This is an alternative title I would put on the latest Chemistry World news HP under fire for failing to phase out harmful chemicals, because the only simple event that caused this new is

On 28 July, Greenpeace representatives painted the words ‘Hazardous Products’ on the rooftop of HP’s headquarters building in Palo Alto, California, US.

Greenpeace is not a science group, nor does it care much about science. Greenpeace is another power after polymer industry that cannot wait for science for any minute. A worried prophet, it always chooses what human researchers have implied but haven’t yet got time to confirm as basic of its campaigns. By Greenpeace, what’s unknown is defined as known danger, not to mention what’s implied.

Greenpeace’s strange tendency is not unique. It is common among the population who think that human being has sinned and/or is inherently likely to sin, and thus should be monitored by God, ethics, laws or whatever. It is this kind of view that leads to not only various religions but also other conservative Republican groups over there. Because the unknown part of the world has been defined as known danger, they believe curiosity is dangerous, and thus so is science.

They can prove their argument that the unknown is known danger quite well, with the help of multiplied attributive clauses with subjective mood. Oftentimes we are told that something may contain A, B, and C, which may cause serious I, II, and III, and may be fatal. This seems to mean that that thing is directly fatal, if not noticing the tricky altering of subjects. For instance, in the Chemistry World news, it reads

PVC plastic is known to contain dangerous chemical additives – including phthalates, lead and cadmium – which can be toxic to children, causing damage to the liver, central nervous, respiratory and reproductive systems as well as potentially contributing to developmental disorders. Research has indicated that BFRs may negatively impact the developing brain and reproductive system.

So what? PVC plastic kills children, kills liver, kills central nervous, respiratory, reproductive, and also circulative (who knows) systems. PVC kills people!

So they can certainly prove their ultimate creed similarly: the unknown may contain danger, which may be fatal; therefore the unknown is fatal, and is known danger. Only things that are known to be safe is not danger. Anything out of this, known or unknown, is known danger.

And, after all, most of us hate danger.

For people who don’t hate danger, for those who love danger, they curse them. People who like to risk things are cursed. They are the unstable factor of our population, known danger, and defiant against God, ethic, law, etc. They are members of Fight Club, or lately Project Mayhem.

Wait…who curse who? Let’s roll back a little. People who hate danger curse people who love danger. —Yes. Religions and Greenpeace belong to the group who hate danger. —Yes. So it is religions and Greenpeace who hate the people who love danger, isn’t it? —Yes. So they would also hate the members of Project Mayhem, people who create disorder, right? —Yes.

Then why did the Greenpeace perform such a Project-Mayhem liked activity over the headquarter of HP?

This kind of irony is not rare among them, in fact. Terrorism is one example. I once watched a Republican movie which describes how high technology creates disaster in the year 2xxx. In the movie who leads to the disaster and by what? The answer is scientists and science. In the movie who saves the earth finally and by what? The answer is a scientist, and his science.

But I think a more logical ending for this movie should be that finally the modern civilization is eliminate and people who love danger, especially scientists, all died in a disaster. The rest is fine with primitive society. They sing and dance and pray and live happy lives forever!