Monday, May 26, 2014

There's something fishy about "abatement"

check out the links to my other blogs:

The smell about the word "abatement" is fishy when you consider that "abatement" is used by builders who do renovations in apartment building built when the use of asbestos and other toxic substances were not considered dangerous but are there during the renovations that tear down walls, but is a reduction enough?

This business term "abatement" is used by government including the EPA to let the renovations be done in buildings with tenants.

The problem with construction "abatement" is that no ongoing tests are conducted, and if the construction process in  "abatement" is followed without conducting tests in a tenant's apartment who knows if the tenants in that apartment building are breathing in the odorless colorless toxic fumes of asbestos and other toxic substances being disturbed in the process of building renovations.

The fish smell is in the term "abatement" that means reduction but NOT elimination, yet this is how our government allows business as usual when business is conducted despite that the health of citizens can be jeopardized by this "business as usual" attitude—no doubt more than one will have to die for an investigation to take place—and the oncoming moral outrage will be covered thoroughly by the media.

The above happens to be a situation in which I am concerned, and I've used the word "abatement" in this blog of wordsandmeanings as a case in point about how the meaning of a word can matter—perhaps this will encourage my readers to look at how words are used.

When words are used that raise red flags, the word itself should prompt some inquiry and questions about your concerns.

Words do matter and so do the meanings of words.

No comments:

Post a Comment