Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > General Discussion
Home Forums Gallery Webcams Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Register FAQDonate Members List Today's Posts

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 09-02-2024, 09:33 AM   #24
The Real BigGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,310
Thanks: 125
Thanked 473 Times in 288 Posts
Default

Thank you, that worked!

After reading it, I have to disagree with the gov. I think it is the responsibility of the state to warn people. It then falls to the individuals to do their research and determine if the risk is acceptable to them. If the state has evidence of a “toxic” bloom and fails to notify the potentially impacted population I believe that puts them at liability for negative impacts that arise.

However, I have to agree with his concern for the use of the word “toxic.” It is one of the most overused & often misused words out there. I spent 40 years in the hazardous waste cleanup & disposal business and always had issues with environmentalists use of “toxic” for every chemical they came across. Yes, a lot of the waste we dealt with were dangerous but, I wouldn’t call them toxic unless one consumed a lot more than was humanly possible.

Dangerous puts people on warning, toxic scares the crap out of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
The Real BigGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.19600 seconds