The Watering Hole, Tuesday October 12, 2015 – Environmental News and Food Politics

Chernobyl and Other Places Where Animals Thrive Without People

I once fished a creek back in PA that was contaminated with PCB’s. They collected in the fat tissue of trout, an  if consumed would be potentially harmful, in a cancer causing kind of way. The solution by the Fish Commission was to declare the fishing catch and release only. The fish thought it was great. None would leave the stream on a stringer.

Another place I fished in the Pocono Mountains was next to a Superfund Site. Wow, talk about a place where you would find few other people. The fishing was pretty good there. Supposedly all the contamination from zinc smelters was in the vegetation and soil. The Fish Commission let you keep the fish there, as if there was no mixing of soil, vegetation, and water. I put the fish I caught back anyway.

Good wildlife viewing...

37 thoughts on “The Watering Hole, Tuesday October 12, 2015 – Environmental News and Food Politics

  1. “Nature flourishes when humans are removed from the equation . . .”

    So maybe the human-caused sixth mass extinction will work out well for the natural world in the long run!

  2. Loss of habitat and people leaving their garbage out in unsecured trash containers has lead to bears entering communities for an easy meal.
    I can’t blame them. They can’t read and for them it’s an irresistible temptation put there by humans.
    The solution to the man made problem that the state came up with: Hunt down the bears.
    We now have a bear season which begins soon after much legal wrangling.
    The woods are already a dicey place to experience nature due to meth cooking and maniacs on ATV’s tearing up the place by not adhering to trail rules and general idiocy.
    The forest will now be over run by bear hunting nut jobs on ATV’s, dressed in camo so you can’t see them, sporting confederate flags, shooting at anything that moves.
    I’m convinced that humans are actually an advanced virus infecting the planet until we wipe ourselves out along with anything else that inadvertently encounters us.

    http://www.mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/6/24/fwc_bear_hunt_vote.html

    • Its a toss up but Linda Kozlowski’s butt floss swimsuit was trumped by this scene – where “Skippy gets even”

  3. A BS – ‘he said – she said’ from the BBC on MH17 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34511973

    When one side is lying it’s ass off, then you conclude that the other theory is true – instead of giving the lies weight and confusing the issue.

    Facts on July 17th
    1. Only the Russian-backed side were shooting at aircraft – they had none themselves, and the Ukrainian Air Force was bombing the crap out of the Russian thugs and mercenaries on the ground.
    2. Several Ukraine aircraft flying at lower levels were shot down by SAMs in the week prior to July 17th. The Russian side boasted of these every day.
    3. The Russian-backed side boasted of having a BUK to use before July 17th
    4. The Russian-backed side boasted of shooting down a Ukrainian AN26 transport on July 17th and then Russian TV and Tass showed footage of a plane wreck in a field within 90mins of the downing, saying it was the AN26…..
    5. Then, when the mistake was realized, the thugs on the ground stopped taking smiling selfies of themselves amongst the dead children lying in the field and claimed that a Ukrainian SU25 had just shot down a civvy plane. They wheeled out eyewitnesses – who somehow saw all of this at 33,000ft through 7/8 cloud cover (take a look at a plane at 33,000ft sometime – if you even notice it on a clear day).
    6. This is easy to find out – or if you are a BBC reporter or Corey Flintoff on NPR, you just go “he said – she said – still some questions here – back to you in the studio – reporting from the best bordello in Donetsk ….”

    http://www.russialies.com/russias-top-10-lies-about-downed-malaysia-airliner/

    • You might enjoy the drinking game over on Rudepundit?

      http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

      I for one will probably skip – even if the quality of the discourse may be higher – I still suspect CNN is still going to playing ‘Gotcha – aren’t I a smart Anderson Fooker for asking about this pointless question which says more about me than about you?’

      It might be good to wait for Bernie to just come out and say: “How big is the audience tonight? And that’s the best question you have got sonny?”

      And Jim Webb – isn’t he at the wrong debate?

      And the empty chair – is Clint Eastwood going to lob and ‘Eastwood’ the chair about why Joe B couldn’t free up his calendar?

      Not planning on spoiling my beer with politics American showbiz style.

    • The bingo card for this debate should be the stupid shit Teh Donald is going to tweet.

  4. I’m not feeling all that great today — it must because I found out there’s a Dem “debate” this evening.

    Having said that, all y’all feel free to discuss the circus on this open thread.

    • I’m not watching the debate, even to respond to The Donald’s live-misogyny and other name-calling. There’s a slew of presidential debates every four years. The Mets don’t make the playoffs that often. They’re up 2-1 in a best-of-five series. Jane and I will be watching them, instead. (Unless the Dodgers beat up on the Mets the way the Mets beat up on them last night.)

      Have fun watching the “debate”. (It’s not really a debate, it’s more like a Q&A session where the other candidates can troll the one responding.)

  5. It has been said that the complex ideas of thinking people can’t be condensed into “bumper sticker slogans”. Here’s my latest condensed bumper sticker slogan.

    GOP: Too stubborn to govern, too stupid to rule!

  6. I despise debates; I despise the very idea of debates. A debate is not about testing an idea; it is about performance art — who can put on the best show in front of a biased audience.

    Nye the “science guy” (fucking blanking on his first name … Bill?) had a “debate” with that mouth full of shit Ken Ham (“Hi! Come spend a shitload of money at my Kentucky Creationism museum!”) some little while ago. All Nye achieved was to lend a patina of legitimacy to Ham. What purpose was served by that? Ham is an idiot, why would Nye stoop so low as to dignify that?

    So now we have the political “debates,” in which the performers get up in front of an audience to demonstrate how well they’ve memorized their canned responses.

    What is the point? No content will come out of these performances, and the best performance is hardly the standard by which content ought to be measured.

    Of course, the media will do nothing to provide us with any deeper insight into ideas or concepts. It will simply be, “Oh, look! KARDASHIANS! (in suits.))

    Look away from the videos, and turn off the sound. READ the texts, and look for the ideas.

    Assuming there are any …

    • Damn you nailed it. I did high school debates and those actually had substance. Debates are what the goddamn senate and house ” should ” be doing.

      • I would also add that an honest debate implies that a participant could, by virtue of presenting facts in a coherent fashion, change the mind of the other. I would not be surprised to see a Democrat change his/her mind because of a debated topic but rightwhiners always seen to begin each discussion, not to mention debates, with a long list of opinions they will never change no matter how much rhetoric and evidence confronts them.

      • A debater should know the subject well enough to be able to defend either side of the argument.

        • isn’t that the point of a debate competition? The competitor doesn’t know which side they have to argue until they get to the event?

          • I’m reminded of a scene in the movie Donovan’s Reef where the Australian naval officer told his sailor brother that he was now a Yank. The brother knew the subject at hand well enough to turn his hat around and deliver the first blow to the opposition.!

  7. The upshot of tonight’s debate: The establishment Dems all claim that Hillary ‘won’. More non-scientific polls have Bernie winning by large margins.

Comments are closed.