Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

GB allowed to flood all to save the endangered "Depressed River Mussel"

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by lacrimoniousfinale
 


Got to remember with these Colonial types is that they don't get subtlety or satire, or sarcasm, or irony... You have to keep it simple otherwise they go and get confused




(and aware of the point I have made - I will insert a disclaimer here for the inevitable flames I will get, to point out the above was a joke and satire, not to be taken seriously, as was my comment about porridge munchers, old Scottish crones etc etc...)




posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 



You'd know, if you bothered to look Dan (which we know you haven't, because you never do), that Shellfish are particularly sensitive to pollution, hence why they are endangered and not because they have some sort of suicidal outlook on life. Without human involvement, they wouldn't be on the endangered list.



no arguement on the william wallace?
other then that
i was agreeing with you and starring your posts
but you didn't look ...you never do
edit on 23-2-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Danbones
Ever since the brits musselled in and extincted William Wallace thames darned scots have been depressed....


That made no sense, Dan

Did you get the Family Guy Manatees to write that sentence for you with their idea balls?



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


See below
(edit: or above, even.....duh..)

Were you? That would be a first, Dan - can't say we usually agree on things, so this is a momentous occasion! But it wasn't really clear what side of the fence you were on. Besides, I am trying to keep this light-hearted - sorry if this comes across as something else
edit on 23/2/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


thank you for the arguement stu

I live on a hill looking down and over the water at the sun set
but flood forsight seems lost on people these days

and yes i agree that we do disagree
doesn't mean I don't think you are smart brave and an honest poster
edit on 23-2-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


I get that finding somewhere to build in the UK, with its dense population and tree-huggers around every wooded copse, that we will inevitably have to build near a river, but they could mitigate the damage done by flooding by raising the houses, making them waterproof etc. You are right, there is no flooding awareness.

Developers will build the same types of houses 20 ft from a river as they will 500ft above sea level. Its bloody stupid - what's worse, is that people will buy these houses and when it floods, blame the Government, even though EA maps which are freely available show flooding risks for the whole country.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Danbones
and yes i agree that we do disagree
doesn't mean I don't think you are smart brave and an honest poster


The world would be a dull place if we all agreed on everything


The best we can hope for is everyone to be honest and I can't say I've thought of you as dishonest either...Daft, perhaps, but not dishonest


(again, I have my rib-poking stick out here)



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   

tencap77
ATS- Deny Ignorance - the organ warmer says a U.S. company should BOW DOWN to some BRITISH LAW ! REALLY! Hey, they're business address is in Arizona, that's in the USA. The only thing that can't be denied is this, when your dealing with the English, you should deny arrogance, that's all they bring to the table. To quote my wee Scots Mother-in-law, the only thing the English are good for is fertilizing your fields.

I bet you're the life and soul at parties



On topic: The folk who bought those houses on the Levels knew the area is/was a flood plain before they bought them, it isn't a secret.

Those properties wouldn't be cheap either.

You'd think that if a person has been financially astute and successful enough to afford themselves a nice house, they'd have had reservations about sinking most of it into a house built on notorious flood plains. Why did they buy them? It seems to me that common sense really isn't so common.

Their choice, they took a risk and lost. They all ought to be blaming themselves for their losses instead of others.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by doobydoll
 


Quite - The EA has apparently opposed many developments because they had a high risk of flooding, but local authorities approved them anyway without any redesign, yet those same Authorities are the ones who turn around and blame the EA/Government when they, inevitably, get flooded.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Beat me to it. Good story though. The ONLY reason, or should I say excuse, was saving money. All the running waterways(rivers and ditches included) have been left to clog up with natural fill leading to the slowing and sometimes downright blocking of getting excess water of the land. Right from the farmers being allowed to let their obligations go to keep their ditches clear to the river authorities not clearing and dredging the small running streams to the larger rivers. All of these water courses are integral to one another. The super propaganda of the flood defences has hidden the real cause. The Mississippi, with it's levees, is a very stark lesson that flood barriers only move the problem to the next town downstream. The ONLY way is to have a continuous program of dredging to clear as fast as possible the excess water. This of cause will not solve every situation, there will always be some abnormal rain falls.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   

stumason
reply to post by Danbones
 


I get that finding somewhere to build in the UK, with its dense population and tree-huggers around every wooded copse, that we will inevitably have to build near a river, but they could mitigate the damage done by flooding by raising the houses, making them waterproof etc. You are right, there is no flooding awareness.

Developers will build the same types of houses 20 ft from a river as they will 500ft above sea level. Its bloody stupid - what's worse, is that people will buy these houses and when it floods, blame the Government, even though EA maps which are freely available show flooding risks for the whole country.


While it would stop homes from being flooded if they were built on stilts or had protective levies, there would still be the problem of getting to and from those homes. The additional height would also raise the cost of construction.
Even now, they only build homes with a single layer of bricks, not double lined layers that they used to.

The councils should not be granting planning permission for homes in flood plains. It's that simple. But there is the "housing shortage" that we have had for the past 30 years. They need to build 1200,000+ homes each year just to create homes for those displaced by immigration.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   

SummerLightning
I'm afraid the halfwits are those in government and the rightwing press who believe that conservation projects and the failure to dredge rivers are the reason for the floods. They're not: the wettest winter on record and living on flood plains (there's a clue in the name) are.

There are many ways in which we can mitigate flooding and help wildlife and the environment. Dredging is not one of them, and politicians and journalists are the last people we should be listening to here.


Except that drudging provides for a faster running current which is capable of handling more volume and, by definition, mitigating flooding. This is plain common sense and science and is indisputable.

Rivers clogging with silt will spread out more even when not faced with additional volume. Geologic principle 101.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   

stormcell
While it would stop homes from being flooded if they were built on stilts or had protective levies, there would still be the problem of getting to and from those homes.


You don't just build houses to withstand the flooding, but the whole infrastructure - raise the roads, put in drainage so the water runs off etc. The Dutch do it very well


stormcell
The additional height would also raise the cost of construction.


Given the high price of homes already, the extra work required would be negligible and also offset by reduced premiums. Most of the price you pay for a home is for the land - the actual building is relatively cheap to construct.


stormcell
Even now, they only build homes with a single layer of bricks, not double lined layers that they used to.


I don't understand why the Government doesn't mandate better construction regulations, not just for flooding, but as you state insulation and even renewable power gen, with windmills/solar panels etc.


stormcell
The councils should not be granting planning permission for homes in flood plains. It's that simple. But there is the "housing shortage" that we have had for the past 30 years. They need to build 1200,000+ homes each year just to create homes for those displaced by immigration.


There is nothing intrinsically wrong with building on flood plains or by rivers, just so long as you plan for it and not just slap down 500 new Barrett clone homes which are the same as you find in developments at no risk.


bbracken677

SummerLightning
I'm afraid the halfwits are those in government and the rightwing press who believe that conservation projects and the failure to dredge rivers are the reason for the floods. They're not: the wettest winter on record and living on flood plains (there's a clue in the name) are.

There are many ways in which we can mitigate flooding and help wildlife and the environment. Dredging is not one of them, and politicians and journalists are the last people we should be listening to here.


Except that drudging provides for a faster running current which is capable of handling more volume and, by definition, mitigating flooding. This is plain common sense and science and is indisputable.

Rivers clogging with silt will spread out more even when not faced with additional volume. Geologic principle 101.


Logically, one cannot disagree with what you're saying, but it seems the general consensus among the scientific community is that given the exceptional amounts of rain, dredging would have not made a whole lot of difference - don't forget, we have the benefit of hindsight so it isn't entirely fair to judge the EA on it's actions based on advice given previously. No one could have predicted the sheer volume of water dumped on us over this Winter.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:43 AM
link   
I find it funny when humans erect what we desire to be PERMANENT structures on a LIVING planet, and then get our panties in a twist when the planet does normal thing's it has ALWAYS done.

Go on google maps and follow any large river in sparsely populated areas such as east Russia or south America. You will notice thousands of prior paths for the river that it now shortcuts or meanders elsewhere. The Smartest thing to do would be to NOT BUILD directly next to the river itself!! Rivers change, they wander, they are alive and trying to tame them just costs BILLIONS in losses and ludicrous projects like paving their floors!! Instead we should take advantage of the rich floodplains for farming and build the metropolitan areas on the nearest high ground.

Much of the upper Mississippi has finally figured this out.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution