Epic and Iconic One Wasatch transit plans revealed - Page 5

AlpineZone

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 104
  1. #41
    It looks like the report is based solely on released toxins in 2016?

    I don't think that's enough information to really know how toxic a state is. Colorado may not be nearly as active as Utah right now with mining but there are plenty of old abandoned mines all over the state that are most likely still very toxic. I know southern Utah has all kinds of toxic sites from all of the uranium mining that went on in the 50's/60's. They are still trying to clean up those messes.

    Just don't move next to a superfund site and you should be fine. We are all gonna die regardless. I'd rather live where I want to be doing the things I love. As far as money goes, I get it, it's a necessary evil but you ain't taking it with you.


  2. #42

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Barto, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,296
    Just to be clear, the EPA TRI tracks total onsite & offsite disposal and releases from certain industrial activities (i.e., Petro refining, chemical production, mining operations, petroleum refining, etc.) that deal with a specific list of chemical compounds (metals, petroleum compounds, cancer causes chemicals, etc.). It does not track superfund sites (and the chemicals that were released at them), accidental environmental releases, or abandon mine discharges, etc. It is also not a good indicator of general environmental quality for a specific state, nor was it intended to be for that purpose (Forbes just presented it that way). For example, a state that has a large amount of active mining for metals is going to show up very high on the TRI list. That explains why places like Nevada, Alaska and Utah are all high on the list.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by mbedle View Post
    Just to be clear, the EPA TRI tracks total onsite & offsite disposal and releases from certain industrial activities (i.e., Petro refining, chemical production, mining operations, petroleum refining, etc.) that deal with a specific list of chemical compounds (metals, petroleum compounds, cancer causes chemicals, etc.). It does not track superfund sites (and the chemicals that were released at them), accidental environmental releases, or abandon mine discharges, etc. It is also not a good indicator of general environmental quality for a specific state, nor was it intended to be for that purpose (Forbes just presented it that way). For example, a state that has a large amount of active mining for metals is going to show up very high on the TRI list. That explains why places like Nevada, Alaska and Utah are all high on the list.
    Exactly what I was thinking too. Thanks for explaining further and better than I can articulate!

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Barto, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,296
    I do environmental cleanup work, so the BS just kind of flows out of mouth... LOL

  5. #45
    thetrailboss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NEK by Birth; Alta/Snowbird by Choice
    Posts
    27,287
    Live, Ski, or Die!


  6. #46
    thetrailboss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NEK by Birth; Alta/Snowbird by Choice
    Posts
    27,287
    https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/lette...i-passes-ruin/


    Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
    Live, Ski, or Die!


  7. #47
    Typical fake news, that fails to mention any facts to back up “Their Opinion”

  8. #48
    thetrailboss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NEK by Birth; Alta/Snowbird by Choice
    Posts
    27,287
    Quote Originally Posted by asnowmobiler View Post
    Typical fake news, that fails to mention any facts to back up “Their Opinion”
    Well, it is a letter to the editor....so it is opinion.

    And spent the weekend in Aspen Snowmass. All the folks I spoke to that worked at the resorts said that this year was REALLY busy. And it is not because it snowed...it's because of a certain new pass product. Seeing that Alterra, and most of their partner resorts, are privately owned, there will likely not be any hard data made public. I wonder if things will quiet down next season when the novelty wears off.

    I-70 was busy, but not too bad tonight.
    Live, Ski, or Die!


  9. #49
    I didn’t Realize it was just a letter but it still lacks facts. That being said, I’m sure the passes had something to do with the larger crowds but I also think the great conditions had more to do with it . IMO ��

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by asnowmobiler View Post
    I didn’t Realize it was just a letter but it still lacks facts. That being said, I’m sure the passes had something to do with the larger crowds but I also think the great conditions had more to do with it . IMO ��
    Precisely why more than 1 year of data is needed to really know...

    Overall I'm quite interested to see skier visits nationally this year once those numbers are available as well. Based on all the anecdotal talk of how crowded it is everywhere, we should be seeing some good numbers one would think...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:31 PM.