bomb of any sort) pussies will claim that reprossessing nuclear waste creates weapons capable materials and 'oh no, what if the terrorists get ahold of it' bull sh&t, America on its own has enough nuclear weaponry to turn the entire planet and out nearest orbiting bodies into so much glow in the dark dust, why aren;t we afraid the terrorists are going to get one of those? simple, security and secrecy, but these missiles are a lot less secure than a lump of uranium that is laying in the business part of a nuclear reactor! Anybody trying to steal the warhead off a nuclear missile will die of gunshots, if they even get that close. but try and steal enough weapons grade reprocessed material from a reactor, and you'll die of radiation poisoning, and just the act of opening core to even get that far will contaminate the whole facility.
if the eco-teurs would just let us reprocess waste and build new powerplants, then there wouldn't be a problem with burying heavy nuclear waste, just the odd glove/enviro-suit used to keep people from getting deadly rads under relatively rare circumstances, and even most of that stuff can be reprocessed once enough of it accumulates.

Sorry about the rant but nuclear energy is something I kind of feel strongly about

I lost all faith in PETA when they came out against drinking milk, saying it was barbaric. MILK, for God's sake! MILK.
Yep, let's all get osteoporosis and never eat cheese or yoghurt again to save a few cows from getting their teats squeezed twice a day.

I lost all faith in PETA when they came out against drinking milk, saying it was barbaric. MILK, for God's sake! MILK.
Yep, let's all get osteoporosis and never eat cheese or yoghurt again to save a few cows from getting their teats squeezed twice a day.

Now I'm getting flashbacks of the cow milking bit from Family Guy.

If the US energy comission had the balls to face down Greenpeace and the Sierra club and all those other fringe eco-teurs then we wouldn't need Yucca mountain. Bejeezes, we already have the technology to reprocess all the waste except light nuclear waste (which, BTW isn't even really harmful enough to even cause mild radiation poisoning in a person in regular quantities, and no amount could be used to make a practical bomb of any sort) pussies will claim that reprossessing nuclear waste creates weapons capable materials and 'oh no, what if the terrorists get ahold of it' bull sh&t, America on its own has enough nuclear weaponry to turn the entire planet and out nearest orbiting bodies into so much glow in the dark dust, why aren;t we afraid the terrorists are going to get one of those? simple, security and secrecy, but these missiles are a lot less secure than a lump of uranium that is laying in the business part of a nuclear reactor! Anybody trying to steal the warhead off a nuclear missile will die of gunshots, if they even get that close. but try and steal enough weapons grade reprocessed material from a reactor, and you'll die of radiation poisoning, and just the act of opening core to even get that far will contaminate the whole facility.
if the eco-teurs would just let us reprocess waste and build new powerplants, then there wouldn't be a problem with burying heavy nuclear waste, just the odd glove/enviro-suit used to keep people from getting deadly rads under relatively rare circumstances, and even most of that stuff can be reprocessed once enough of it accumulates.

Sorry about the rant but nuclear energy is something I kind of feel strongly about

are your assessments and estimates accurate?

i am curious,i know little to nothing about atomic energy.i suppose it is time to educate myself.

i always thought that with safeguards and security,atomic energy could help free us of the ball and chain of petroleum based energy sources.

you know all the fun stuff that makes the world go round,fossil fuels/greenhouse gases/car emissions..etc.

it is a potential catastropic disaster,but as far as the enviroment,compared to fossil fuels...a big step forward towards a cleaner enviroment.

either we go back to horses and no plastics,or we start to replace some of our energy consumption with atomic power.

we will still need petroleum,for cars and plastics..etc...but we could cut down on alot of other energy usage with atomic power.

funny how a boy wrestling a bear turns into a discussion on energy and eco terrorists....i love this place.

i am really glad i found this site...nation states is awesome...and i am an old fart..lol


any opinions on the bear wrestling?

As for environmentalism, I support it. It uses science and logic to make our world safer and more usable for us humans for just the small cost of a few minor inconveniences. Sure, if they win, we might have to walk short distances instead of driving there and we might actually have to start not leaving lights on all day and night. And don't even think about smoking. Those death sticks contain some of the most lethal tars and rat poisons imaginable. But won't being able to see our god damn feet be worth it? Won't not dying of lung cancer and heart attacks as much be worth it? won't those eco-tourism dollars be worth it?

Oh, and ban PETA. Those damn criminals.

I totally agree, clean air and energy efficiency even have benefits not directly related to their environmental friendliness. But when the logical measures and reasonable precautions give way to leaving a forty year old nuclear plant operating because decomissioning it would damage the environment, or destroying thousands of acres for wind farms and solar plants to barely produce an amount of electricity that a hundred acre nuclear plant that produces virtually no waste (after reprocessing) could produce at minimum output because of some vaguely defined and mostly nonexistent benefit, then there's something wrong.
Most of these people have gone beyond logic and into some fantasy realm where somehow environmental responsibility has taken the passenger seat to some sort of pseudo-spiritual political view of animal rights and pop-science (AKA crap science) they've seized onto so called 'clean and abundant' electrical generation schemes far beyond where logic would have dictated they let go, and have demonized more practical and more abundant power supplies with only a minimal impact (much smaller than the humongous impact of actually constructing so called 'clean' energy plants, espescially solar plants)

but this thread is about PETA, and seriously, talk about enviro's being off their rocker, PETA is totally round the mountain. Come on, they want to end cruelty to fish!, FISH for chris'sake, the blessed ichthypods don't even have prefrontal lobes, certainly cruelty to animals is bad, but fish can't even feel anything that could be called pain or fear, they don't have the necesarry brain parts! and then going and saying people were meant to be vegetarians? Oh sure, and I suppose so were aligators and Wolves and Bears and crap. You go live in the wilderness for a couple of years and be a Vegetarian, see how long you survive. It's not even some trivial tooth shape thing like alot of people use to argue with animal rights activists, its frickin biology, the Human metabolism works about a thousand times better when there's meat kicking around the good old intestinal tract than without. Vegetarians have to watch their diet to make sure they're getting enough of certain kinds of proteins necessary for human life and found in abundance in red meat, and then claim that they are somehow healthier than us meat eaters? Its insanity I tell you.

PETA is not an animal welfare organization. PETA spends less than one percent of its multi-million dollar budget actually helping animals.
They are nothing more than an umbrella group that provides advertising and criminal defense for associated "non profit" animal rights scams. It is about making money without working and finding useful idiots to collect it for them.

if that is true..if i ever hit the lottery,i will put up billboards exsposing their hypocracy...as i would with bush or kerry.

makes sense though...america is full of animal lovers(buy pet food stocks about 5 years ago)and most are housewives(no offence ladies)watching orca..i mean oprah all day,and get quite emotional over seeing an animal being abused,everyday here we have the adopt a pet on the news...and rightly people get outraged,as do i,but some people here treat their animals better then they would treat a human?

i know the argument,some people are less worthy of compassion then most animals,and i almost..almost agree.

to your point,i can easily see a maniputalive scum bag,capitilize on peoples inherent feelings on animals for profit(kinda like church..hehe)

i got divorced over animals....my ex always adopted them...and i mean alot of them..to the point the animals ate better then me and my kids...and took precedence.

thats nuts if you ask me,i see a wounded bird,i will try to fix it's broken wing and nurture it back..but to bypass surgery on my kid...nope!


what was my point?

lol...i got distracted by the nuke thing,and my alcohol intake..ooops

Now I'm getting flashbacks of the cow milking bit from Family Guy.
I was hoping someone would.
My job here is done.

PETA went around the bend when they

- Claimed the killing of chickens was worse than the Holocaust
- Said they wouldn't support a cure for AIDS if it was tested on animals
- Wrote a letter to Yasser Arafat telling him not to use animals in his suicide bombings and said nothing about humans
- Gave money to the Earth Liberation Front, a known domestic terrorist organization

And yet people still join this "environmentalist" group. What whackjobs.

wow..if thats all true..i am baffled..i just thought they were a bunck of tree huggers(which i can understand,and a bunch of bored housewives spending hubbys money so they feel better about themselves)

in case they get called on the carpet on oprah..and can say.."i contribute to peta"i am a good person..blah blah blah

I totally agree, clean air and energy efficiency even have benefits not directly related to their environmental friendliness. But when the logical measures and reasonable precautions give way to leaving a forty year old nuclear plant operating because decomissioning it would damage the environment, or destroying thousands of acres for wind farms and solar plants to barely produce an amount of electricity that a hundred acre nuclear plant that produces virtually no waste (after reprocessing) could produce at minimum output because of some vaguely defined and mostly nonexistent benefit, then there's something wrong.
Most of these people have gone beyond logic and into some fantasy realm where somehow environmental responsibility has taken the passenger seat to some sort of pseudo-spiritual political view of animal rights and pop-science (AKA crap science) they've seized onto so called 'clean and abundant' electrical generation schemes far beyond where logic would have dictated they let go, and have demonized more practical and more abundant power supplies with only a minimal impact (much smaller than the humongous impact of actually constructing so called 'clean' energy plants, espescially solar plants)

but this thread is about PETA, and seriously, talk about enviro's being off their rocker, PETA is totally round the mountain. Come on, they want to end cruelty to fish!, FISH for chris'sake, the blessed ichthypods don't even have prefrontal lobes, certainly cruelty to animals is bad, but fish can't even feel anything that could be called pain or fear, they don't have the necesarry brain parts! and then going and saying people were meant to be vegetarians? Oh sure, and I suppose so were aligators and Wolves and Bears and crap. You go live in the wilderness for a couple of years and be a Vegetarian, see how long you survive. It's not even some trivial tooth shape thing like alot of people use to argue with animal rights activists, its frickin biology, the Human metabolism works about a thousand times better when there's meat kicking around the good old intestinal tract than without. Vegetarians have to watch their diet to make sure they're getting enough of certain kinds of proteins necessary for human life and found in abundance in red meat, and then claim that they are somehow healthier than us meat eaters? Its insanity I tell you.

wow..like minded i suppose.

i always wondered about the teeth thing...my veggie friend said it was all about the teeth..lol...but why do CARNIVORES have fangs and such....?
shouldnt we have..following that logic..have horse teeth? or cow teeth to chew our cud.
i always thought that our fangs are for tearing flesh/meat and our other teeth were to chomp it to digestible bits?

i suppose one could argue bears eat alot of fauna and such(berries)but they never pass up on a cariboo carcass..must be biology.

yea, the teeth thing is a pretty heated debate, but compared witht he metabolism thing, Teeth are meaningless. Technically Human teath are those of omnivores, so really the argument works both ways, you have to get to the proteins and nutrients necessary for human existense to be able to say decidedly that people need meat. Of course, there are some people who physically can't eat meat because of various disorders and diseases and occasionally habit, but those people are the exception.

Man - PETA is my favorite organization. It seems like at least once per week they do something else assenine that leaves me in tears from laughing so hard.

Man - PETA is my favorite organization. It seems like at least once per week they do something else assenine that leaves me in tears from laughing so hard.

That is 50% of their entire reason for existing. By their own leaderships words, they are complete media whores. By coming up with all the outragous crap that they do, they draw attention to the basic concept of animal rights, and at the same time make less obscene groups seem to be more palatable.
Do the really believe the crap they spout? Of course not, they also make a great deal of money killing animals.

yea, the teeth thing is a pretty heated debate, but compared witht he metabolism thing, Teeth are meaningless. Technically Human teath are those of omnivores, so really the argument works both ways, you have to get to the proteins and nutrients necessary for human existense to be able to say decidedly that people need meat. Of course, there are some people who physically can't eat meat because of various disorders and diseases and occasionally habit, but those people are the exception.
The argument doesn't go both ways, because meat eaters aren't claiming that all we are supposed to eat is meat. Rather they claim it's a natural part of the diet, which it is.

That is 50% of their entire reason for existing. By their own leaderships words, they are complete media whores. By coming up with all the outragous crap that they do, they draw attention to the basic concept of animal rights, and at the same time make less obscene groups seem to be more palatable.
Do the really believe the crap they spout? Of course not, they also make a great deal of money killing animals.

Yes yes - I know. However, I still can't help but laugh at their antics. It's like a comedy routine - but real and funnier.

At this point PETA is so far around the bend it's biting it's own ass.

If the US energy comission had the balls to face down Greenpeace and the Sierra club and all those other fringe eco-teurs then we wouldn't need Yucca mountain. Bejeezes, we already have the technology to reprocess all the waste except light nuclear waste (which, BTW isn't even really harmful enough to even cause mild radiation poisoning in a person in regular quantities, and no amount could be used to make a practical bomb of any sort)
if the eco-teurs would just let us reprocess waste and build new powerplants, then there wouldn't be a problem with burying heavy nuclear waste, just the odd glove/enviro-suit used to keep people from getting deadly rads under relatively rare circumstances, and even most of that stuff can be reprocessed once enough of it accumulates.

Sorry about the rant but nuclear energy is something I kind of feel strongly about

If people like you didn't have the vote, it would be funny just how ill informed you are. you seriously equate the Sierra Club and the associated John Muir trust with PETA?
and "light nuclear waste", its harmless? like asbestos harmless? or more like benzene harmless?
As for terrorists, you've heard of a dirty bomb I assume? you know they don't actualy have to go "BANG" in any significant way dont you? just scattering a few handfuls of dust containing radioactive isotopes on a subway platform would result in increases in cancers among people who used the service regularly, theres a reason the nurse leaves the room when she takes your x-rays.

If Yucca goes through, the terrorists won't have to make a dirty bomb. They can get them ready made in Yucca if it goes through. Bush approved it. I would have wanted to vote for Kerry if he actually wasn't worse than Bush. After all, it's better with the evil you know than with the evil you don't.

I used to support PETA. Then, I started hating them. Now, I support myself. Support my local endangered fish. There's only, like, <80 of them and they're dying by the handful. They can tell us how fast we are killing ourselves. Don't let them die. If we do, then we'll actually be surprised by crap.

Were PETA ever on this side of the bend?

Yes yes - I know. However, I still can't help but laugh at their antics. It's like a comedy routine - but real and funnier.

I'd agree completely except for the fact that they target children and actively support violent criminal operations. That takes the comedy relief out of it for me.

If people like you didn't have the vote, it would be funny just how ill informed you are. you seriously equate the Sierra Club and the associated John Muir trust with PETA?
and "light nuclear waste", its harmless? like asbestos harmless? or more like benzene harmless?
As for terrorists, you've heard of a dirty bomb I assume? you know they don't actualy have to go "BANG" in any significant way dont you? just scattering a few handfuls of dust containing radioactive isotopes on a subway platform would result in increases in cancers among people who used the service regularly, theres a reason the nurse leaves the room when she takes your x-rays.

No, I'm not equating Sierra Club with PETA, that would be foolish, although there are certain similiarities present between some of Sierra clubs psycho-fringe groups and PETA. Really what I was trying to say was that some of Sierra Club and related enviro-orgs statements, esp. on the matter of nuclear energy, are far from informed

and Light waste is more of an Asbestos harmless certainly, which is amazingly safe compared to heavy nuclear waste, heck its even safe compared to smoking certain brands of cigarettes, even safer with minimal precautions.

Now for dirty bombs, the very idea of a dirty bomb is laughable at best, sure loading a conventional bomb with light radioactive waste sounds all serious and crap, but honestly, what would it acomplish? as you said, a slight increase in cancer occuring in a subway, used in he open, the actual radioactive bits would disperse to pointlessness in hours, inside a subway or other closed space, a HAZMAT crew would have a similiar effect on any radioactive waste. A dirty bomb is only marginally more terrible than a conventional explosive, any terrorist who would be in a position to obtain enough waste to make one would probably be knowledgable enough to realize that it wouldn't be worth the effort or much greater risk of detection and subsequent thwarting. A terr could obtain asbestos much more easily and it wouldn't have that characteristic radioactivity of a 'dirty' bomb but would have much the same effect. So yes, A terrorist could use light nuclear waste to make a dirty bomb, but the risks just having radioactive material on his person poses to detection (since 9/11, and to a limited extent before, discreet radiological detectors have been installed in airports, large buildings and other easy targets for terrorist attack) essentially negate the threat.