Jump to content

Old Man

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Old Man
  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/25/1960
Profile Information
  • Gender
  • Location
    Dinorwic Lake
  1. Eagle in Flight

    Thanks. The number of them out here makes it easy to capture images like this.
  2. Sunset

    Thanks. It’s not hard to get shot’s like this in Sunset Country.
  3. Eagle in Flight

    Actually, I have a series of photos of him sitting as I eased my boat closer and closer until he figured I was getting to close. This was the best of the in flight photos. Here's a couple more.
  4. Hydro bill. Nf

    Hurts to read, just like this is for any single mom or struggling working family out there. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/12/02/justin-trudeau-billing-taxpayers-for-nannies-is-hypocritical-lisa-raitt-says_n_8695068.html
  5. Hydro bill. Nf

    Anything to do with Liberal governments usually hurts to read.
  6. Hydro bill. Nf

    $37 Billion needlessly removed from the Ontario economy from 2006 to 2014. Another $133 Billion projected by 2032. http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2015/12/02/ontario-consumers-likely-paying-billions-extra-for-hydro-one-decisions-auditor-general.html
  7. Mountain Bluebird

  8. what is this tool worth?

    Westward Tools, sold by Acklands. Worth about $700 new. //www.acklandsgrainger.com/AGIPortalWeb/WebSource/ProductDisplay/globalProductDetailDisplay.do?item_code=WSWSAK347
  9. Foggy morning Buck

    Those are stunning shots. Great job
  10. An open letter to Justin

    Ah... tinfoil hat time. Any research that doesn't fit a persons agenda must be corrupt. So obviously 21 separate scientist where bought and paid for, 22 if you count the U of W author. So what is the magic number of studies or scientists required to prove something? It's a shame I'm so ignorant about science, I wonder how I ever made a living at it, oh right I was bought off I forgot because I wasn't paying attention.
  11. An open letter to Justin

    What peer review studies mean is that when a scientist concludes a research project, they write the results up in the form of a paper which includes the hypothesis of the study, a literature review of related studies, the methods used, sources or origin of the data, the amount of data, the way the data was analyzed, the conclusions from the analysis and submits it to a scientific journal, a board of his peers will sit review and pick apart if need be anything they may think falls short of sound research methods. This is done to assure that the quality of the information is sound because that information will be review and used by other scientists in furthering the research and knowledge within that field. The fact that the University of Washington author used (referenced) 21 separate studies in writing this gives it more credence than most of the non reference crap that is publish on the net nowadays, My background in science is in biology and agriculture. I made my living as a plant breeder and through the years wrote and submitted many papers of my own to journals. Dispute what you want, but the fact of what cannabis smoke contains is easily proven with the use of mass spectrometry and has been known for years.
  12. An open letter to Justin

    Just because the article (based on 21 separate studies conducted over decades and submitted to peer reviewed journals) points out that smoke from cannabis contains many known carcinogens, 3 times the tar and higher levels of ammonia and hydrogen cyanide it must be junk compared with the Pseudoscience common nowadays that claims it's almost a health food. Sorry to burst your bubble with the facts. Smoke from cannabis is as harmful as smoke from any other source.