Queen Mary 2 sails under the GG Bridge

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:53:59 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:

>J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:08:43 -0500, Cynicor
>> <j...tru.p...in@speak.ea.sy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> Jer wrote:
>>>>> Jim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's hard to imagine the oil slick behind a beast like this. A shame
>>>>> these monsters destroy the very thing they're selling.
>>>>>
>>>> Oil slick? No, but they do leave a trail of air pollution behind. But
>>>> they are no longer allowed to dump trash overboard.
>>> So they have to do it veeeeeery discreetly, at night. :D
>>
>> There are procedures in place that are intended to make sure that
>> everything the ship left with the ship comes back with. Doing it
>> veeeeeery discreetlyl, at night, doesn't provide bags of trash to
>> match the containers that were brought on board, for example.
>
>
>Gawd, some of you people are so bleeping naive...
>http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/camp..._cruises.shtml

Interesting photo there.
That's a mud plume, not an oil slick, you naive putz.

--
Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez
said Wednesday the Hispanic
caucus chairman called her a
whore, just as Joe Biden called
Barack Obama clean and articulate.
Comics are relieved. Until the
Democrats won back Congress,
Michael Richards was out there
all by himself.

Cynicor wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Jer wrote:
>>> Jim Weaver wrote:
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's hard to imagine the oil slick behind a beast like this. A shame
>>> these monsters destroy the very thing they're selling.
>>>
>> Oil slick? No, but they do leave a trail of air pollution behind.
>> But they are no longer allowed to dump trash overboard.
>
> So they have to do it veeeeeery discreetly, at night. :D
If you watch when the ship returns to port, semi loads of trash are
unloaded. The process of unloading and loading of supplies takes hours,
and a large cruise ship swallows a surprising number of loads of
supplies for a 7 day trip, then disgorges about the same amount of stuff
at the end of the trip. I have never seen any evidence that anything
(other than an occasional passenger) is dumped at sea. There is,
however, a visible pall of diesel smoke in the air behind the ships,
which is, I believe, largely avoidable.

Jer wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:08:43 -0500, Cynicor
>> <j...tru.p...in@speak.ea.sy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> Jer wrote:
>>>>> Jim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's hard to imagine the oil slick behind a beast like this. A
>>>>> shame these monsters destroy the very thing they're selling.
>>>>>
>>>> Oil slick? No, but they do leave a trail of air pollution behind.
>>>> But they are no longer allowed to dump trash overboard.
>>> So they have to do it veeeeeery discreetly, at night. :D
>>
>> There are procedures in place that are intended to make sure that
>> everything the ship left with the ship comes back with. Doing it
>> veeeeeery discreetlyl, at night, doesn't provide bags of trash to
>> match the containers that were brought on board, for example.
>
>
> Gawd, some of you people are so bleeping naive...
> http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/camp..._cruises.shtml
>

The picture near the top of that page tells me that the information
there is suspect. The apparent pollution is typical of silt thrown up
by the passage of a deep draft vessel in shallow coastal water, and is
NOT pollution from the ship, but silt stirred up by its passage.

That there is bound to be some pollution from cruise ships, and that it
should be minimized, is obvious. Much effort goes into keeping harmful
pollution from getting into the oceans, but more could be done. Ships
used to toss edible garbage overboard, which benefited the sealife, but
this is no longer allowed because of the difficulty of keeping debris
from getting into the garbage. Treated sewage is dumped, but then your
city does the same thing into streams, and rivers, doesn't it?

We all want less pollution, but we have to exercise some reason about
what measures are really effective, and what are not.
Unless you are willing to go back to an agrarian, low energy lifestyle,
which would support, perhaps 30% of our current world population, then
it would be wise to apply technology to minimize, or even reverse,
pollution, rather than talking about taking away recreational
opportunities enjoyed by millions.

She'll be in Sydney on 20th February.

--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

"Jim Weaver" <jimbo0243@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:78WdnZwhbLeYplrYnZ2dnUVZ_tSunZ2d@comcast.com. ..
: http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405
:
:
:
: --
: My Photo Galleries
: https://home.comcast.net/~jimbo0243/
:
:

QM2 and QE2 should stop at the same time in Sydney (Australia) in very
near future. QM2 will berth in naval docks due it her size, QE2 as
usual Passenger terminal at The Rocks (opposite Sydney Opera).
Good photo opportunities folks!!!!

J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:08:43 -0500, Cynicor
> <j...tru.p...in@speak.ea.sy.net> wrote:
>
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> Jer wrote:
>>>> Jim Weaver wrote:
>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's hard to imagine the oil slick behind a beast like this. A shame
>>>> these monsters destroy the very thing they're selling.
>>>>
>>> Oil slick? No, but they do leave a trail of air pollution behind. But
>>> they are no longer allowed to dump trash overboard.
>> So they have to do it veeeeeery discreetly, at night. :D
>
> There are procedures in place that are intended to make sure that
> everything the ship left with the ship comes back with. Doing it
> veeeeeery discreetlyl, at night, doesn't provide bags of trash to
> match the containers that were brought on board, for example.

"Oooooh, the trash? We, like, totally threw it all out in Acapulco."

Ace wrote:
> On Feb 5, 7:11�am, "Jim Weaver" <jimbo0...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405
>>
>> --
>> � � � � � � � �My Photo Gallerieshttps://home.comcast.net/~jimbo0243/
>
> Nice shots. Been a long time since I have been in San Fran. Where does
> one park and walk to to take pictures like this?

There are three places you can go for good shots. As you're about to get
onto the bridge from 101 North, you can pull off into the Presidio for a
shot facing Marin. On the north side of the bridge, there's a pulloff
where you can park and walk for a vantage point. In my opinion, the best
view is to the west of the bridge on the north side, in the Golden Gate
National Recreation Area. Driving southbound, you get off 101 just
before the bridge and drive up a winding road. There's a walkway and a
dramatic view. (http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/949751#36825682)

I also suggest a drive a bit further up to Muir Beach, which has a path
to the end of a cliff, surrounded by water on three sides, that you
don't want to be on during an earthquake.

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Jer wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:08:43 -0500, Cynicor
>>> <j...tru.p...in@speak.ea.sy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>> Jer wrote:
>>>>>> Jim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's hard to imagine the oil slick behind a beast like this. A
>>>>>> shame these monsters destroy the very thing they're selling.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Oil slick? No, but they do leave a trail of air pollution behind.
>>>>> But they are no longer allowed to dump trash overboard.
>>>> So they have to do it veeeeeery discreetly, at night. :D
>>>
>>> There are procedures in place that are intended to make sure that
>>> everything the ship left with the ship comes back with. Doing it
>>> veeeeeery discreetlyl, at night, doesn't provide bags of trash to
>>> match the containers that were brought on board, for example.
>>
>>
>> Gawd, some of you people are so bleeping naive...
>> http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/camp..._cruises.shtml
>>
>
> The picture near the top of that page tells me that the information
> there is suspect. The apparent pollution is typical of silt thrown up
> by the passage of a deep draft vessel in shallow coastal water, and is
> NOT pollution from the ship, but silt stirred up by its passage.

I wouldn't know anything about the photo, it's not mine - not that it
was relevant to my comment.

>
> That there is bound to be some pollution from cruise ships, and that it
> should be minimized, is obvious. Much effort goes into keeping harmful
> pollution from getting into the oceans, but more could be done. Ships
> used to toss edible garbage overboard, which benefited the sealife, but
> this is no longer allowed because of the difficulty of keeping debris
> from getting into the garbage. Treated sewage is dumped, but then your
> city does the same thing into streams, and rivers, doesn't it?

Keeping inedible debris separate from biodegradable garbage has never
been difficult - they just don't care enough to try. Treated sewage
from cruise ships is a given because the plumbing of the ship was never
intended to keep the sewage on board.

>
> We all want less pollution, but we have to exercise some reason about
> what measures are really effective, and what are not.
> Unless you are willing to go back to an agrarian, low energy lifestyle,
> which would support, perhaps 30% of our current world population, then
> it would be wise to apply technology to minimize, or even reverse,
> pollution, rather than talking about taking away recreational
> opportunities enjoyed by millions.

The business model of the cruise industry is broken. If they cared
about the environment, the issues here would never have existed in the
first place. Ever since these issues were raised it's been a constant
struggle for improvement because the cruise industry doesn't want to be
compelled to do the right thing. People that care about the environment
try their best to do the right thing without be forced to. Anybody that
doesn't care about the environment are at the top of my shit parade.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 05:56:11 -0500, Cynicor
<j...tru.p...in@speak.ea.sy.net> wrote:

>J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:08:43 -0500, Cynicor
>> <j...tru.p...in@speak.ea.sy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> Jer wrote:
>>>>> Jim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's hard to imagine the oil slick behind a beast like this. A shame
>>>>> these monsters destroy the very thing they're selling.
>>>>>
>>>> Oil slick? No, but they do leave a trail of air pollution behind. But
>>>> they are no longer allowed to dump trash overboard.
>>> So they have to do it veeeeeery discreetly, at night. :D
>>
>> There are procedures in place that are intended to make sure that
>> everything the ship left with the ship comes back with. Doing it
>> veeeeeery discreetlyl, at night, doesn't provide bags of trash to
>> match the containers that were brought on board, for example.
>
>"Oooooh, the trash? We, like, totally threw it all out in Acapulco."

Then they need to provide a receipt from the trash service.

Jer wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Jer wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:08:43 -0500, Cynicor
>>>> <j...tru.p...in@speak.ea.sy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>> Jer wrote:
>>>>>>> Jim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's hard to imagine the oil slick behind a beast like this. A
>>>>>>> shame these monsters destroy the very thing they're selling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oil slick? No, but they do leave a trail of air pollution
>>>>>> behind. But they are no longer allowed to dump trash overboard.
>>>>> So they have to do it veeeeeery discreetly, at night. :D
>>>>
>>>> There are procedures in place that are intended to make sure that
>>>> everything the ship left with the ship comes back with. Doing it
>>>> veeeeeery discreetlyl, at night, doesn't provide bags of trash to
>>>> match the containers that were brought on board, for example.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gawd, some of you people are so bleeping naive...
>>> http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/camp..._cruises.shtml
>>>
>>
>> The picture near the top of that page tells me that the information
>> there is suspect. The apparent pollution is typical of silt thrown up
>> by the passage of a deep draft vessel in shallow coastal water, and is
>> NOT pollution from the ship, but silt stirred up by its passage.
>
> I wouldn't know anything about the photo, it's not mine - not that it
> was relevant to my comment.
>
>>
>> That there is bound to be some pollution from cruise ships, and that
>> it should be minimized, is obvious. Much effort goes into keeping
>> harmful pollution from getting into the oceans, but more could be
>> done. Ships used to toss edible garbage overboard, which benefited
>> the sealife, but this is no longer allowed because of the difficulty
>> of keeping debris from getting into the garbage. Treated sewage is
>> dumped, but then your city does the same thing into streams, and
>> rivers, doesn't it?
>
> Keeping inedible debris separate from biodegradable garbage has never
> been difficult - they just don't care enough to try. Treated sewage
> from cruise ships is a given because the plumbing of the ship was never
> intended to keep the sewage on board.
>

Separation of edible, and inedible waste (actually, inedible is
classified as 'trash', not garbage, which is edible), is a labor
intensive operation. Since labor is a large cost, most companies try to
keep a close control on it. Treated sewage is not pollution since it is
safe for human consumption, and is regularly reentered into the
terrestrial closed system. That is, some treated sewage is readded to
the city reservoir. On the space station, the waste water is recycled
endlessly.
Get used to it as it will become more prevalent as time goes by.


>>
>> We all want less pollution, but we have to exercise some reason about
>> what measures are really effective, and what are not.
>> Unless you are willing to go back to an agrarian, low energy
>> lifestyle, which would support, perhaps 30% of our current world
>> population, then it would be wise to apply technology to minimize, or
>> even reverse, pollution, rather than talking about taking away
>> recreational opportunities enjoyed by millions.
>
> The business model of the cruise industry is broken. If they cared
> about the environment, the issues here would never have existed in the
> first place. Ever since these issues were raised it's been a constant
> struggle for improvement because the cruise industry doesn't want to be
> compelled to do the right thing. People that care about the environment
> try their best to do the right thing without be forced to. Anybody that
> doesn't care about the environment are at the top of my shit parade.
>
>

Describe how the business model is broken, please. What issues do you
mean, and have you personally observed them, or are you just parroting
the words of those with some axe to grind?
I am concerned about conservation, and the environment, but I don't
think that a few cruise ships are going to destroy the whole world.