The Ocean is broken

[Wild Cobra]

And the oceans survived all those nuclear tests. It will survive Fukushima too.

True, but will Godzilla return?

[Winehole23]

You lied.

And this required no anger or insults on my part.

no, but it did involve your characteristic lack of gusto for reading. there were two other relevant posts. the Arnie Gunderson speculation about ulative impact sounds PFA, so let's lay that aside. what about the article comparing Fukushima with the biggest blast: Bravo.

That was only one bomb, true, but at least there's a concrete comparison --you know, uh, data points to discuss and dispute -- instead of waving your hands at Fuzzy and the allegedly pearl-clutching OP.


(scoffing is cool, conversation is optional.)

[Winehole23]

And the oceans survived all those nuclear tests. It will survive Fukushima too.

The human impact of atomic testing was kept secret a long time; I wonder if it will be this time too.

[AntiChrist]

no, but it did involve your characteristic lack of gusto for reading. there were two other relevant posts. the Arnie Gunderson speculation about ulative impact sounds PFA, so let's lay that aside. what about the article comparing Fukushima with the biggest blast: Bravo.

That was only one bomb, true, but at least there's a concrete comparison --you know, uh, data points to discuss and dispute -- instead of waving your hands at the allegedly pearl-clutching OP.


(scoffing is cool, conversation is optional.)

Yeah, the Bravo was 15 megatons. The Russians detonated one that was 50 megatons. But these are just two of the hundreds of bombs tested.

I'm still guessing that all that testing was more harmful to the environment than Fukushima. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

[Winehole23]

essentially you're scoffing at Fukushima's (unquantified) effect on the Pacific Ocean and human beings, because in your mind it doesn't measure up ulatively to (again, wholly unquantified) atomic testing. bravo.

[Winehole23]

I'm still guessing that all that testing was more harmful to the environment than Fukushima. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

comfortable relying on hunches while avoiding any discussion of included info; using ignorance as a shield. classic DarrinS.

[AntiChrist]

essentially you're scoffing at Fukushima's (unquantified) effect on the Pacific Ocean and human beings, because in your mind it doesn't measure up ulatively to (again, wholly unquantified) atomic testing. bravo.

It's a disaster, but, in all fairness, I didn't post a thread called "The Ocean is broken".

[AntiChrist]

comfortable relying on hunches while avoiding any discussion of included info; using ignorance as a shield. classic DarrinS.

You realize that the OP is entirely based on anecdote?

[Winehole23]

anecdotal on its face. has someone denied that?

[AntiChrist]

But, go ahead and blast me. No big deal.

[Winehole23]

You realize that the OP is entirely based on anecdote?

sure do. seems obvious it is. the thread is not the OP.

[Winehole23]

But, go ahead and blast me. No big deal.

go ahead and avoid talking about anything; make it all about some construed insult and go sulk.

[Cry Havoc]

It's a disaster, but, in all fairness, I didn't post a thread called "The Ocean is broken".

Yeah, the OP for using the le of the article in the subject heading!

[Winehole23]

catchy headlines and striking anecdotes are journalism's butter and bread. it makes sense to scoff at that, but there's no reason the discussion has to stop there.

[Winehole23]

this is a discussion board, right?

[RandomGuy]

I doubt there is much we can do about fighting against natural processes. I'll bet this is a cycle that regularly occurs, like the graph i presented earlier. The strong will survive and repopulate the species, except those who's time has come to be extinct.

Life will go on.

You didn't really read the article in the OP did you?

(facepalm)

[RandomGuy]

You realize that the OP is entirely based on anecdote?

I pretty much accede to that.

Still, it is worth getting some more information to assess it, don't you think?

[Wild Cobra]

You didn't really read the article in the OP did you?

(facepalm)

Ass-U-ming again, I see.

[Wild Cobra]

Random.

Are you assuming that one predator consuming most of the lesser species is not natural?

That trip would have to be near the islands and mainland for birds to have been present, and over the shelf where the smaller fish would be.

Can you accept that with Clinton's free trade agreements, that the market opened up world wide to these fishermen (predators.)

With the talk of pH in post 2, I assumed this was what you were addressing. maybe if you would pose a question that doesn't lead to misinterpretation...

The author doesn't even give a viewpoint of why it's broken, or did I miss that?

You know what else...

Events also don't work like clockwork. maybe the fish run may of one year, and June in a different year.

Two data points...

Give me a break.

[RandomGuy]

Ass-U-ming again, I see.

[RandomGuy]

Random.

Are you assuming that one predator consuming most of the lesser species is not natural?

That trip would have to be near the islands and mainland for birds to have been present, and over the shelf where the smaller fish would be.

Can you accept that with Clinton's free trade agreements, that the market opened up world wide to these fishermen (predators.)

Seriously though, did you actually read the OP?

The entire article wasn't predicated on just overfishing.

[Wild Cobra]

Seriously though, did you actually read the OP?

The entire article wasn't predicated on just overfishing.

I read it fast, read it again to see if I missed anything important.

Yes, these threads almost always go off tangent.

We can not fix environment or economic reasons. We have known about overfishing for a long time.

Am I to trust a trust fund elitist who makes yacht trips as knowing anything?

What do you think the cause is? Cannot solve a problem until the cause is known.

[RandomGuy]

Random.

Are you assuming that one predator consuming most of the lesser species is not natural?

That trip would have to be near the islands and mainland for birds to have been present, and over the shelf where the smaller fish would be.

Can you accept that with Clinton's free trade agreements, that the market opened up world wide to these fishermen (predators.)

With the talk of pH in post 2, I assumed this was what you were addressing. maybe if you would pose a question that doesn't lead to misinterpretation...

The author doesn't even give a viewpoint of why it's broken, or did I miss that?

You know what else...

Events also don't work like clockwork. maybe the fish run may of one year, and June in a different year.

Two data points...

Give me a break.

... .and to answer your question:

I don't know enough about fishing and "Clinton's free trade agreements" to be able to say one way or another. I find it a bit sad to see that blaming clinton is such a knee-jerk reflex. That is the kind of unthinking partisanship that makes me dread trying to address anything you bother posting.

The author didn't give a view point either other than to note that the oil slicks and garbage seemed to be a lot more voluminous.

[RandomGuy]

I read it fast, read it again to see if I missed anything important.

Yes, these threads almost always go off tangent.

We can not fix environment or economic reasons. We have known about overfishing for a long time.

What do you think the cause is? Cannot solve a problem until the cause is known.

Tragedy of the commons is not an unknown problem, and it quite fixable.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, I have a knee-jerk reaction to what free trade agreements have done. They have changed our way of living. Too many people with no skills, worked in factories making a decent living. Now they work at places like McDonald's, because our jobs are being exported.