Queen Mary 2 sails under the GG Bridge

Rich wrote:
On Feb 5, 2:55 pm, 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.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'


Envirnomentalists are vermin and pathological liars.

Polluters, on the other hand, tell it like it is.

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:38:10 -0500, Cynicor
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:20:01 -0500, Cynicor
wrote:

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."

"Well, uh, the thing about that is that you're hereby terminated for
(a) being out of uniform, (b) failing to properly file a required
document, (c) costing the company a great deal of money while the ship
sits idle waiting for the mess you've created to get sorted out, (d)
putting the company at risk of a large fine, (e) risking the loss by
government seizure of an asset valued at nearly a billion dollars, and
(f) adopting a flippant attitude toward a government official who can
if he chooses to do so cause the company a great deal more trouble.
Oh, and it's probably not a good idea to use us as a reference."

"But we gave a bunch of money to the Bush campaign, and they let us
rewrite the regulations in secret last year. Ta!"

"Then I suggest you seek employment with an American company."

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 07:23:33 -0600, Jer wrote:

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.

I realize that this is the standard whinge of the tree huggers.
But lets take a look at your complaint:
The idea that the industry is broken flies in the face of reality.
'Nuff said about that.
The idea that if any industry cared about the problems that have been
found means you wouldn't have roads, cars, trains, radio, TV, food
from more than 10 miles away, even the computer you use to spread your
untinking crap. All the industries that delevered these things started
out polluting much, much more than they do today. According to you,
none of them cared, and the problems wouldn't have happened. But a
little thought would show that they had no way to even understand the
environmental problems.
And your **** parade isn't exactly of concern ot the vast majority of
people in the world.
If you don't want to cruise, then don't.
However, as I asked before, do you drive a car?
Because if you do, you need to put yourself on your own **** list.

I grew up in the area of Texas City, which most people would consider a
likely candidate for pollution capital of the country. However, the air
is no worse there than in many other cities, and is VASTLY better than
when I was growing up there in the 1950's. We used to joke about
slicing off a piece of the air there to take as a souvenir. There are
several chemical plants, a major port (oil), and, at the time, the
hemisphere's only tin smelter. Add that to the salt sea air, and a
fishing industry, and you understand why I have almost no sense of smell.
BUT, now the air is much cleaner, the water is improving, the porpoises
are back following the ferry, and the beaches are cleaner than I have
ever seen them before.

So, for those who say things are getting worse, I say BULL!

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:46:30 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

There is,
however, a visible pall of diesel smoke in the air behind the ships,
which is, I believe, largely avoidable.

Nuclear power!

Oh, can you imagine the hue and cry should a company suggest a nuclear
cruise ship? Grin.

John Albert wrote:
Anybody that doesn't care about the environment are at the top of my ****
parade.

What do you think of the Chinese, then? They're going to build an additional
500 coal-fired power plants with NO pollution controls at all.

But their _politics_ suit you better... eh?

- John


No, they're at the head of my **** parade too. Then again, they've
always been a bunch of hacks copying what they see.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 07:23:33 -0600, Jer wrote:

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.

I realize that this is the standard whinge of the tree huggers.
But lets take a look at your complaint:
The idea that the industry is broken flies in the face of reality.
'Nuff said about that.

Hardly.

The idea that if any industry cared about the problems that have been
found means you wouldn't have roads, cars, trains, radio, TV, food
from more than 10 miles away, even the computer you use to spread your
untinking crap. All the industries that delevered these things started
out polluting much, much more than they do today. According to you,
none of them cared, and the problems wouldn't have happened. But a
little thought would show that they had no way to even understand the
environmental problems.

They didn't, we did. Due to the pressure, they've cleaned up their act
quite a bit. I'm thankful for that.

And your **** parade isn't exactly of concern ot the vast majority of
people in the world.

That's part of the problem.

If you don't want to cruise, then don't.
However, as I asked before, do you drive a car?

I don't own one now but I used to. I used it quite a bit at first, but
as alternative choices were developed, as little as I needed to - now,
no longer need to own one at all. When I need to get somewhere that a
car is a viable choice, either rent one or a taxi works well.

Because if you do, you need to put yourself on your own **** list.

Where did I advocate cars not be used? Answer: I didn't. Cars are
also a problem, and the prudent use of them would be tremendously
helpful given the nature of that industry and the mindsets of those
involved. This is difficult to do in many urban areas that don't have a
mature public transit system, so, supporting the development of one AND
using it would also be tremendously helpful.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Ray Fischer 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.

Do you really think that a ship that size could sail into
San Francisco Bay leaking oil and not have several government
agencies come down on them like a ton of bricks?


No, absolutely not. The location of the ship wasn't part of my comment,
so why would you presume a SF Bay location was implied? They don't
flush their bilge in port, they flush it at sea where it's assumed to be
out of sight, ergo, out of mind. But not mine.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:46:30 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

There is,
however, a visible pall of diesel smoke in the air behind the ships,
which is, I believe, largely avoidable.

Nuclear power!



How 'bout no power? Is that trip really necessary?

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Cynicor wrote:
Rich wrote:
On Feb 5, 2:55 pm, 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.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'


Envirnomentalists are vermin and pathological liars.

Polluters, on the other hand, tell it like it is.


Oh, it's okay that he feels the way he does. He'll likely continue
feeling that way until his drinking water gets laced with MTBE and his
nuts shrivel to the size of an English pea, and his future progeny has a
third leg growing out of it's pretty pink face. Of course, by then,
it'll be too late for him to give a **** about his own situation, so the
larger question will be does he give a **** about anybody else?

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:34:46 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:46:30 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

There is,
however, a visible pall of diesel smoke in the air behind the ships,
which is, I believe, largely avoidable.

Nuclear power!

Oh, can you imagine the hue and cry should a company suggest a nuclear
cruise ship? Grin.

Actually, it's sort of been done, the ship worked fine, I'm told that
the unions killed it by demanding that the linehandlers get paid the
same as the nukes, which put the operating costs through the roof. If
you go to Google Earth and look at 37deg08'20.69"N,76deg38'36.98"W you
will see the NS Savannah, the world's first nuclear powered merchant
ship, which while she was primarily a cargo carrier had limited
passenger accomodations. Not quite a cruise ship.

More recently,
http://www.cruisingholidays.co.uk/arctic/icebreaker-yamal-1.htm is
offering cruises aboard a for real Russian nuclear powered icebreaker.