I figure most people here would be interested in this, I know that I
often play in water that has been polluted by sewage...
http://www.nrdcaction.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=52263
by Paul Braunbehren » Sun, 12 Sep 2004 03:44:00
http://www.nrdcaction.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=52263
by Paul Braunbehren » Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:42:36
If you actually watched the SHOW (Hannity and Colmes,
> Similarly, Bill O'Reilly welcomes guests from both extremes and the middle,
> grills them fairly and hard,
> It's your susceptibility to brainwashing (plus the time it takes to debunk
> rumors) that prompted me to drop these discussions with you.
Your suggestions that our meddling in the
> I'm not going to debate socialism.
> Ecology is important, but anyone who gets their ecological data from
> environmentalist or industrial or administration (ANY administration)
> sources probably holds a title to the Brooklyn Bridge. I'm sure I've been
> fooled by well-disguised bias some times, but I'm not THAT gullible very
> often.
by Marc Ros » Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:50:34
Marc
> > Jeez, Paul, you need to start making your own mind up based on facts, horses
> > ' mouths', etc. and get off those lunatic websites. They're a dime a dozen
> > on both sides of the fence, they're distorting your view of the world, and
> > you're letting them displace rational analysis and thought. I.e., you're
> > letting yourself be brainwashed. It's all hot-button stuff, and they're
> > playing you like a violin.
> I do pay attention to both sides, and I do check the sources. For
> example, reading "against all ennemies".
> If you actually watched the SHOW (Hannity and Colmes,
> > obviously) instead of a smear piece ABOUT the show
> I have watched the show. It's right wing propaganda. The people on
> the left (especially Colmes) are much weaker than those on the right,
> and are only there to provide the appearance of a balanced show. It's
> pretty obvious too...
> > Similarly, Bill O'Reilly welcomes guests from both extremes and the middle,
> > grills them fairly and hard,
> This is too funny. You really think Bill O'Reilly is balanced? The
> guy shouts down anyone who disagrees with him. His show is completely
> unwatchable...although I have watched it. It's mostly "Shut up,, SHUT
> UP...I'm right, you're wrong, cut his mike". Gimme a break!
> > It's your susceptibility to brainwashing (plus the time it takes to debunk
> > rumors) that prompted me to drop these discussions with you.
> Fair enough. I also felt that you were too brainwashed to come around,
> especially since you refuse to look at the evidence coming from the
> other side.
> > If it were MY
> > dime paying your way through your "school"
> Huh? I got my degree in social science over 10 years ago.
> > the money would stop flowing
> > immediately;
> Thanks, but I paid my own way.
> Your suggestions that our meddling in the
> > middle east is causing the Islamo-fascist attitudes towards us and that the
> > war is about oil are two of the scariest, naive and most easily disproven
> > mantras out there,
> Please read "all the Shah's men". Let's talk after you've read it. I
> know people who were around back then, and they corroberate it.
> > right up there in fear factor with Dan's position that
> > the free market should be criminalized (e.g., that the Democrat health plan'
> > s mandate that choosing one's own doctor is "***" and thus a felony is a
> > GOOD thing rather than heresy). My God, that's socialism, by definition, and
> > Dan actually seems to be proud of it . . . unless, I'd guess, someone
> > actually wanted him to ADMIT he's a socialist.
> There is no "free" market. One persons freedom ends where another
> one's starts. This line, is basically what the argument is over.
> Should one party be allowed to output waves that give everyone brain
> cancer? Who should have control over the airwaves? If you are given
> the right to part of the airwaves, a public space, should you give
> something back in return? Just one example...
> > I'm not going to debate socialism.
> There is no country that is purely capitalism, it's all a combination
> of stuff. That is also what seems to work best. The idea that we have
> to throw the baby out with the bathwater just because we were once
> scared of Russia is idiotic.
> > Ecology is important, but anyone who gets their ecological data from
> > environmentalist or industrial or administration (ANY administration)
> > sources probably holds a title to the Brooklyn Bridge. I'm sure I've been
> > fooled by well-disguised bias some times, but I'm not THAT gullible very
> > often.
> So where would you get the data then?
by WARDO » Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:39:29
Clean water and air is an issue that should cut across all political and
religious lines...especially, for anyone that lives and plays along the
Columbia River...and is a citizen of the Earth...
Jeezus H. Murphy, Mike...you need to start making your own mind up based
on facts...;-)
Fact:
Hanford reservation in Southeastern Washington is still the most
environmentally contaminated spot in the Western Hemisphere.
http://SportToday.org/
"Hanford has about 1,500 waste streams - dumps, ground water plumes,
abandoned waste cribs and contaminated buildings.
About 56 million gallons of radioactive waste sit in 177 underground
tanks in central Hanford. Sixty-eight of those tanks leak.
Contaminated ground water is known to be under 120 of Hanford's 560
square miles.
About 25 tons of plutonium are still stored at Hanford and must be
disposed of or kept under guard.
And about 2,300 tons of spent nuclear fuel sit in two big pools a few
hundred feet from the Columbia River. One pool has leaked.
This is an expensive mess -costing between $1 billion and $2 billion a
year to clean up. The Manhattan Project's total price tag was $2
billion."
http://SportToday.org/
"Fifty years of nuclear weapons production resulted in approximately 1.7
trillion liters (450 billion gallons) of liquid waste being released to
the ground at the Hanford Site. Some of the associated contaminants have
reached the groundwater. Hazardous chemical contaminants include carbon
tetrachloride, chromium, and nitrates. Radioactive contaminants include
iodine-129, strontium-90, technetium-99, tritium, and uranium.
Currently 14% or 207 square kilometers (80 square miles) of Hanford's
groundwater has contaminant levels greater than federal and state
drinking water standards. This is down from 17.5% just a few years ago."
Fact Sheet on U-233 Contamination at Hanford:
http://SportToday.org/
WARDOG
http://SportToday.org/
> Marc
>>>Jeez, Paul, you need to start making your own mind up based on facts, horses
>>>' mouths', etc. and get off those lunatic websites. They're a dime a dozen
>>>on both sides of the fence, they're distorting your view of the world, and
>>>you're letting them displace rational analysis and thought. I.e., you're
>>>letting yourself be brainwashed. It's all hot-button stuff, and they're
>>>playing you like a violin.
>>I do pay attention to both sides, and I do check the sources. For
>>example, reading "against all ennemies".
>>If you actually watched the SHOW (Hannity and Colmes,
>>>obviously) instead of a smear piece ABOUT the show
>>I have watched the show. It's right wing propaganda. The people on
>>the left (especially Colmes) are much weaker than those on the right,
>>and are only there to provide the appearance of a balanced show. It's
>>pretty obvious too...
>>>Similarly, Bill O'Reilly welcomes guests from both extremes and the middle,
>>>grills them fairly and hard,
>>This is too funny. You really think Bill O'Reilly is balanced? The
>>guy shouts down anyone who disagrees with him. His show is completely
>>unwatchable...although I have watched it. It's mostly "Shut up,, SHUT
>>UP...I'm right, you're wrong, cut his mike". Gimme a break!
>>>It's your susceptibility to brainwashing (plus the time it takes to debunk
>>>rumors) that prompted me to drop these discussions with you.
>>Fair enough. I also felt that you were too brainwashed to come around,
>>especially since you refuse to look at the evidence coming from the
>>other side.
>>>If it were MY
>>>dime paying your way through your "school"
>>Huh? I got my degree in social science over 10 years ago.
>>>the money would stop flowing
>>>immediately;
>>Thanks, but I paid my own way.
>> Your suggestions that our meddling in the
>>>middle east is causing the Islamo-fascist attitudes towards us and that the
>>>war is about oil are two of the scariest, naive and most easily disproven
>>>mantras out there,
>>Please read "all the Shah's men". Let's talk after you've read it. I
>>know people who were around back then, and they corroberate it.
>>>right up there in fear factor with Dan's position that
>>>the free market should be criminalized (e.g., that the Democrat health plan'
>>>s mandate that choosing one's own doctor is "***" and thus a felony is a
>>>GOOD thing rather than heresy). My God, that's socialism, by definition, and
>>>Dan actually seems to be proud of it . . . unless, I'd guess, someone
>>>actually wanted him to ADMIT he's a socialist.
>>There is no "free" market. One persons freedom ends where another
>>one's starts. This line, is basically what the argument is over.
>>Should one party be allowed to output waves that give everyone brain
>>cancer? Who should have control over the airwaves? If you are given
>>the right to part of the airwaves, a public space, should you give
>>something back in return? Just one example...
>>>I'm not going to debate socialism.
>>There is no country that is purely capitalism, it's all a combination
>>of stuff. That is also what seems to work best. The idea that we have
>>to throw the baby out with the bathwater just because we were once
>>scared of Russia is idiotic.
>>>Ecology is important, but anyone who gets their ecological data from
>>>environmentalist or industrial or administration (ANY administration)
>>>sources probably holds a title to the Brooklyn Bridge. I'm sure I've been
>>>fooled by well-disguised bias some times, but I'm not THAT gullible very
>>>often.
>>So where would you get the data then?
by Paul Braunbehren » Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:59:50
To get back to the issue I originally posted, and which IS related to
Windsurfing, here is a short excerpt from the site:
"The Senate Appropriations Committee will soon decide whether to
restore funds that were cut from a program that helps keep sewage and
polluted runoff out off our drinking water and swimming areas. Tell
your senator to replenish this critical funding."
Notice the words "restore" and "cut". Basically, this program existed,
and was cut, and the action is to try and get it funded again. We are
not even talking about any new environmental protections, only to keep
things as they are.
Let's see what would happen in the worst case if it does get funded.
Well, maybe some people would pay for it when it really should be
someone else paying. Still, the water would be cleaner.
On the other hand, the worst case scenario for not getting funded,
would be that you go sailing, fall in, swallow some contaminated water
and die.
I for one am happy to pay a tiny amount of money to keep everybody
(including my) waterways as polluted as they are, and not make the MORE
polluted.
I can't believe this is something worth argueing over!
Here is the web address, read up on it for yourself:
http://www.nrdcaction.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=52263
by WARDO » Wed, 15 Sep 2004 01:09:35
September 18th is International Coastal Cleanup Day...
http://www.coastalcleanup.org/index.cfm
A few related groups that we are supporting...
http://www.surfrider.org/programs/bwtf.asp
http://www.healtheocean.org
http://www.fragileocean.net
WARDOG
http://www.surfingsports.com
> To get back to the issue I originally posted, and which IS related to
> Windsurfing, here is a short excerpt from the site:
> "The Senate Appropriations Committee will soon decide whether to
> restore funds that were cut from a program that helps keep sewage and
> polluted runoff out off our drinking water and swimming areas. Tell
> your senator to replenish this critical funding."
> Notice the words "restore" and "cut". Basically, this program existed,
> and was cut, and the action is to try and get it funded again. We are
> not even talking about any new environmental protections, only to keep
> things as they are.
> Let's see what would happen in the worst case if it does get funded.
> Well, maybe some people would pay for it when it really should be
> someone else paying. Still, the water would be cleaner.
> On the other hand, the worst case scenario for not getting funded,
> would be that you go sailing, fall in, swallow some contaminated water
> and die.
> I for one am happy to pay a tiny amount of money to keep everybody
> (including my) waterways as polluted as they are, and not make the MORE
> polluted.
> I can't believe this is something worth argueing over!
> Here is the web address, read up on it for yourself:
> http://www.nrdcaction.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=52263
by Paul Braunbehren » Wed, 15 Sep 2004 01:30:12
> Some of us are involved and making a difference in the water that we
> play in...a timely reminder that we can make a difference...
> September 18th is International Coastal Cleanup Day...
> http://www.coastalcleanup.org/index.cfm
> A few related groups that we are supporting...
> http://www.surfrider.org/programs/bwtf.asp
> http://www.healtheocean.org
> http://www.fragileocean.net
> WARDOG
> http://www.surfingsports.com
> > To get back to the issue I originally posted, and which IS related to
> > Windsurfing, here is a short excerpt from the site:
> > "The Senate Appropriations Committee will soon decide whether to
> > restore funds that were cut from a program that helps keep sewage and
> > polluted runoff out off our drinking water and swimming areas. Tell
> > your senator to replenish this critical funding."
> > Notice the words "restore" and "cut". Basically, this program existed,
> > and was cut, and the action is to try and get it funded again. We are
> > not even talking about any new environmental protections, only to keep
> > things as they are.
> > Let's see what would happen in the worst case if it does get funded.
> > Well, maybe some people would pay for it when it really should be
> > someone else paying. Still, the water would be cleaner.
> > On the other hand, the worst case scenario for not getting funded,
> > would be that you go sailing, fall in, swallow some contaminated water
> > and die.
> > I for one am happy to pay a tiny amount of money to keep everybody
> > (including my) waterways as polluted as they are, and not make the MORE
> > polluted.
> > I can't believe this is something worth argueing over!
> > Here is the web address, read up on it for yourself:
> > http://www.nrdcaction.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=52263
by Mike » Sat, 18 Sep 2004 09:44:36
Mike \m/
by BarryWi » Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:25:11
Interesting link...
Speakin' about facts, I was up in the Gorge this summer and saw this
motorhome with some kind of crazy vanity plate, like 'I sew bars',
parked at Roosevelt and the holding tank was dripping some kind of
stinky liquid. Do you feel this is contributing to the problem...?
B^)
> http://www.nrdcaction.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=52263
by Paul Braunbehren » Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:00:30
> Interesting link...
> Speakin' about facts, I was up in the Gorge this summer and saw this
> motorhome with some kind of crazy vanity plate, like 'I sew bars',
> parked at Roosevelt and the holding tank was dripping some kind of
> stinky liquid. Do you feel this is contributing to the problem...?
> B^)
> in message
> .
> > I figure most people here would be interested in this, I know that I
> > often play in water that has been polluted by sewage...
> > http://www.nrdcaction.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=52263
3. Storms, sailing and sewage in SoCal
5. Sewage spill @ 3rd Ave (B.A.) ??
6. Sufers against Sewage - Info wanted
7. ENVIRONMENT: Surfers Against Sewage WWW Site
8. UK Surfers Against Sewage Newsletter
11. UK Press Release: Newquay Sewage Decision
12. F2 Axxis 262 vs Seatrend 8'6" vs Protect 260 vs Screamer 260
13. Environment: Clinton Urged to Do More to Protect Oceans