If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Queen Mary 2 sails under the GG Bridge
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:53:59 -0600, Jer wrote:
J. Clarke wrote: On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:08:43 -0500, Cynicor wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: Jer wrote: Jim Weaver wrote: http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405 It's hard to imagine the oil slick behind a beast like this. A shame these monsters destroy the very thing they're selling. Oil slick? No, but they do leave a trail of air pollution behind. But they are no longer allowed to dump trash overboard. So they have to do it veeeeeery discreetly, at night. There are procedures in place that are intended to make sure that everything the ship left with the ship comes back with. Doing it veeeeeery discreetlyl, at night, doesn't provide bags of trash to match the containers that were brought on board, for example. Gawd, some of you people are so bleeping naive... http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/camp..._cruises.shtml Interesting photo there. That's a mud plume, not an oil slick, you naive putz. -- Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez said Wednesday the Hispanic caucus chairman called her a whore, just as Joe Biden called Barack Obama clean and articulate. Comics are relieved. Until the Democrats won back Congress, Michael Richards was out there all by himself. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Queen Mary 2 sails under the GG Bridge
Cynicor wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote: Jer wrote: Jim Weaver wrote: http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405 It's hard to imagine the oil slick behind a beast like this. A shame these monsters destroy the very thing they're selling. Oil slick? No, but they do leave a trail of air pollution behind. But they are no longer allowed to dump trash overboard. So they have to do it veeeeeery discreetly, at night. If you watch when the ship returns to port, semi loads of trash are unloaded. The process of unloading and loading of supplies takes hours, and a large cruise ship swallows a surprising number of loads of supplies for a 7 day trip, then disgorges about the same amount of stuff at the end of the trip. I have never seen any evidence that anything (other than an occasional passenger) is dumped at sea. There is, however, a visible pall of diesel smoke in the air behind the ships, which is, I believe, largely avoidable. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Queen Mary 2 sails under the GG Bridge
Jer wrote:
J. Clarke wrote: On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:08:43 -0500, Cynicor wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: Jer wrote: Jim Weaver wrote: http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405 It's hard to imagine the oil slick behind a beast like this. A shame these monsters destroy the very thing they're selling. Oil slick? No, but they do leave a trail of air pollution behind. But they are no longer allowed to dump trash overboard. So they have to do it veeeeeery discreetly, at night. There are procedures in place that are intended to make sure that everything the ship left with the ship comes back with. Doing it veeeeeery discreetlyl, at night, doesn't provide bags of trash to match the containers that were brought on board, for example. Gawd, some of you people are so bleeping naive... http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/camp..._cruises.shtml The picture near the top of that page tells me that the information there is suspect. The apparent pollution is typical of silt thrown up by the passage of a deep draft vessel in shallow coastal water, and is NOT pollution from the ship, but silt stirred up by its passage. That there is bound to be some pollution from cruise ships, and that it should be minimized, is obvious. Much effort goes into keeping harmful pollution from getting into the oceans, but more could be done. Ships used to toss edible garbage overboard, which benefited the sealife, but this is no longer allowed because of the difficulty of keeping debris from getting into the garbage. Treated sewage is dumped, but then your city does the same thing into streams, and rivers, doesn't it? We all want less pollution, but we have to exercise some reason about what measures are really effective, and what are not. Unless you are willing to go back to an agrarian, low energy lifestyle, which would support, perhaps 30% of our current world population, then it would be wise to apply technology to minimize, or even reverse, pollution, rather than talking about taking away recreational opportunities enjoyed by millions. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Queen Mary 2 sails under the GG Bridge
She'll be in Sydney on 20th February.
-- Joan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly "Jim Weaver" wrote in message . .. : http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405 : : : : -- : My Photo Galleries : https://home.comcast.net/~jimbo0243/ : : |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Queen Mary 2 sails under the GG Bridge
J. Clarke wrote:
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:08:43 -0500, Cynicor wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: Jer wrote: Jim Weaver wrote: http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405 It's hard to imagine the oil slick behind a beast like this. A shame these monsters destroy the very thing they're selling. Oil slick? No, but they do leave a trail of air pollution behind. But they are no longer allowed to dump trash overboard. So they have to do it veeeeeery discreetly, at night. There are procedures in place that are intended to make sure that everything the ship left with the ship comes back with. Doing it veeeeeery discreetlyl, at night, doesn't provide bags of trash to match the containers that were brought on board, for example. "Oooooh, the trash? We, like, totally threw it all out in Acapulco." |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Queen Mary 2 sails under the GG Bridge
Ace wrote:
On Feb 5, 7:11�am, "Jim Weaver" wrote: http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405 -- � � � � � � � �My Photo Gallerieshttps://home.comcast.net/~jimbo0243/ Nice shots. Been a long time since I have been in San Fran. Where does one park and walk to to take pictures like this? There are three places you can go for good shots. As you're about to get onto the bridge from 101 North, you can pull off into the Presidio for a shot facing Marin. On the north side of the bridge, there's a pulloff where you can park and walk for a vantage point. In my opinion, the best view is to the west of the bridge on the north side, in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Driving southbound, you get off 101 just before the bridge and drive up a winding road. There's a walkway and a dramatic view. (http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/949751#36825682) I also suggest a drive a bit further up to Muir Beach, which has a path to the end of a cliff, surrounded by water on three sides, that you don't want to be on during an earthquake. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Queen Mary 2 sails under the GG Bridge
Ron Hunter wrote:
Jer wrote: J. Clarke wrote: On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:08:43 -0500, Cynicor wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: Jer wrote: Jim Weaver wrote: http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405 It's hard to imagine the oil slick behind a beast like this. A shame these monsters destroy the very thing they're selling. Oil slick? No, but they do leave a trail of air pollution behind. But they are no longer allowed to dump trash overboard. So they have to do it veeeeeery discreetly, at night. There are procedures in place that are intended to make sure that everything the ship left with the ship comes back with. Doing it veeeeeery discreetlyl, at night, doesn't provide bags of trash to match the containers that were brought on board, for example. Gawd, some of you people are so bleeping naive... http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/camp..._cruises.shtml The picture near the top of that page tells me that the information there is suspect. The apparent pollution is typical of silt thrown up by the passage of a deep draft vessel in shallow coastal water, and is NOT pollution from the ship, but silt stirred up by its passage. I wouldn't know anything about the photo, it's not mine - not that it was relevant to my comment. That there is bound to be some pollution from cruise ships, and that it should be minimized, is obvious. Much effort goes into keeping harmful pollution from getting into the oceans, but more could be done. Ships used to toss edible garbage overboard, which benefited the sealife, but this is no longer allowed because of the difficulty of keeping debris from getting into the garbage. Treated sewage is dumped, but then your city does the same thing into streams, and rivers, doesn't it? Keeping inedible debris separate from biodegradable garbage has never been difficult - they just don't care enough to try. Treated sewage from cruise ships is a given because the plumbing of the ship was never intended to keep the sewage on board. We all want less pollution, but we have to exercise some reason about what measures are really effective, and what are not. Unless you are willing to go back to an agrarian, low energy lifestyle, which would support, perhaps 30% of our current world population, then it would be wise to apply technology to minimize, or even reverse, pollution, rather than talking about taking away recreational opportunities enjoyed by millions. The business model of the cruise industry is broken. If they cared about the environment, the issues here would never have existed in the first place. Ever since these issues were raised it's been a constant struggle for improvement because the cruise industry doesn't want to be compelled to do the right thing. People that care about the environment try their best to do the right thing without be forced to. Anybody that doesn't care about the environment are at the top of my **** parade. -- jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Queen Mary 2 sails under the GG Bridge
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 05:56:11 -0500, Cynicor
wrote: J. Clarke wrote: On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:08:43 -0500, Cynicor wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: Jer wrote: Jim Weaver wrote: http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405 It's hard to imagine the oil slick behind a beast like this. A shame these monsters destroy the very thing they're selling. Oil slick? No, but they do leave a trail of air pollution behind. But they are no longer allowed to dump trash overboard. So they have to do it veeeeeery discreetly, at night. There are procedures in place that are intended to make sure that everything the ship left with the ship comes back with. Doing it veeeeeery discreetlyl, at night, doesn't provide bags of trash to match the containers that were brought on board, for example. "Oooooh, the trash? We, like, totally threw it all out in Acapulco." Then they need to provide a receipt from the trash service. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Queen Mary 2 sails under the GG Bridge
Jer wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote: Jer wrote: J. Clarke wrote: On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:08:43 -0500, Cynicor wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: Jer wrote: Jim Weaver wrote: http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405 It's hard to imagine the oil slick behind a beast like this. A shame these monsters destroy the very thing they're selling. Oil slick? No, but they do leave a trail of air pollution behind. But they are no longer allowed to dump trash overboard. So they have to do it veeeeeery discreetly, at night. There are procedures in place that are intended to make sure that everything the ship left with the ship comes back with. Doing it veeeeeery discreetlyl, at night, doesn't provide bags of trash to match the containers that were brought on board, for example. Gawd, some of you people are so bleeping naive... http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/camp..._cruises.shtml The picture near the top of that page tells me that the information there is suspect. The apparent pollution is typical of silt thrown up by the passage of a deep draft vessel in shallow coastal water, and is NOT pollution from the ship, but silt stirred up by its passage. I wouldn't know anything about the photo, it's not mine - not that it was relevant to my comment. That there is bound to be some pollution from cruise ships, and that it should be minimized, is obvious. Much effort goes into keeping harmful pollution from getting into the oceans, but more could be done. Ships used to toss edible garbage overboard, which benefited the sealife, but this is no longer allowed because of the difficulty of keeping debris from getting into the garbage. Treated sewage is dumped, but then your city does the same thing into streams, and rivers, doesn't it? Keeping inedible debris separate from biodegradable garbage has never been difficult - they just don't care enough to try. Treated sewage from cruise ships is a given because the plumbing of the ship was never intended to keep the sewage on board. Separation of edible, and inedible waste (actually, inedible is classified as 'trash', not garbage, which is edible), is a labor intensive operation. Since labor is a large cost, most companies try to keep a close control on it. Treated sewage is not pollution since it is safe for human consumption, and is regularly reentered into the terrestrial closed system. That is, some treated sewage is readded to the city reservoir. On the space station, the waste water is recycled endlessly. Get used to it as it will become more prevalent as time goes by. We all want less pollution, but we have to exercise some reason about what measures are really effective, and what are not. Unless you are willing to go back to an agrarian, low energy lifestyle, which would support, perhaps 30% of our current world population, then it would be wise to apply technology to minimize, or even reverse, pollution, rather than talking about taking away recreational opportunities enjoyed by millions. The business model of the cruise industry is broken. If they cared about the environment, the issues here would never have existed in the first place. Ever since these issues were raised it's been a constant struggle for improvement because the cruise industry doesn't want to be compelled to do the right thing. People that care about the environment try their best to do the right thing without be forced to. Anybody that doesn't care about the environment are at the top of my **** parade. Describe how the business model is broken, please. What issues do you mean, and have you personally observed them, or are you just parroting the words of those with some axe to grind? I am concerned about conservation, and the environment, but I don't think that a few cruise ships are going to destroy the whole world. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Queen Mary 2 sails under the GG Bridge
J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 05:56:11 -0500, Cynicor wrote: J. Clarke wrote: On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:08:43 -0500, Cynicor wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: Jer wrote: Jim Weaver wrote: http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405 It's hard to imagine the oil slick behind a beast like this. A shame these monsters destroy the very thing they're selling. Oil slick? No, but they do leave a trail of air pollution behind. But they are no longer allowed to dump trash overboard. So they have to do it veeeeeery discreetly, at night. There are procedures in place that are intended to make sure that everything the ship left with the ship comes back with. Doing it veeeeeery discreetlyl, at night, doesn't provide bags of trash to match the containers that were brought on board, for example. "Oooooh, the trash? We, like, totally threw it all out in Acapulco." Then they need to provide a receipt from the trash service. "Well, uh, the thing about that...we totally have the receipt, but we left it in our other pair of jeans." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Black African Niggaboos, he'll be wandering between heavy Ben until his potter dreams globally, Retarded Righteous Queen. | Zorb | Digital Photography | 0 | June 27th 06 09:42 AM |
Slant-Eyed Chinks and Gooks, if you'll burn Roxanna's earth with coconuts, it'll actually answer the orange, Queer Queen. | Andy | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | June 27th 06 09:26 AM |
Try liking the morning's wide case and Mary will pull you! | Russell Miller | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | June 27th 06 04:53 AM |