TWL: Re: RE: Re: to an Enviornmental Whacko responds.
Subject: TWL: Re: RE: Re: to an Enviornmental Whacko responds.
From: Glenn Williams (glennwaus@XXX.XXX)
Date: Tue Dec 03 2002 - 15:10:32 EST
Hear!hear!
Glenn.
> I vote for keeping these environmental debates off the list. I, too, am
> passionate about my views on the subject, but this is not the place, IMO.
>
> Maurice Marwood
> aepmem@XXX.XXX
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: trawler-world-list-admin@XXX.XXX
> [mailto:trawler-world-list-admin@XXX.XXX] On Behalf Of Kurt
Reno
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 10:11 PM
> To: trawler-world-list@XXX.XXX
> Subject: TWL: Re: to an Enviornmental Whacko responds.
>
> Alex, don't get yur tights in a knot. I am no where near representing the
> pure
> capitalists. I did in the early 80's when the environmental movement in
> conjunction with big business destroyed many small mom and pop shops with
> strict air and water pollution laws that mandated fixing things for which
> there was no economical fix. Those laws did destroy small business in
the
> US
> as we knew it but created a whole new industry complete with jobs and
> rewards.
> The environment is considerably better and many of the displaced mom and
> pop's
> are running the evior-industries. Overall I think more money and jobs were
> created. The price was double digit inflation but its all relative. My
work
> for the last 12 years has been in creating more environmentally friendly
> products. I'm glad to have a cleaner environment.
>
> I am all for things like trying to come up with new and cleaner things. I
> think there is a viable economical drive for those things, at least in the
> US.
> What I am still not for is the Guberment jumping in and mandating changes
> for
> which the technology does not presently exist. Its Ok to mandate changes
> when
> viable technology exists but foolish to mandate changes without. I
suspect
> you are not really and environmental whacko. An environmental whacko by
> definition is all for mandating changes for which the technology to
> implement
> is still many years off. Like shut down all power plants in the US or
> eliminate all cars tomorrow.
>
> One other thing that should never be done is to recommend mandated changes
> that do not correct the root of the problem. This brings us back to
> something
> that you said and I don't mean to single you out and label you as
> uninformed.
> You indeed might be. This is a pretty broad statement.
>
> >>To say that there is no evidence of damage is simply incorrect. All one
> has
> to do is to
> look at what lives in the boat basin compared to what lives in any other
> sheltered
> environment in the same area. You'll find that the marina supports fewer
> animals and FAR
> less diversity than does a comparable wild area.<<
>
> Are you sure its the copper? I know that I would not want to swim in the
> waters of most marinas and its not because of copper. The waters are
nasty.
> The use of phosphated soaps and bleaches in gray water is very likely a
> bigger
> cause of marine life degradation. So is everybody near the beach
fertilizing
> and spraying their lawns and shrubs. Marinas also normally have a fair
> amount
> of parking and the runoff from these parking areas most surely runs into
the
> basin. All of these contaminates have very high BOD's in marine
> environments.
> Another possible contaminate is the increasing use of treated lumber
around
> marinas.
>
> By the way for anyone interested. Non Slaking (hard) antifouling bottom
> paints are infinitely less damaging in the marinas than Slaking type (soft
> alkyd) antifouling paints.
> _______________________________________________
> http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/trawler-world-list
> _______________________________________________
> http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/trawler-world-list
_______________________________________________
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/trawler-world-list
