thedestroyerofworlds
-
Posts
7,812 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by thedestroyerofworlds
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
-
2
-
3
-
-
20 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:
Correcting his misleading title. Continue telling us how you know more than the locals because the government said so. Its hilarious you didn't even get my point last night. If a right wing government says it's safe you say it isn't. You're a hypocrite.
Opinions vs scientific analysis. You think opinions trumps scientific analysis. If you or I wish to refute said governmental analysis, you or I would require analysis that says otherwise.
How can I be a hypocrite without some right wing government saying something is safe that I can then say it isn't. I would provide some evidence that it wasn't safe. Unlike you, who only provides personal opinions. Something you said you don't do. In other words, it is you who is the hypocrite.
-
25 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:
Some "renewable energy experts."
Compelling analysis there. Well sourced and researched. Like a lot of your posts, empty on all accounts.
-
11 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:
The government determined it was safe..do I really need to continue?
You're a hypocrite.
Again, PERSONAL opinions not actual analysis done in a lab. Not a hypocrite. I even said I probably wouldn't drink lake water regardless of location. Not a hypocrite. The government analysis said it was OK. You said you could contradict that. All you posted was personal opinion, something you said you dont do. So you sir are the hypocrite.
11 hours ago, Standing_Tall#37 said:Lol ok then. You don’t have a &^@#ing clue what you’re talking about or the area in question so you should really just drop it. I don’t know anyone who goes to Quesnel lake anymore. It used to be where everyone goes until that tailings pond breach happened and sent a bunch of dead fish floating to the top.
But maybe I’ll listen to you instead of locals and people who visited it multiple times/year. Because you’re the &^@#ing expert on everything and everywhere that you’ve never been.
All I posted was a article that stated that government analysis deemed the water safe to refute Stromes earlier post. I never made myself to be an expert. And, yes I have been to Quesnel and the area many times. And those people are choosing not to go there. Personal opinions. Post a recent analysis that demonstrates the water to be bad, then we can talk.
But maybe I should listen to you, the expert analyzer who knows everything about someone from a few posts. Much of what you posted was garbage.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Standing_Tall#37 said:
You should take a little drive there in July and go for a swim and eat a fish from there. Maybe fill a water bottle from there, so that you can drink that safe water on your trip home.
I stated earlier that I probably wouldn't drink lake water, regardless of which lake it came from. Let alone the lake in question. I don't fish, and there are plenty of lakes nearby for me to take a dip in. So, it would be a waste of time for me to drive down there to do those things. Nice try though. again, post an analysis if you want to refute the government's analysis that the water is OK. Otherwise, my point stands.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Ryan Strome said:
Oh well the government said so...
You badly, badly contradict yourself.
No I did not. You posted that you could refute what I posted earlier. I said that people were swimming and fishing and that the water was back to standard. You said you could contradict that. A persons opinion does not contradict the analysis that was done to determine if the water was safe. So please provide the source that quotes an analysis that says the water isn't safe. Something from last year or this year. If you cannot, then acknowledge that it is you who is mistaken.
-
Just now, RowdyCanuck said:
Oh , but reading that article, It makes me question why there was no fines or anything given out? Could you picture if hippie found this put about an oil company.......
That's a whole other discussion that has me with you.
-
1
-
-
Just now, RowdyCanuck said:
How many people you know that drink hard water?.......
Also drinking from a lake where people swim(pee) in and don't forget the drunks and their beer cans and the spills that happen when people fill their boats........
some more context as to why they don't drink it would very helpful.......
Strome used that residents opinion as a retort to me. That the water that was deemed safe actually wasn't. People swim and fish there. I know if I had a cabin by a lake, I wouldn't drink the water for the reasons you say. Strome was using the residents decision not to drink the water as evidence that the water wasn't safe.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:
“We just don’t want to drink the water knowing Mount Polley’s still dumping their crap in there.”
LOL. That is a residents PERSONAL OPINION. Not an actual analysis of the water. An OPINION. From the same article. So opinion is fact. I thought you didn't use opinions as facts/sources.
The government has deemed the lake water safe to drink, but Watt said he and his family no longer drink from it.
-
For those thinking that we can relax initiatives early, there is this. React to late or lift your interventions too early, not good. (Thanks Reddit)
The effect of public health measures on the 1918 influenza pandemic in U.S. cities
Martin C. J. Bootsma and Neil M. Ferguson-
Edited by Burton H. Singer, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved March 13, 2007 (received for review December 13, 2006)
Abstract
During the 1918 influenza pandemic, the U.S., unlike Europe, put considerable effort into public health interventions. There was also more geographic variation in the autumn wave of the pandemic in the U.S. compared with Europe, with some cities seeing only a single large peak in mortality and others seeing double-peaked epidemics. Here we examine whether differences in the public health measures adopted by different cities can explain the variation in epidemic patterns and overall mortality observed. We show that city-specific per-capita excess mortality in 1918 was significantly correlated with 1917 per-capita mortality, indicating some intrinsic variation in overall mortality, perhaps related to sociodemographic factors. In the subset of 23 cities for which we had partial data on the timing of interventions, an even stronger correlation was found between excess mortality and how early in the epidemic interventions were introduced. We then fitted an epidemic model to weekly mortality in 16 cities with nearly complete intervention-timing data and estimated the impact of interventions. The model reproduced the observed epidemic patterns well. In line with theoretical arguments, we found the time-limited interventions used reduced total mortality only moderately (perhaps 10–30%), and that the impact was often very limited because of interventions being introduced too late and lifted too early. San Francisco, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and Kansas City had the most effective interventions, reducing transmission rates by up to 30–50%. Our analysis also suggests that individuals reactively reduced their contact rates in response to high levels of mortality during the pandemic.
-
2
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:
Interesting article. Would you like one that contradicts that?
Why, oh Why do we even have to ask? At least I give a source to back up my claim VOLUNTARILY. You, not so much.
-
Just now, Ryan Strome said:
Couple things, the disaster in Likely has ruined drinking water, seems pretty important.
JT needs the money from TMX expansion.
Yes, Ottawa does screw us, answer me this if Ontario or Quebec had all Alberta oil do you think governments would block them?
Thing is, people are swimming and fishing in Quesnel lake and drinking water has returned to water quality standards.
It compares to:
And the Pembina Pine River oil spill almost ruined the drinking water of Chetwynd and ruined the shoreline of the Pine river in 2000. And that wasn't the garbage dil-bit that will/would be pumped through those pipelines you wish for. Go read up on the Kalamazoo river oil spill.
-
10 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:
Excuse me, that liberal had to buy it!
JT, Harper, Chretien all got nothing done.
To many BCers and Quebecers cry over resource development. Yet for some reason it's not ugly looking at clear cuts all over BC.
You cry over how Ottawa screws over Alberta. You've cried about how JT is screwing Alberta. Yet, when he gets it done, you still complain. You still cry. If JT and Ottawa were really out to get Alberta, then JT would have let TMX die when the great private, non-governmental investors jumped ship. He didn't and thus killed that tired talking point of yours.
The issues that we complained about is SPILLS. They destroy fisheries and threaten tourism. A significant part of our economies. We wanted more for that. Alberta refused.
EDIT:
FYI: about logging in BC. We do plant trees. So those scars don't last forever. If you drive out the Bowron FSR you would be hard pressed to see one of the larges clear cuts from back in the day. I know, because I live in PG and have driven out that area.
https://news.gov.bc.ca/factsheets/factsheet-reforestation-in-bc
British Columbia prides itself on being a world leader in sustainable forest management. Since specific reforestation programs began in the 1930s, over 7.5 billion trees have been planted.
- About 80%[1] of harvested areas are reforested by planting; the balance through natural regeneration.
- On average, about 218 million seedlings are planted each year in British Columbia.
- In 2016, about 259 million trees were planted and, for 2017, about 266 million trees are planned to be planted.
- The Forests for Tomorrow program deals with reforestation challenges created by B.C.’s unprecedented mountain pine beetle infestation and increasingly severe wildfire seasons.
- Since its inception in 2005, Forests for Tomorrow has invested over $445 million in reforestation activities, surveyed approximately 1.7 million hectares in mountain pine beetle affected areas and planted more than 193 million seedlings on over 138,000 hectares.
- Through the Forests for Tomorrow program about 17 million seedlings were planted in 2016 and approximately 22 million seedlings will be planted in 2017.
- It is estimated that since 2005, the trees planted by Forests for Tomorrow will result in the sequestration of about 19 million tonnes of carbon. In the past eight years, carbon sequestration has averaged about two million tonnes per year.
- In 2016, government invested $85 million in the newly formed Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. and provided another $150 million to the society in 2017.
-
The society’s goals are to advance environmental and resource stewardship of British Columbia’s forests by:
- preventing and mitigating the impact of wildfires
- improving damaged or low-value forests
- improving habitat for wildlife
- supporting the use of fibre from damaged and low-value forests
- treating forests to improve the management of greenhouse gases
- British Columbia uses a mix of over 20 different native tree species in its reforestation programs. This mix of tree species helps maintain ecosystem processes, resilience and diverse habitats.
- Licensees are legally required to reforest the areas that they harvest. This has been the law in B.C. since Oct. 1, 1987.
- Sites being planted by Forests for Tomorrow are strategically selected so they deliver multiple benefits:
- Contributing to the future timber supply and ecological integrity.
- Addressing environmental values like soil and hydrology.
- Providing employment.
- By relying on a broad range of scientific knowledge and latest research, Forests for Tomorrow is developing effective reforestation strategies and revitalizing British Columbia’s forest landscapes.
[1] Based on the recent 10-year average area reforested by planting as compared to the area reforested through natural regeneration and classified as non-productive
-
1
-
1
-
19 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:
Pipelines to each coast would sure help.
If only we had competent conservative leadership. Harper, Kenny, and Jean were part of a near decade of majority conservative governance and got neither done. Messed things up so royally, that it took a liberal to at least get half of what you wish for. But you still think they do nothing for Alberta.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
-
2
-
7
-
23 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:
I'm just guessing, but since trials across the country have already started I would say a 3-6 month time frame would sound right, so it could be pushed into the fall.
In terms of serious side effects, what side effects are you referring to specifically? Millions of people around the world are already taking it for Lupus, Arthritis and of course Malaria. We don't know exactly how it will affect the senior population, that is why they are doing the trials at the care homes.
The people who get it for Lupus Arthritis also get regular tests and check ups to ensure that they are not experiencing any of the side effects of the drug. Its not some wonder drug without drawbacks.
-
2
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
-
1
-
5
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
-
1
-
8
-
-
27 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said:
Trickle down economics does work in some cases , look at tourism , those people make their money some how and spend it in different areas.
Look at for example Banff all the way to canal flats. A lot of Calgary oil money went into resorts and golf courses and so on.
Same goes for say Ponoka oil companies have donated heavily for new arenas and so on and that's not just Alberta but also s.k and Manitoba.
Trickle down economics refers to the notion that companies/the wealthy are overtaxed and when their taxes are cut, it unlocks the economy resulting in all kinds of money flowing down to the masses. This somehow will result in all kinds of revenue for the state, thus paying for the tax cuts. In reality, it doesn't do what is promised, but puts the screws to the revenue line in the budget. The results more often than not results in deficits that are then used for cuts to services that the masses use. See Harper's GST cut, Brownback's Kansas tax cuts, and TRUMP'S tax cuts for examples.
-
12 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said:
Problem I see is with more people coming to Canada why should Canadians taxes help people outside of Canada?
Im all for more regulations but we actually need someone to force/make companies follow them......
for a lot of companies it would give everyone a even playing field big and small and force big companies to spend more on say benefits to attract people.
Okay dumb question ......what's Voodoo economics? I've never heard that term before.
Didn't Alberta give out grants to tech companies? Didnt one already leave Calgary?
Im all for advancement but what do we do with the people that lose their jobs?.....
like you said we already see it coming but how do we draw that line in the sand?
Heck Cars can park themselves, that's just making people lazy and I would argue more dangerous......
Voodoo economics, trickle down economics, Reaganomics, supply side economics.
Updated Aug 26, 2019What Is Voodoo Economics?
Voodoo economics is a derogatory phrase used by George H. W. Bush in reference to President Ronald Reagan's economic policies, which came to be known as "Reaganomics."
-
46 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said:
Progress is good but we can't make people expendable......for sure since we keep bringing more people to Canada......
I agree with investing in other industries but if you only need say five people to run a company cause the rest of the work is done by machines is that good or bad? A factory that employed say 40 people now cuts jobs to five.....that's why I say it's a double edged sword.
That's why we need a serious debate about UBI, regulation, and corporate taxation. However, we have a significant percentage of our population who retort with socialism is bad, regulations hurt companies ability to compete, and voodoo economics works. Serious debate won't happen with them.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:
Why do you think Bone Spurs is so dead set against mail in voting?
Because the Republicans rely on low voter turnout. Gerrymandering, voter suppression are their modus operandi.
-
1
-
25 mills shut down
in Off-Topic General
Posted
The OP's video mentions two of the reasons why: Soft prices for lumber and cost. Built into the costs was an increase in stumpage rates, which isn't something that the government can really relax or the US will claim we are subsidizing the industry.
The one reason they don't mention was the inevitable drop in the allowable cut due to the mountain pine beetle. Years of kicking that can down the road and now that bill is due. Mills in the interior saw significant drops in their areas.