• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Dakota Access Pipeline

Skeptic Ginger said:
No. But if you had evidence that pipeline leaks were incredibly rare on average, that might help your case.

More Than 300 A Year: New Analysis Shows Devastating Impact of Pipeline Spills

I'm sure you can find a right wing site that refutes this data?
Click to expand...

Don't have to, because the claim I was addressing is much, much more specific and universal:
Silly Green Monkey said:
The pipeline eventually WOULD leak and pollute the water.
Click to expand...

Build it, run it for a month, shut it down and then remove it - that would be enough to falsify the statement. Alternatively, reroute the water (a pipe would be handy) so that even if there was a spill, there is no way to get to the water.

Hard core predictions about the future are like that. We can get to "pretty likely" but certainty, as expressed in that claim, is right out.

Let's say we were serious about estimating risk instead of just being knee-jerk pro-indian. The number of leaks per year (the basis for the article you cited - thanks) wouldn't do it. Why? Because we are interested in the probability of a leak in the pipeline close enough to the lake to matter. So, for a start, we'd want to look at "leaks per mile of pipe" or something similar and see how many miles are within the "harm zone." Then, we'd probably want to look at the type of pipe and the environmental conditions. Maybe add in the maintenance schedule and possible mitigations put in place - this is likely to be relevant because newer designs may incorporate lessons learned.

I imagine all of the stuff I mentioned (and more) is in the environmental impact statement filed for this pipeline. I am not qualified to analyze such a thing, but certainly would neither claim the pipe must leak, nor it cannot leak.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
The difference comes in when we look for a compromise. What would it take to avoid going directly through it? For a memorial, even Arlington, the answer is a few miles of reroute. I don't think that fits the pipeline situation very well.
Click to expand...

Well for a lot of people the site 9/11 is far more sacred than that.

In fact so sacred that when somebody wanted to built a Mosque less than 1 miles from it people exploded in anger.

Now try to imagine if somebody wanted to build a walmart ON it.

As for the reroute the tribe note that because it threatened the water of a city , it was rerouted on their territory, threatenning their water source.
 
Aepervius said:
Well for a lot of people the site 9/11 is far more sacred than that.

In fact so sacred that when somebody wanted to built a Mosque less than 1 miles from it people exploded in anger.

Now try to imagine if somebody wanted to build a walmart ON it.
Click to expand...

Didn't they come to a compromise in the end though? I'm not positive, but I think the mosque got built somewhere or other.

Aepervius said:
As for the reroute the tribe note that because it threatened the water of a city , it was rerouted on their territory, threatenning their water source.
Click to expand...

The "sacred lands" bit is harder to address than a pragmatic solution for the water supply. You can replace water with another source, even if you have to truck it in. Not so much for woo-enabled land.

I'd seriously like someone to step up and confront this on atheist/skeptical grounds.

"Your beliefs are crap and cannot be used as a cudgel against immanent domain."

Frankly, we made the original mistake by acknowledging the existence of "sacred land" in the first place, way back in history. It's nice for tourism but a crazy way to make policy.
 
Nakani said:
I think Native Americans use the word like black people call themselves the "N-word", I don't feel it is appropriate for others.

It was a mistake made by some guy lost at sea, that was never deemed important enough to correct. It bothers me because It says their culture/identity is not important enough to acknowledge. Go to Europe and call everyone "Americans" because they look similar and you are going to have a problem. Just like Germany, Scotland, England, etc, every tribe has it's own unique history and culture. It would be nice if we could acknowledge this by using the proper names instead of just saying, "Indians". I cringe every time I hear a white person say that word because it just demonstrates indifference and a lack of respect.

But I digress, this is off topic.
Click to expand...

I must admit - you do make me laugh. :D
 
The Dakota Access Pipeline is more than 1,100 miles long. It's going to leak right where it passes under the Missouri River.
 
No one is going to castigate me up for mixing up "imminent" and "eminent"?

What's this forum coming to when such errors are allowed to slide? I demand the proper level of pedantry and outrage!
 
William Parcher said:
The Dakota Access Pipeline is more than 1,100 miles long. It's going to leak right where it passes under the Missouri River.
Click to expand...

I doubt a) it will of necessity leak under the Missouri River and b)it will not leak anywhere else. You may note that a) is not a guarantee and b) is one.
( remember the first two words of the first sentence before commenting)!!!!
 
We should pour oil on all the so-called "sacred" sites, set it on fire, and toss the Indians on the pile, head first. And make 'em pay for the matches. Then we oughta...

Oops, sorry. Got carried away a bit. I was just practicing my other job as a Trump speechwriter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom