There was a post running yesterday about surfers and marine minerals...can't seem to find it...?

Lozz.

[tweak]thread title changed - srl[/tweak]

http://www.aditnow.co.uk/community/viewtopic.aspx?p=117992#msg117992 

Those who enjoy conspiracy theories will assume 'the man' is now censoring this site.

Whilst the mining aspect of the thread was interesting, the ranting against surfers / vegetrians / hippies was just dickery.

Good riddance to it. It was hardly edifying.

Good riddance to it. It was hardly edifying.

Seconded. Nothing wrong with the odd bit of politics but one of the things I like most about this website (and ME) is how polite and genteel it is generally... all that cobblers about Looney Lefties and Yoghurt weavers etc is just annoying and detracts from the fact that all the people contributing to this site do so because of a common interest.

Maybe we need a voting system like Britains Got Talent (oops yes I have watched it). Four big red crosses and you are out.

The common interest is rather varied in reality,
I agree the main interest is Mine Exploring and photographing the results,but there also lie`s the interest in Mining,and creating employment,to which there seems to be an element in this country that wants it kept in the past,with an interest to turn industrial area`s into recreational area`s,and to hell with local employment.

Rock Whacker`s post highlighted that,if you laughed at the tongue in cheek comments,but in reality,many of them are true.

I remember when the North Coast area concerned was awash with the residue from South Crofty etc via the Red River, it didn't seem to put off the tourists and surfers as I recall.
I guess all this SAS v Marine Minerals will pan out in time, if there is money to be made and local jobs created without a real long term environmental screw up then good luck to them.

Lozz.

I'm intrigued what he said that finally got the thread and his account deleted.

My guess is that sockpuppetry was suspected.

That just about sums it up, Peter. Like Roland, I must say I would love to know out of morbid curiosity how far he went before the thead was pulled....

You saw it all. The thread was removed because someone saw fit to start what could have been an interesting thread under a duplicate account and fill it with Smart-Price Clarksonisms. If you don't feel confident in putting your name behind something then keep it to yourself.

It was an entirely valid topic & if anybody wants to discuss it at least semi-rationally then feel free.

Ultimately scatter-gun ranting turns people away from the site - often people with knowledge rather than opinions - and isn't enjoyed by a great number of users.

The original thread got off to a bad start with its use of word "vegetarians". As I posted, we are all different and each have different opinions, this is what makes us interesting to each other and gives us something to talk about.
However, once the argument gets out of control reasoned debate becomes the first casualty.

---

For those towards the right:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9688841/New-tin-mines-in-Cornwall-threaten-surfers-paradise.html 

For those to towards the left:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/08/surfers-cornwall-mining-plans 

Both articles are actually pretty balanced and sensible.

Yes but they are both quoting the same sensationalist mutterings coming from SAS.
The "X" million/billions of pounds that surfing is worth to the local economy, just about every anti group on earth seems to pull some meaningless figure out of a hat to suit their PR ends for instance they say that surfing supports 1600 or so jobs, what they don't tell you is that most of those jobs pays the minimum wage if that.

The original poster was correct in my opinion.

Lozz.

................ just about every anti group on earth seems to pull some meaningless figure out of a hat to suit their PR ends ......................

Lozz.

as i said before, tails that wag the dog

---

I think they've just googled this 2004 report which gives those exact figures of £64M and 1600 people

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/3924693.stm 

They must have been happy they found that figure because if you look at this document on the SAS website it only says £21m from a 2001 report.

http://www.sas.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/eia-1.pdf 

Although with 10 years out of date figures, who knows what it would be now ?

Substantially more you might assume ?
Are there still as many surfers now ?

Amusingly the SAS website says :-

"Marine Minerals Limited is yet to announce the method of dredging they will use to remove tens of millions of tonnes of sediment from the North Cornish coast, or how they have arrived at the number of jobs they believe their proposed activity will create."

Presumably the same way SAS came up with the figure for the 1600 people surfing supports.

:lol:

I've renamed this thread :)

Surfers & Marine Minerals Limited

Discuss :flowers:

---

Well just about read everything I can about SAS v Marine Minerals on the internet, I can only conclude that Marine Minerals want's to play ball and SAS don't, also came across a reference to an artificial surfing reef, I hope they did the eco study...

Lozz.

You saw it all. The thread was removed because someone saw fit to start what could have been an interesting thread under a duplicate account and fill it with Smart-Price Clarksonisms. If you don't feel confident in putting your name behind something then keep it to yourself.

It was an entirely valid topic & if anybody wants to discuss it at least semi-rationally then feel free.

Ultimately scatter-gun ranting turns people away from the site - often people with knowledge rather than opinions - and isn't enjoyed by a great number of users.

I am imagining it or am I correct in assuming that I recognised "Rock whackers" prose style?

Christwigg wrote ;
"Marine Minerals Limited is yet to announce the method of dredging they will use to remove tens of millions of tonnes of sediment from the North Cornish coast......"

In 1976 Marine Mining ( Apparently the previous name of the present company) did some sampling tests and they used 'Quote' - ".....a suction dredger to obtain two bulk samples of several hundred tonnes each......"
The flow rate into the dredger from the sea bed was 35 cubic metres per minute ( 😮 ) or 8000 gallons per minute, with screening to desired sizes on-board ship. The ship in this case had a hold capable of carrying 500 tonnes of sand.
All the waste water and oversized material was sent over the side of the ship, and the cargo drained through a layer of coir for the bilge pumps to take away.
The oversize spillway was sampled at regular intervals too, and most of the material consisted of coarse shell fragments and very occasionally large fragments of rock.
Not wanting to step into any particular camp here :flowers: , I do wonder what effect this will have on the local sealife in the area. The sand on the seabed plays an important role in the water cycle, treating waste materials and dealing with the Nitrogen/Ammonia cycle which is critical to good water purity for all sealife. Disturbing this substrate churns up tons of anaerobic bacteria which is deleterious to sealife.
Curiously (?) I haven't seen any reports contained within dredging proposals, that deal with this aspect.
Anyone who has kept a marine aquarium will be familiar with the importance of this.

---