 |
Let's tear down those highrises and skyscrapers plus get rid of picture windows and window walls!
"Bird-window collisions are an unfortunate side-effect of urban environments and are a proven problem ... throughout the world. Every year, hundreds of millions of birds in the U.S. die as a result."
https://www.audubon.org/news/buildin...ons-birds-year
After years of destroy wildlife ecosystems and running people off their lalnds for big oil, gas, and coal, do we really believe killing a few birds is a big concern?
So you want to just turn all those people out on the street? How do you intend to pay for all of this? Ready for your taxes to double? And the federal gov could put the "picture window" police on the street and put people in jail who don't have them? George Washington is turning over in his grave.Quote:
Let's tear down those highrises and skyscrapers plus get rid of picture windows and window walls!
You are aware of the millions of birds killed every year in wind generator collisions? Should we tear them down as well?Quote:
"Bird-window collisions are an unfortunate side-effect of urban environments and are a proven problem ... throughout the world. Every year, hundreds of millions of birds in the U.S. die as a result."
You missed my sarcasm again. I was responding to V7's post about wind turbines.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
V7 said --
"Another UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE of Wind Power: Birds of prey and birds, in general, are being killed by wind driven turbines at an alarming rate....Eagle are really being taken out in large numbers."
Roger that. My apologies. Your post was at the very top and I didn't see what came before.
so in general you think we should give up our civilisation and turn the environment back over to the birds why not give it back to the first nations while you are at it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
No wonder conservatives have no friends, they have no sense of humor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Humour is one thing, practicality another, vac was not joking. Windmills as presently constructed, are not a great idea, but they do serve a purpose, I'm sure you know we are in transition, but vac doesn't seem to
guess no one wants to discuss all those unrecyclable and unusable discarded windmill blades filling up land fills
And all the plastic!!!!! especially the plastic trash along roadsides....Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What are they made of? if metal they are recyclable, if plastic they are recyclable? question is; the industry isn't that old so why are the blades filling up landfill? as to batteries haven't seen anything yet wait until those lithium ion batteries get into landfill and ste the tips on fireQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
according to the article I posted and no one read ,they are lissome fiberglass. They are as long as football fields .So they do get cut down to size for transport .
Quote:
Tens of thousands of aging blades are coming down from steel towers around the world and most have nowhere to go but landfills. In the U.S. alone, about 8,000 will be removed in each of the next four years. Europe, which has been dealing with the problem longer, has about 3,800 coming down annually through at least 2022, according to BloombergNEF. It’s going to get worse: Most were built more than a decade ago, when installations were less than a fifth of what they are now.
Built to withstand hurricane-force winds, the blades can’t easily be crushed, recycled or repurposed. That’s created an urgent search for alternatives in places that lack wide-open prairies. In the U.S., they go to the handful of landfills that accept them, in Lake Mills, Iowa; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and Casper, where they will be interred in stacks that reach 30 feet under.
The science for recycling, repurposing fiberglass is here Tom.
so all these envirowackos are allowing these blades to be thrown into landfills when recycling is viable ? I think the states that have the windmills should fill their landfills instead of trucking them out to the northern plains states .
Global Fiberglass Solutions is the only company doing recycling of fiberglass . They already have a year's worth of inventory of used blades. They transform it into composite floor boards . Then the rub is that they have to sell the boards on the open market ,competing with all other flooring ,including other composites . I don't know the science . Maybe states like Texas should mandate that new construction uses recycled fiberglass flooring exclusively . Maybe sometime in the future it can be ground down and added to road fill . My source is not lying . The blades are being decommissioned ;chopped up and sent to landfills.
I have no reason to not believe you Tom, but is present practice the best answer? It's like any other recycling effort, invest the money to do it, or let the trash build up, and bury it. You know it takes years to do anything anywhere. I just see all those new facilities and the people to man them someday.
I must admit that it is STRANGE for me to be on THIS SIDE of an ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN: I have always been a SMOKESTACK INDUSTRY PROPENENT and have argued with radical ENVIRONMENTALIST.....But, now that I suggest killing the sh&t of birds may not be a good thing, I'M THE WACKO?!!??!! I find that your positions tend to be really disingenuous....and I only have to go back to several decades ago to find the appropriate comparative: Environmentalist and the majority of the American People were highly alarmed at the decline of birds, particularly raptors of all descriptions, back in the 50's and 60's and an all out effort to find out why produced the reason: DDT was making the bird shells super thin and they just wound make it to produce chicks....So, all grades of hell was raised and the government stepped-in and outlawed DDT: There were a lot of reasons to get rid of DDT but bird population decline was a big part of it......BUT, NOW, I'm a dumba$$ for suggesting that Wind Turbines are a problem....hmmm. I see: You all have a "selective vision" when it comes to what concerns you: You get behind the Environmental parade to save a salamander in a stream and prevent loggers from harvesting prime timber but you aren't willing to seriously look at saving birds...O.K., I get it: You have your "PETS" that are BEYOND SCRUTINY.
I have no concern about wind turbine blades causing the deaths of .001% of birds in the U.S. (or whatever the correct number is), but the banning of DDT had terrible consequences for people who, by the millions, have died of malaria since then. It was an awful example of a poorly implemented policy.
"Banning DDT saved thousands of raptors over the past 30 years, but outright bans and misguided fears about the pesticide cost the lives of millions of people who died of insect-borne diseases like malaria. The 500 million people who come down with malaria every year might well wonder what authoritarian made that decision."
https://reason.com/2004/01/07/ddt-eggshells-and-me/
Do you actually read those links yourself?
YEP! Of course I do!
I wonder because the second one basically said the whole issue basically has more question marks than anything else.
Because it does need more definitive data but is scary being exposed and not knowing about it until its to late like lead paint, or asbestos, or coal dust and Black lung. Who knows what else. Being an industrial worker you think I'm not concerned? How about the rising death toll for those 1st responders during 911?
I know enough female survivors to take cancer seriously and commend what survivors go through.
You were around DDT as an industrial worker?
No, I have not but as my post alludes to humans are exposed to many things we thought were safe and find out it's not. They have alternatives for DDT, and better techniques for Malaria, so just my 2 cents why take a chance?
https://www.thespruce.com/what-is-dd...mpacts-1708897
My understanding is that DDT is still the gold standard for mosquito control, but I could be wrong.
In some places for sure, and controlled environments from my understanding. Just not open agricultural where it can be ingested by critters we humans will ingest. Tends to build up in animals and humans.
correct ;banning was over kill . Blowing it like the fog across the land was excessive. This is all 20-20 hindsight .Quote:
In some places for sure, and controlled environments from my understanding
They knew about the Cancer-Asbestos link all the way back into the 1920's....and they HID THE INFORMATION.
jlisenbe: Yes, I can attest that DDT was off the charts as far as knocking down insects! We had a stashed batch of it that Daddy would use on an "as needed" basis when he wanted to guarantee bugs would be gone....also had Chlorodane, which was like "the nuclear option" of pesticides.
The Wind Turbine pusher want to put these damn things up all over....except in THEIR BACKYARDS! I say this with old Ted Kennedy in mind...Ted pushed the Wind Turbine agenda strongly EXCEPT when they started talking about putting them off Martha's Vineyard, then old Ted threw a hissy-fit!
I hear you fellows but just think of how long it took to FINALLY find out about hazards we should have avoided, and do we want to find in another 20, 30, 40 years that we were poisoning ourselves? My first day on the job was SAFETY FIRST, so of course that lesson sticks out as we face continued challenges to our environment, and still get checked every two years as a precaution since retirement.
Yeah I get plenty notices of class action suites against manufacturers of the great chemical products we used, and later found dangerous, that go back to my youth! The examples I gave before could be the tip of the iceberg.
Hey Vac, those rich guys never want anything that spoils the view of their high class domain. There are many things you'll never see in a rich guys neighborhood.
Talaniman: So true....RICH doesn't respect any political denomination, they are in a "club"....I don't think all rich people are bad, but a microcosm of the population.....however, I do feel that there are two sets of rules when it comes to stuff like who gets stuck with what and where....didn't used to think that in my youth but after seeing example after example of it, I have come to believe it true....best example I know: In the Southeastern U.S., if I live on a salt marsh and decide to build a deck across the marsh down to the river, I probably will not get the permit to do so claiming that the "marsh's natural environ" must be maintained...now, compare that situation to a developer who will be allowed to actually go in and FILL THE MARSH IN! Go figure!
You nailed it!
That's not true.Quote:
compare that situation to a developer who will be allowed to actually go in and FILL THE MARSH IN! Go figure!
jlisenbe: Absolutely is true: Marsh has been filled-in by developers: The way it works is the developer buys marsh property somewhere else in the state and then makes a "trade" for the marsh he wants to develop: The problem is that the exchange of two properties/marshes in different areas is never equal: You can't take marsh from Murrell's Inlet and "trade" it for marsh in Hilton Head, just isn't the same and I don't give a sh$t what the government says.
What difference would that make to a government, that property is being "traded"? There are federal laws that STRICTLY govern the use and development of wetlands.Quote:
jlisenbe: Absolutely is true: Marsh has been filled-in by developers: The way it works is the developer buys marsh property somewhere else in the state and then makes a "trade" for the marsh he wants to develop: The problem is that the exchange of two properties/marshes in different areas is never equal: You can't take marsh from Murrell's Inlet and "trade" it for marsh in Hilton Head, just isn't the same and I don't give a sh$t what the government says.
Let 'em find oil or something that is of value and you get a lease agreement, anywhere. I mean they are about to let miners destroy the salmon spawning rivers in Alaska, so yeah tell me about the law. Iminent domain is also the law. Be it oil pipe lines through private land, or a fence for the brown folks, you own your land at the grace of government. If they want it, they'll take it!
That's just garbage and you know it. You have no evidence for that at all.Quote:
Let 'em find oil or something that is of value and you get a lease agreement, anywhere. I mean they are about to let miners destroy the salmon spawning rivers in Alaska, so yeah tell me about the law
That's now what we were discussing. Eminent domain is a completely different issue. BTW, it is typically the government buying the land, not an oil company. And no, the gov cannot simply take your land because they "want to". Vac was talking about the use of marsh lands and some ideas about being able to swap land.Quote:
Iminent domain is also the law. Be it oil pipe lines through private land, or a fence for the brown folks, you own your land at the grace of government. If they want it, they'll take it!
jlisenbe: That's the particular point I am telling you: The government has made "exceptions" to the Wetland laws in these cases...they have more or less said that all wetlands are equal: You can destroy a given amount as long as you give an equal acreage of Wetland in return.
Of course I do,Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
https://unicornriot.ninja/2019/alask...e-communities/
Regarding the government buying land have you forgotten the big fight over the XL pipeline? The problem with Eminent Domain is if you don't want to sell, they can find there own price compensation and your alternative is a lengthy expensive court battle as typified by the many cases of ranchers along the southern border for the wall. Some go back to the Bush era, still pending resolution.
Yeah according to you that's okay, but not helping a poor family with bread, milk, or lights.
Land swaps are common between landowners, and dates back centuries. You are very accurate Vac.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
I'd have to see documentation about that. Everything I have read is that the feds are completely irrational in their protections of wetlands and won't give an inch.Quote:
You can destroy a given amount as long as you give an equal acreage of Wetland in return.
As to the salmon story, this is your original statement. "I mean they are about to let miners destroy the salmon spawning rivers in Alaska." That is a gross exaggeration and not even your one-sided article suggested that. It is quite likely that the proposed mine, which would amount to using one acre for every 22,000 Alaskan acres, a pretty small piece of the pie, can coexist very well with the particular salmon streams in the same area.
As for the XL pipeline, it was an idiotic, politically driven decision by Obama that had nothing to do with land rights. Thankfully, Trump is reversing that and it's just one more reason why we are now energy independent, an amazing achievement that I never thought I would live to see. Of course I'm sure you'll say that it is all due to the brilliance of Obama.
As to the use of eminent domain to build pipelines, that's a tough one. I am not entirely comfortable with it, but I can see it from both sides. It would not seem wise to allow a few landowners to stop a project like that which is so important to our country.
004
My whole neighborhood was built on swampland that was filled in . But that happened before wetland laws were enacted . So all the drainage went to a property with a 1 acre or so bit of a depression in the land . It was a cool deal . A drainage pond that retained run off . In the winter it froze and we got to skate on it . The owner was cool and put pvc pipe over a runoff drain that ran into pipes that eventually drained into the local stream . Eventually the Feds came and designated the land as Federal wetlands .Yes one acre on a street surrounded by homes built on fill .
Well the owner passed on and his home was sold .The new owner wanted what the rest of the neighborhood had ,a property that had a lawn . He cut the pvc pipe down to ground level . So now instead of a retain pond ,there was real wet land that was unusable for anything except the breeding of mosquitoes .His petitions to fill in the extend his lawn were denied . He doesn't even have a tax rebate for being the retention pond for the neighborhood run off. That is one example I know of . But I have heard of others .
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:18 AM. |