From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: ACTIVISM: Mt. Graham Action Alert!!
Date: 26 Jul 92 22:04:21 GMT
	<AeQQMSO00Uh702PYlt@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<JMC.92Jul25153146@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<AeQX=5W00iUx83G3li@andrew.cmu.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: jk71+@andrew.cmu.edu's message of 26 Jul 92 05:06:13 GMT

In article <AeQX=5W00iUx83G3li@andrew.cmu.edu> jk71+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joshua Alan Knauer) writes:


   On 25-Jul-92 in Re: ACTIVISM: Mt. Graham Ac..
   user John McCarthy@SAIL.Stanf writes:

   I would hope, John, that you actually will reread the last post that _I_
   sent out on the issue.  This is the SECOND time that it has been posted
   and very clearly explains why the Mt. Graham site is both sacred
   religious ground and environmentally vulnerable.  

Much as I hate to get into another Mt Graham debate, this is getting a
little too much. (Oh, and please note the distinction between Usenet
and whatever local network is grabbing a talk.env feed of it).

	The "sacred religios ground" is a recent issue and beyond
me, except to wonder why it didn't seem to be a problem when the
pre-existing construction on Mt Graham took place (it is not a
pristine mountain, in fact there were 3 roads going up it  and I 
believe a number of cabins up there, including a bible camp?
The observatory closes those roads and prohibits other activity on the
mountain, a source of some of the opposition). 
	The "environmental vulnerability" of the mountain, in
particular the red squirrel was grossly exaggerated by the one
dissenting report on the issue - almost fraudulently so IMHO - 
in fact I'd contend the observatory is the only thing that will save
the local ecosystem, it is at least a significant improvement on the
snowmobile park proposed as the alternative use. 

   On 25-Jul-92 in Re: ACTIVISM: Mt. Graham Ac..
   user John McCarthy@SAIL.Stanf writes:
   >Like all the really fanatical environmentalists he can't imagine any
   >harmful impacts from what he does.

   Alternative sites that offer the same features that make Mt. Graham so
   "attractive" to the "scientists" of the Vatican have been
   suggested.

If you have a problem with the "science" to be done at the
observatory, state it, and cut the snide little innuendo.
I also challenge you to name three alternative sites and demonstrate
that they do not have "unique and vulnerable" ecosystems, and/or
"special" religious significance to some group or another.
(and are not taken already!  - I presume you know what the
observatory site requirments are, since you seem to know of alternatives.)
 
   This is not an issue of 'environmentalists out of control' but rather
   many different types of groups from all over the country banding
   together to protest a wrong that is being done.  

It's a case of a group of well meaning people jerking their knees
in response to unwarranted complaints over issues they are ignorant
of.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	*