notwell Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 I drove up there recently. Seemed fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bastard Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 So the waste from the Raggat is clear from all contaminants is it? Ignoring the materials that were dumped there, the Raggat is below areas of the mining that you blame for the contaminants existence in the first place. Therefore, by your own reasoning, it must contain contaminants. Show one example of illness or death due to the contaminants on the Island. Explain how these naturally occurring contaminants flowing into Peel bay and causing such massive problems that you have previously stated is better than them being more widely dispersed over a larger are that would allow for further natural dispersal by the sea? Exactly what experience to you have of the sea and maritime vessels? What is your answer to the 'problem'? Dumping on land to further contaminate water courses in different areas? Convention dictates that the burden of proof is on you regarding the Raggatt discharges. Do you have any evidence that the discharges are full of contaminants ? No ? Perhaps you are "jumping on the eco bandwagon" as you put it earlier in the thread ? For evidence of the health effects, both on the island and worldwide (it's no different here, by the way), I'll refer you to the British Medical Bulletin, which has a pretty comprehensive rundown of the dangers of heavy metal exposure, if you're able to understand it - https://academic.oup.com/bmb/article/68/1/167/421303/Hazards-of-heavy-metal-contamination Again you're showing an inability to comprehend the difference between gradual estuarine dispersal, and mass-dumping of contaminants in large periodic batches, which is a very different kettle of (polluted) fish. There's certainly no easy and cheap answer to the problem, as the experts have already suggested. You can't just pick up and dump the contaminated silt locally or regionally without affecting the local ecosystem, and it's not a commodity that has any significant value, so more complex solutions have to be considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc.fixit Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 I drove up there recently. Seemed fine. ..sorry to argue, but, how do you know it's fine, are you very knowledgeable in that area?........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speak The Truth Posted January 8, 2017 Author Share Posted January 8, 2017 The Bastard"Convention dictates that the burden of proof is on you regarding the Raggatt discharges.Do you have any evidence that the discharges are full of contaminants ?" And common sense dictates following your previous arguments that it is contaminated. "For evidence of the health effects, both on the island and worldwide (it's no different here, by the way), I'll refer you to the British Medical Bulletin, which has a pretty comprehensive rundown of the dangers of heavy metal exposure, if you're able to understand it - https://academic.oup...l-contamination" So the answer is no. You can not give a single case of a person becoming ill or dying as the result of the contaminants coming out of Peel. "Again you're showing an inability to comprehend the difference between gradual estuarine dispersal, and mass-dumping of contaminants in large periodic batches, which is a very different kettle of (polluted) fish. " I fully understand your eco argument here. What you are saying is that it is better to have the contaminants slowly leach into Peel bay where they will settle, only to be dispersed extremely slowly by tidal action and the occasional storm than to disperse them over a wider area where they can be more quickly dispersed by tidal action without, as happens with Peel bay, them being slowly spread up the coast from Peel to settle at Whitestrand, Glen Moar, Kirk Michael and beyond. What you have not done is answer the question. One thing that is certain is that the more diluted these contaminants become the less of a hazard they are. I assume also, as you failed to answer the question, that you have no maritime experience whatsoever. You also have no suggestions for a solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 I drove up there recently. Seemed fine...sorry to argue, but, how do you know it's fine, are you very knowledgeable in that area?........ Er..... It seemed fine? Still there, no one dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 I drove up there recently. Seemed fine...sorry to argue, but, how do you know it's fine, are you very knowledgeable in that area?........ Er..... It seemed fine? Still there, no one dead. No zombies or two headed people mooching about then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 I drove up there recently. Seemed fine. You get about a lot, are you driving busses these days? it would explain your in depth knowledge of every subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bastard Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 The Bastard "Convention dictates that the burden of proof is on you regarding the Raggatt discharges.Do you have any evidence that the discharges are full of contaminants ?" And common sense dictates following your previous arguments that it is contaminated. "For evidence of the health effects, both on the island and worldwide (it's no different here, by the way), I'll refer you to the British Medical Bulletin, which has a pretty comprehensive rundown of the dangers of heavy metal exposure, if you're able to understand it - https://academic.oup...l-contamination" So the answer is no. You can not give a single case of a person becoming ill or dying as the result of the contaminants coming out of Peel. "Again you're showing an inability to comprehend the difference between gradual estuarine dispersal, and mass-dumping of contaminants in large periodic batches, which is a very different kettle of (polluted) fish. " I fully understand your eco argument here. What you are saying is that it is better to have the contaminants slowly leach into Peel bay where they will settle, only to be dispersed extremely slowly by tidal action and the occasional storm than to disperse them over a wider area where they can be more quickly dispersed by tidal action without, as happens with Peel bay, them being slowly spread up the coast from Peel to settle at Whitestrand, Glen Moar, Kirk Michael and beyond. What you have not done is answer the question. One thing that is certain is that the more diluted these contaminants become the less of a hazard they are. I assume also, as you failed to answer the question, that you have no maritime experience whatsoever. You also have no suggestions for a solution. "And common sense dictates following your previous arguments that it is contaminated." Nope, you don't understand the process of argument. You previously postulated that the Raggatt had to be the source of the heavy metals as it's below the mining areas. That doesn't make sense to me, II haven't argued for that position, nor does it agree with any of the academic studies on heavy metal contamination. "So the answer is no. You can not give a single case of a person becoming ill or dying as the result of the contaminants coming out of Peel." Clearly you didn't read the article from the BMB, or didn't understand it. Did you read the section on Cadmium's carcinogenic effects ? A cause of death doesn't say "Kidney cancer/Prostate cancer as a result of ingesting cadmium through some dodgy shellfish he ate over the summer a few years ago because of the cadmium coming out of the old mine workings", it simply says "kidney cancer" or "prostate cancer". Lead toxicity leads to a raft of neurological symptoms, including reduced intellectual development in children,the main reason why our petrol doesn't contain it any more. Presumably you must have eaten a lot of contaminated shellfish as a child if you think that's not a thing to be concerned about. BTW you're entirely wrong about my maritime experience, but it isn't really relevant. Even if my marine experience was limited to battering cod in Peel Fisheries, I could still point out the results of research. It's not up to me to provide solutions in a paragraph, I started posting on this thread to point out your flawed assertions about the Raggatt, not to propose fully-researched solutions on marine disposal - this is a complex issue, and needs scientific input based on research and expertise, not back-of-a-fag-packet ideas from randoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Just for interest , how many tons of Silt or soil do you think may get washed down the river in the event of major flooding which happens most years,in some cases changing the course of the river and stripping previously sited up areas back to the bare stone riverbed ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 I drove up there recently. Seemed fine...sorry to argue, but, how do you know it's fine, are you very knowledgeable in that area?........ Er..... It seemed fine? Still there, no one dead. No zombies or two headed people mooching about then? In Peel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speak The Truth Posted January 10, 2017 Author Share Posted January 10, 2017 http://www.three.fm/news/isle-of-man-news/investigations-underway-to-see-if-silt-can-be-dumped-at-sea/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarne Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 It's silt. It's the amount of silt being dumped will have feck all effect on the irish sea. Just fecking get it in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bastard Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 If only, it's silt with heavy metal contamination. Not much of a difference, but one study pointed out that mussels from White Strand already had the highest lead concentration of all the areas they studied around the Irish Sea, so it makes a difference. Good that they're starting the dredging, presumably a good deal of chin-stroking has gone into the disposal strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 If only, it's silt with heavy metal contamination. Not much of a difference, but one study pointed out that mussels from White Strand already had the highest lead concentration of all the areas they studied around the Irish Sea, so it makes a difference. Good that they're starting the dredging, presumably a good deal of chin-stroking has gone into the disposal strategy. I thought iron supplements were good for you . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bastard Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 If only, it's silt with heavy metal contamination. Not much of a difference, but one study pointed out that mussels from White Strand already had the highest lead concentration of all the areas they studied around the Irish Sea, so it makes a difference. Good that they're starting the dredging, presumably a good deal of chin-stroking has gone into the disposal strategy. I thought iron supplements were good for you . Iron is generally good for you unless it's injected into you at very high velocity. Or if you're run over by a bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.