Obama killing more jobs. This decision directly affects me.

Can't outsource your healthcare.

 

If know one can pay for healthcare, then we don't need anyone in healthcare.

The attitude "it won't happen to me" is just not true. It can and will.

 

What jobs are those?

 

Just read where now the Canadians are making plans to sell the oil to China, where it will be shipped out of existing ports on supertankers. This means no jobs for Americans, building the pipeline to our refineries, no new refineries, and now the oil will take a 10,000 mile cruise to get to China, where we all know that the utmost concern will be paid to the environmental impact

 

China is choking themselves to death. it's only a matter of time for they implode with an enviromental kaos.

 

Environmental scientists/consultants

 

LOL. Trust me, healthcare will never go anywhere. It isn't even possible. There will always be a demand for it, and the demand will only continue to grow. Pretty exciting times for pharmaceutical advances and the improvements that will be made to healthcare in the near future (and I am NOT talking about the reform, which I think will be reversed and only portions of it will be implemented).

 

Fair wage is one thing, $35/hour to push a button every 5 minutes is another.

Probably a lot less. But I'm not sure a client is going to want to pay for a guy in India to fly over here every time he needs to conduct a site visit.

 

Not only with environmental. They are also facing serious financial issues as well. The signs are there that they are starting to implode and it's going to take the world with 'em.

The real kind, or like those whom think global warming, err environmental change, err imbalance, err whatever the word of the day is, is purely man's fault?

Exactly. I've worked in the healthcare industry for a few different companies and it's not going anywhere.

 

Sounds like a decent gig, except you have to work every 5 minutes. That would suck.

 

The real kind. Like the people who will be conducting the environmental impact assessment for this pipeline.

 

LMAO!

 

Again, so will it be unbiased and true? Or, do you take that information and spin it how you feel it should be?

"Environmental studies" have held up more projects for political reasons than anything else. IMO, they are mostly pure BS and useless.

 

I can't speak for everyone in my profession, but every person I have ever worked with approaches studies with an unbiased attitude. We report what we find. Nothing more, nothing less.

Most of the time, I agree, as in most cases, after the study has been conducted, the project still goes on as planned, and the environmental issues never get resolved unless they are in sensitive or public areas.

 

Most I know are brainwashed "greenies" whom have hidden agendas.

I'm assuming you're familiar with this as it's at a national level spotlight:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/di...sional-panel-approves-stillwater-bridge-plan/

Thoughts?

 

You know many? Are they employed by private firms or universities? Hidden agendas don't really have any value in this business. The government establishes environmental standards. We report to the government if anything is above those standards. Don't report it, you and the client face huge monetary fines.

Not familiar with the case. Can't comment.

 

I know a few with mixed places of employment (meaning some private, others university). "Most" was in reference to most of the ones I know, exactly as stated. Hidden agendas don't have value? BS. Like anything, it can sway decisions. Statistics and information can be stated many different ways. All depends upon the agenda of who's collecting it, how they write and what they chose to include/exclude/modify.

Environmental impact studies have been used to delay that project for decades. The Sierra Club has publicly stated it will continue to fight against it and that it has enough money to keep it tied up in litigation indefinitely. Unfortunately for them, it is being pushed through Congress now.

 

It is the scientists job to present facts. If the governing agency or hiring company interprets the facts for their own agenda, that is not on the scientist.

After some quick research of this case, it seems the hold up has been more about politics, already existing National Park laws, and aesthetic design than environmental impact studies. But you wouldn't have an agenda to exclude that info, would you?

 

I am saying it is the scientist/consultant's job to present facts during these types of studies. How the person we present said facts too interprets or uses them, is not our fault.

Who did these studies?