Palin / Pebble Mine

[Fishhand]

I appreciate the comments, but, was wondering if anyone knows if "Sarah Palin" has made "statements" regarding the approval of the "Pebble Mine" project and/or Measure 4.

[Fishhand]

Been doing some studying. It appears Palin's environmental track record ain't too good. Here's a thread from fellow fishermen in Alaska that seems to sum it up. The thread was posted prior to the vote for Measurement 4.

http://www.speypages.com/speyclave/showthread.php?p=211581

The last post is particularly interesting.

[Al Agnew]

Yep, population is the root cause of most environmental problems...that and greed. But I'm not sure we have to be doomed to mining and stripping and wearing out every bit of available resources to feed the hungry maw of an ever-increasing population. TRUE COSTS. If you compute the true costs of everything we do and every product we buy, you'd soon find that a serious effort at recycling would lessen the pressure to mine every available place. However, like I said in another thread, as long as the consumer only pays the sticker price and somebody else, or all of us, pay for the pollution and clean up costs and health costs and loss of salmon runs cost, mining new resources will always trump recycling the same resources.

It always seems to me that the farther one gets from a wonderful piece of the world like Alaska, the more they treasure it. The majority of the people who live up there seem to still have the "frontier" mentality, even if they live in Anchorage and their only foray into the wilds outside the city limits is to go moose hunting once a year and snag salmon on the Kenai. "Heck, the resources and wild country up here are unlimited, so let's get every bit of "good" out of it all that we can." They seem to be willing to trade what makes their land unique and intrinsically valuable for whatever short term gain they can get. While those of us who visit the place from ANYWHERE else in the U.S. really see how great it is and what a shame it is to take the chance of wrecking it. It's like a lot of Ozark people who are all for gravel mining and otherwise using the streams any way they see fit. They are too familiar with the rivers and don't see their slow decline, while those who only get on a given river a few times a year can see the changes and treasure the river for what it is, not what it can do to make them money. I've often said that I wish we could temporarily transplant that type of Ozarker to some benighted place like central Kansas for a year or two...I think they'd come back with more appreciation of what we have here. And I wish we could transplant a bunch of Alaskans to...say, Mississippi for a year or two and maybe they'd change their outlook.

[Trav]

Human Anthill Al

It is a bunch of To live with it is nothing but tolerance.

And my shrink wonders why I live my life avoiding all human contact.

[Chief Grey Bear]

And my shrink wonders why I live my life avoiding all human contact.

Now that is funny. Especially when you think about all the time you spend on just this forum. Oh that is rich!

[bigredbirdfan]

Been doing some studying. It appears Palin's environmental track record ain't too good. Here's a thread from fellow fishermen in Alaska that seems to sum it up. The thread was posted prior to the vote for Measurement 4.

http://www.speypages.com/speyclave/showthread.php?p=211581

The last post is particularly interesting.

A little bit of advice. Only snopes, left wing and mainstream media sources are taken serious. Are there sources to back up the bloggers claims on Palin?

You may not need to research any further. The Obama smear machine has sent a team of 30 lawyers to Alaska to find everything out for us. I've even heard they are offering money for good stories (shhhhhh don't tell anyone about this it is our liberal secret)

[trout fanatic]

Okay, I have some questions that I would love to have answered. I have heard time and time again from all sorts of reputable sources that nuclear energy is cheap and safe. It poses no problem to us. I fully realize that the "times have changed" and ways of dealing with chemicals and such are safer than say 40 years ago.

That being said why don't we: 1. Encourage all states to use more nuclear energy.

2. Pass a law that says any state that does use nuclear energy HAS to dispose of its

waste within the confines of its own borders (it is safe isn't it)

I am really tired of hearing how safe it is than discovering that places like New York (or California or Missouri for that matter) sends their nuclear waste to New Mexico or Nevada. If it is so safe we should be expected to live with its byproduct and not expect our neighbors to grovel in it.

[Danoinark]

Okay, I have some questions that I would love to have answered. I have heard time and time again from all sorts of reputable sources that nuclear energy is cheap and safe. It poses no problem to us. I fully realize that the "times have changed" and ways of dealing with chemicals and such are safer than say 40 years ago.

That being said why don't we: 1. Encourage all states to use more nuclear energy.

2. Pass a law that says any state that does use nuclear energy HAS to dispose of its

waste within the confines of its own borders (it is safe isn't it)

I am really tired of hearing how safe it is than discovering that places like New York (or California or Missouri for that matter) sends their nuclear waste to New Mexico or Nevada. If it is so safe we should be expected to live with its byproduct and not expect our neighbors to grovel in it.

Excellent rant trout fanatic. I agree with you in toto. I for one believe that nuclear power is the cheapest form of producing power and at the same time agree that the issue of waste disposal is my primary concern too. There have been some laws passed in individual states that limit or even prevent traveling through to get to the disposal locations. From what I understand the disposal sites are private industry and are in the business of taking on the wastes. Apparently its done out west because of the remoteness of the dump locations.

Dano

[Fishhand]

A little bit of advice. Only snopes, left wing and mainstream media sources are taken serious. Are there sources to back up the bloggers claims on Palin?

You may not need to research any further. The Obama smear machine has sent a team of 30 lawyers to Alaska to find everything out for us. I've even heard they are offering money for good stories (shhhhhh don't tell anyone about this it is our liberal secret)

I thought the thread I presented was interesting because those guys were talking about Palin's comments regarding Measure 4 before she was McCain's pick for VP. It didn't appear to me that "Obama's smear machine" had anything to do with the thread. I took the thread seriously because it sounded like the guys were fishermen, not politicians and not pundits. Maybe some of them are though, I don't know. IMO, they seemed concerned about the health and welfare of the watershed and that Palin's decision to take off her governor's hat and present her personal opinion regarding Measure 4 effected the outcome of the vote.

[bigredbirdfan]

I thought the thread I presented was interesting because those guys were talking about Palin's comments regarding Measurement 4 before she was McCain's pick for VP. It didn't appear to me that "Obama's smear machine" had anything to do with the thread. I took the thread seriously because it sounded like the guys were fishermen, not politicians and not pundits. Maybe some of them are though, I don't know. IMO, they seemed concerned about the health and welfare of the watershed and that Palin's decision to take off her governor's hat and present her personal opinion regarding Measurement 4 effected the outcome of the vote.

Sources other than blogs please. Real facts.