Are you for or against the 'Three Gorges Dam'. and why? - Page 2

Kontiki · May 16, 2003, 00:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

That seems to be the norm in just about every where in Asia. Even in realatively affluent Korea you still find some nasty, nasty water.

Japan was the only exception I've found so far. That place was totally spotless.

Not just Asia. Have you seen the Great Lakes any time in the past, oh, 75+ years? Lake Ontario is unsafe to swim in, and Lake Erie actually caught fire in 1969. I'm sure a few New Yorkers could testify as to the purity of the Hudson and East Rivers, too.

FrostyBoy · May 16, 2003, 01:01

The South Koreans are building the tallest Building and the Biggest Ship, also Europe is building the worlds largest and longest bridges to connect Scandinavia to Central Europe and Spain across the sea to the top of south africa (sorry don't remember the name of the country). Gibralter?

It's somewhere on The Discovery Channel website, go there and type in "Engineering" or type in "The Infinity Tower" I think that's what it's called.

I remember finding out about these 3 new wonders when I read an article about a NASA guy complaining that the US won't build an elevator into space, he whinged that other countries are building things far more difficult.

orange · May 16, 2003, 01:33

I thought the amount of coal that would be replaced is like 20% of their power...and as MtG said...this will probably not matter if industry is increased.

TCO · May 16, 2003, 01:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
I'm generally for it. I have yet to see any favorable reports on the dam in the western media, although I've come to expect that wherever China is concerned.

It will be a shame to see historic sites submerged, but the Communist party has frequently ploughed over these sites if it will help industry and modernization. Love them or loathe them, at least they're consistent.

I don't know enough about it to comment on the details, such as the questioned safety of the project, or the rumors of endemic corruption surrounding it - but I believe at roots, the idea behind it is a good one and I prefer that the government spends money like this on trying to provide clean electricity, rather than military and weapons of defence.

It's interesting but I think a lot of the posters here (and with US flags beneath their names, I fear) would probably not have said anything if the country building this had been, say, Japan. Once the name "China" appears in any news item, it's interesting to gauge exactly how that colors American perceptions of the whole question.

I say this because I'm caught in the middle of a two-week-old argument in my family's email ring. Half of us live in North America (USA and Canada) and the other half of us live in China and Southeast Asia. Accusations of news manipulation and brainwashing are thrown both ways at China's government controlled media and America's corporate-owned channels alike.

As the only one in my family doing a Master's degree in Journalism, I feel like I'm the most knowledgeable person about this topic and still my answer is always "well, I don't know..."

Get some perspective and develop a view.

orange · May 16, 2003, 02:03

Quote:

It's interesting but I think a lot of the posters here (and with US flags beneath their names, I fear) would probably not have said anything if the country building this had been, say, Japan. Once the name "China" appears in any news item, it's interesting to gauge exactly how that colors American perceptions of the whole question.

I don't know what GP was speaking to, but this paragraph shows a lot of haughty disdain. While it's true that some Americans have a prejudice against China, I think a lot of people have a prejudice against Americans as well. The vast majority of the posters here have come out in support of the 3GD, and even those who are mildly against it are so for well based reasons. To simply say that Americans judge everything Chinese as wrong because of Communism is unfounded and certainly not backed up by this thread.

If non-Americans demand to be thought of on an individual basis, Americans should expect the same respect.

Lord Merciless · May 16, 2003, 02:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

That seems to be the norm in just about every where in Asia. Even in realatively affluent Korea you still find some nasty, nasty water.

Japan was the only exception I've found so far. That place was totally spotless.

Germany's biggest lake, the Bodensee, was a poison brew during the seventies. But today its water can be drunk safely.

Japan also had his history with enviromental disaster. A case from the late 60s involved a man getting mad from drinking contaiminated water and killing his entire family.

The level of one country's development determines how clean its environment is, not its geography.

Lord Merciless · May 16, 2003, 02:07

In my opinion, the TGD is heck of a gamble. Very risky, but also very beneficial if the gamble pays off.

Alinestra Covelia · May 16, 2003, 03:20

orange - don't take it personally. I'm an American too. I don't single out Americans because they're any more likely to be swayed by media spin, but simply because all the data we have on research into media effects is about the US media. (Simply put, few other countries have a media as developed as the US'.)

In any case, findings on American news viewership have been pretty negative... but for the sake of balance, it's important to note that few other nations have any findings at all. Journalistic academic and trade based research just haven't really penetrated very far beyond the borders of the US. I think Britain has a small research base but nowhere near as large as here. There simply isn't any data. Sorry if this comes across as disdainful. I tried to keep my comments pretty balanced (something my email-slinging relatives are not doing right now).

So it's not as though we have conclusive proof that Americans are any more or less ignorant of the situation than others. It's just that we dont' have any proof about anybody except the Americans, period.

Moving on from this, I'd say that as a matter of subjective opinion (my own observations), I'd say that British television has been consistently more inclusive of international affairs than US television news, and has tried to bring a more objective view to them. This owes much to the BBC, which is free from economic concerns that put pressure on its US cousins.

The OPPOSITE holds true (in my opinion) about British newspapers, most of which are fairly open about their political biases and endorse them frequently in their reporting. Compare this with New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, where reporting is usually much more objective, and you'll see that the British newsprint is not nearly as balanced as its TV media.

I guess this is a long winded way of saying to GP that I'm currently trying my best to "get a perspective" and "develop a view". I'm still working on it but my plan so far has included 11 years' residence in the UK, 4 years in the PRChina, and 2 years in a Master's program in Journalism in Missouri. The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know.

This is probably the wrong thread for this discussion. If any of you have interests or questions in journalistic research then feel free to PM me so we don't distress or bore any others.

orange · May 16, 2003, 04:10

Ali - likewise, it's nothing personal against you either. As most people realize, i'm probably the most 'anti-American' American on these boards, up there with the likes of Sava and Che. But I'm not really Anti-American in the sense that I hate Americans. I'm Anti-American foreign policy. And while I know that there are many ignorant Americans, I also know that there are ignorant people everywhere, and being an American does not make someone ignorant.

Not to say you were specifically saying that, of course, but sometimes I get the feeling that some posters have it in their heads that all Americans are ignorant or don't know what they're talking about.

I think these boards proves that to be wrong, as some of our most intelligent posters are Americans

Alinestra Covelia · May 16, 2003, 10:51

I just finished an exam for J408 - Media Research.

I also got back a research proposal from my professor about my project "A Quantitative Comparison of US and UK Coverage of Mainland China".

This proposal has been approved and will be implemented (all going to plan) sometime Spring 2004. More on this later.

(But don't hold your breath for the findings...)

Kidicious · May 16, 2003, 10:58

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
Get some perspective and develop a view.

Is this redundant? If not, can some one tell me the difference.

TCO · May 16, 2003, 11:21

I think maybe you are being too academic about it. I am all for the pursuit of truth, but you ought to be able top come to some general conclusions by personal observation. Why not read some of the media instead of just looking at it academically.

ranskaldan · May 16, 2003, 12:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
In my opinion, the TGD is heck of a gamble. Very risky, but also very beneficial if the gamble pays off.

I'm all for it if not for one thing: the risk of a terrorist attack (or even heavy rains) could result in very nasty consequences.

Oerdin · May 16, 2003, 13:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Kontiki
Not just Asia. Have you seen the Great Lakes any time in the past, oh, 75+ years? Lake Ontario is unsafe to swim in, and Lake Erie actually caught fire in 1969. I'm sure a few New Yorkers could testify as to the purity of the Hudson and East Rivers, too.

The clean water act was passed 25-30 years ago and stopped the "burning rivers" problem. Now the big problem is getting a century's worth of pollution out of the Great Lakes.

Out here in Califonria the water is actually quite clean. the biggest souce of ocean water pollution in southern California is Mexico. Unfortunately, the Mexicans still treat the ocean like a sewer.

Alinestra Covelia · May 16, 2003, 13:27

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
I think maybe you are being too academic about it. I am all for the pursuit of truth, but you ought to be able top come to some general conclusions by personal observation. Why not read some of the media instead of just looking at it academically.

LOL Yeah, I'd agree with you there. It's a big problem with academicians of all stripes that sometimes they get so bogged down in the details, that they can't see the forest for the trees. We had a research proposal about whether or not C-Span's coverage was balanced or not, and there was one (rather facetious) undergrad who goes "Dude, nobody watches C-Span anyway!"

Most of my news intake comes from online sources, and I'd say radio is a second place.

I read BBC news online and the NYTimes most often, as well as some UK newspapers (when I want some editorializing). Washingtonpost.com is good as well. If I read something about Chinese news, I generally try to take the Chinese Xinhua.org viewpoint on board too. It's government controlled, but at least it's an alternative viewpoint.

For radio I like NPR quite a lot. This probably owes more to their classical music than their news coverage but I like how they have a good number of global correspondents.

TCO · May 16, 2003, 13:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia

LOL Yeah, I'd agree with you there. It's a big problem with academicians of all stripes that sometimes they get so bogged down in the details, that they can't see the forest for the trees. We had a research proposal about whether or not C-Span's coverage was balanced or not, and there was one (rather facetious) undergrad who goes "Dude, nobody watches C-Span anyway!"

Most of my news intake comes from online sources, and I'd say radio is a second place.

I read BBC news online and the NYTimes most often, as well as some UK newspapers (when I want some editorializing). Washingtonpost.com is good as well. If I read something about Chinese news, I generally try to take the Chinese Xinhua.org viewpoint on board too. It's government controlled, but at least it's an alternative viewpoint.

For radio I like NPR quite a lot. This probably owes more to their classical music than their news coverage but I like how they have a good number of global correspondents.

I find NPR rather pseudo-sophisticated. They don't really dig into issues in the way that I've seen others do. They do, do in-depth peices, but I'm generally not that impressed that they really tee up and attack both sides of the issue, hard. Also, I find the breathy voicing and phrasing annoying.

I think in some ways, the WSJ is the premier newspaper in the country. They give their reporters more time to look at stories and do analysis. And they pay the most. But they are obviously more slanted to finance stuff. And they are a bit right wing. Still they do their stuff pretty damn good.

Sandman · May 16, 2003, 13:55

Quote:

also Europe is building the worlds largest and longest bridges to connect Scandinavia to Central Europe and Spain across the sea to the top of south africa (sorry don't remember the name of the country). Gibralter?

I don't know about the Scandanavia Bridge, but the Gibraltar Bridge is still very much on the drawing board, there's no commitment to building it yet. Another mega-bridge, for which there's a firm commitment, but no actual work, is the Sicily Bridge from the Italian mainland.

Oerdin · May 16, 2003, 14:22

Does New Zealand have a bridge connecting the north and south island or do you have to take a ferry? Also why doesn't the UK top them all and finally connect Northern Ireland to Scotland?

orange · May 16, 2003, 14:24

wasn't there talk of doing something like that from Korea to Japan?

orange · May 16, 2003, 14:25

or was that a tunnel?

TCO · May 16, 2003, 14:35

Quote:

Originally posted by orange
or was that a tunnel?

You are thinking about N and S Korea.

orange · May 16, 2003, 14:42

no...

Sandman · May 16, 2003, 14:44

Quote:

Does New Zealand have a bridge connecting the north and south island or do you have to take a ferry?

Don't think so.

Quote:

Also why doesn't the UK top them all and finally connect Northern Ireland to Scotland?

The North Channel is about 30 miles wide and it's also pretty deep, that's why. Plus the economics probably don't add up... unless it doubled as a tidal harness.

Seems that the Scandanavia Bridge is already finished, although it's a bridge-tunnel combination.

Edited for North Channel width correction.

Oerdin · May 16, 2003, 14:45

The gap between Japan and Korea is much wider then the English channel. It would be extremely expensive (many times the cost of the Chunnel) to build a tunnel and I doubt a bridge would be feasable at all.

Q Classic · May 16, 2003, 17:43

a bridge and/or a tunnel btw skorea and japan, at this time, would be infeasable.

a) there is a point that connects the two nations very closely; however, it's the tsushima islands, and they're so small that you'd need another big bridge to connect it with the rest of japan.
b) tunnel would have the same issue--much farther apart. i'm not so sure about the tectonics, but that in itself would make me a bit wary--esp. since skorea doesn't suffer from any of the tectonic problems japan does.
c) neither country is capable, imho, of squan-- spending that much money on such a project.

the three gorges dam, i don't like so much. too much of it, to me, sounds like the chinese wanting to show off to the world what a mighty nation they truly are.

TCO · May 16, 2003, 19:03

Quote:

Originally posted by orange
no...

Come on...it was cuter than that.

Oerdin · May 16, 2003, 19:20

30 miles isn't that much further then the 21 mile chunnel. It could be done and you might even get the Republic of Ireland and the EU to toss in some cash as well.

Sandman · May 16, 2003, 19:57

Checking up, the narrowest point between Ireland and Scotland is only 12.5 miles, but this links Ireland to the remote Mull of Kintyre, meaning more tunnels and bridges for an efficient route, or a very long route.

A more efficient route would involve Belfast to Stranraer, but this would be a longer tunnel.

Finally, there's a plan to build a 56-mile tunnel between Wales and Ireland.

Actually, it would probably be a piece of piss to build. The short tunnel could have been done by the Victorians, for God's sake. Let's do it!