Gender bending chemicals and ISA.

Latest Articles

Gender bending chemicals and ISA.
Page Previous 1, 2, 3

Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment

Author

Message

tahir

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45674
Location: Essex

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 04 5:11 pm Post subject:
It'd be really good if we could get someone involved in aquaculture involved. I've always had qulams about it, but mostly gut instinct not fact based

cab

Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 04 5:17 pm Post subject:

Tahir wrote:

It'd be really good if we could get someone involved in aquaculture involved. I've always had qulams about it, but mostly gut instinct not fact based

Years ago, I was forced to learn a hell of a lot more about aquaculture than I ever would have chosen. Best not to ask.

tahir

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45674
Location: Essex

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 04 5:26 pm Post subject:

Quote:

But what if the current bycatches that are thrown back dea into the sea were used for aquaculture?

?? better to say what if they were used for human consumption in the first place

Legion

Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 170
Location: Western isles, Scotland

Posted: Fri Dec 03, 04 8:37 am Post subject:

C',om cab, you know as well as we all do, the powers that be only employ yes men!! look at the mink over �3,500 cost per mink caught. But they did use politically correct methods - or so they say (we know different and have photos to prove) they should have had two teams, one with their scientific methods, the other using traditional location and dispatch methods - to compare the results. How can comparisons be made when there aint none?

As for what we am going to do - nowt!! I'll just bring it to your attention, sit back - as we always do- and watch it happen.....

tahir

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45674
Location: Essex

Posted: Fri Dec 03, 04 10:12 am Post subject:

Quote:

?? better to say what if they were used for human consumption in the first place

Agree, but there's a lot of stuff that isn't saleable too

cab

Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

Posted: Fri Dec 03, 04 10:57 am Post subject:

Legion wrote:

C',om cab, you know as well as we all do, the powers that be only employ yes men!!

I actually know that the 'powers that be' are very bad at employing two people who will express the same view on the same day. I know that when it comes to a claim about something being a danger, you need more than the basic assumption that you can't trust the 'powers that be' to back that claim up. Furthermore, I know that if we go down the route of assuming that something is dangerous just 'cos someone said so then we'd never leave home in the morning.

Quote:

look at the mink over �3,500 cost per mink caught. But they did use politically correct methods - or so they say (we know different and have photos to prove) they should have had two teams, one with their scientific methods, the other using traditional location and dispatch methods - to compare the results. How can comparisons be made when there aint none?

This is entirely unconnected with the sludge problems you've complained about.

Quote:

As for what we am going to do - nowt!! I'll just bring it to your attention, sit back - as we always do- and watch it happen.....

So you're going to make a set of (fairly serious) claims, and not substantiate them in any way. Because, presumably, you don't want anyone to agree with them.

Fine. As long as I know.

Legion

Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 170
Location: Western isles, Scotland

Posted: Fri Dec 03, 04 3:47 pm Post subject:

eyyyyy, cab, you are a one, and i know how the 'game' is played up here and there aint nothing anyone can say or do - once the wheels are in motion, just sit back and watch it happen - I was against the sludge(proved to be spot on there), I am against the fish dumping (bet i'm spot on with this too) the mink !! well lets just wait and see - 18mnths to go, lets see the population in 3yrs when the money has run out . .....its a waiting game cab......and ,time is something I have plenty of

stop press!! lol

Looks like the salmon is going to be a long term concern, the wee crofters have applied for planning permission ( bet its retrospective) ,for more sheds building, bury and ensaile waste salmon , must go to the council now and read - just HOW BIG this concern is going to be, I aready notice ladened articulated wagons passing us up to 9:30pm in the evening..., hmmmm,and her being an ex councillor and all that...... just keeps getting better....ru keeping up cab!!

Last edited by Legion on Fri Dec 03, 04 4:11 pm; edited 1 time in total

cab

Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

Posted: Fri Dec 03, 04 4:07 pm Post subject:

Legion wrote:

You're mixing multiple issues together, saying you're against all of them, and not going into any depth on any one of them. If you express opposition to enough things, you're likely to be right on one of them sooner or later, I suppose.

You're claiming to be spot on with the sludge, but you haven't responded where you've been challenged to justify those claims, and you've not answered the simple question of what alternative route for disposal would be better (more broadly environmentally friendly , not as a NIMBY).

Expressing a strongly held view is fine. To be convincing while doing so you need to address the questions put to you on that subject. Do you want others to be convinced by what you're saying or now?

Legion

Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 170
Location: Western isles, Scotland

Posted: Fri Dec 03, 04 4:20 pm Post subject:

Not trying to convince anyone - just telling it as it is, dont want converts, dreamers or idealists - just realists, facts are facts - not for me to go digging any deeper than I need (unless the issue is really going to affect me, and neither the sludge or the fish dont - its morally and ethically and conservationally WRONG!! - and not down to me to suggest or find an alternative, nor look too deeply into results, I dont have to!! they speak for themselves.

It may be multi issue to you, but if you read, the way each problem is dealt with is in the exact same way they deal with every enviromental problem, textbook!! , shame mother nature doesnt go along with what all the texbooks say.......hey! but thats in an ideal world......

cab

Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

Posted: Fri Dec 03, 04 4:26 pm Post subject:

Legion wrote:

Yes, it is down to -whoever- claims that something is wrong to suggest something else.

In this instance you've claimed that it's wrong, but you have failed to defend that this is so. Why make a claim that you're not willing to defend? You're subsequently claiming that it would be better if the waste were taken elsewhere, but you have neither justified that it is indeed dangerous or that it would be environmentally advantageous to do so.

Quote:

It may be multi issue to you, but if you read, the way each problem is dealt with is in the exact same way they deal with every enviromental problem, textbook!! , shame mother nature doesnt go along with what all the texbooks say.......hey! but thats in an ideal world......

You're confusing sludge processing with mink control with dumping fish. The evidence required to demonstrate that each is a problem would be a different data set. The way of fixing any of those problems (other than a very wooly claim like 'respect nature more' or something equally 1968) would also be different.

With respect to dealing with sludge, you might have a point. In asking you do defend your view I gave you a chance to show that you really -do- have a point. But until you defend your stance against the most elementary, obvious criticisms then how the devil can anyone -know- whether you have a point or not?

Legion

Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 170
Location: Western isles, Scotland

Posted: Fri Dec 03, 04 5:02 pm Post subject:
cab, you really have missed the point havent you? I dont have to justify facts, they are written down cast in stone by scientists and sepa, sanctioned, licenced and approved by the Scottish Executive - yet dont have local planning permission - its called a gochaaa!! result, no more fish....... maybe you'd like to take delivery..

cab

Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

Posted: Fri Dec 03, 04 5:19 pm Post subject:

Legion wrote:

cab, you really have missed the point havent you? I dont have to justify facts, they are written down cast in stone by scientists and sepa, sanctioned, licenced and approved by the Scottish Executive - yet dont have local planning permission - its called a gochaaa!! result, no more fish....... maybe you'd like to take delivery..

In which case cite -where- they are written in stone to support your case. Show, by referring to said evidence, that said sludge is indeed a real safety issue. Demonstrate, specifically, that you're right. Till then, it's all hearsay.

Legion

Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 170
Location: Western isles, Scotland

Posted: Sat Dec 04, 04 8:56 am Post subject:
It might be hearsay, but it wont be dumped down my lane any more and that'll do me nicely....

cab

Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 04 9:34 am Post subject:

Legion wrote:

It might be hearsay, but it wont be dumped down my lane any more and that'll do me nicely....

That's the kind of nimbyism that's at the root of most of the really big environmental problems we have in the world

Legion

Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 170
Location: Western isles, Scotland

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 04 1:21 pm Post subject:
I know

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment	All times are GMT Page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

View Latest Posts