Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
Peter_Puget

Silliness exposed!

Recommended Posts

Hmm... Fuck the world. I'm off to buy a Hummer, eat a bunch of McDonald's food, and dump some oil down the storm drain.

 

Sounds like a party to me!!! thumbs_up.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(cbs said) Hey, I don't disagree with many of the points the author made. There are a lot of chicken littles out there. They have ulterior motives. They would like to see more of the natural world protected, but they realize that the vast majority of the world, doesn't really give a shit about preserving biodiversity and preventing extinction. Knowing that people only care about their own preservation, they seek to recast the debate as one in which man and beast are in the same ship going down together.

 

That is exactly, for instance, the scientifically dishonest approach that David Suzuki and the Pew Trust have taken with their "research" showing farmed salmon have more pcb's than wild salmon. What they really in fact showed was that both farmed and wild salmon have pcb levels many times lower than the FDA's threshold level... and their work bore out what scientists already knew---that different species of salmon (whether farmed or wild) are likely to have slightly different levels of pcb's. But they achieved their "mission," which was to create misinformation and consumer panic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(cbs said) Hey, I don't disagree with many of the points the author made. There are a lot of chicken littles out there. They have ulterior motives. They would like to see more of the natural world protected, but they realize that the vast majority of the world, doesn't really give a shit about preserving biodiversity and preventing extinction. Knowing that people only care about their own preservation, they seek to recast the debate as one in which man and beast are in the same ship going down together.

 

That is exactly, for instance, the scientifically dishonest approach that David Suzuki and the Pew Trust have taken with their "research" showing farmed salmon have more pcb's than wild salmon. What they really in fact showed was that both farmed and wild salmon have pcb levels many times lower than the FDA's threshold level... and their work bore out what scientists already knew---that different species of salmon (whether farmed or wild) are likely to have slightly different levels of pcb's. But they achieved their "mission," which was to create misinformation and consumer panic.

 

So that's why the FDA recommended eating farmed salmon no more frequently than 1x/month but made no similar recommendation for wild salmon eh smirk.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe it was our ministry of health then. i don't eat farmed sewage salmon PCB so i didn't pay as much attention cause it doesnt apply to me. HCL.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RobBob, you must be referring to this:

 

"And it's a tried and true strategy. By alarming consumers, some green groups hope to destroy, or at least limit, salmon farming. The first "study" seeking contaminants in farmed salmon was done in 2001 by Michael Easton, president of the for-profit International EcoGen company and was commissioned by the environmentalist David Suzuki Foundation in British Columbia. Easton tested 8 salmon, 4 farmed and 4 wild and found that the farmed salmon contained 51,216 parts of trillion of PCBs versus 5,302 parts per trillion PCBs in the wild salmon -- nearly ten times more.

 

But hold on -- what does that mean? The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) limits the amount of PCBs in all fish to 2 parts per million. It turns out that Easton's farmed salmon contained only 0.05 parts per million. To get a sense of the magnitudes being considered here, one part per million compares to 1 inch in 16 miles, and one part per trillion compares 1 inch in 16 million miles (600 times around the earth). Earlier in 2003, the Washington-based environmental advocacy organization, the Environmental Working Group, publicized a similar study, testing 10 fish in which similar levels of PCBs were found in farmed salmon. " Source

So the farmed salmon were 0.05 parts per million, the wild were 0.015 and the FDA standard was 2 ppm. These standards get lowered all the time as more data is collected. For example, as people begin to eat more and more fish, the standards will need to be lowered accordingly because of the greater exposure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you eat beef then you get 8 times the pcb load of salmon (farmed or wild). Even by using the Suzuki data, it's an argument about the difference between 0.1% and 0.15% of the FDA threshold level. And that's before cooking, which disperses most of pcb's, I believe I read somewhere. Anyhow, the dishonest part of the "study" was the fact that they compared one species of wild salmon (atlantic) that is naturally carnivorous with a blend of wild salmon that is omnivorous (I forget the species). They knew the atlantic species would test higher than an omnivorous blend, wild or farmed, because the strictly-carnivorous fish naturally feeds higher up the chain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When deer run out of their sustenance, they die. When human beings begin to run out, they turn their brains and their social institutions to producing more.

 

So we are to believe that the human brain will overcome all obstacles. I'm sure humans can think there way around a number of things, but eventually we come up against limits.

 

In the 70's the Concord was the plane of the future; Boeing was all set to build the SST, with government backing. In 2004 there is no commercial super sonic travel; Boeing never built their plane. In the 70's we set humans to the moon, but we haven't been back there since. Like it or not there are limits to what humans can do. The earth after all is a closed system.

 

We may not know exactly what the limits are, but they are there.

 

I'm very dissapointed in you PP. You champion civil discourse, yet when one of your backers portray dissenters as, "fucktards," you do not distance yourself from him.

 

GW and the Republicans are running up the national debt and wrecking the environment at the expense of kids who haven't even been born yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm very dissapointed in you PP. You champion civil discourse, yet when one of your backers portray dissenters as, "fucktards," you do not distance yourself from him.

 

Sorry to dissapoint Alpine. Here is what I said concerning Howard:

"I don’t own him and I don’t agree with everything he says but I do understand how he chafes at the restraints and conditioning imposed upon him by the liberal/media/government entity. "

 

I reject the very notion that I am responsible for anyone elses comments whether they support or do not support my position. I'll admit that "fucktard" may be offensive to some. I am somehwat confused as to what the limits are in spray. If you feel "fucktard" is too much then I must say that I am dissapointed you do not say that openly in the forum so that others will know the limits in spray. "Guilt by association" is an old ploy that is just another way to avoid confronting another's argument head on. I see no reason to be obligated to respond to such tactics.

 

PP bigdrink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very dissapointed in you PP. You champion civil discourse, yet when one of your backers portray dissenters as, "fucktards," you do not distance yourself from him.

 

AlpineK = fucktard

 

the_finger.gifthe_finger.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Join the Fucktard Club: CBS, Jim and AlpineK. Who else wants to join?

 

cbs- i don't think it's a club. i think mr. roark just has a very limited vocabulary. this suggests a limited intellect or education (perhaps both) thus i think we can disregard nearly all of what he has to say (not that we weren't already) wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Join the Fucktard Club: CBS, Jim and AlpineK. Who else wants to join?

 

cbs- i don't think it's a club. i think mr. roark just has a very limited vocabulary. this suggests a limited intellect or education (perhaps both) thus i think we can disregard nearly all of what he has to say (not that we weren't already) wink.gif

Regardless of education, Mr. Roark has at his disposal the resources to be better informed. The only thing holding him back is the initiative required to do the reading. One thing that education does do is to force you to read points of view you might not choose to read on your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good read. Most of it settles in the stomach. My only take on one of the points mentioned is:

THE lack of food in poorly developed nations. The powers to be send lots of aid to these countries as well as individuals that WANT to help them become self-proficient, so they themselves go to these countries to teach well drilling, maintenance of pumps, the use of a central area for human waste, the planting of crops that will yield a reliable food source, etc.

What do these "newly educated" people in the undeveloped nations do after the WELL meaning people leave? They go back to their old habits and forget the things they are taught. That is what they do. They see no future in following the example shown by their mentors. Instead they slump back to their old ways.

So here is my take. Let the developing nations produce crops and sell them to the under developed nations for a profit. That way these newly developing nations can start getting their economy on track and become more self sufficient than they are now. There by removing the developed nations from the cluster fuck.

Edited by johnny_destiny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very dissapointed in you PP. You champion civil discourse, yet when one of your backers portray dissenters as, "fucktards," you do not distance yourself from him.

 

AlpineK = fucktard

 

the_finger.gifthe_finger.gif

 

All I know is your truck is way too clean to be a real work truck.

 

Hroark = Officeboy blue collar wanna be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×