Moderator: HAZ - Moderators
I think that's pretty neat. Not what I would do, but interesting. We have our own ways of taking away meaning and fulfillment in the outdoors.Canyonram wrote: I once met a backpacker in the middle of the Paria Canyon with a metal detector---he said he was scanning for old coins left by the early explorers.
As a sometimes-editor of Wikipedia, I think that it does have research potential. Not everything is gospel truth, so to speak, but there is a pretty rigorous system of peer checks-and-balances (and even peer review). If an article is good, it will have the technical papers listed in its references - I like to start from there.be leery of sources like Wikipedia or authors who cite themselves as the source----even I can write for Wikipedia. I try and stick to peer-researched articles and scientific papers or first-hand accounts from the victims.
Interesting. I had asked about this book earlier, but no one seemed to have read it, so I decided to pick it up on Amazon this week! It should be here soon - I'll post a review and let you know what I think.The book 'Yellow Dirt: An American Story of a Poisoned Land and a People Betrayed" by Judy Pasternak will soon be out in paperback---if you have even any interest in the impact of uranium mining on the Navajo this book is a heartbreaking account of both the environmental and human damage done by uranium mining/milling on the Navajo Nation.
I'd be interested to hear what they have to say about that. I can query some of my friends out there too to see what they say.Closer to the Canyon, I've sent some emails to the NPS seeking information regarding uranium contamination of the Little Colorado River and the area between Cameron and the Canyon's eastern border. The uranium mined in this area was close to the surface and open pits were left to collect rainwater and form lakes on this plateau. Navajo living in the area who took their water and cared for their lifestock in the area fed by these new 'lakes' have suffered from the contamination. Years ago, the Park Service used to maintain the jeep road from Desert View out to overlooks---the Canyon Park border hugs along the Rim. Since the extent of the uranium mining contamination, that road has been abandoned and is no longer safe to travel. My query to the Park Service is if they have picked up any contamination out that way and if hikers need to stay away.
Please quit with the insinuations and assumptions about me and what I did. It was placed in front of me about minute before a meeting started - I only had time to read the front page portion which contained this: "The writer and Harvard graduate urged no comparison between the suffering of the Jews (her mother is Jewish) and of Native Americans." You're right, that is not a direct quote from LaDuke, but it is a summary of what she said by someone who was there. You should also note that because I did not have the article in my hands, I did not misquote at all - I made no quote (defined as having quotation marks around words to indicate precisely the words that were spoken by the attributed speaker), I paraphrased. In case anyone is wondering, I did this on purpose to show that this was not a direct quote from LaDuke. The reporter did the same thing as I. Are you saying that the reporter made this up from whole cloth? To compare, I said:Canyonram wrote:Blah blah blah
The Az Sun said:PageRob wrote:LaDuke (of Jewish and Native extraction) said that the treatment of Native Americans should not be compared to the Jewish holocaust.
I fail to see how I have done "her a great disservice" by rephrasing one sentence from an article that conveys exactly the same meaning as the original sentence.azdailysun.com wrote:The writer and Harvard graduate urged no comparison between the suffering of the Jews (her mother is Jewish) and of Native Americans.
As I said before, he is a technophobe and not a hiker - why would he join an online community of hikers? If you think I'm making him up, that's your prerogative. It is obvious that my sources from earlier didn't satisfy you, since you never responded, so I don't see why having someone else join the conversation would bring any actual weight.Please invite your 'politically active' Navajo to the forum. A 'politically active' person should have no qualms about joining the discussion and speaking out.
If you want to call me a liar, do it straight instead of prancing around the issue. You continually call into question my character - suggesting that I name a proposed claim after a madman and killer. You call me greedy, you question my financial motives, and suggest that I am "developing a mine" to "put some cash into my bank account" while not one of those statements is born out by fact (indeed my statements indicated a financial loss on staking a claim and I never said that I would develop the property). You accused me of being an apologist for the mining industry and then ask if I work for the mining industry, de facto calling me a shill for uranium mining companies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill ...specifically:It might be more believable to have him/her post directly than being 'quoted' by you.
Quite frankly I'm sick of these personal attacks that have nothing to do with the facts in the debate. I have tried to be impassive and connected with facts, not emotions (which includes personal attacks). I have backed up every single one of my statements with sources (per your request, though I at first assumed that the interested on a non-peer reviewed board would be able to use Google). I sincerely doubt that you even read my post citing sources. This is backed up by your mention of Yellow Dirt 22 days after I asked about it earlier in the thread. Either you hadn't read it at the time and didn't respond, or you simply 'glossed over' something I was asking. I guess to each their own.Wikipedia.org wrote:or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws. In this sense, they would be an implicit "shill" for the industry at large, possibly because their income is tied to its prosperity
. My hypothesis is that most people don't want to wade into the mud slinging that has been going on in this thread. There was never much participation after you and I started our debate. It was already withered by you and I.Canyonram wrote:Looks like the conversation has withered away once PageRob and I stoppped the individual debate
It is no longer a debate when inaccurate statements are posed as truth, like the above statement...Canyonram wrote:You did voice your opinion that you were against Uranium Mining near the Canyon.
Tough_Boots wrote:It becomes very obvious that when discussions on HAZ begin to get heated, we see less people taking part and adding their opinions, knowledge, and experience which defeats the purpose of a forum.
Just a quick note: we use fission, not fusion for electricity generation. There are attempts to use fusion (fusing hydrogen together to make helium) for electricity, but none have been successful.CannondaleKid wrote:fusion for generating electricity.
I had a moment of hesitation when I couldn't remember which it was, fission or fusion and thought it better to err on the side of 'building' instead of 'demolishing' only to get it wrong anyway.PageRob wrote:the difference between fission and fusion is the difference between demolishing and building a house.
Depends on what you mean by successful. You can achieve fusion relatively easily, even in your own garage. Producing more energy than you put in has not been achieved yet by anything other than stars and dark matter. It's disappointing that we have not tackled the solar collection problem and distribution problem with more scientific interest...transportation is often easier than generation.PageRob wrote:Just a quick note: we use fission, not fusion for electricity generation. There are attempts to use fusion (fusing hydrogen together to make helium) for electricity, but none have been successful.CannondaleKid wrote:fusion for generating electricity.
As I was explaining to my students today, the difference between fission and fusion is the difference between demolishing and building a house.
I am officially against it. I think its a destructive industry run by people who don't care about safety, environmental impact, or cultural sensitivity. The waste created by this industry is reason enough not to support anything they do.Canyonram wrote:Tough Boots has not stated in a declarative sentence whether he is FOR or AGAINST.
That's exactly what I mean by successful - getting more out than in.nonot wrote:Depends on what you mean by successful. You can achieve fusion relatively easily, even in your own garage. Producing more energy than you put in has not been achieved yet by anything other than stars and dark matter.
No kidding. Here we are in Arizona without a single operating commercial solar plant. A state that has pretty much more sunshine than any other. I think that is a shame.It's disappointing that we have not tackled the solar collection problem and distribution problem with more scientific interest...transportation is often easier than generation.
I am in absolute agreement! The real problem is not whether we mine uranium not, but can we trust ANY energy generation industry? As long as our government is being run by the 'big business/industrial' puppet masters, I don't trust them at all. Neither the Democrats or GOP are any different when you take the outer wraps off, they both were bought long ago by big business, big energy, big pharma, big oil...azbackpackr wrote:I am also concerned and distrustful about the industry and the government.
Agreed... and again, whether big energy (nuclear), big oil (Deepwater Horizon) or big whoever, do they have our best interest at heart? Hardly. But as long as humans are human and there continues to be ones overly possessed with a drive to seek more pride and power (power=money) there will always be distrust.azbackpackr wrote:I think nuclear power plants could possibly be set up to be used safely in a perfect world, but not when you KNOW you are going to have governments in the future that come in and get rid of safety regulations, or don't enforce them. Witness Deep Horizon...
That's true in a pre-tax sense. As the law stands now, the break-even point is somewhere around 10-12 years for residential systems (longer for smaller systems, shorter for larger systems) with tax credits and incentives - at least that was the case in 2009 when I took my solar and wind power class.nonot wrote: It has been argued that solar cells don't give reach a break even point for about 30 years based on the process it takes to manufacture them.