[Newsbot]

Title: Scientists lash Harper government for pulling plug on Experimental Lakes Area
Category: Science
Posted By: SteveK
Date: 2012-05-22 13:58:31
Canadian

[BeaverFever]

What, Harper cutting funding to anti-pollution research? Shocked I tell you.

In other news:
Foxes vote to defund henhouse security programs

[FieryVulpine]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

In other news:
Foxes vote to defund henhouse security programs

*Points to my username*

Naturally.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

$1:

By deliberately adding mercury to a lake and to the surrounding watershed and watching the effects for a decade, researchers found that, in fact, curtailing emissions does a world of good.

And the only way they could figure that out was by intentionally toxifying lakes and surrounding watersheds for 10 years????

So when "scientists" deliberately poison an ecosystem, it's all good because it's in the name of science.

Ok then.

[DrCaleb]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

$1:

By deliberately adding mercury to a lake and to the surrounding watershed and watching the effects for a decade, researchers found that, in fact, curtailing emissions does a world of good.

And the only way they could figure that out was by intentionally toxifying lakes and surrounding watersheds for 10 years????

So when "scientists" deliberately poison an ecosystem, it's all good because it's in the name of science.

Ok then.

To make an omlette, you have to break some eggs. To understand the human body, some dissections of the dead are nessecary. To understand pollution, you must start with an undisturbed (and not unique) ecosystem.

Now that the pollution has begun, it only makes sense to stop the observations if the concequences are something people with the purse strings don't want to know.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

$1:

By deliberately adding mercury to a lake and to the surrounding watershed and watching the effects for a decade, researchers found that, in fact, curtailing emissions does a world of good.

And the only way they could figure that out was by intentionally toxifying lakes and surrounding watersheds for 10 years????

So when "scientists" deliberately poison an ecosystem, it's all good because it's in the name of science.

Ok then.

To make an omlette, you have to break some eggs. To understand the human body, some dissections of the dead are nessecary. To understand pollution, you must start with an undisturbed (and not unique) ecosystem.

Now that the pollution has begun, it only makes sense to stop the observations if the concequences are something people with the purse strings don't want to know.

C'mon Doc. It's been 10 years of this "observing". Yer telling me that until this experiment, we had no idea that reducing mercury emissions would be a good thing? Really? Cuz I been hearing bad shit about it for a few decades now.

Next up, after years of research on the taxpayer dime, scientists conclude that the Sun does indeed, "rise" in the East.

[andyt]

We can't all be as smart as you PA. You should become an scientist, predict the outcome of experiments before they are even done and save everybody a ton of money.

I notice you didn't choose to quote this piece:

$1:

Scientists deliberately pollute all or part of a lake to measure the long-term effects on an entire complex ecosystem, allowing a huge breadth of research that could never be done by studying piecemeal samples of mud and water. Then, they let the lake return to its natural state.

[DrCaleb]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

And the only way they could figure that out was by intentionally toxifying lakes and surrounding watersheds for 10 years????

So when "scientists" deliberately poison an ecosystem, it's all good because it's in the name of science.

Ok then.

To make an omlette, you have to break some eggs. To understand the human body, some dissections of the dead are nessecary. To understand pollution, you must start with an undisturbed (and not unique) ecosystem.

Now that the pollution has begun, it only makes sense to stop the observations if the concequences are something people with the purse strings don't want to know.

C'mon Doc. It's been 10 years of this "observing". Yer telling me that until this experiment, we had no idea that reducing mercury emissions would be a good thing? Really? Cuz I been hearing bad shit about it for a few decades now.

Next up, after years of research on the taxpayer dime, scientists conclude that the Sun does indeed, "rise" in the East.

You can't tell what the effects 20 years down the road will be only 10 years on. You can only 'guess', and that isn't science.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

We can't all be as smart as you PA. You should become an scientist, predict the outcome of experiments before they are even done and save everybody a ton of money.

Yep, that's right andy, I was born yesterday and missed all the studies about mercury released in the ecosystem over the years. Do you really need the info from this experiment to explain to you that mercury is bad? Lemmie guess, you had no idea until now that it ain't a good thing.

andyt andyt:

I notice you didn't choose to quote this piece:

$1:

Scientists deliberately pollute all or part of a lake to measure the long-term effects on an entire complex ecosystem, allowing a huge breadth of research that could never be done by studying piecemeal samples of mud and water. Then, they let the lake return to its natural state.

If I were you andy, I'd be more worried about keeping track of what YOU say.

[andyt]

Jeez you're simple minded. The purpose of the experiment is to see how long mercury stays in the ecosystem once the input stops. And what the effects are long term, in more detail than "they are bad." Also it's not just about mercury, but other pollutants as well - silver for instance. Read what I quoted again, and try to open your mind:

$1:

long-term effects on an entire complex ecosystem, allowing a huge breadth of research that could never be done by studying piecemeal samples of mud and water.

This just hasn't been done before.

[sandorski]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

To make an omlette, you have to break some eggs. To understand the human body, some dissections of the dead are nessecary. To understand pollution, you must start with an undisturbed (and not unique) ecosystem.

Now that the pollution has begun, it only makes sense to stop the observations if the concequences are something people with the purse strings don't want to know.

C'mon Doc. It's been 10 years of this "observing". Yer telling me that until this experiment, we had no idea that reducing mercury emissions would be a good thing? Really? Cuz I been hearing bad shit about it for a few decades now.

Next up, after years of research on the taxpayer dime, scientists conclude that the Sun does indeed, "rise" in the East.

Denial isn't just about GW. Just a few decades ago, some would swear until they were blue in the face that Mercury and other pollutants had no affect.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

Jeez you're simple minded. The purpose of the experiment is to see how long mercury stays in the ecosystem once the input stops. And what the effects are long term, in more detail than "they are bad." Also it's not just about mercury, but other pollutants as well - silver for instance. Read what I quoted again, and try to open your mind:

$1:

long-term effects on an entire complex ecosystem, allowing a huge breadth of research that could never be done by studying piecemeal samples of mud and water.

This just hasn't been done before.

Yep, I'm as simple minded as the person that said:

$1:

researchers found that, in fact, curtailing emissions does a world of good

Well fuc-king DUH!!

[DrCaleb]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Yep, I'm as simple minded as the person that said:

$1:

researchers found that, in fact, curtailing emissions does a world of good

Well fuc-king DUH!!

An assumption, that was only verified through research. You keep saying that like scientists are stupid. Do you really thing they would waste their time on meaningless research?

Reducing emissions is a good thing, of course. But how much of a reduction is needed to be harmless to the environment? How long does a reduction take before there are positive effects? How long do the effects linger in the environment? Is there a relationship in water flow to how quickly the pollutants disperse and and how much effect they have on wildlife?

These are a few questions I thought up that could only be answered by long term research.