Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mining Concerns Take Precedence Over a Valuable Natural Resource

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    No, it isn't. And if the price is the destruction of a natural resource, then it is wrong.
    Gold and copper are natural resources too. And, it wouldn't result in the "...
    destruction of a natural resource..." in any case. Worst case is a reduction in that resource. As far as I'm concerned, we should be increasing the amount of farmed fish anyway in preference to wild caught. It is far more efficient and there is no discernable difference in the nutritional value of the two.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

      An irrelevant appeal in the form of an ad hominem. Doesn't matter if I did or not. You brought up objections, and I responded to them. Responding in the way you have amounts to a variant of the Tu Quoque fallacy.
      Tucson... The "Berkeley" of Arizona. Just as much a Leftist nut goober town, and just as irrelevant.

      As he sees it in his Progressive-Leftist view of the world... So? His jaundiced view is somehow newsworthy-- That is, other than more TDS Trump bashing by the WaPo?

      Maybe you should read some stuff that isn't Leftist:
      Aye ok........

      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner
      No, it's not. I re-read the entry twice to find it. There is nothing about fertiliser (sic) in the entry. And, the gratuitous ad hominem is unnecessary.

      There's the link:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(consultant)

      Quote the section you claim to refer to.
      Keep looking, actually base your arguments on objective facts rather than what you feel or guess....or just another thing about British Knife laws and use a TSA pic as your proof...........

      Last edited by Jutland; 11 Aug 19, 17:10.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Jutland View Post
        Keep looking, actually base your arguments on objective facts rather than what you feel or guess....or just another thing about British Knife laws and use a TSA pic as your proof...........

        Can't find a thing on a "fertilizer incident" involving Patrick Moore. But, if all you can respond with to that are ad hominems and non-sequiturs, then you got nothing. It's pretty obvious at this point whatever you're claiming about a "fertilizer incident" never happened.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

          Can't find a thing on a "fertilizer incident" involving Patrick Moore. But, if all you can respond with to that are ad hominems and non-sequiturs, then you got nothing. It's pretty obvious at this point whatever you're claiming about a "fertilizer incident" never happened.

          https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreak...up_is_safe_to/

          Thought you would have figured it out, but just using 'fertiliser' instead of 'pesticide/herbicide' I managed to utterly flummox you because you pluck the first thing that agrees with your opinions uncritically.

          Here is the head line from a link you posted a few weeks ago.

          Illegal migrants bringing a wave of infectious DISEASE into the United States while Democrats cheer and demand mass vaccinations of Americans
          You use questionable sources uncritically.
          Last edited by Jutland; 11 Aug 19, 18:38.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Massena View Post

            It is quite clear that if Trump wants it, you support it.
            Questioning the validity of unnamed sources does not make one a Trump support. I shows the person isn't naive.
            "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Jutland View Post


              https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreak...up_is_safe_to/

              Thought you would have figured it out, but just using 'fertiliser' instead of 'pesticide/herbicide' I managed to utterly flummox you because you pluck the first thing that agrees with your opinions uncritically.

              Here is the head line from a link you posted a few weeks ago.
              You use questionable sources uncritically.
              Well, fertilizer and herbicides, which is what Roundup is, are two completely different things. Even lay persons could figure that out.

              Aside from that, I don't see what's so big deal about that particular incident. Moore used hyperbole in describing it. It is clear to anyone that doesn't have an axe to grind against Moore that he was grossly exaggerating to make a point. "I could eat a horse!" Let's imagine they wheel in all the meat from a horse and tell him to dig in. When he doesn't the presenter calls him a liar. That's absurd, as are the claims in this case.

              All that aside, I'd say Roundup is reasonably safe. But, my questions in response to such a claim as is being laid down here is, How safe is safe enough? How much pollution are you willing to accept?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                Well, fertilizer and herbicides, which is what Roundup is, are two completely different things. Even lay persons could figure that out.

                Aside from that, I don't see what's so big deal about that particular incident. Moore used hyperbole in describing it. It is clear to anyone that doesn't have an axe to grind against Moore that he was grossly exaggerating to make a point. "I could eat a horse!" Let's imagine they wheel in all the meat from a horse and tell him to dig in. When he doesn't the presenter calls him a liar. That's absurd, as are the claims in this case.

                All that aside, I'd say Roundup is reasonably safe. But, my questions in response to such a claim as is being laid down here is, How safe is safe enough? How much pollution are you willing to accept?
                It is not hyerbole when it's a proven lie and Moore got caught twice.

                First when he said Glyphosate​​​ was harmless (it clearly isn't)

                ​​​​​​Second when he said he would drink it and then immediately backed off when his bluff got called.



                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Jutland View Post

                  It is not hyerbole when it's a proven lie and Moore got caught twice.

                  First when he said Glyphosate was harmless (it clearly isn't)
                  Second when he said he would drink it and then immediately backed off when his bluff got called.
                  I'd say after reading up on glyphosate that is pretty close to harmless unless you are douching yourself in it. So, I can see his statement as mostly true, and a form of hyperbole. The only group saying it might be cancerous (maybe-- sort of--) is the World Health Organization and they can't be trusted. Most, if not all, of their work is pretty much biased crap. In this case the IARC (part of WHO) will classify something "cancerous" or cancer causing if they find even a few statistically irrelevant cases where it might have been a cause. In this case, they ignored the mass of other studies done by numerous health and science organizations in multiple countries that found it to be noncarcinogenic.

                  The question still stands: How safe is safe enough? How much pollution is acceptable?

                  That he said he'd drink it was clearly hyperbole. I went over that. If he said "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse" and then refused to do so when one is presented is the same thing. Hyperbole. This is the same idiot argument the MSM and TDS crowd regularly pull on Trump. Clearly much of what he says is hyperbole meant as trolling.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                    I'd say after reading up on glyphosate that is pretty close to harmless unless you are douching yourself in it. So, I can see his statement as mostly true, and a form of hyperbole. The only group saying it might be cancerous (maybe-- sort of--) is the World Health Organization and they can't be trusted. Most, if not all, of their work is pretty much biased crap. In this case the IARC (part of WHO) will classify something "cancerous" or cancer causing if they find even a few statistically irrelevant cases where it might have been a cause. In this case, they ignored the mass of other studies done by numerous health and science organizations in multiple countries that found it to be noncarcinogenic.
                    And yet,

                    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/10/h...ict/index.html



                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner
                    That he said he'd drink it was clearly hyperbole. I went over that. If he said "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse" and then refused to do so when one is presented is the same thing. Hyperbole. This is the same idiot argument the MSM and TDS crowd regularly pull on Trump. Clearly much of what he says is hyperbole meant as trolling.
                    Eating a full horse is physically impossible, what stopped him drinking a glass of a 'harmless' substance?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Jutland View Post

                      It is not hyerbole when it's a proven lie and Moore got caught twice.

                      First when he said Glyphosate​​​ was harmless (it clearly isn't)

                      ​​​​​​Second when he said he would drink it and then immediately backed off when his bluff got called.



                      Glycophosphate does break down easily, but like all herbicides, it should be handled with kid gloves. we really aren't sure of it's effect on various lymphatic systems, endocrine glands- etc., before it breaks down.

                      Growing up in rural Canada ,I've seen firsthand the cumulative effects of both herbicides and pesticides. It ain't pretty.

                      ANNNYHAOW, back to fish...
                      as Americans you are still entitled to Yellowstone park's all you can catch fish derby, and lake trout spawning season is thirty days away.
                      think caviar.... Want to kill invasive lake trout? In Yellowstone, they ...

                      https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/06/how-to-eradicate-yellowstone-lake-trout



                      The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        So, as Johnson himself admits:

                        He testified that during his work, he had two accidents in which he was soaked with the product. The first accident happened in 2012
                        Sounds to me like he mishandled the product and got a gazillion (that's numerical hyperbole if you didn't recognize it) times the allowable exposure to the product he should have. I'd question if he was handling it correctly or followed safety instructions and used proper equipment.
                        Did his employer (the article makes it sound like he used this at his job) provide an MSDS? Did he read it and follow it?
                        I think the jury erred in its decision (of course, the venue was San Francisco so there's a pretty good chance the jury was tainted with idiots), and the amount will likely be seriously reduced on appeal (it usually is) if not overturned completely.

                        Eating a full horse is physically impossible, what stopped him drinking a glass of a 'harmless' substance?
                        Drinking a hundred, or thousand times the recommended maximum ingested amount is the same. Drinking too much water can be toxic to a person. Some studies suggest water can be carcinogenic too. Does that make water dangerous? Maybe we should ban it.

                        You are making a reduction ad absurdum fallacy here. Taking a sip might not have hurt him, while drinking a pint glass full of that chemical would be extremely hazardous or fatal.
                        Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 12 Aug 19, 09:14.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                          Gold and copper are natural resources too. And, it wouldn't result in the "...
                          destruction of a natural resource..." in any case. Worst case is a reduction in that resource. As far as I'm concerned, we should be increasing the amount of farmed fish anyway in preference to wild caught. It is far more efficient and there is no discernable difference in the nutritional value of the two.
                          "Farmed fish" are no differant than "Wild" salmon!!!!..... Sir you talk a bunch of BS and have never tasted "real" salmon.......Fish farms hould be banned.....I lived on the West Coast of Canada for many years and have tasted "farm fish" Ugh!!!. and "real " fish"...you sir tdont know what you are talking about....Guess you have your pantry filled with imported Norweigian salmon.......

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Bow View Post

                            "Farmed fish" are no differant than "Wild" salmon!!!!..... Sir you talk a bunch of BS and have never tasted "real" salmon.......Fish farms hould be banned.....I lived on the West Coast of Canada for many years and have tasted "farm fish" Ugh!!!. and "real " fish"...you sir tdont know what you are talking about....Guess you have your pantry filled with imported Norweigian salmon.......
                            For most people, that's a no discernable difference. For the gourmet or connoisseur it might make a difference. But, for the bulk of buyers it's going to be price first. No difference with beef or chicken. Most people simply won't notice.
                            I also didn't say that wild caught should end, only that farm raised should be increased.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                              For most people, that's a no discernable difference. For the gourmet or connoisseur it might make a difference. But, for the bulk of buyers it's going to be price first. No difference with beef or chicken. Most people simply won't notice.
                              I also didn't say that wild caught should end, only that farm raised should be increased.
                              If your support is for the mining over the salmon, then it appears that you support monetary gain over preserving a natural resource. Is that true?
                              We are not now that strength which in old days
                              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Massena View Post

                                If your support is for the mining over the salmon, then it appears that you support monetary gain over preserving a natural resource. Is that true?
                                My support is for both. Not one OR the other. Both salmon and gold and copper are natural resources. You are mistaken if you think only salmon is. My view is that both can exist without disturbing the other.
                                As I pointed out, those objecting to the mine are doing so on two primary reasons:

                                1. That there is a possibility that the mine could affect the salmon population. They have no proof of that, and can't even give a measurable outcome because this is proof of a negative.

                                2. That the mine will pollute because mines operated in the 50's and 60's polluted. Of course, that's before the EPA existed and there were laws and rules about pollution not to mention that the mining industry has gotten much better at its job with new technologies and methodologies.

                                But, for the environmental Left, facts never stand in the way of what they want. In fact, outright lies are often what they produce to justify their positions and actions. I presented Fukushima as one proof of that.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X