Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

longship

(40,416 posts)
4. Oh and the ecological concerns are foremost.
Sat Dec 17, 2016, 10:07 AM
Dec 2016

The astronomical preserve is also an ecological preserve. Very little lives at that altitude, least of all the astronomers who operate the telescopes remotely. The staff at the summit is bare bones, and all are altitude acclimated. Still, there's supplemental oxygen available there in case of altitude sickness.

But back to the ecology. When the large telescopes in the preserve are built the rule is that there shall be minimal environmental impact. That means that whatever material is not needed up there is taken off the mountain. The result is the preserve is just as pristine as before the telescope was built. The environmental impact is very small. They take this shit very, very seriously.

It will be no different with the TMT.

And remember, the astronomical preserve is a small part of one of the largest mountain summits on the planet. There is plenty more room up there for the volcano gods. And the telescopes are not even visible from lower altitudes.

Those who object to this have no rational case. They just hypocritically hate science when their ancestors settled those islands guided by the very stars they somehow now do not want science to study.

Build it!

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Hawaii»Judge overturns BLNRs app...»Reply #4