Skip to main content

View Diary: The most anti-solar reporter in the mainstream media? (75 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Your point is well taken and the issue can (0+ / 0-)

    be argued both ways.

    Biologists are not all alike. Project biologists typically say everything (is always) mitigable, and that is simply NOT true. If they are getting paid by a project proponent, I don't trust their work unless it is, in fact, borne out by independent biologists whose expertise is the species in question.

    The project I was working on had the best of the best DT habitat in the Ward Valley area. Almost no upper respiratory disease, either. Yet, DOI and the project proponents saw no problem with parking radioactive waste out there and digging all over the desert. The biologists were paid by the proponent.

    Finally, when indie biologists were brought in (experts on the DT) and good USGS experts brought in (who were NOT otherwise working on any aspect of the project), things got cleared up. It took a very, very long time but we won.

    I have reviewed hundreds of EIRs and EISs and I have to say that a lot of the data can and should be questioned and IMHO, consultants should NEVER be paid for or contracted by the company that stands to make money. There is just an inherent conflict in that particular process that shows up time and time again.

    202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

    by cany on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 03:33:35 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site