"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

Send your environmentalists to take a sample of any roadway. With
the spilled oil, antifreeze, etc. I can guarantee that under their
regulations, every roadway in the US should be disposed of as well,

Uh, this IS the goal of environmentalists.

That's silly

As silly as trying to outlaw 5ppb of a "toxin" when the salmon's
natural habitat has 1,000 times that level? Oh, right - that's not
silly, it's sick.

What's silly is that you lump all environmental groups into one
comment. I'll wager that you cannot name 10 such groups and describe
the difference between their goals and approaches.

I'll wager you cannot name ONE such group that has come out against the
proposal.

You're right.

"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

Send your environmentalists to take a sample of any roadway. With
the spilled oil, antifreeze, etc. I can guarantee that under their
regulations, every roadway in the US should be disposed of as well,

Uh, this IS the goal of environmentalists.

That's silly

As silly as trying to outlaw 5ppb of a "toxin" when the salmon's
natural habitat has 1,000 times that level? Oh, right - that's not
silly, it's sick.

What's silly is that you lump all environmental groups into one
comment. I'll wager that you cannot name 10 such groups and describe
the difference between their goals and approaches.

I'll wager you cannot name ONE such group that has come out against the
proposal.

You're right.

Then you admit that your challenge to "name 10 such groups and describe
the
difference(s among) their goals and approaches" was a straw man.

No it wasn't. It was an attempt to determine whether you could even describe
the difference between groups with vastly different methods, like Greenpeace
and Nature Conservancy, to name two extremes.

No one should argue the point that they're still good to have around. The
problem has become (and your post points this out) that we can no longer
trust them either!!! Just like "Big Business", their main goal has become
themselves and their own agenda.
I deal with many groups on many sides of many issues........ I no longer
trust any group on any side of any issue, to tell me the truth. They will
tell me the truth as they see it or as it suits their agenda.

otn


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
Some are still good to have around. Nature Conservancy is my favorite.
Rather than waste time trying to fight developers in court (usually a
losing battle), they go out & buy land out from under them. In a few
instances, they've even set up dummy corporations, posing as developers so
they're allowed into the bidding process for tracts of land. I love it.

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
25.201...
Chuck,
Enviromental groups have long since passed into the same category as
politicians, beauracrats, lawyers, etc.. They are now 90% about
justifying their existence and 10% (I'm being generous) about doing
their job.





" wrote in
ups.com:

In conjunction with additional research into the demands by our local
environmentalists that storm water runoff from our boatyards contain
no more than 3-4 parts per billion copper, I reached the following
conclusion:

If salmon are going to killed by concentrations of copper that exceed
3-4 parts per billion, they don't stand a chance in hell out in the
open ocean.

According to this scientific study:

http://sabella.mba.ac.uk/764/01/The_..._sea-water.pdf

sea water contains about 0.2 parts per *million* (not billion) copper.

Unless my math skills fail me, it looks like pure sea water contains
about 200 parts per billion copper, or about 50 times the
concentration of copper that envrionmentalists think should be allowed
to flow out of the drainpipe from a boat yard.

Those poor, hapless salmon. After clearing the 3-4 ppb allowable
copper content in a boatyard's storn water runoff, they get out to sea
and are immediately forced to deal with 50 times that amount as a
naturally occuring element.

The Nature Conservancy has been found to be nothing more than a method,
aka tax dodge, to transfer desirable property from current owners,
seeking a tax break, to the current executive staff or board members
seeking retirement property to develop. Have a $2,000,000 dollar tract
of land donated and then turn around and sell it for $250,000 to a board
member or former board member.


JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Some are still good to have around. Nature Conservancy is my favorite.
Rather than waste time trying to fight developers in court (usually a losing
battle), they go out & buy land out from under them. In a few instances,
they've even set up dummy corporations, posing as developers so they're
allowed into the bidding process for tracts of land. I love it.

"otnmbrd" wrote in message
25.201...
Chuck,
Enviromental groups have long since passed into the same category as
politicians, beauracrats, lawyers, etc.. They are now 90% about
justifying their existence and 10% (I'm being generous) about doing
their job.





" wrote in
ups.com:

In conjunction with additional research into the demands by our local
environmentalists that storm water runoff from our boatyards contain
no more than 3-4 parts per billion copper, I reached the following
conclusion:

If salmon are going to killed by concentrations of copper that exceed
3-4 parts per billion, they don't stand a chance in hell out in the
open ocean.

According to this scientific study:

http://sabella.mba.ac.uk/764/01/The_..._sea-water.pdf

sea water contains about 0.2 parts per *million* (not billion) copper.

Unless my math skills fail me, it looks like pure sea water contains
about 200 parts per billion copper, or about 50 times the
concentration of copper that envrionmentalists think should be allowed
to flow out of the drainpipe from a boat yard.

Those poor, hapless salmon. After clearing the 3-4 ppb allowable
copper content in a boatyard's storn water runoff, they get out to sea
and are immediately forced to deal with 50 times that amount as a
naturally occuring element.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

Send your environmentalists to take a sample of any roadway. With the
spilled oil, antifreeze, etc. I can guarantee that under their
regulations, every roadway in the US should be disposed of as well,

Uh, this IS the goal of environmentalists.

That's silly

As silly as trying to outlaw 5ppb of a "toxin" when the salmon's natural
habitat has 1,000 times that level? Oh, right - that's not silly, it's
sick.

What's silly is that you lump all environmental groups into one comment.
I'll wager that you cannot name 10 such groups and describe the difference
between their goals and approaches.
1) Local County inspector said that concrete seawall being used as fill was
an environmental hazard. I asked him if he knew what concrete was? He
didn't, I informed him that it's oyster shells (limestone) that have been
ground and kiln dried. Then pushing the issue I asked him if oyster shell
are a hazard ( we live in Florida). He then said that concrete has
additives that are a hazard. I informed him that the additives were also
products mined from the earth like Silica (sand) and Gypsum neither of which
are hazards.

Point! We are being regulated by the ignorant who are reacting to the
pressure from well meaning sometimes ignorant environmentalists. In the
long term, oil and many "pollutants" are not a danger. Short term and in
concentration just about anything can kill. Mercury, lead, arsenic
contaminate the food chain and are a danger to our children and their
children. Carbon dioxide is not a danger to our children. It might
inconvenience some people but it won't hurt them...to the contrary, cancer
rates and fires should decrease.

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

Send your environmentalists to take a sample of any roadway. With the
spilled oil, antifreeze, etc. I can guarantee that under their
regulations, every roadway in the US should be disposed of as well,

Uh, this IS the goal of environmentalists.

That's silly

As silly as trying to outlaw 5ppb of a "toxin" when the salmon's natural
habitat has 1,000 times that level? Oh, right - that's not silly, it's
sick.

What's silly is that you lump all environmental groups into one comment.
I'll wager that you cannot name 10 such groups and describe the
difference between their goals and approaches.


1) Local County inspector said that concrete seawall being used as fill
was an environmental hazard. I asked him if he knew what concrete was?
He didn't, I informed him that it's oyster shells (limestone) that have
been ground and kiln dried. Then pushing the issue I asked him if oyster
shell are a hazard ( we live in Florida). He then said that concrete has
additives that are a hazard. I informed him that the additives were also
products mined from the earth like Silica (sand) and Gypsum neither of
which are hazards.

How did you happen to converse with this guy? Town meeting?

1) Local County inspector said that concrete seawall being used as fill
was
an environmental hazard. I asked him if he knew what concrete was? He
didn't, I informed him that it's oyster shells (limestone) that have been
ground and kiln dried. Then pushing the issue I asked him if oyster shell
are a hazard ( we live in Florida). He then said that concrete has
additives that are a hazard. I informed him that the additives were also
products mined from the earth like Silica (sand) and Gypsum neither of
which
are hazards.


The environmental hazard as seen by beach huggers is not the content of
the material. It is the effects on the beach itself caused by armoring which
isn't natural.
Gordon

"Gordon" wrote in message
...


1) Local County inspector said that concrete seawall being used as fill
was
an environmental hazard. I asked him if he knew what concrete was? He
didn't, I informed him that it's oyster shells (limestone) that have been
ground and kiln dried. Then pushing the issue I asked him if oyster
shell
are a hazard ( we live in Florida). He then said that concrete has
additives that are a hazard. I informed him that the additives were also
products mined from the earth like Silica (sand) and Gypsum neither of
which
are hazards.


The environmental hazard as seen by beach huggers is not the content of
the material. It is the effects on the beach itself caused by armoring
which
isn't natural.
Gordon



What's bizarre is that sometimes, they're right. I'd describe one such
situation right here on Lake Ontario, but I'd need some indication that
you'd be open to the idea.