Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, actually, your fellow californian "nowincal11" opened the door when he called Texas beaches "disgusting" in comparison to California beaches. Get your facts straight.
Speaking of your need to get your facts straight:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nslander
....before citing beach clossures off other shores (which have not yet occurred this year) as evidence bolstering your local water quality.
I'm guessing you have no real idea what it takes in LA County to get a beach closed. Less than 1,000 gallons raw sewage discharge reported, the beach is closed 1/4 mile in each direction of the discharge. 1,000 to 10,000, half mile. 10,000 to 10,000, 1 mile. 100,000 to 1 million gallons, 3 miles, 1 to 2 million gallons, 5 miles. Over 2 million, 10 miles each way.
Those precautions are of course for reported single accidental discharge events. That doesn't mean that if no beaches are closed, there isn't any bacteria in the water. LA County considers beach water to be within "acceptable health levels" if total coliform levels are below 5,000 cfu/100 ml, with a total to fecal ratio of 5 to 1 or more.
By the way, the report you cited was for Texas beaches as a whole. If you had actually read the NRDC report, you would have seen it actually says that Galveston county beaches (the area beaches we have been talking about) are much better than the rest of the state. If you had read the report, you probably would have avoided citing it, since your report actually rates Texas higher (17th) in beach quality than California (22nd).
Quote:
Originally Posted by nslander
As an environmental scientist expressing an opinion on the matter, I'd expect a heightened awareness of the deteriorating water quality off your own coast...
Puhleeeeease. I say with high confidence that I have done far more professionally and personally for water quality in my state than you will ever do in yours, and actually since I have worked nationally, including in California, I have done more for water quality in your state than you will ever do.
Maybe, but there are a million residents in LA County alone that live in a city/district that borders the Pacific Ocean. The vast majority are within 3-5 miles of the ocean.
Maybe, but there are a million residents in LA County alone that live in a city/district that borders the Pacific Ocean. The vast majority are within 3-5 miles of the ocean.
That would have been a scathing reply if I had been arguing that Houston has easier beach access than LA, instead of merely refuting the ill-informed claim that it's "hard to jet ski or surf fish in Houston."
No, actually, your fellow californian "nowincal11" opened the door when he called Texas beaches "disgusting" in comparison to California beaches. Get your facts straight.
Speaking of your need to get your facts straight:
I'm guessing you have no real idea what it takes in LA County to get a beach closed. Less than 1,000 gallons raw sewage discharge reported, the beach is closed 1/4 mile in each direction of the discharge. 1,000 to 10,000, half mile. 10,000 to 10,000, 1 mile. 100,000 to 1 million gallons, 3 miles, 1 to 2 million gallons, 5 miles. Over 2 million, 10 miles each way.
Those precautions are of course for reported single accidental discharge events. That doesn't mean that if no beaches are closed, there isn't any bacteria in the water. LA County considers beach water to be within "acceptable health levels" if total coliform levels are below 5,000 cfu/100 ml, with a total to fecal ratio of 5 to 1 or more.
By the way, the report you cited was for Texas beaches as a whole. If you had actually read the NRDC report, you would have seen it actually says that Galveston county beaches (the area beaches we have been talking about) are much better than the rest of the state. If you had read the report, you probably would have avoided citing it, since your report actually rates Texas higher (17th) in beach quality than California (22nd).
Puhleeeeease. I say with high confidence that I have done far more professionally and personally for water quality in my state than you will ever do in yours, and actually since I have worked nationally, including in California, I have done more for water quality in your state than you will ever do.
I have no idea why you emboldened the selected text. It merely confirms the NRDC's finding that on average, TX beaches are polluted, but less so, than those in CA. 17th out of 32 surveyed. 8% vs. 10%. Neither are exactly pristine, which was my point. I NEVER said pollution was not a problem here.
And appealing to you own authority over the internet. Nicely done.
I have no idea why you emboldened the selected text. It merely confirms the NRDC's finding that on average, TX beaches are polluted, but less so, than those in CA. 17th out of 32 surveyed. 8% vs. 10%. Neither are exactly pristine, which was my point. I NEVER said pollution was not a problem here.
And appealing to you own authority over the internet. Nicely done.
Jeezus, could you try to show just a little intellectual honesty for a second, and stop relying on straw man arguments? I NEVER once said that Texas didn’t have pollution issues, that was a straw man you fabricated. What actually happened was your fellow Californian nowincal11 called Texas beaches “disgusting†compared to California beaches, and I replied that Texas beaches are actually cleaner than California beaches which the NRDC source you brought into this confirmed, which is why it’s bolded. Nice try weaseling your way around that, though.
And I wasn’t “appealing to [my] own authority.†I didn’t have to – your NRDC source proved my point nicely. Either this is another one of your dishonest strawmen, or you simply don’t know what it means to appeal to one’s own authority.
Jeezus, could you try to show just a little intellectual honesty for a second, and stop relying on straw man arguments? I NEVER once said that Texas didn’t have pollution issues, that was a straw man you fabricated. What actually happened was your fellow Californian nowincal11 called Texas beaches “disgusting†compared to California beaches, and I replied that Texas beaches are actually cleaner than California beaches which the NRDC source you brought into this confirmed, which is why it’s bolded. Nice try weaseling your way around that, though.
And I wasn’t “appealing to [my] own authority.†I didn’t have to – your NRDC source proved my point nicely. Either this is another one of your dishonest strawmen, or you simply don’t know what it means to appeal to one’s own authority.
You just threw three “straw men†at me, which is curious. Implying I claimed you said “Texas didn’t have pollution issues†is in itself a straw argument. I never made that claim. What I did imply is you failed to give to give those issues appropriate weight when making make a point of comparison. If you were to read what I had written and practice the intellectual honesty you preach you’d recognize my original point that respective water qualities off Houston and Los Angeles are not so great as to be considered a significant factor in one’s decision on where to live among those two cities if that person highly values ease of access to clean ocean water. Which is exactly why I cited the NRDC report. It was never presented as dichotomous “better/ worse†but “worse/worserâ€. Without ripping prior posts entirely out of context, exactly where did I state CA beaches were less polluted than TX beaches? How did I imply that the NRDC report was evidence that TX beaches were more polluted? Inaccurately insisting I did is, well, I think we’ve established what kind of logical fallacy that is.
I read somewhere you were an environmental scientist. Is that true? Maybe you didn’t have to appeal to your own authority, but it certainly did not stop you from doing so multiple times in pushing an undisputed point.
And, only because I’m petty, you previously stated one million Houstonians lived within a 20 minute drive from the ocean. That must include the pristine, enclosed waters of Galveston Bay, rather than off Galveston itself. This link can show a map of Galveston and its 20 mile radius. Radius Around a Point on a Map Either Houstonians drive REALLY fast or half its population lives within that shaded area.
I sense a TOS/thread-jack warning, so you can have the last shot.
You just threw three “straw men” at me, which is curious. Implying I claimed you said “Texas didn’t have pollution issues” is in itself a straw argument. I never made that claim. What I did imply is you failed to give to give those issues appropriate weight when making make a point of comparison. If you were to read what I had written and practice the intellectual honesty you preach you’d recognize my original point that respective water qualities off Houston and Los Angeles are not so great as to be considered a significant factor in one’s decision on where to live among those two cities if that person highly values ease of access to clean ocean water. Which is exactly why I cited the NRDC report. It was never presented as dichotomous “better/ worse” but “worse/worser”. Without ripping prior posts entirely out of context, exactly where did I state CA beaches were less polluted than TX beaches?
Wow, you really are going to be weaselly here, aren’t you (“I didn’t imply, uh uh uh I didn’t say, uh uh uh.”) You’re really going to parse words between you implying I was saying Texas doesn’t have a beach pollution problem and you implying I was allegedly failing to give Texas’s pollution problem appropriate weight? You aren’t by any chance a lawyer, are you?
Let’s review for a second. I didn’t start the cleanliness comparison between Texas and California beaches, your fellow Californian nowincal11 did when he said he preferred California beaches because Texas beaches were “disgusting.” He specifically compared Galveston to Santa Monica as evidence of this. I replied that Galveston County beaches are less polluted than LA county beaches. Note I did not say “unpolluted, I said “less polluted”, so your crap about “failing to give those issues appropriate weight” goes right out the window. I had the same aim that you claim to have now – point out that ease of access/water quality are generally comparable in LA vs Houston, so no real reason to rate one significantly above the other, therefore nowincall11’s comment was uncalledfor – however you have been siding with those who would consider one significantly better than the other, and in fact said LA area beaches are “considerably more pleasant,” so your claim rings very disingenuous.
(If you had read the details of your NRDC report, you would have seen that I was being entirely accurate – not only does the NRDC report say that Texas beaches are cleaner than California ones, but Galveston County beaches were cleaner than average for Texas beaches, while LA beaches were well-represented in the problematic beaches for California.)
You chose to take up with nowincal11, and address my reply to him, calling the beaches in California “considerably more pleasant” than the ones in Texas, so you obviously agreed with his description of Texas beaches and took umbrage at my bringing up the pollution at the beaches. I was willing to drop the issue, however you pushed forward with citing the NRDC report as a refutation to my comment about LA beaches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nslander
How did I imply that the NRDC report was evidence that TX beaches were more polluted? Inaccurately insisting I did is, well, I think we’ve established what kind of logical fallacy that is.
Another straw man from you - I never said or implied you were trying to use the NRDC report as evidence that Texas beaches were more polluted. What I pointed out was that while you were using it to “prove” that Texas has a pollution problem (completely unnecessary, as no one had said or implied that it doesn’t), you inadvertently used a source that actually points to Texas beaches being cleaner than California ones. That brought the discussion back to nowincal11’s assertion which started the discussion in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nslander
I read somewhere you were an environmental scientist. Is that true? Maybe you didn’t have to appeal to your own authority, but it certainly did not stop you from doing so multiple times in pushing an undisputed point.
Yes, I am an environmental scientist. And you have demonstrated that my second guess was right – you don’t actually know what it means to “appeal to ones’ own authority.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by nslander
And, only because I’m petty, you previously stated one million Houstonians lived within a 20 minute drive from the ocean. That must include the pristine, enclosed waters of Galveston Bay, rather than off Galveston itself. This link can show a map of Galveston and its 20 mile radius. Radius Around a Point on a Map Either Houstonians drive REALLY fast or half its population lives within that shaded area.
Alright, I made a slight mistake, and I will amend that – there are about a million Houstonians (people who live in the southern parts of the city limits) and people who live outside the city limits but in the Houston MSA who have that kind of access, even if you only count beaches directly on the gulf (Oh, and Galveston Bay does have saltwater beaches – Sylvan Beach Park in La Porte is an example). And if we are back to ease of access, then we are back to FlyMIA’s comment about it being hard to jet ski and surf fish in Houston, which is what started off the whole access discussion in the first place. Galveston Bay is a MUCH bigger draw for jetskiing and saltwater fishing than even the beach side of Galveston Island, and parts of that are in Houston city limits. So I think we have come back full circle - Houston does have reasonable access (under an hour) to saltwater recreation, and our beaches are not dirtier than LA beaches, which the NRDC report supports.
Last edited by Reefmonkey; 11-03-2011 at 02:15 PM..
Location: The land of sugar... previously Houston and Austin
5,429 posts, read 14,840,335 times
Reputation: 3672
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
Houston and think we agreed on this before needs to invest in a PR movement and better brand itself
This is a great point and I think Houston's biggest problem. It hasn't paid much (if any) attention to self-advertising and image. Even though perception is often not reality, it is worth giving some attention to. Case in point -- people who care about national image more than some other aspects tend to prefer Austin. People who prefer world-class amenities, more grown-up culture and an international vibe over status-quo or perceptions prefer Houston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
Houston should concentrate on taking out Dallas as Texas' top city. LA? Different league
Houston's already larger, just as or more wealthy, and has a higher GDP. It is the economic powerhouse of Texas, and by many respects, the cultural powerhouse as well. The difference, once again, is that Dallas is more concerned with national image and pays more efforts to that, which gives you the perception that you have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DynamoLA
Houston is everything that's bad about L.A. (traffic, smog, sprawl) without much of the good stuff (weather, beaches, mountains, culture, tourist attractions, etc.).
Houston ranks considerably lower on the negatives you name compared to L.A. And it has more of the positives than you give credit for, particularly in culture/arts/food. So, your statement is very misleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefmonkey
I completely disagree on the beaches - the ones in the Houston area are perfectly convenient and are not at all disgusting. I am an environmental scientist, so I keep up on this sort of stuff, and Galveston's beaches are far less contaminated than Los Angeles County beaches.
Thank you for calling out another common misconception and inaccuracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefmonkey
And if we are back to ease of access, then we are back to FlyMIA’s comment about it being hard to jet ski and surf fish in Houston, which is what started off the whole access discussion in the first place. Galveston Bay is a MUCH bigger draw for jetskiing and saltwater fishing than even the beach side of Galveston Island, and parts of that are in Houston city limits.
Yes, water culture is huge Houston's Bay Area (a.k.a. Clear Lake). Boating, sailing, waterskiing, etc. The area ranks something like 3rd in the US in number of pleasure boats.
Houston's already larger, just as or more wealthy, and has a higher GDP. It is the economic powerhouse of Texas, and by many respects, the cultural powerhouse as well. The difference, once again, is that Dallas is more concerned with national image and pays more efforts to that, which gives you the perception that you have.
Houston is one the economic powerhouses of Texas, DFW is the other.
Houston is more ahead of Dallas in the arts than it is in its economy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
