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.
If China is polluting as bad as it sounds then we should all boycott China goods... Uh Oh WalMart.
I don't know how far the pollution here in the Northeast has spread but, a few years ago people were warned not to eat fish from local ponds as far North as Connecticut.
I'd like to have a meeting with the Pro Coal execs to discuss this pollution and serve local fish... wonder how many would pass?
I travel to many local ponds during fishing season, I see no shortage of folks catching fish and putting them in their cooler for cooking at home
'the U.S. contributed 40,000 to 110,000 metric tons per year, and ranked 20th'
'China’s heavily coastal population contributes 1.3 million to 3.5 million metric tons of plastic to the world’s oceans each year'
'Eight of the top 10 contributors were in Asia, including Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia and Bangladesh, according to the study, which estimated that 4.8 million to 12.7 million metric tons of plastic wound up in the world’s oceans in 2010.'
According to the above, the US contributes about 0.8% of the plastic that ends up in the ocean. China contributes about 27%. Guess it's time to boycott China.
I would be very interested if these protesters stopped you from going to work for a week or two if you would still hold that viewpoint. Like others have stated that there are avenues in which to do this. This is not one of them.
No, I would not like it. But I would not call it terrorism. It is not violence or a threat of violence. To call it terrorism ignores the seriousness of real terrorism.
I saw a car bomb explode in Baghdad. Felt the shock wave. Saw the aftermath. That's terrorism. People calling this terrorism must have no idea what terrorism is.
The only reason the OP is calling this terrorism is because it doesn't agree with his politics.
No, I would not like it. But I would not call it terrorism. It is not violence or a threat of violence. To call it terrorism ignores the seriousness of real terrorism.
I saw a car bomb explode in Baghdad. Felt the shock wave. Saw the aftermath. That's terrorism. People calling this terrorism must have no idea what terrorism is.
The only reason the OP is calling this terrorism is because it doesn't agree with his politics.
This is terrorism, just as Antifa is and these groups are tied in with Antifa, don't believe it.. the beloved Greta surely is and she is their hero.
Destroys the health of coal miners over decades of chronic exposure to airborne particles
Can kill coal miners in a moment in a mine collapse or explosion
Rapes the land where the coal is extracted, sometimes leveling mountains
Fouls streams and rivers due to erosion and runoff
Burning Coal:
Produces air particulates that cause a variety of lung diseases and cancer
Produces an aerosol of heavy metals (namely, mercury, lead and cadmium) which cause neurological disorders
Produces organic emissions that cause cancer
Produces toxic ash which fouls surface waterways and aquifers, tainting drinking water
Produces nitrogen and sulfur oxides which cause acid rain
Produces carbon dioxide emissions which increase the greenhouse effect
There's just not a lot good that can be said about coal and there are plenty of other alternatives. There was a time when it was at least the cheapest energy source, even if it was the dirtiest and most dangerous. That time has passed.
Last edited by OutdoorLover; 12-12-2019 at 06:23 AM..
This is terrorism, just as Antifa is and these groups are tied in with Antifa, don't believe it.. the beloved Greta surely is and she is their hero.
Like I've said before there are many other ways to protest. Blocking an industry that delivers power and heat to the people isn't the best way to get their point across.
All I see is words, I see no link to the studies data, no reference of how they were performed, no measurements . I also see an article that is 12 yrs old published in a paper that is not well known for it's uh..journalistic integrity .. Try harder because that fell flat on it's pc face.
Edit, because I am a curious type I researched this some and came up empty on any study done by the Journal Bioscience . If you can find direct link to these uh.."studies" by all means post them
They were interviewing one of the authors of the study.
I travel to many local ponds during fishing season, I see no shortage of folks catching fish and putting them in their cooler for cooking at home
You can't see the mercury in the fish. It takes testing in a lab to determine its presence. What are you trying to prove here? There are several specific waters in the state so contaminated it's advised to eat very little of the fish there in a year, and in some, not at all: https://www.des.nh.gov/organization/...ard-ehp-25.pdf
This is civil disobedience, not terrorism. Worked for the 60s civil rights movement. I dont see the actions of these people much different than the lunch counter sit ins. They broke the law, they got arrested, they affected change. But not terrorism.
Absolutely spot on.
Sadly, some have nodded off or did not pay attention in their Social Studies and History classes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveusaf
No, I would not like it. But I would not call it terrorism. It is not violence or a threat of violence. To call it terrorism ignores the seriousness of real terrorism.
I saw a car bomb explode in Baghdad. Felt the shock wave. Saw the aftermath. That's terrorism. People calling this terrorism must have no idea what terrorism is.
The only reason the OP is calling this terrorism is because it doesn't agree with his politics.
Those of us who have witnessed, viewed, seen, smelled, felt, . . . real terrorism positively know the difference.
Those armchair amateur political scientists just adore radicalizing those individuals who exhibit their 1st amendment rights.
Demeaning the constitutional rights of those who participate in these activities.
For God knows to what end other then to pay homage to the historically uninformed and to pay homage to the weak minded. In disrespect to the state moto: "Live Free or Die".
From the New Hampshire Constitution:
"[Art.] 22. [Free Speech; Liberty of the Press.] Free speech and Liberty of the press are essential to the security of Freedom in a State: They ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved."
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.
