Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Eirgrid in Rush - Mod Warning in Post #1
Options
Comments
-
Its an emotive subject!! But Do you dispute anything they say in their leaflet? No need for a 500 word essay or paper
Im undecided but you seem very much on the side of Eirgrid, and thats fine. From what I do see is the people in the "campaign" are also in favour of the interconnector but not in favour of the route taken and I think thats fine.
This is the first real campaign since the church campaign of the late 80s and as we agreed earlier communication has been a big problem.
Did nt meet any of the community council over the week end but do intend asking them to have an update page on Rush website and more of an update on the blog.
Will you be at meeting to raise any points? You have raised some valid points and it would be interesting to hear a decent debate.0 -
Its an emotive subject!! But Do you dispute anything they say in their leaflet? No need for a 500 word essay or paper
Im undecided but you seem very much on the side of Eirgrid, and thats fine. From what I do see is the people in the "campaign" are also in favour of the interconnector but not in favour of the route taken and I think thats fine.
This is the first real campaign since the church campaign of the late 80s and as we agreed earlier communication has been a big problem.
Did nt meet any of the community council over the week end but do intend asking them to have an update page on Rush website and more of an update on the blog.
Will you be at meeting to raise any points? You have raised some valid points and it would be interesting to hear a decent debate.
My point about emotive was with some of the words used such as repeating "kids" to stir emotion and use of capitalisation in the middle of sentences to add emphasis on words. And the statement that the cable will be there "forever" Sorry did a module once on press releases and was very interesting how you can use trigger words to communicate the message you want.
Also they argue that only two power stations out of 24 in Ireland have cables of this current level and we are been used as guinea pigs. Thats because the Irish electrical grid requires an overhaul and the power lines in the rest of the country will be upgraded in the future as demand increases. This powerline is one of only two links to the Island of Ireland so if I can use this example you don't build a two lane road if you require a 4 lane M50 each way in 10 years time. One part of the debate is the traffic disruption caused by the cable laying so you hardly want them digging the line up again in 10 years time to replace with a higher capacity line. We always complain in Ireland that we never build infrastructure ahead of what we need.
I actually live on the proposed route not within 1 or two miles of the proposed route like some of the No campaign supporters. Yes you can accuse me of supporting the Eirgrid stance if its because I kept myself informed, read about the proposals when they applied for planning, verified both sides claims by reading independant research into possible side effects caused by the magnetic fields, read the research paper used as the "No to Eirgrid" central argument and found it bears no relation to the cables to be laid in Rush. The paper deals with AC cables which radiate, the cables are postioned on pylons while Eirgrid is installing DC cables which are buried and shielded. Even if they were AC cables on pylons, 5 people a year may be effected in a population of 62 million in the UK so you can do the maths for the risk level in Ireland. I found no reputable evidence to support the risk levels suggested by the No campaign. The phrase "better the devil you know comes to mind" to explain the level of hysteria from people. They are happy to live with the higher risk of been involved in motor accidents while waging a campaign against lower new risks that they can't understand. In 2006, Ireland had a child(under 14) road fatality of 19 deaths per million of population(source RSA) with 19% of child fatalities/serious accidents happening in Dublin from 1997-2006 yet I don't see any local campaign for better road safety in Rush. Everything in life carries a risk, nothing is guaranteed without a level of risk so only by tackling higher risks can you possiblely help protect childrens safety.
Don't you think its rather late in the day for the No campaign to be pulling out a smoking gun? If they had any more further information wouldn't you have thought they would have used it by now? Basically I think this meeting is just going to be a repeat of the previous meeting with a few more hot heads egged on by Miss Daly spreading panic among the rest who haven't bothered reading past the leaflet. So yes I am a supporter of Eirgrid proposed route as I can see no health effects from it and I don't like to step in the way of progress just for the sake of it.
On another note if they do get Eirgrid to move the cable laying to Rogerstown Estuary there isn't really an obligation for Eirgrid to provide 90,000 euros to Rush as any disruption is kept to a minimun. Perhaps a smaller fund to repair any damage to the park at Rogerstown but otherwise Rush is unaffected if the cable comes in at the Estuary near the railway bridge. After all it would be only fair as any objection is purely on health and safety grounds not financial.
Inrelation to the protest against the Mobile mast at the golf club if the topic is raised perhaps you can point out to people that Vodafone and Meteor already have masts in the Rush area in high population areas. If people are concerned about the effects of this mast in a less densely populated area of town perhaps the campaign can be further expanded to get these masts removed too as any risk would be greater in these areas. The link below shows the location and company owner.
Map of Masts in Rush
http://www.askcomreg.ie/mobile/siteviewer.273.LE.asp0 -
Nice post Corsendonk...unfortunately they're arguments I've put forward numerous times in the past, and they've been ignored.
At this stage, I'm going to let people at it. They started waging this row with very little information and not much inclination to find anything out about what was going on. To the extent that some of the arguments being raised were embarassing, they were so ill-informed.The whole leaflet was about kids and their futures......but they omitted thinking about the amount of radiation being given out by the wireless transmitters for internet in their houses, and the mobile phones they give their kids, among other things.
To be honest, I also worked in construction and I know the extent of even some of what is in the ground. If only people knew......I understand there are worries, but at this stage it's just getting silly.0 -
Two good posts there.
Corsendonk, I was sort of agreeing with you on most points Emotive language etc but they were getting their point accross and I felt that was fair enough, once there were no lies or untruths in what they said.
Eirgrid for their part have been the biggest contributor to this debacle imo and as I have heard numerous people say Rush C.C could have been more proactive much earlier. But then again Rush C.C. got very little support from the local community in general, ME included, I can ahrdly remember the last A.G.M. I was at.
It is very late in day to be pulling out a smoking gun and I actually think it might be to late. But we have a community council which now seems to be quite active and the "No Campaign" I think might have come out of this.
I dont live on the proposed route but again because of the way this whole thing has been handled from day 1 it might appear to people that Eirgrid were at to the least very sloppy in the way they gave out information from the start. I can honestly say I did not get anything in my door or see any poster in shops about their inital meeting and considering what was unfolding with the shell to sea campaign should they have not have had the foresight to quell any fears before they got going? Some feel they just tried to slip it through.
dan_d, I agree some of the arguments were pathetic to put it mildly but as stated above not enough information was given at the start by Eirgrid.
Fogrrá I remember one Rush club, being approached about a phone mast. St. Maurs were sounded out but in the interest of keeping a good level of support from our community we turned down the request for a meeting (abt 2002)0 -
Just back from meeting and while I was slightly undecided before I went I am now 100% against this project going ahead.
Firstly I must congratulate the Chairperson of Rush C.C <snip> who laid the rules before meeting started as to how the business would be conducted and she done an excellent job.
Ann gave details of what has happened in the last few weeks and it is scandelous how these people and the wider community of Rush have been
treated.
There were some questions from the audience and each was dealt with in a fair manner by Ann and public reps.
We were then given the slideshow which was presented to Minister Eamonn Ryan and it was superb.
The amount of inaccurices in the Eirgrid planning application warrents an enquiry.- The Centre of Rush in Eirgrids proposal was shown as a lane way
- Traffic count done 100meters from end of Channel Rd
- Claim no disruption to transport
- Dr Baileys discredited and questioned as to why he was let take on this role for Eirgrid having done the same work already and as he was beeen paid by Eirgrid how could he be impartial?
"€5,000,000 cheaper" to come up estuary, thats 5 million of our money wasted because they Eirgrid were probably advised not to upset Birdwatch Ireland & habitat directives.
Eirgrids board are appointed by the goverment and the goverment who cant interfere with the planning system can fire or replace the board of Eirgrid and on the evidence of what was produced tonight there should be a few more on the dole pretty soon.
I could go on and on but was stunned at what was put before us. None of the reps there questioned any of the above and for the record, Michael Kennedy, Darragh O'Brien, Trevor Sargent and Clare Daly were present, each spoke and are fully behind the stance of taken by the Community council.
There was so much stuff there to hear I can not accuratley relay it all. But Eirgrid from what I gathered tonight have a serious battle on their hands and I am looking forward to seeing how this unfolds over the next few weeks.
I have requested a few bits and pieces from one of the committee and I will post these when I have them, you might be suprised.
Great to meet another Boards poster there tonight;) Beginning to think as I said to them I should have used a different username.0 -
Advertisement
-
.
Great to meet another Boards poster there tonight;) Beginning to think as I said to them I should have used a different username.
Well you do keep mentioning St Maurs and that you were Chairman last year and the club has a website.......
Of interest the interconnector from the Netherlands to Norway had a lower budget of 600 million euros and consider the distance between the countries. So they messed up the traffic management plan, not surprised there considering the mess ups they had already. So has focused shifted from Health and Safety to traffic management issues?
I imagine with them getting so much EU funding for the project that they might have been advised on that side to steer clear of EU protected area. The EU auditors don't like when stories like that come up, someone gets hauled up in front of the EU parliament to explain, the anti EU press love stories like that.
Sounds like a lack of communication between the politicians too and their party colleagues in the council who are the county managers boss at the end of the day. I think that you will find that the same people in Eirgrid today will be there in two months time unless Dan Boyle tweets that he wants them removed. Thats how he seems to run the government these days.
Where there many people from the area at the meeting? I gathered most that attended lived far away.0 -
Dont remember saying I was chairman last year or mentioning that often, think you actually brought it up in this thread or the history thread but someone managed to identify me after a wek on boards.
The attendance was about 400 and from what I saw over 95% were local. Who ever told you about the attendance is not up to date on who lives locally and thats fine Iv no problem with that a lot are working outside the town as you have pointed out.
The focus as was explained last night was never to object to the intrconnector but the route.
From what I heard the County manager pulled all the strings in this and made changes just before important meetings and votes were to take place, so maybe the tail does wag the dog. I cant accuretly quote all that was said but I did think to myself "why do we have County Councillors if this is whats going on"? No politican there argued with the comments made by the speakers. All parties agreed with the stance taken but also stated their support for project.
(Will update this post later)0 -
The attendance was about 400 and from what I saw over 95% were local. Who ever told you about the attendance is not up to date on who lives locally and thats fine Iv no problem with that a lot are working outside the town as you have pointed out.
Ohh I walked by the venue during the meeting and was amazed by the amount of dangereous parking outside the venue. Double yellow line parking at the top of convent lane, parking at the corner of the Convent on the road at a blind T junction etc Remember my argument that we are at greater risk of road accidents. Its not up to government bodies or councils to ensure road safety, the responsibility rests with each individual.
Perhaps whoever was in charge of Heath and Safety at the meeting, they would have been the person who pointed out the nearest fire exits in the venue and the evacuation procedure to the audience before the meeting started, could have some traffic control in place for future meetings. I guess that all the car drivers that attended lived on the farside of town otherwise they could have walked there in 10-15mins. I must commend the individuals that used there heads and parked in the South Beach car park just down the road and walked up to the school. There was more than enough parking there to prevent illegal and dangereous parking.
Incidently your comments about needing speed ramps on the South Shore are correct. I almost got knocked off the road by 4 speeding cars while out walking coming up to 8 yesterday evening, funnily enough 3 of the cars were parked outside the meeting venue. Seems some residents of Rush take the name of the town to heart, perhaps people can take time to plan there journeys before someone gets seriously injured. Typical Irish we have to wait before a serious accident happens before we put preventative measures inplace.
The facebook Rush Needs site has two posters announcing a rally at the Millbank, one says Sunday 14th the other says Sunday 12th. Opphs communication again.
http://en-gb.facebook.com/pages/Rush-Needs-You/115079605204194
The Rush Community Blog hasn't as yet been updated since July 16th.0 -
Corsendonk wrote: »An extract from the public boards profile of LeoB
Might I say maybe you should not apply for that job in the the Irish Secret Service.:D
Ohh I walked by the venue during the meeting and was amazed by the amount of dangereous parking outside the venue. Double yellow line parking at the top of convent lane, parking at the corner of the Convent on the road at a blind T junction etc Remember my argument that we are at greater risk of road accidents. Its not up to government bodies or councils to ensure road safety, the responsibility rests with each individual.
Perhaps whoever was in charge of Heath and Safety at the meeting, they would have been the person who pointed out the nearest fire exits in the venue and the evacuation procedure to the audience before the meeting started, could have some traffic control in place for future meetings. I guess that all the car drivers that attended lived on the farside of town otherwise they could have walked there in 10-15mins. I must commend the individuals that used there heads and parked in the South Beach car park just down the road and walked up to the school. There was more than enough parking there to prevent illegal and dangereous parking.
Incidently your comments about needing speed ramps on the South Shore are correct. I almost got knocked off the road by 4 speeding cars while out walking coming up to 8 yesterday evening, funnily enough 3 of the cars were parked outside the meeting venue. Seems some residents of Rush take the name of the town to heart, perhaps people can take time to plan there journeys before someone gets seriously injured. Typical Irish we have to wait before a serious accident happens before we put preventative measures inplace.
The facebook Rush Needs site has two posters announcing a rally at the Millbank, one says Sunday 14th the other says Sunday 12th. Opphs communication again.
http://en-gb.facebook.com/pages/Rush-Needs-You/115079605204194
The Rush Community Blog hasn't as yet been updated since July 16th.
Jeasus your a wizard on the P.C. Have to be honest and say I am not really happy about you putting up my details if people want info they can do go look for it. Im sure its within the rules.
If you actually read my details and join date you might edit your post I was not chairman last year. Last year = 2009. So please dont try and twist my words or posts.
You should have popped in and mentioned it to one of the organisers about the cars parked on double yellow lines.
Back to the topic. You appeared well informed and this is what is needed in all decent debates. Its all very well us and others here giving an opinion but it really does no good to the campaign, whether for or against.
So let us know what you would do? You have been commenting on this topic and very much appear to be supporter of Eirgrid, Do you feel they let down by the fact they appear to have lied and twisted facts at An Bord Pleannala and how would you justify taking the more expensive route, wasting taxpayers money.
You might review the precautionary principle and go look at the facts as produced last night which I would believe and perhaps you might actually and understand why local people are so concerned.
Oh do you know who is on this Bord Pleannala?0 -
Hardly a PC wizard just using a feature on this site available to every member and non member so you might want to delete your profile a bit. At least you can track members that look at your profile but its a worry that non members can see your details. Thats why us paranoid people either dont write much there or complete farm yard manure.:) Some even continue to write that in their threads.
To be honest maybe its my trusting nature in mankind I don't think its lies and twisting facts from Eirgrid but the old reliables of stupity, poor prep and laziness. Shocking isnt it to find those qualities in companies set up by the state:rolleyes:
The extra 5 million euros of cost, where did that figure come from? By the way most of the funding is european tax payers money. You know that big place we like to take money from but don't need when we think we are rich, the place that has Rogerstown under directive 2009/147/EC.
The Precautionary Principle, actually I had to study it at one time.
EU CommisionThe factors triggering use of the precautionary principle According to the Commission the precautionary principle may be invoked when the potentially dangerous effects of a phenomenon, product or process have been identified by a scientific and objective evaluation, and this evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty. Hence use of the principle belongs in the general framework of risk analysis (which, besides risk evaluation, includes risk management and risk communication), and more particularly in the context of risk management which corresponds to decision-making.
The Commission stresses that the precautionary principle may only be invoked in the event of a potential risk and that it can never justify arbitrary decisions.
Hence the precautionary principle may only be invoked when the three preliminary conditions are met - identification of potentially adverse effects, evaluation of the scientific data available and the extent of scientific uncertainty.
So whats the risk? Body of evidence? Research results? Need for more research? You have to have a logical process of ticking those boxes before you can use it. To be honest you would be opening Pandora Box if you allowed someone the precident to use the Principle without following all the stages. For Eirgrid to move the route on that argument they immediately admit there is a risk and you don't have sufficient body of research.
So lets say we ignore all the homework you haven't done on invoking the principle and the state invokes the principle because basically you feel there is a possible risk but can't prove it, by doing so for Rush you invoke it for the entire project in Ireland. If it's not safe in Rush how can it be any safer in the rest of Ireland. It's not a pick and mix were its safe 3 miles away but dangerous 6 miles after that town. Then the whole project is held up until sufficient research is carried out for a period of years.
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/consumer_safety/l32042_en.htm
I can't say I had dealings with An Bord Pleanala seening as I am not a landowner. Link to there Board is below.
http://www.pleanala.ie/about/members.htm0 -
Advertisement
-
Basically,They are supposed to err on the side of caution where the case is 100% proven
The €5m illion figure came from a member of the Eirgrid team who didnt know who they were talking to over coffee at a function.
Oh point also made political interfearance last night and Mr Gormley and Poolbeg insinirator........
I await reply from people I emailed for some facts which I could not get last night, earlier.0 -
Basically,They are supposed to err on the side of caution where the case is 100% proven
Can you please clarify your understanding please of the precautionary principle? Your statement is confusing.
Until you can find written facts, conversations over coffee can be counted as speculation. We don't know were and who the person from Eirgrid was from within the organisation or if they had access to such details.0 -
I really find it incredibly hard to believe that it's 5 million euro cheaper to come up the estuary. Setting the birds aside, that just doesn't make any sense.
I would seriously question who made that statement and in what context.....
Do post any future info you get LeoB. I personally have no problem with this project, and to be quite honest I'm pretty amazed at the level of ignorance involved, but I'd be interested to know exactly what is behind these claims that the Rush group are making.0 -
Corsendonk wrote: »Basically,They are supposed to err on the side of caution where the case is 100% proven
Can you please clarify your understanding please of the precautionary principle? Your statement is confusing.
Until you can find written facts, conversations over coffee can be counted as speculation. We don't know were and who the person from Eirgrid was from within the organisation or if they had access to such details.
From how it was explained last night and on the information provided, AND the safety of what they were doing there were no facts, just opinions to back up claims made by Eirgrid and this guy Bailey from U.S.A (the impartial expert being paid by Eirgrid) He produced figures which could be challenged and on that basis because there could be reasonable doubt this precautionary principle should have come into play. I didnt study this at any stage and therefor can not make it any clearer for you, I dont know the in's and out's but An Bord pleannla should have erred on the side of caution and refused planning. Thats what I believe
Take a look at the interconnector Eirgrid used in Germany as a sample, they said it was in a similar sized town to Rush< its 400 meters from a village with a pop c600, six hundred, Other facts were produced from Netherlands and Estonia.
A lot of what you post you have pulled from the internet, apart from what you may have studied, you trust it and thats your choice, I dont.
I know where the statement was made I know who it was said to and I know one other person who overheard it. You see some people who support the "Campaign" did a lot of ground work, made the calls, wrote letters went to hearings and asked Dr Bailey how would it effect him he fckn lives in Boston, Mass U.S.A. He said he would lie on the road over these cables.
I await another lecture:rolleyes:
dan_d. I will certainly put up any other information I get. Sent email off this evening requesting some facts on precautionary principle and few other bits. Hopefully I will get some bits back. Nobody there last night had a problem with the project, but there are concerns over the route and this has been printed on the last leaflet I got. My view is the only reason they are not coming up estuary is they dont want their wrist slapped by E.U. yet it doesnt seem to bother Fingal as they assemble pipes for the sewage beside these valuable birds. These are more double standards we Irish have become so used to.
TO BE FAIR DAN_D THERE IS IGNORANCE ON BOTH SIDES HERE. A lot of locals are lost on a lot of issues or dont know how to go about research, making an objection but there is no excuse for a state body to treat any community the way I feel Rush has been treated. Just to confirm and clarify I am not on any of these committees but believe Rush yet again partly our own fault has just been peed on.
.0 -
From how it was explained last night and on the information provided, AND the safety of what they were doing there were no facts, just opinions to back up claims made by Eirgrid and this guy Bailey from U.S.A (the impartial expert being paid by Eirgrid) He produced figures which could be challenged and on that basis because there could be reasonable doubt this precautionary principle should have come into play. I didnt study this at any stage and therefor can not make it any clearer for you, I dont know the in's and out's but An Bord pleannla should have erred on the side of caution and refused planning. Thats what I believe
That link does a pretty good job of explaining the principle. Its the official EU information site. If you read back through it a few times you might realise risk analysis has to be conducted first, assemble of all science papers, establish there is a risk, seek research into that risk, possibility of occurence etc. A logical process before you go straight to the precautionary principle.
When you have done all that work, and its a lot of work. Sorry but this is what alot of industries have to do, you might know someone who works in the technical side of the food industry that might explain the principles of risk assessment and risk analysis to you and the amount of work they have to do to ensure you eat safe food. They have to do it to prepare HACCP plans. You can't just decide there is a risk or have limited research that barely relates to the situation and declare it unsafe. Imagine if you applied that to other subjects or industries.0 -
A couple of points to make:
- Learn how to use the QUOTES function. Broken tags make it quite hard to read & determine who is saying what.
- Stick to the topic at hand. There is plenty to be discussed without going off on a tangent every other post.
HB0 -
Corsendonk wrote: »That link does a pretty good job of explaining the principle. Its the official EU information site. If you read back through it a few times you might realise risk analysis has to be conducted first, assemble of all science papers, establish there is a risk, seek research into that risk, possibility of occurence etc. A logical process before you go straight to the precautionary principle.
When you have done all that work, and its a lot of work. Sorry but this is what alot of industries have to do, you might know someone who works in the technical side of the food industry that might explain the principles of risk assessment and risk analysis to you and the amount of work they have to do to ensure you eat safe food. They have to do it to prepare HACCP plans. You can't just decide there is a risk or have limited research that barely relates to the situation and declare it unsafe. Imagine if you applied that to other subjects or industries.
More or less its whaT I was saying. I didnt read all the text but the title is fairly self explanitory. From what I heard at the meeting the people in the campaign are very well informed I did explain earlier I had requested some info to post here. The industries who do all this work in researching safety are doing so to increase their market share and the profits for their shareholders, Unfortunatley some people involved with Eirgrid are a bit on the lazy side and didnt do enough work, shame on them.
This thread is becoming quite circular but what it has done is convinced me to lobby and oppose any move by Eirgriod to start work.0 -
More or less its whaT I was saying. I didnt read all the text but the title is fairly self explanitory.
So you haven't read all the instructions to when it should be applied..........industries who do all this work in researching safety are doing so to increase their market share and the profits for their shareholders,
Its a requirement by law for food business operators..that includes the one without shareholders.Unfortunatley some people involved with Eirgrid are a bit on the lazy side and didnt do enough work, shame on them.
The no campaign also has to carry out a comprehensive research to prove that there is risk that calls for the precautionary principle to be applied. You can not declare there is a risk without a considerable body of evidence. Imagine if someone called on the GAA to apply the principle because of the recent sudden death syndrome cases. You can bet they would call for more research.0 -
Corsendonk wrote: »So you haven't read all the instructions to when it should be applied..........
Its a requirement by law for food business operators..that includes the one without shareholders.
The no campaign also has to carry out a comprehensive research to prove that there is risk that calls for the precautionary principle to be applied. You can not declare there is a risk without a considerable body of evidence. Imagine if someone called on the GAA to apply the principle because of the recent sudden death syndrome cases. You can bet they would call for more research.
No I am not involved in the campaign to that extent, in fact I have attended only 2 public meetings but from what you posted and what I thought looking at its title I got the jist..........
They produced their evidence. If you had been there you might appreciate the work they have done, or maybe not, or pointed them in the right direction, in the interest of your community.
In certaiin situations you can declare a risk without any eveidence, taking your last point to the limit0 -
Corsendork you have so much to say on this matter ...pages!! why did you not attend the meeting ,given that you were out walking around the area while it was on? . I thought the meeting was well worth attending and more power to hard workers who put it all together, it was professional and informative! leoB you are very patient with this contributor0
-
Advertisement
-
Sandyhills ms wrote: »Corsendork you have so much to say on this matter ...pages!! why did you not attend the meeting ,given that you were out walking around the area while it was on? . I thought the meeting was well worth attending and more power to hard workers who put it all together, it was professional and informative! leoB you are very patient with this contributor
Im a fcukn martyr.:D Its getting tedious at this point and it has become circular debate at this stage. I have listened patiently, so far;)Nobody made a greater
mistake
than he who did nothing
because he could only do a littleEdmund Burke 1729-17970 -
Jaysus at last a bit of humour on this thread
0 -
Sandyhills ms wrote: »Corsendork you have so much to say on this matter ...pages!! why did you not attend the meeting ,given that you were out walking around the area while it was on? . I thought the meeting was well worth attending and more power to hard workers who put it all together, it was professional and informative! leoB you are very patient with this contributor
That was my stress break out enjoying a walk which turned into dodgying bad drivers in Rush, I certainly realised why so few cyclists about Rush too. :eek:
As Dan_D said whats the point with the level of understanding of the topic from some people. I prefer to make my own logical opinion based on facts. The written proof kind. Call me old fashioned for expecting facts, evidence, proof, research. Do you wish me to retire from this tedious argument as it seems to disagree with your opinion?Grantland Rice: A wise man makes his own decisions, an ignorant man follows the public opinion0 -
Okay I'm only dipping in and out of this thread because it's blatantly obvious that this argument could go on forever between the 2 of you:rolleyes:
As you said before LeoB there is a high level of ignorance on both sides, but unfortunately, I've only been exposed to the level of ignorance on the side of the occupants of Rush. Now that may be simply that they didn't do their homework, or it may be that Eirgrid did not give out enough information. As I've said before, my background is construction, so it's quite possible that I know things about work like this that I assume everyone knows,and therefore am surprised when I find that they don't (involved, but hope you understand me!!).
As for corsendonk.....put your money where your mouth is:D:D. You've presented us with pages and pages of facts and figures and taken the time to argue here, but you won't attend the meetings....although I actually agree with most of your arguments.
I'd like to see any further info LeoB receives. Purely from a nerdy point of view - I've said before based on some of the stuff I have seen in the ground around Dublin...in fact I know of 2 apartment buildings in the city centre that have a massive ESB substation sandwiched between them, and I doubt the residents are even aware of what the building is...I find it difficult to believe there's much danger of radiation. Also knowing the depth the cables will go in at, I seriously doubt it. And I also seriously doubt that coming through Rush is more expensive than coming up the estuary. Again, I'm applying what I know about construction to this to form these opinions. While they're not based on facts and they are only my opinion, I feel strongly enough about them to not bother joining the debates at the meetings because I just don't agree with them.
Still it's good to see there are still people out there who care enough to try and find out as much as possible and take on organisations like this...to counter both of your quotes..
"All that is necessary for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing"
Which can be applied to all sorts of situations in life (Edmund Burke - he was a busy chap, you know!;))0 -
Corsendonk wrote: »That was my stress break out enjoying a walk which turned into dodgying bad drivers in Rush, I certainly realised why so few cyclists about Rush too. :eek:
As Dan_D said whats the point with the level of understanding of the topic from some people. I prefer to make my own logical opinion based on facts. The written proof kind. Call me old fashioned for expecting facts, evidence, proof, research. Do you wish me to retire from this tedious argument as it seems to disagree with your opinion?
If you came into the meeting you could have relieved the stress others were feeling with your knowledge of this subject.
I went to the meeting to be informed and thankfully I feel I was well informed. I made my mind up having looked and listened to both sides so feel I am a happy with that, OR should I only listen to Eirgrid?
Did you bother to consult any facts provide by the Community Council? You see it goes both ways
LeoB thinks. There is many a man who made his own decisions when left to his own devices and made a right fck of things.
Grantland Rice
"For when the One Great Scorer comes To write against your name,
He marks - not that you won or lost - But how you played the Game."
How would he mark your game here
If Mr Rice was reading this thread I wonder what he would think, he appears quite a gracious fellow0 -
dan_d Fantastic post. Our posts were put up around the same time.
I do think we Rush people have sat back for to long and didnt bother to inform ourselves of what was actually going on. I never bothered in the past with public meetings because my attidtude was "ah sure Mick or Paddy will look after that", when I and others should have been supporting them, arguing with them and not knocking them. I think we have learned.
I expect some reply to my questions today and will of course post them here. I spoke to one person who is not in favour of posting here as it can turn into a merry go round with no one letting go.0 -
You can retire Leo from your reporting job.
http://rushcc.blogspot.com/2010/09/rush-town-meeting-wed-1st-sept.html
Very satisfied that the blog will be used again.0 -
Reporting, now that would be a good number. Ah no just passing on some info.
Hopefully we will get an updated blog and website to keep everyone informed0 -
Just thinking we need a good logo and Ideas for some banners.
D.U.D.EDont U Dare Eirgrid
No prizes here but give it your best shot and keep it clean.
This could be the electric part of thread. Oh and some cheerleaders also:D0 -
Advertisement
-
G.O.O.S.E
Get off our streets eirgrid
0
Advertisement