pump. Virtually any government action can be traced back to a policy decision of some kind, but an attenuated tie is not enough to show that conduct is grounded in policy. See Cope v. Scott, 45 F.3d 445, 448-49 (D.C.Cir.1995). Withal, the determination as to where one draws the line between a justification that is too far removed, or too ethereal, or both, and one that is not, is case-specific, and not subject to resolution by the application of mathematically precise formu-lae. In particular, there is no principled basis for superimposing a generalized “safety exception” upon the discretionary function defense. A case-by-case approach is required. Of course, ease-by-ease development has led to some disarray. Compare George v. United States, 735 F.Supp. 1524, 1533-34 (M.D.Ala.1990) (<HOLDING>) with Tippett, 108 F.3d at 1197-99 (holding
holding that a failure to warn was not a policy judgment holding that the court had no duty to warn defendants about the possibility of deportation as a collateral consequence of conviction holding that a government agencys failure to warn about submerged alligators has no policy basis holding that fifra preempts state law failure to warn claims holding that causation is an essential element in failure to warn claim