Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (89086)	8/25/2002 4:51:13 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116753

With mining buildings in Canada, usually always in forested areas, it was law that they maintained a water tower, and cleared for x 100 feet from the nearest building. Many communities in the far north of Ontario, like Pickle Lake and Red Lake have fire breaks cut around the towns. I see where forest conservationists are going with trying to preserve every iddy bit of natural growth, but there are times when the slavish naturalism works against you and just perpetuates a hazard that will guarantee more disaster. This is a multi headed coin. One one side nature has been burning will-nilly for years and it helps rejuvenate forests. It's her way of getting things replanted and starting all over. If forest fires did not burn we would never see Jack Pine stands as the cones will only open at 135 degrees farenheit. (Ever wonder why you see those uniform Jack Pine parks? Now you know why. They are all the same age as the last big drought and fire.) Burning is not cutting, and there is more fecundity in a partially burnt forest than there is in a cut one. So the Australians are leaning toward letting things burn a bit. On the other hand, man has cut so much that he can ill afford the waste of letting nature go one better, and burn him and her out of house and home. Gotta draw the line somewhere, so if we put the State legislature right smack dab in the middle of some choked up piece of never-thinned forest the line would be drawn reasonably and right quick after the first forest fire. EC<:-}

To: long-gone who wrote (89086)	8/25/2002 10:17:40 PM
From: Jamey	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116753

Gold_tutor, I admit you have a first hand experience and I respect your opinion, even though it could be short sighted. Looking at this problem from a macro-world wide stance, I believe all people should be discouraged from building in woods and next to National parks simply because they are aware of the chance that a fire will burn them out. Cities near forests are a different story as there should be fire lines cut for protection from forest fires. Along that line, look at what has happened to the western states from population explosions. Also the swamplands in Florida are in imminent danger from filling in due to population explosions. We could upset our whole climate and much wildlife from cutting and filling wildlife areas. South America is a good example where the rain forests are being depleted, thus upsetting the balance of nature that puts our land at extreme risk, including the people who don't look at long term effects but only see this issue from a micro view, not caring for our natural resources. Bush is one of those people who places big business ahead of taking care of our planet. I was told that we have ruined our source of clean drinking water from streams and rivers. Canada has managed to keep clean water but they could be next by dammming up the rivers, killing off trout who must navigate back to their place of birth to renew life. The world population will probably double over the next generation. We are running out of room. Man is the filthiest creature on the earth from an ecological standpoint. Santi