"Britain stands to lose what little environmental protection it has if the extremest Brexiters have their way at a time when cleaning up the planet has become a life-or-death."
Did that come out of a christmas cracker, or was it from Podge and Rodge's scare at bedtime?
Britain started the industrial revolution and also led the world in legislation to protect workers.(e.g. The Health and Morals of Apprentices Act in 1802, followed by the cotton millsand Factories Act 1819. If you seriously think this and all subsequent protection will unravel because of brexit you are away with fairies.
Your problem is that you think you know what you are talking about whereas I have been at the "coalface". You have been festering in a bog, whereas I was doing the science in Borneo on my 65th birthday. Do you think workers in the nuclear industry will no longer be monitored for personal dosages, that people will enter hazardous areas without PPE. Even in Ireland if a farmer wants to use any spraying equipment he needs to be trained. To ignore such requirements risks part of their payments. The latter is a typical example of very recent legislation.
I am afraid you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
In Syria, Iraq, the Yemen. Angola and many other places I have worked the safety regime has been practically identical when using potential chemical pollutants. If you were conversant with the measures companies such as BP put in place to protect their workers in places like Iraq your view of multinationals would change.
Was it not the EU that reduced the distance required to read a number plate from 75ft to 20m?
Your knowledge is stuck in a timewarp and influenced by mickey mouse outfits such as greenpeace and ludicrous scare stories from lefty rags like the guardian. If you were in the real world and had some slight familiarity with the subject matter I might consider your opinions, but you jump around the dartboard like a demented dervish pulling bits of this and bits of that in order to construct you fallacious arguments. How can anyone take your ramblings seriously? You started your rant babbling about a victorian legacy of pollution and carrying on as though it happened yesterday. The march of progress is littered with errors. Newspapers threatened an ice age in the 70's, global warming in the 90's and climate change today. All based on "impeccable" science! As was thalidomide and the indiscriminate use of asbestos.
Early cigarette advertising enthused about the benefits, today the only benefit would be perceived as a limited cull. You conveniently overlook the fact that much cutting edge science is not settled. There are both proponents and opponents. Climate change is a prime example.
Much of the data is obtained by the use of proxies. How reliable is that? The understanding of Carbon dating today is a multiple morphed beastie compared to when first introduced. Study the history of that and then look closely at those climate proxies.Just because something is mainstream it by no means guarantees it's validity. Your superiors just luv it being mainstream because the bulk of the sheeple will accept whatever it is. There is no need for a Goebbels, the age of spin has constructed his alter egos in the mainstream and in cyber space. You Jim are a prime example of one led by the nose.

Why you introduce Assad into the conversation escapes me. You are floundering again. I think Teribus demonstrated very clearly the fallacy of your argument. I am very glad you did not have the opportunity to submit any scientific reports to me. I would have had no hesitation in firing you.