I totally agree with the distinction. As you know, in my heart, I want everything to proceed as it has been suggested. I do think that this is an alley-oop to Chavez - I posted the same comments last week. I do see some contrarian indicators and I think its important to keep everything in perspective.

By the way - ANYTHING can be remediated in time. My concentration in law school was in environmental law and as such I participated in some high end federal environmental litigation. I am also from New Jersey so you know I'm surrounded by multiple Superfund sites - Lipari landfill, being the number 1 site in the country about 20 miles away... (still being remediated 25 years later...) - "The 16-acre Lipari Landfill site includes a 6-acre inactive landfill that, between 1958 and 1971, accepted household waste, liquid and semi-solid chemical wastes, and other industrial materials. These wastes were disposed of in trenches
originally excavated for sand and gravel. Approximately 3,000,000 gallons of liquid wastes and 12,000 cubic yards of solid wastes were disposed of at the site. Some of the wastes included solvents, paints and thinners, formaldehyde, dust collector residues, resins, and solid press cakes from the industrial production of paints and solvents."

The site was basically a dumping ground for DuPont, Owens-Illinois, Rohm and Haas and others from Philly and Delaware. The clean up involved 50 acres, wetlands, 2 creeks and a lake. They re-opened it after about 10 years of clean up and realized there were still problems. My point is that the LC propertywould not be nearly as contaminated as any given property in NJ (tongue-in-cheek), and is capable of remediation given time, money and motivation.