Bad dams

[alanjh595]

That is an excellent link to debunk all of the desmog rhetoric. They are doing very well and have lots of photos to prove the health of that lake and the tourism industry.

Good job Jag.

Take a look at the size of Quesnel Lake. It's the deepest lake in BC. Yes it will recover, and tourism will recover, but damage to the ecosystem did occur.
WADR, in your opinion does the fact that the damage is not permanent render criticism of the negligence causing said failure as rhetoric?

What PERMANENT damage? Any proof? How about some evidence? Please show the links by which you base your personal opinion upon.

[The Green Barbarian]

Not sure about Mt Polley being a disaster, eh?

Actually, I wasn't sure, but now I am sure. Calling it a "disaster" is stupid and disingenuous.

I suspect you've never been anywhere near that area, .

You would suspect wrong.

[maryjane48]

Again defending bad choices by clark is not very cool

[Cactusflower]

This is just one of many links I found when I googled "aftermath of Mt Polley tailings pond breach":
https://miningwatch.ca/news/2017/5/24/b ... h-columbia

[alanjh595]

This is just one of many links I found when I googled "aftermath of Mt Polley tailings pond breach":
https://miningwatch.ca/news/2017/5/24/b ... h-columbia

Which speaks of human rights not fish rights. OFF the track again.....

A Breach of Human Rights - The Human Rights Impact of the Mount Polley Mines Disaster, British Columbia

By the way, this was written by a group in Ottawa, Ontario. I bet that not one of them have actually been to BC. just another bunch of opinionated writers with their hands out looking for donations, so that they continue to reside in Mom's basement with free internet access.

Here was my 1st clue:

[maryjane48]

Disgusting for anyone to defend the poor practices in terms of dams in bc by bclib party

[Boda]

The location of the reservoir was less than ideal, and that was approved by the NDP.

This was brought up in another thread and discussed in detail, I just don't recall where at the moment.

That may or may not be correct sir, but the undeniable facts are that the damn didn't burst under the original design capacity permit parameters. The damn burst after the BCLibs eliminated inspectors and claimed owners were capable of self regulation. Upon that conclusion the tailings pond was deemed to be capable of holding more. Then it burst.
Let's see you squirm your way out of that

Edited for spelling

[The Green Barbarian]

Again defending bad choices by clark is not very cool

I agree. Anyone defending his decision to do a back-room deal with the BCTF in 1998 is an imbecile.

[The Green Barbarian]

Let's see you squirm your at out of that

I don't think anyone needs to squirm out of anything. There was a dam burst. Could it have been prevented with more regulations, something all leftists love? Maybe. Would it have happened if the NDP were in power? Probably.

[Cactusflower]

This is just one of many links I found when I googled "aftermath of Mt Polley tailings pond breach":
https://miningwatch.ca/news/2017/5/24/b ... h-columbia

Which speaks of human rights not fish rights. OFF the track again.....

A Breach of Human Rights - The Human Rights Impact of the Mount Polley Mines Disaster, British Columbia

By the way, this was written by a group in Ottawa, Ontario. I bet that not one of them have actually been to BC. just another bunch of opinionated writers with their hands out looking for donations, so that they continue to reside in Mom's basement with free internet access.

Here was my 1st clue:

Capture.JPG

How about this link? You must have a long attention span to read this one. If you aren't able to stay until the end, there are plenty more, shorter versions, but they basically all agree:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pol ... e_disaster

[Boda]

What PERMANENT damage? Any proof? How about some evidence? Please show the links by which you base your personal opinion upon.

What PERMANENT damage are you referring to?
I made no references to permanent damage.
Not too good a links but the one I did provide a few posts back was from Wikipedia.

Edited for spelling.

[The Green Barbarian]

What PERMANENT damage are you referring to?
I made no references to permanent damage.
.

Then how can anyone in their right mind, who isn't selling a diseased anti-economy agenda, call Mt Polley a "disaster"? You'd have to be a complete lunatic zealot to even contemplate such prevarication and disingenous behavior.

[Boda]

Then how can anyone in their right mind, who isn't selling a diseased anti-economy agenda, call Mt Polley a "disaster"? You'd have to be a complete lunatic zealot to even contemplate such prevarication and disingenous behavior.

No sure. I made no references to disasters either.
But that's certainly a very vitriolic way to ask a question.
You could have just comprehended what I posted instead.

[Cactusflower]

What PERMANENT damage are you referring to?
I made no references to permanent damage.
.

Then how can anyone in their right mind, who isn't selling a diseased anti-economy agenda, call Mt Polley a "disaster"? You'd have to be a complete lunatic zealot to even contemplate such prevarication and disingenous behavior.

Here it is again in case you missed it the first (and second) time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pol ... e_disaster

[The Green Barbarian]

Here it is again in case you missed it the first (and second) time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pol ... e_disaster

A link to Wikipedia? Oh my goodness...just ridiculous. You just proved my point, again. Mt. Polley is not a disaster. And calling it that is stupid and disingenuous.