[jlisenbe]

I wonder because the second one basically said the whole issue basically has more question marks than anything else.

[talaniman]

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.

[jlisenbe]

You were around DDT as an industrial worker?

[talaniman]

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

[jlisenbe]

My understanding is that DDT is still the gold standard for mosquito control, but I could be wrong.

[talaniman]

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.

[tomder55]

In some places for sure, and controlled environments from my understanding

correct ;banning was over kill . Blowing it like the fog across the land was excessive. This is all 20-20 hindsight .

[Vacuum7]

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!

[talaniman]

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.

[Vacuum7]

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!

[talaniman]

You nailed it!

[jlisenbe]

compare that situation to a developer who will be allowed to actually go in and FILL THE MARSH IN! Go figure!

That's not true.

[Vacuum7]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[talaniman]

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!

[jlisenbe]

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 just garbage and you know it. You have no evidence for that at all.

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 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.

[Vacuum7]

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.

[talaniman]

That's just garbage and you know it. You have no evidence for that at all. 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.

Of course I do,

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.

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.

Land swaps are common between landowners, and dates back centuries. You are very accurate Vac.

[jlisenbe]

You can destroy a given amount as long as you give an equal acreage of Wetland in return.

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.

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

[tomder55]

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 .