tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post838320451487863656..comments2024-02-01T01:41:38.306-08:00Comments on A Chemist in Langley: More thoughts on Aquifers, Shills and the Commoditization of GroundwaterBlairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14439598281608282361noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-59788700438368744762015-07-21T23:35:41.303-07:002015-07-21T23:35:41.303-07:00Blair, I have been saying this regarding water and...Blair, I have been saying this regarding water and NAFTA for years and specifically more recently in response to the Nestle issues, to mostly deaf ears of course. Water cannot be a commodity for us to keep control of it. If we lose control of the water, guess what pipelines we will be looking at next.... You got it... water to California.<br /><br />As for NAFTA, this is a real threat to our water, if we don't tread carefully. Anyone that does not think so, really needs to research this. Back when NAFTA (and the original FTA) was negotiated water was specifically excluded as long as Canada did not "turn the water into a "good"". It is a slippery WTO/GATT/NAFTA slope we would be on if we started charging "market" rates for water. It would only take one ruling against us at WTO/GATT/NAFTA to ensure our water gets sent south by the tanker load.<br /><br />Best way to protest is to drink your tap water and not the bottle variety... Not that I don't drink bottled water or agree/disagree with our premier.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14426638979190418669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-58443212931579783152015-07-16T11:37:29.045-07:002015-07-16T11:37:29.045-07:00Don't fret sport. That's my last post. Goo...Don't fret sport. That's my last post. Good game, good game.William Mondragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00641904365849407005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-34275690857701396522015-07-16T11:26:46.177-07:002015-07-16T11:26:46.177-07:00However . Blair reserves the right to insult peopl...However . Blair reserves the right to insult people under a veil of euphemism and cynicism<br />William Mondragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00641904365849407005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-16308304048274303222015-07-16T08:37:12.241-07:002015-07-16T08:37:12.241-07:00Note to commenters: The moderating platform for th...Note to commenters: The moderating platform for this blog does not allow for the modification or editing of comments. The moderator on this blog does not allow personal insults or swearing in comments and due to the limitations of the moderating platform all comments that involve personal insults or contain swearing are simply deleted. Blairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14439598281608282361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-90596155820646113762015-07-15T12:14:00.858-07:002015-07-15T12:14:00.858-07:00Blair. i never doubted your science and never said...Blair. i never doubted your science and never said you were wrong therefore i did not fail to understand anythng. I quote you "nestlé may not be the bad guy they are portrayed to be." so they "may not" be...good for you. i agree with you about the aquifers in british columbia and the mis-information that is often times propogated on social media and everyones emotions get in a bundle...here is some data for you to analyze<br /><br /><br /><br />William Mondragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00641904365849407005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-89632819740055714102015-07-15T11:15:23.560-07:002015-07-15T11:15:23.560-07:00W, like many you fail to understand the point of m...W, like many you fail to understand the point of my blog posts. I am not saying that Nestle is good or bad, I am saying that environmental decision-making should be driven by good data/information. My interest is to bring reliable data to the table so that it can be used to make informed decisions. It is a truism in the policy world that when you rely on bad data you almost always ends up making bad decisions. Too many of our environmental debates are dependent on bad or incomplete data, I like to help address that issue when I can. Blairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14439598281608282361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-87054254438488223352015-07-15T10:38:45.939-07:002015-07-15T10:38:45.939-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.William Mondragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00641904365849407005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-44208010765659621612015-07-15T10:31:12.591-07:002015-07-15T10:31:12.591-07:00Nothing nestlé does is good. If you ate nothing bu...Nothing nestlé does is good. If you ate nothing but nestlé products the rest of your life you would die faster.William Mondragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00641904365849407005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-52803253079271849342015-07-14T08:39:46.112-07:002015-07-14T08:39:46.112-07:00Peter,
Under the CSAP model I have the toughest ...Peter, <br /><br />Under the CSAP model I have the toughest level of peer review available. Every report has to pass muster and a set number of reports undergo random audits. Fail in an audit and your Membership can be withdrawn. Show me any academic job where getting your paper rejected by a journal was enough to cause you to lose your livelihood.Blairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14439598281608282361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-50866071664878572412015-07-13T18:18:40.100-07:002015-07-13T18:18:40.100-07:00And peer-review means that it has been validated a...<i>And peer-review means that it has been validated and accepted by others in the field.</i><br /><br />No it doesn't mean that at all. It means that the journal in question has accepted the paper, and a couple of people in the field have said they don't have significant issues with it.<br /><br />I present to you the journal "Homeopathy", which is published by Elsevier (a reputed publisher) and is peer reviewed. Nonetheless, pretty much every article in it is total and utter rot as science. Peer review is not even remotely a check on the scientific accuracy of a paper.<br /><br /><i>As for Greenpeace et al. They are still required to justify themselves based on verifiable facts.</i><br /><br />No they aren't. Because when people like Blair do just that, you shout them down as shills. Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14049701479076034749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-48662196325297870832015-07-13T16:14:26.383-07:002015-07-13T16:14:26.383-07:00Peter,
Your lack of reading comprehension is almo...Peter,<br /><br />Your lack of reading comprehension is almost humorous and if I hadn’t looked you up I would have guessed you were a fabrication. As you seem unable to comprehend, the CSAP Society is an arms-length body formed to perform the role of reviewing environmental certification applications under the Contaminated Sites Regulation. The organization was formed to take the weight off our overworked Ministry by allowing a group of highly-skilled professionals to make recommendations to the Ministry regarding selected types of environmental certifications. Membership is tightly regulated with members requiring 10 years of direct, documented experience in a decision-making role under the Contaminated Sites Regulation to even apply for Membership. Once you have met the practical experience hurdle you are then subjected to a series of technical and regulatory exams before being accepted. Our output is fully reviewed and we are subject to regular audits. CSAP was deemed the best of the professional reliance regimes by the Environmental Law Center of the University of Victoria report on the topic. (http://www.elc.uvic.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Professional-Reliance-and-Environmental-Regulation-in-BC_2015Feb9.pdf).<br /> <br />As for peer review, you once again betray an incredibly narrow world-view which is reflected in much of your commentary. There is an entire world of peer reviewed work outside of the academic press, which you apparently believe represents the sole form of transfer of information. My research was directed at a regulatory level and the fruits of my research were incorporated into systems implemented by Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the BC Ministry of Environment. My post-graduate work has been in the private sector where the results tend to be proprietary although my regulatory reporting is fully accessible under access to information requests if you desperately needed to get them. Since I work in a field where the release of the results can potentially cause financial harm some of the information will be redacted prior to its release.<br />Blairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14439598281608282361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-59183601883447103792015-07-13T14:51:53.017-07:002015-07-13T14:51:53.017-07:00Pathetic response Mark. Good science can only be v...Pathetic response Mark. Good science can only be validated by peer review. All good research is years old at the point of publication, if the researcher has done his work properly. And peer-review means that it has been validated and accepted by others in the field. If not then it is scientifically meaningless (remember cold-fusion) That's why you are a layman and good scientists are professionals. So your remark only demonstrates that you are totally unqualified to comment on real science and lack any credibility. As for science limiting democratic discussion: that is total nonsense and ignorant bullshit as this conversation manifestly demonstrates. But I have noticed that your comment has not one actual fact. If it wasn't for people like Harper destroying science in Canada you would have more, not less, information. As for Greenpeace et al. They are still required to justify themselves based on verifiable facts and often do. Regardless, everyone is entitled to even layman's opinion, as is yours, and should expect to be challenged. As for the water problem going away: tell that to California. I think that you are in for a shock in the next few decades. In conclusion, I regard your comment as another example of a "Denier Denier", just trying to shout down others who have more credible arguments.pwarkentin2https://www.blogger.com/profile/11908095389969223448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-45990767895196896012015-07-13T14:15:27.710-07:002015-07-13T14:15:27.710-07:00Wow! Someone is actually prepared to prove Blair&#...Wow! Someone is actually prepared to prove Blair's point that the "anti"s will resort to shouting "shill" before they even begin to look at the evidence! <br /><br />No doubt the attacker is fully credentialed, as it would be crass to attack another person without knowing the matter at hand better. <br /><br />The idea that such a matter would be discussed by peer review is absurd. By the time the papers came out the drought will be over and the issue died away. <br /><br />This idea that democratic discussions should be conducted only by experts, away from public eyes, is getting to be an increasingly stale line or argument. Voters are entitled to be given information, and are able to assess the information themselves. This squeezing out of any debate shows the anti-democratic leanings of far too many environmentalists. <br /><br />No doubt pwarkentin2 will denounce any and all reports by the likes of Greenpeace -- or in this case SumOfUs -- as being by "another group with no scientific validity".Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14049701479076034749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-83012502858315383792015-07-13T13:57:00.497-07:002015-07-13T13:57:00.497-07:00You are unpublished in any journals and therefore ...You are unpublished in any journals and therefore I find your dissertation* only an inside job nor are you a proper intellectual. Your BLOG opinions are worth the paper they are written on (i.e. worthless). I'm glad you aren't a real scientist.<br />I've seen your attacks on others opinions. I regard you as a new class of Blogger: A Denier Denier (not a typo), under the pay of corporations and governments.<br />Asd for your BCMOE affiliation: "Wow you're on an Roster with an independent self appointed group with whom anybody can apply for a membership - another group with no scientific validity.<br /><br />*Few people can find it using your reference method: references are void of any real information except the name and ISBN. Send me a copy of your"dissertation" and the name of your professor.pwarkentin2https://www.blogger.com/profile/11908095389969223448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-58770541009620342902015-07-13T12:36:16.942-07:002015-07-13T12:36:16.942-07:00Peter:
As you appear to be incapable of carrying ...Peter:<br /><br />As you appear to be incapable of carrying out even a cursory online search let me help you out:<br /><br />A link to my accepted Dissertation: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=930540 <br />A link to the PHD Geneology Project: http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=72026<br />A link to the College of Applied Biology of BC: https://www.cab-bc.org/<br />A link to the Association of the Chemical Profession of BC: http://pchembc.ca/<br /><br />Note the CAB and ACPBC confirm qualifications before certifying a professional.<br /><br />As for my relationship with the BCMOE, perhaps you can take a read here: http://csapsociety.bc.ca/ to understand how Professionals in BC relate to our provincial government.<br /><br />Blairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14439598281608282361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7952077824240445451.post-72943347682873921312015-07-13T11:51:10.285-07:002015-07-13T11:51:10.285-07:00Blair King Not buying your blogspot excuses. I loo...Blair King Not buying your blogspot excuses. I looked you up and you have no listed degrees much less a Ph.D. as a chemist. A Blogspot IS NOT a scientific publication - any idiot can create a blog. Further your claim that aquifers are not linked to water tables is a lie: "an aquifer is an underground layer of water-bearing permeable rock, rock fractures or unconsolidated materials (gravel, sand, or silt) from which groundwater can be extracted using a water well" Aquifers are BOTH "confined" and unconfined. I doubt that you have real independent scientific testing done to prove that the aquifers you are talking about are truly and completely confined. Never mind your self serving ego blog; cite some real scientific papers (i.e. NOT government or corporate reports by non-experts). I noted that you have listed yourself as working in conjuction with BC Ministry of Environment’s Director of Waste Management - Clearly that is a conflict of interest and the readers here should know that you are paid for your statements. Sincerely yours, Peter H. Warkentin, B.Sc. (Honours), M.Sc., Ph.D. (Physics, Biomaterials)pwarkentin2https://www.blogger.com/profile/11908095389969223448noreply@blogger.com