 Poster: A snowHead
|
Artificial snow, and the additives it contains, under debate in Grenoble. (AFP - translated from the French Yahoo article)
| Quote: |
-Twenty French ski resorts are currently testing an additive - “Snomax” - which facilitates the production of artificial snow. A study, published on Thursday, purports to show that the product has no negative impact on the environment; indeed that it actually supports the proliferation of existing micro-organisms. The person overseeing this study is Francoise Dinger, engineer at CEMAGREF in Grenoble. She measured the environmental effect of Snomax over a 3 years period at the Valloire resort (Savoie) and presented the results of the Franco-Italian team’s research at the ‘mountain care’ (SAM) conference in Grenoble. Launched in the United States in 1984, manufactured by the York company (world leader in artificial snow manufacture), Snomax was introduced in France at the time of the Albertville Olympic Games in 1992. But it has only really been tested in France since 2000. It is very widely used in North America and Switzerland, except in the Bern canton where the use of additives is prohibited. It is banned in two Austrian provinces where artificial snow has to be manufactured with drinking water. The active ingredient of Snomax is a protein contained in the cellular wall of the Pseudomonas Syringae bacterium, which enables the lowering of the freezing point of water. "Snomax enables the production of snow with a -2 humidity factor in comparison to a minimum of -4 (without the additive) and the snow manufactured is of very high quality", affirmed the person in charge of maintaining the Valloire (Savoie) pistes, Michel Viallet. "This snow can be worked immediately, unlike snow without additives where you have to wait for a few hours. It spreads easily and a single piste basher can do the job of 3 machines. The problem for us is price because Snomax, diluted at a rate of 0.8 grammes per cu.m. of water, is expensive”, adds Mr. Viallet.
- "In our study we were unable to detect the bacterium itself in the product. As Snomax contains azotes, it is nourishing for vegetation. It supports the growth of micro-organisms, but this does not mean that it is dangerous because we are literally swimming in micro-organisms", explains Mrs. Dinger. Without wanting to call into question the credibility of the study, ecologists remain wary of the Snomax product. According to a spokesman for the Rhöne-Alpes Nature Conservancy Federation (FRAPNA), Roger Beck, this "product is the first step towards making snow at a positive temperature, currently the subject of research in Japon in particular. In the beginning, snow-blowers were located on the lower resort slopes, now you find them everywhere and that is very detrimental for the environment" he says. According to Mrs. Dinger, "In 5 years time, industry experts estimate that artificial snow-making installations will double in number, even triple".
- A spokesman for the Mountain Wilderness association, Vincent Neirinck, fears that this study maintaining that Snomax is innocuous "will prove to be the excuse resorts need to put snow cannons everywhere." According to him, artificial snow manufacture in France consumes as much water as a town of 170,000 inhabitants. 24% of this water comes from the drinking water network and the water is being used when the weather is cold, and when it is in short supply. "We’ve reached the crazy situation where a hectare of artificial snow requires 2.4 times more water that a hectare of maize, itself a high water consumer. The impact of these guns and compressors on the countryside environment is truly catastrophic", Mr. Neirinck concludes. |
The Snomax website
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Pg, fascinating article. Sets alarm bells ringing in me. As an Old Hippy I think Mother Nature knows best, and human interference in Biology usually has disastrous results.
I used to work with a bug called Serratia . It was considered harmless. It is not.
Pseudomonas is a dread name in hospitals. But not all Pseudomonas is harmful to humans, and Syringae does seem one of the safe varieties. To humans that is: not to plants.
I understand that it is only the bacterial protein that is intended to enter the spray, and no bacteria have been detected so far. But we are talking about a luxury pastime for us fortunate Western well-off. Is it worth it?
And then there is the water problem......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Pseudomonas syringae is one of the most common bacteria found growing on the surfaces of plants. Interestingly, this bacterium was the subject of the very first public debate on the release of genetically engineered organisms.
Fruit-growers in California can suffer considerable financial losses due to frost-damage, so nearly 20 years ago strains of P. syringiae were genetically engineered so that they lacked the ice-nucleation protein on their cell surface. Such "ice-minus" bacteria do not nucleate ice crystal formation at temperatures as high as the "wild-type" bacteria that contain the protein. By spraying vulnerable crops with these modified bacteria, it was reasoned, these ice-minus bacteria would compete with the normal forms for colonisation of fruit surfaces, and because they would be less competent in ice crystal nucleation, their presence would improve the frost-hardiness of the fruits (it is the formation of ice-crystals that damages the fruit).
This attracted quite a lot of attention from "green activists" and other wackos (this was California, remember) who damaged some of the experimental plots, but in the long run it didn't really matter, since although the underlying premise behind the strategy was reasonable, in fact it didn't work: the naturally occurring "ice-plus" bacteria simply outcompeted the ice-minus strain, so very little frost-protection was observed.
Old hippies, incidentally, are invariably wrong about the dangers inherent in genetic modification: Jonpim, as a doctor you should know better! - A classic example is the objection by green groups to the genetic modification of plants by the addition of a gene encoding an insecticidal protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. At the same time, these same groups are entirely relaxed about spraying entire crops with the spores of this bacterium to act as an insecticide. Indeed, B. thuringiensis spore preparations are approved by the Soil Association as an "organic" pesticide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Great article though I wonder what the pressure group guy was thinking of when he described the impact of snow cannons as 'truly catastrophic.' Wonder if DG's SCGB environmental committee has a policy on all this...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Acacia, wow, thanks for that: aint snowHeads full of such interesting people!
Pseudomonas syringae is obviously important stuff. A google search for "Pseudomonas syringae" as a phrase gets 28,000 responses.
And I'm as much Hippy as I am Christian: pretty wishy-washy. No real internal logic, just a lot of random rants. My attitude to Global Warming, Gene Modification, Cloning, is :do we have our priorities right? I think the Big Problems are Poverty and the increasing gap between the rich and poor. That's the time bomb that concerns me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Jonpim,
After your various infomative discourses on anaesthesiology, it's nice to be able to hold forth on something I know a bit about. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DavidS wrote: |
| Great article though I wonder what the pressure group guy was thinking of when he described the impact of snow cannons as 'truly catastrophic.' |
It's mentioned in conjunction with his statements on the amount of water it uses so the implication is on impact to things like water levels and the water table, rather than the additives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But truly catastrophic - c'mon!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Anything to do with human being is environmentally unfriendly. Our drinking water is unnatural because it has been biologically, chemically and physically treated.
It is a informative article though.
Never occur to me licking the slope can cure the thirst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DavidS, despite the fact it was an unpaid translation, I assure you that "truly catastrophic" is a correct rendering! Of course we don't know whether we have the full context, whether the conversation has been accurately reported. And give the environmentalists their due, with the limited weaponry at their disposal in comparison to the other interest groups involved, we can let them get away with the occasional exaggeration 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Yeah, but if you've already used 'truly catastropic' for using water "when the weather is cold, and when it is in short supply", what do you do when something really bad is happening?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
No idea how (un)catastrophic it is, but I wonder where the other 76% of the water comes from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cataclysmic? Terminal? Calamitous? Combination of all three? Devastatingly deadly? In a pretty pickle? Up sh*t creek without a paddle?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
It'd have to be a sh*t creek as there'd be no water left because of the snow guns 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
skanky, On that theme, when the Alps become part of the semi-tropical zone, the rarely used 'up to one's *rse in alligators' could be repopularised...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
And give the environmentalists their due, with the limited weaponry at their disposal in comparison to the other interest groups involved, we can let them get away with the occasional exaggeration
|
Absolutely not.
One of the problems with environmentalist pressure groups is that they hijack the language of the debate, to the detriment of impartially considered fact.
A classic example of this is the so-called "GM food debate" which has ceased to be a debate, and become a highly polarised slanging match simply because the eco-warriors have refused to engage in rational argument. Instead, they hold fundamentalist positions that they reinforce by using emotive expressions like "Frankenstein food" and by peddling half-truths and outright lies.
Believe me, I have spent a long time trying to address the public misconceptions about the biotechnology industry that have arisen as a result of this very deliberate tactic on the part of these self-appointed and generally unaccountable pressure groups, and a pretty thankless task it is too.
I'm sure that there are some serious arguments to be made about how, where and when snowmaking technology can be deployed in relation to the maintenance of the environment, but we shouldn't let people get away with these extreme blanket condemnations unchallenged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Hey, what happened to my winking smiley?! My tongue-in-cheek comment suddenly became all serious! Put it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
PS I not so sure about the 'thankless task' part..... there are a number of very well-financed interest groups with highly-paid experts on the one side, rather less so on the other. Perhaps a different term to 'thankless' might be employed?
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Fri 23-04-04 22:50; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I'm with acacia on this one...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
self-appointed and generally unaccountable pressure groups
|
Only vaguely to do with snow guns, but I think Acacia would find a great many in agreement in the Highlands where the Scottish ski-ing industry has suffered for years at the hands of the above types. However a snow cannon that could make snow at warmer temperatures could be the saviour for home-grown ski-ing - sorry  seem to be heading off the Glencoe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I have some major reservations though. The suggestion is that on the one side there are the "eco-warrior fundamentalist environmentalists peddling half-truths and lies". A bit OTT perhaps? Hardly the words of the dispassionate scientific observer! On the other, presumably, there is the objective research of well-meaning scientists with only our best interests at heart. Well, call me a cynic if you like, but I don't swallow that!
And as I pointed out above, nor is it fair to jump to conclusions on the basis of a single media report of a couple of sentences quite possibly taken out of context, without independent verification, no indication of whether the interview was accurately reported, or whether it has been quoted in full. It's hardly 'scientific' to condemn environmentalists en bloc - there are many reputable organisations, and for all readers know this may be one of them. I've read a number of studies by this particular group, including one on noise pollution. The language is quite restrained.
I just don't believe that it helpful to the debate to tar all environmentalists with the same brush, to condemn without evidence. To me that's equally as bad as the original assertion of catastrophe that sparked the comments above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All of the campaigning pressure groups face the same dilemma - dramatic statements bring headlines/funding etc., but also steadily erode levels of trust/confidence etc. Most of the big groups have lively internal debates about this...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It does become a little difficult to sieve through the sound bites at times.... and by all accounts, the use of emotive language and bland stereotyping isn't limited to the environmentalists!
Scientists of course have a key role in the debate. Their impartiality is sometimes a little hard to establish however. How much of their funding comes, ultimately, from one or other interest group?
The bottom line is that corporate decisions are based on the pure and simple logic of economics, and the unspoken understanding that nothing can be allowed to stand in its way. Globalisation has strengthened the hand of big business. Governments can legislate – but their power is waning. You would have to be pretty naïve - or insulated from the real world - to believe otherwise!
That is not to say that industry does not occasionally find it to be in its interests to set up partnerships with environmentalist groups. Though the cynic in me says that this is just a more 'refined' version of the economic decision; one which takes image into account, covering all the bases. The definition of "corporate responsibility?" Sustainable development in the interests of the shareholders!
Bad science and sound bites may ultimately be undermining the environmentalists’ case. But the point I was making was that I understand their difficulties. They are fighting a losing battle, with a fraction of the resources of the multinationals.
I reckon only luck and science staying ahead of the game can see the human race through now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| PG wrote: |
| I reckon only luck and science staying ahead of the game can see the human race through now. |
plus governments coming to the right international agreements, businesses developing, funding and building new technologies etc etc...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| plus governments coming to the right international agreements |
Such as the Kyoto Protocol, for example?
| Quote: |
| businesses developing, funding and building new technologies |
....which of course they will.... if there's profit in it.
Care to expand on this a little?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Some environmentalists are genuinely revolutionary in their aspirations - believing in the need for some combination of a reduction in population (where, say, 4 billion people"die-off") and economies (simpler or even subsistence lifestyles for the rich).
The rest, however, have to committed to working within the realities of the current system. Kyoto's a pretty dreadful agreement but, if you're concerned about global warming, it's started to build structures on which future agreements can be made.
It also demonstrates the huge importance of national governments - whether or not their power is waning.
And more ambitious attempts to cut emissions - like the UK's 60% by 2050 target - only make sense if one believes the incentives can be lined up to bring the private sector into play.
Greenpeace and its brethren may act as a catalyst for action, and science may define the key parameters, but neither has a starring role in this particular drama. (ogod, appallingly mangled metaphor!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
Completely agree with all of your points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
The suggestion is that on the one side there are the "eco-warrior fundamentalist environmentalists peddling half-truths and lies". A bit OTT perhaps? Hardly the words of the dispassionate scientific observer!
|
disclaimer: i agree with many environmentalist causes: reducing emissions, recycling, keeping water supplies clean keeping wild areas from becoming completedly covered in concrete but!!
A scientist is entitled to have opinions and passions, as long as his research methods are objective. There is a certain amount of private funded research, but it is not the norm. Furthermore, in most cases a scientist may get a research grant (to be used exclusively on research expenses – no money for him to take home) for a company, but if his research is not published in a peer reviewed journal he's wasted his time. Yes, most time scientists are the only objective and sane people in these debates (although they can be wrong). The fundamental environmentalists are also post modernists, which means that they do not believe in scientific research, at least not in the "old" peer reviewed, methodologically strict, objective research. Throw in some personal experiences, subjective and anecdotal data and pseudo far east philosophy and you'll get their nod of approval. So, yes, they certainly use half truths and completely unsupported claims (aka lies) most of time, if only because they believe in "freeing the human spirit from positivist methodological shackles" to quote a greenpeace and anti-globalisation activist I spoke to a few months ago. They like their odds better with PR schemes than with science, and discrediting current science practices is a welcomed bonus.
| Quote: |
On the other, presumably, there is the objective research of well-meaning scientists with only our best interests at heart. Well, call me a cynic if you like, but I don't swallow that!
|
Judging from some posts here, they have done a very good job at this. Oh, a scientist follows an etichal code (personal and profesional) but his job is to research a subject and get the facts right, and no more. Whether that is in your best interests, is not for him to say.
A short example: genetically engineered wheat is safe according to all scientific research. Most US grains are genetically engineered, but the EU bans it (following eco-group pressure). African countries currently facing famine and tens and even hundreds of thousands dieing from hunger refuse to receive US surplus grains, which could feed their entire population. Why? Because they fear that farmers will use the US grain as seed for crops and that would mean an EU ban on their future agricultural exports. So, right now eco-fundamentalist driven EU policy is condemning african children to starvation and death. But that's all right as long as there are no franken-foods at he local supermarket.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
This has nothing to do with the point I was making. I'm sure most people already understand the notion of fundamentalist ideology in the environmentalist camp, as well as that of disinterested scientific methodology. However each represents only single aspects of a far more complex whole.
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Sun 25-04-04 23:35; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
sugardaddy has summed up the position fairly succinctly. I should declare my interest in this. I am a scientist. My salary and my research is funded 100% by the taxpayer. I do not now receive, have not in the past received and do not in the future intend to seek any funding of any sort from the private sector.
I am both frustrated and annoyed when I hear so-called environmentalist spokesmen purveying misinformation to the media, who are prepared to give this misinformation greater prominence that the accurate and considered information provided by scientists (who are frequently asked to give unambiguous answers to questions that cannot be answered in an unambiguous manner by someone who wishes to retain their scientific honesty).
This is particularly the case because at the time that I was training to become a professional scientist, I regarded myself as a fully-paid-up member of the environmentalist cause, and was determined to use my training in fields which would avoid the very criticisms that I and my peers were levelling at the polluters and despoilers of the environment.
The fact today is that the environmental pressure groups are driven by a very different agenda from that which previously existed. Greenpeace is a multinational coprporation which is unanswerable to any elected body or democratic purpose. You don't believe me? Then don't take my word for it. Use Google and read the writings of Patrick Moore for the past few years. (No, I don't mean the fat astronomer from the telly: I mean the original founder of Greenpeace. He now has nothing to do with that organisation; indeed, his views are regarded by it as anathema. His thesis is that Greenpeace no longer represents the best interests of environmentally caring people, but has been hijacked by political extremists in the aftermath of the collapse of communism).
Incidentally, sugardaddy, one minor error of fact. Although GM wheat has been produced and has been grown experimentally for several years, in no country has it yet been approved for commercial-scale planting. Food aid refused by African countries (most recently Zambia and Zimbabwe) was largely GM maize, not wheat. Otherwise you are spot on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
Incidentally, sugardaddy, one minor error of fact. Although GM wheat has been produced and has been grown experimentally for several years, in no country has it yet been approved for commercial-scale planting. Food aid refused by African countries (most recently Zambia and Zimbabwe) was largely GM maize, not wheat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Acacia,
| Quote: |
| I am both frustrated and annoyed when I hear so-called environmentalist spokesmen purveying misinformation to the media, |
As I should think are most people, including myself.
| Quote: |
| The fact today is that the environmental pressure groups are driven by a very different agenda from that which previously existed. |
That assertion is a gross generalisation. Evidence? The movement is diverse and you are doing certain reputable elements a great disservice by denigrating them all en bloc (quoting from your previous posts: "eco-warrior/fundamentalist/peddling half-truths and lies/self-appointed/generally unaccountable"...)
Borrowing some of your own words in response to your comments:
| Quote: |
| we shouldn't let people get away with these extreme blanket condemnations unchallenged. |
I couldn't agree more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
The fact today is that the environmental pressure groups are driven by a very different agenda from that which previously existed.
That assertion is a gross generalisation. Evidence?
|
| Quote: |
A short example: genetically engineered wheat is safe according to all scientific research. Most US grains are genetically engineered, but the EU bans it (following eco-group pressure). African countries currently facing famine and tens and even hundreds of thousands dieing from hunger refuse to receive US surplus grains, which could feed their entire population. Why? Because they fear that farmers will use the US grain as seed for crops and that would mean an EU ban on their future agricultural exports. So, right now eco-fundamentalist driven EU policy is condemning african children to starvation and death. But that's all right as long as there are no franken-foods at he local supermarket.
|
there you go, how's that for evidence? (my mistake it is maize not wheat)
Please tell me what effect is having this idiotic policy on eco groups? How are they acountable for these results of their actions?
Please name one global eco-fundamentalist group that conducts sound scientific research.
Please name one global eco-fundamentalist group organisation that is not deeply comitted to the post-modernist phylosophy.
You take a lofty position PG. You say that one should not make gross generalisations, but when you wrote
| Quote: |
Scientists of course have a key role in the debate. Their impartiality is sometimes a little hard to establish however. How much of their funding comes, ultimately, from one or other interest group?
|
you questioned the integrity and ojectivness of all scientists until proven inocent! Besides, it's really easy to establish the soundness of their research, just check where it's been published.
| Quote: |
Quote:
I am both frustrated and annoyed when I hear so-called environmentalist spokesmen purveying misinformation to the media,
As I should think are most people, including myself
|
actually from your posts, it seems to me that you mostly beleive them. It levells the field. The scientists have conducted research and the eco groups have not, but, hey, wait a moment, maybe the scientists are corrupt? The corrupt scientists are rarer than eco-vandals (like the ones burning labs and sending life threats to scientists and even atempting murder)
If you accept that most environmentalists are of good faith, than you must accept the same about the scientists
| Quote: |
On the other, presumably, there is the objective research of well-meaning scientists with only our best interests at heart. Well, call me a cynic if you like, but I don't swallow that!
|
so, yes you must swallow that
| Quote: |
The bottom line is that corporate decisions are based on the pure and simple logic of economics, and the unspoken understanding that nothing can be allowed to stand in its way.
|
Wow, how's that for generalisation! All decisions? In all corporations?
| Quote: |
That is not to say that industry does not occasionally find it to be in its interests to set up partnerships with environmentalist groups. Though the cynic in me says that this is just a more 'refined' version of the economic decision; one which takes image into account, covering all the bases. The definition of "corporate responsibility?" Sustainable development in the interests of the shareholders!
|
So business is all bad? On what basis? You just broaden your generalisations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| PG wrote: |
| A study, published on Thursday, purports to show that the product has no negative impact on the environment; indeed that it actually supports the proliferation of existing micro-organisms. |
I've been following the Snowmax debate and the above statement is a problem in itself. If the water supply is not pure - sometimes the case in ski resorts with their overloaded sewage treatment systems, then snomax will proliferate undesirable and unnatural micro-organisms as well. This was reported by Cemagref but maybe the AFP journalist was sleeping during that part? This puts a strain on pure water resources. The Cemagref research is fairly limited in scope so shouldn't be seen as a green light, yet, for Snowmax - especially when one considers who funded it.
David
disclaimer
I'm a member of MW France
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Sorry sugardaddy, but you seem to have misconstrued or misunderstood the majority of my points. That is the politest response I can give you, I'm afraid. Acacia's comments were unjustified in my opinion, although I sympathise with her feelings about the fundamentalist 'quasi-religious' elements, they are not representative of the whole spectrum of the environmentalist movement. Denouncing all campaigners in such a manner is not helpful. Oh, and I'm not interested in the activities of the 'eco-fundamentalists', as you describe them, haven't a clue why you should have brought that up. I certainly didn't. And of course, the GM crop example in no way justifies a sweeping condemnation of an entire movement.
As for the business world, it's a question of pragmaticism. That's the way the system works. If you buck the system, you go under. If anything, my comment was a truism, rather than a generalisation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| sugardaddy wrote: |
A short example: genetically engineered wheat is safe according to all scientific research. Most US grains are genetically engineered, but the EU bans it (following eco-group pressure).
|
Just 3 small points - i) if anyone had worried themselves about this at the time, I guess that CFC's would have been "safe according to all scientific research" when they were introduced. ii) why are most US grains genetically engineered? iii) is it time to move this thread from "The Piste" to "Other Stuff"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
davidof, who did fund the Cemagraf (Research Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Engineering) report? (PS never envisaged you as an eco-warrior )
(Alan Craggs, attempting to get back to the Snomax question, with davidof's help!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| PG wrote: |
davidof, who did fund the Cemagraf (Research Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Engineering) report? (PS never envisaged you as an eco-warrior :wink: )
|
Snomax contributed to the Cemagref research (sorry they didn't fund it 100% as I implied below). They are certainly pleased with the results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PG wrote: |
Apparently there are snow cannons being installed at 3,000m on the Tignes glacier. All food for thought.
|
Cannons were installed on both the Tignes and Val d'Isère summer ski areas last summer - or at least the pipework was laid for water supply. As people may recall Val d'Isère couldn't open its summer ski area last summer due to the heat wave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
)
