Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dave]

If Water wealth has not yet passed on this information of a better site for this facility, there must be a reason ... I will trust our elected officials to make the correct decision.

[Novabonker]

If Water wealth has not yet passed on this information of a better site for this facility, there must be a reason ... I will trust our elected officials to make the correct decision.

Funny thing Dave (except on a few matters  ) you seem like an intelligent person - I don't "trust" our elected officials to make the correct decision. A simple look at the litany of lunacy from all levels should give one a moment to pause and reflect that they all cave to those who gave them money for the party and to get in power. A broad stroke, but think about it.

[Dave]

Thanks for the guarded compliment Nova   … as I said in another post, it seems to me at some point we have to let people the majority voted for make decisions, even though they may be unpopular .  Call me naïve if you like but what’s the point of having elections if all we do for these people is put up roadblocks?  Why would anyone want to be involved in the electoral process if that was the case?
Back on topic, if you were passionate about this issue and had found a viable alternate site for this facility, wouldn’t you do your best to let the proponents in on it, asap?
I am looking forward to Aevita's response, and the gnashing of teeth that is sure to come.

[chris gadsden]

Thanks for the guarded compliment Nova   … as I said in another post, it seems to me at some point we have to let people the majority voted for make decisions, even though they may be unpopular .  Call me naïve if you like but what’s the point of having elections if all we do for these people is put up roadblocks?  Why would anyone want to be involved in the electoral process if that was the case?
Back on topic, if you were passionate about this issue and had found a viable alternate site for this facility, wouldn’t you do your best to let the proponents in on it, asap?
I am looking forward to Aevita's response, and the gnashing of teeth that is sure to come.

Of course this is what those in power bank on, they just hope there is enought people will just sit back
and let them do what they want to do without stirring up a fuss. This days its all about money and the heck with the environment.
Remember Bill C - 38?

[islanddude]

It is all to do with money today. They are bought and paid for. Time to smell the roses.
 That doesn't mean that you can't speak your mind about what is going on.
Did I forget about Bill C51.

[shuswapsteve]

Yep, recycling toxic materials safely so they don't adversely impact the environment is "all about the money". Good grief.

[Novabonker]

Yep, recycling toxic materials safely so they don't adversely impact the environment is "all about the money". Good grief.

Recycled responsibly but not on a flood plain. Since you're the king of research, do some on governments of most stripes that , once elected, don't reward those that got them elected. Partisan politics is a simple, plain fact. To believe otherwise is rather naive. (Evian spelled backwards )

[shuswapsteve]

Recycled responsibly but not on a flood plain. Since you're the king of research, do some on governments of most stripes that , once elected, don't reward those that got them elected. Partisan politics is a simple, plain fact. To believe otherwise is rather naive. (Evian spelled backwards )

Since you are not "the king of research" you should start sometime otherwise you will continue to be naïve. Thanks for confirming my previous criticism about opponents not really interested in knowing more about the proposal.

[chris gadsden]

Since you are not "the king of research" you should start sometime otherwise you will continue to be naïve. Thanks for confirming my previous criticism about opponents not really interested in knowing more about the proposal.

What are your comments on Bill C - 38, I know it was passed a couple of years ago but was it a good Bill?

[Novabonker]

Since you are not "the king of research" you should start sometime otherwise you will continue to be naïve. Thanks for confirming my previous criticism about opponents not really interested in knowing more about the proposal.

Snarky today aren't we? That was a compliment, but obviously your thong must be riding a bit high because all I said was don't place hazardous material site on a flood plain. Simple. Not difficult to understand. And governments reward those that put them in power. Absolutely undeniable. Try silk boxers, they might not irritate you as much. 

P.S.- Good to see you still love me Steve!

[shuswapsteve]

Snarky today aren't we? That was a compliment, but obviously your thong must be riding a bit high because all I said was don't place hazardous material site on a flood plain. Simple. Not difficult to understand. And governments reward those that put them in power. Absolutely undeniable. Try silk boxers, they might not irritate you as much. 

P.S.- Good to see you still love me Steve!

According to Aevitas, hazardous materials are planned to be stored above the high water mark. Also, if and when high water were to come there would likely be some time for the company to move materials off the site if needed as I doubt the water would hit like a tsunami with no warning. But like I said before, people like you have your mind made up already and are not willing to try and understand the whole proposal. 

Meanwhile, these materials are already making their way into our water and air if they are not recycled properly. Are you implying that Aevitas is getting preferential treatment from the provincial government due to campaign donations?  Again, thanks for confirming my criticism of critics who are going to use this consultation time to bash the company rather than find out more about the proposal.

Still have that underwear fetish?  Go fishing instead.

[shuswapsteve]

What are your comments on Bill C - 38, I know it was passed a couple of years ago but was it a good Bill?

Not a big fan of Harper or Bill C-38, but I don't see the relevance with this issue, especially with the need for this type of facility to prevent this hazardous material from being put into landfills and illegal dumping grounds.  I noticed the FB comment from Water Wealth already, but like Dave already mentioned, did this "organization" (never heard of them before) pass this along to Aevitas?  According to Mr. Angelo there are many other sites to put this facility, but to date only one critic of this facility (Water Wealth) has stepped up, went on record and endorsed another suitable location.  Why is that Chris?  Even then we don't know if that site mentioned by Water Wealth is indeed suitable as I am sure there are many other factors that need to be considered.

I thought recycling hazardous materials was important to environmentalists.  You would think that they would all be stumbling over each other coming up with solutions because they said this facility was important.  But really, the truth is that nobody in Chilliwack or the Lower Mainland really wants it anywhere in the area and wishes the company would just go away (i.e. Not In My Back Yard) - perhaps out of the province.  They are all thinking it, but just don't want to say it.  Some critics are even fearful of this material being transported on the highway and are already predicting accidents.  In my opinion, it's not about it's location near the river anymore.

[Novabonker]

According to Aevitas, hazardous materials are planned to be stored above the high water mark. Also, if and when high water were to come there would likely be some time for the company to move materials off the site if needed as I doubt the water would hit like a tsunami with no warning. But like I said before, people like you have your mind made up already and are not willing to try and understand the whole proposal. 

Meanwhile, these materials are already making their way into our water and air if they are not recycled properly. Are you implying that Aevitas is getting preferential treatment from the provincial government due to campaign donations?  Again, thanks for confirming my criticism of critics who are going to use this consultation time to bash the company rather than find out more about the proposal.

Still have that underwear fetish?  Go fishing instead.

I hardly consider the Vancouver Sun as a left wing rag, but even they've acknowledged that political donations get those who donate a leg up

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Corporations+fill+Liberal+coffers/8280000/story.html

You can paint it with a brush, a roller or a spray gun but it still doesn't make sense to me and quite a few others to site a facility in the proposed area. I don't oppose the operation at all, I just oppose the location. An example of why not is our long overdue earthquake or any other occurrence that would compromise the "storage". 

[Novabonker]

Thanks for the guarded compliment Nova   … as I said in another post, it seems to me at some point we have to let people the majority voted for make decisions, even though they may be unpopular .  Call me naïve if you like but what’s the point of having elections if all we do for these people is put up roadblocks?  Why would anyone want to be involved in the electoral process if that was the case?
Back on topic, if you were passionate about this issue and had found a viable alternate site for this facility, wouldn’t you do your best to let the proponents in on it, asap?
I am looking forward to Aevita's response, and the gnashing of teeth that is sure to come.

If and when politicians don't break their word and keep the promises and not bald faced lie to the electorate, that's when I'll sit back.I wonder when the dividends from the"prosperity fund" will start to lighten up my tax load? How long before the LNG plants start up in this "golden era"? When do we get the details about the(secret) free trade deal with China? When do the (another lie) omnibus bills stop?  The Burrard bike lane that the city crews installed overnight after the late night"vote"? All levels (of deceit) seem to economize with truth.
Sorry Dave, but take a look at all levels of government and all you see is a winner decided by who can tell the best lies. I can't rest on my laurels when an employee lies their face off to me.
Now if they would simply sign an agreement that if they fail to keep the electioneering promises they would resign in 30 days.... Until then, I'm going to squawk loud, long and hard.

Back on topic- not on a flood plain.

[shuswapsteve]

I hardly consider the Vancouver Sun as a left wing rag, but even they've acknowledged that political donations get those who donate a leg up

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Corporations+fill+Liberal+coffers/8280000/story.html

You can paint it with a brush, a roller or a spray gun but it still doesn't make sense to me and quite a few others to site a facility in the proposed area. I don't oppose the operation at all, I just oppose the location. An example of why not is our long overdue earthquake or any other occurrence that would compromise the "storage".

As expected, the question about Aevitas getting preferential treatment wasn't answered. I guess it makes you and other environmentalists feel real powerful when you can try to manufacture as much dirt as you can against a company who is actually doing the environment a huge favour by getting these hazardous materials out of landfills.  You say you don't oppose the operation, only the site, but you still find the opportunity to smear the company.  Bravo (slow clap and a standing ovation is in order for that one.....).

Really.....if money was being handed over from the company to the BC Liberals then why is the company being told to hold more consultations?  This could be another example of a proposal that actually helps the environment, but is actually killed by environmentalists.  Go figure.  The real funny thing is that we will all come full circle a year or two from now and the same environmentalists fighting this will be complaining that hazardous materials are going into our water and air and that government and industry needs to do something about it.  Like a classic Groundhog Day sequel.

An example of why not is our long overdue earthquake or any other occurrence that would compromise the "storage"?  Well, I am not an expert in seismology, but I highly suspect that if the facility was located a kilometer or more from the Fraser River it wouldn't be any less susceptible to damage from a major earthquake. As I said before, it's not about it's location near the river anymore.  If another location is found then another reason or more will be brought up to kill the facility.  While environmentalists are thinking of all these things that can go wrong with the facility these toxic materials will continue to be put into landfills or dumped off the side of the road.  Brilliant strategy.  Environmentalism is so progressive.  Thanks for confirming that also.