Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Seals on the “Prirazlomnaya”: has Greenpeace a cause or not?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Seals on the “Prirazlomnaya”: has Greenpeace a cause or not?

    A man working on the “Prirazlomnaya” oil drilling platform in the Arctic has posted an interesting video. Ices around the oil drilling platform were occupied by thousands of seals. And, according to the author of the video, animals “are very lazy and don’t want to ride off the ship”.
    Sergey Dolya, the author of the blog “A Page of Virtual Travelers”, emphasized that seals “are very sensitive to occupational noise and different mining operations. If mining operations are far from a seal-rookery then they go away and change migration routes in spite of human remoteness. But now seals are lounging near the platform”.
    Actually, a lot can be inferred from this nontrivial neighborhood. Users – experts and ordinary people - come out with different suggestions. Somebody says seals save themselves from polar bears; somebody thinks animals have no more the places for life in the Arctic. Scientists will find out whether these suggestions are true or false. But it is well-known seals and other animals in the Arctic are very sensitive to pollution of the environment. Arctic is one of the regions with a delicate ecosystem. Well, where is Greenpeace which some years ago attacked “Prirazlomnaya”?! It is absent because there are not any reasons for its attacks. If the platform really polluted the Arctic waters even a seal would not come to it. Not to mention hundreds of ones.
    These days all Russian commercial projects in the Arctic are submitted for approval to ecologists. The Russian Ministry of Defense is paying attention to the environmental safety of its actions in the Arctic too. Advanced manufacturing sciences were brought to an end on the “Prirazlomnaya”. They allow making oil without any damage for Northern seas. So, excuse us, but Greenpeace has not a cause for a raid on the platform.
    Undoubtedly, Greenpeace is a nice organization with good tasks. But unfortunately, during recent years it has turned into a business and has been working for big money, not for the protection of the environment. But Russia will not pay Greenpeace for PR-actions. It's best to spend money for ecological projects. Because it is an ecologically responsible state.

  • #2
    Originally posted by iaia1971 View Post
    Well, where is Greenpeace which some years ago attacked “Prirazlomnaya”?! It is absent because there are not any reasons for its attacks. If the platform really polluted the Arctic waters even a seal would not come to it. Not to mention hundreds of ones.
    These days all Russian commercial projects in the Arctic are submitted for approval to ecologists. The Russian Ministry of Defense is paying attention to the environmental safety of its actions in the Arctic too. Advanced manufacturing sciences were brought to an end on the “Prirazlomnaya”. They allow making oil without any damage for Northern seas. So, excuse us, but Greenpeace has not a cause for a raid on the platform.
    Undoubtedly, Greenpeace is a nice organization with good tasks. But unfortunately, during recent years it has turned into a business and has been working for big money, not for the protection of the environment. But Russia will not pay Greenpeace for PR-actions. It's best to spend money for ecological projects. Because it is an ecologically responsible state.
    For god's sake, nobody cares about your floating shit "Prirazwhatever".

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by JulianaTuhi View Post
      For god's sake, nobody cares about your floating shit "Prirazwhatever".
      Say whaaat. I care





      And OP, thanks for sharing (: It's good to know that the Russian government recognises Greenpeace is mainly in for commercial profits and have "boycotted" it.
      Last edited by Richa_; 06-28-2017, 02:32 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by iaia1971 View Post
        , emphasized that seals “are very sensitive to occupational noise and different mining operations. If mining operations are far from a seal-rookery then they go away and change migration routes in spite of human remoteness. But now seals are lounging near the platform”.
        You might want to read up on basic logic before you post fairly foolish attempts at rationalization using random anecdotes.

        1. Try to falsify your own claim before you post it.
        2. Substitute similar creatures/nouns/objects and see if the claim falls to pieces.
        3. Please please please please please stop praying to St. Gore and pretending that a statement by an individual is equivalent to scientific research.

        There are any number of scenarios that invalidate your rationalization.

        If someone said "Radioactive meat is bad for pets" and you observe hundreds of dogs eating radioactive meat, does that suddenly mean that radioactive meat is good for dogs? No of course it doesn't, all it means is that the dmaage it causes is not instantaneous

        The seal colony congregating around a noisy environment *might* be harmed by doing so. It just might take time before it makes them hard of hearing, or it might cause problems with reproduction or in their young. It might be destroying the colony statistically, it might only harm 1 in 4 seals but the individuals being harmed stay with the pack because the alternative is death.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3785423
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...25326X76901879
        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-1372226.html

        " If the platform really polluted the Arctic waters even a seal would not come to it. Not to mention hundreds of ones."

        Stop and think about what you're saying for 10 seconds.

        First of all seals come into polluted waters all the time. You could have saved yourself that embarrassment with a simple web search:

        https://duckduckgo.com/?q=seals+in+polluted+water

        Second of all, seals don't have to go into polluted waters to be harmed by them. If their food sources go into polluted water, then they are harmed by it. It's basic grade school biology, the top level predators end up getting doses of heavy metals and other pollution concentrated by lower level ones.

        If the platform polluted the Arctic waters with food scraps...and if the food scraps attracted schools of fish that the seals need to survive and if warming oceans are killing off other sources of those fish... there are dozen of different possibilities that would explain why the seals might gather in a place in spite of long-term harm to the colony that they are almost certainly oblivious to.

        Pollution attracting hundreds of seals is not only what one would expect, just as garbage dumps at remote villages in the Arctic attract bears, but it's *exactly* what one would expect if the oil company was intentionally dumping food scraps in the ocean in order to "prove" environmentalists concerns were unfounded.

        Your claim fails every test of reason and evidence. You're pretending that a single anecdote somehow counters all the accumulated evidence and reason.

        It doesn't. It never will. Your anecdote is no better than any random environmentalists anecdote, they're all utter crap until we have sufficient data to understand the problem.

        And finally, in logic you can jump up and down and whine and complain about what everyone else is claiming, but that will *NEVER* make your own claims true. You can vilify Greenpeace all you want, the organization could consist entirely of corrupt scheming con men from Planet X spending billions of dollars to deceive the world... that still wouldn't make your claim true.

        Take responsibility for your own implicit claim that industrial activity is good for seal health and defend it. Stop complaining about what Greenpeace does.Their failures are not your successes.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by riding_mt View Post
          The seal colony congregating around a noisy environment *might* be harmed by doing so. It just might take time before it makes them hard of hearing, or it might cause problems with reproduction or in their young. It might be destroying the colony statistically, it might only harm 1 in 4 seals but the individuals being harmed stay with the pack because the alternative is death.
          Still doesn't change the fact that research has found that some seals are prone to temporary hearing loss. Your logical reasoning is kinda like "ebola only affects those living in West Africa which is only a portion of the entire world population so why give a damn about treating them?"

          Originally posted by riding_mt View Post
          " If the platform really polluted the Arctic waters even a seal would not come to it. Not to mention hundreds of ones."

          Stop and think about what you're saying for 10 seconds.
          If you cared to read properly, you would realise OP wasn't exactly supporting that claim. He was just stating whatever bullshit reason Greenpeace may have for not helping Prirazlomnaya.

          Originally posted by riding_mt View Post
          It doesn't. It never will. Your anecdote is no better than any random environmentalists anecdote, they're all utter crap until we have sufficient data to understand the problem.
          one doesn't always need sufficient data to understand the problem. For instance, there aren't enough data to cure stage 4 cancer but the earlier stages can be mended. Likewise, there may not be tons of data supporting the hearing loss of seals from piling noise but one can at least do something about the annoying intruding factories in the Artic before everything gets worse for the wildlife ecosystem. Get the drift?

          Originally posted by riding_mt View Post
          And finally, in logic you can jump up and down and whine and complain about what everyone else is claiming, but that will *NEVER* make your own claims true. You can vilify Greenpeace all you want, the organization could consist entirely of corrupt scheming con men from Planet X spending billions of dollars to deceive the world... that still wouldn't make your claim true.

          Take responsibility for your own implicit claim that industrial activity is good for seal health and defend it. Stop complaining about what Greenpeace does.Their failures are not your successes.
          he's not whining, he's just sharing something that deserves urgent attention. Perhaps you're someone who wears a huge greenpeace ambassador badge on their forehead everywhere you go or someone who works in such industries. Anyway, one has every right to complain about huge organisations with questionable morals. Their failures are our business and if no one gives a damn about their practices, GAME OVER. Even the beautiful nature in remote parts of the world would be screwed by greedy shitheads. Humans should leave such areas tf alone and stay in their bloody lane lmao

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Richa_ View Post
            Still doesn't change the fact that research has found that some seals are prone to temporary hearing loss. Your logical reasoning is kinda like "ebola only affects those living in West Africa which is only a portion of the entire world population so why give a damn about treating them?"
            No, that's a complete misrepresentation. My argument is that just because seals are observed congregating there does not mean that harm, potentially harm that would eventually destroy the entire colony, isn't happening.

            Originally posted by Richa_ View Post
            "If you cared to read properly, you would realise OP wasn't exactly supporting that claim. He was just stating whatever bullshit reason Greenpeace may have for not helping Prirazlomnaya
            And what Greenpeace does or says has no relevance to whether there is likely harm is being done to the seal colony. I shouldn't need to repeat that point because it is logically unassailable, Greenpeace can be filled with evil members out to destroy the world. That doesn't mean the seal colony is or is not being harmed.

            You're making rather hysterical appeals to emotion. I'm making appeals to reason and evidence. If you weren't so lost in emotion you'd recognize that I'm anti-corporate and pro-conservation. Unlike the people who waste all their time and energy on emotional foolishness, rational and evidence based arguments are what tell us what is true regardless of whether we like it or not.

            The OP presented the argument that seals were found around the platform and therefore Greenpeace was wrong and there was no harm to the colony.

            It is also a fact that the overly emotional response of people on both sides of the argument is *WHY* progress can't be made. Maybe it's crucial that we disassemble the platform as soon as we can. Maybe it's possible to mitigate the effects of the platform. Maybe it's possible to modify the platform to benefit seals who are running out of sea ice, maybe build a skirt around it and suspend operations for 2 weeks during critical migration times so that the seals can rest there and then continue moving to their normal destination.

            Only a rational and responsible examination reason and the available evidence can tell us what is best for the seals. Any time someone attempts to use the seals as a platform for launching their hysterical witch hunts and demonizing of one group or another, they are guilty of actively interfering with finding a good solution that benefits the seals.

            Greenpeace members can eat puppies and babies. They can put kittens on spikes just for fun. The oil company executives can burn whale oil in their cars and urinate on poor people just for fun. What those groups do has *nothing* to do with what reason and evidence have to tell us about the fate of the seals.

            If you care about the animals than you have to hold *everyone* involved to the same standards of reason and evidence and that especially includes your own actions. Rumor, gossip, and daemonization are not productive because they can always be used against the presenter of any/every argument. It still doesn't alter the validity of their argument.

            Probably before you were born, I was calling for at least $1/gal tax on all fuel sold in the USA in order to promote conservation and developing alternative sources of energy. If that had been done, we wouldn't be having this discussion because the oil companies wouldn't have pumped out all the easy oil and started having to drill in any remote regions or far offshore just to find what little oil is left.

            I don't believe anything that Greenpeace or Exxon has to say unless they present solid reasoning and good quality evidence to support their claims.

            If you truly care about the welfare of the planet and the conscious creatures, on it, then you need to hold all involved, including yourself, to high standards of reason and evidence. Anything else is just histrionics.

            Comment

            Working...
            X