DEUT611 All too often, even where there is physical damage involved, the economic welfare of the community would be seriously harmed by the removal of an offending plant or industry. If the damage envisaged is one that causes bodily harm, as distinct from inconvenience or irritation, the economic loss is not allowed to take precedence over the paramount concern for the safety of human beings. This may be seen from the case, discussed in chapter 6, of an individual worker who wishes to endanger himself in order to increase his income. The rabbis taught that since man's need for economic growth is unlimited, we cannot allow him to endanger his life, even though he himself is willing to run the risk, in order to increase his income. Where, however, the conflict is between communal economic suffering and inconvenience or physical unpleasantness, we find that the halachic authorities were prepared to permit such inconvenience. After all, were this not done, the community would be threatened with extinction, or at least severe privation. We are assuming here, of course, that there is no alternative site at which to place a given plant. Should an alternative exist, all the authorities agreed that the factory or industry should be located so that the damage is removed. Furthermore, it should be noted that, according to all halachic authorities, the owner of a plant has to take as much care as possible to see that damages are kept to a minimum.