Recent comments in /f/newhampshire

wheeelchairassassins t1_jdxpy0j wrote

Reply to comment by Substantial-Wrap8634 in Looking for partners to found a democratic, progressive, non-profit K-8 private school by Substantial-Wrap8634

No, I think those are fair points. And yes, the wording on progressive education is definitely one that in this climate can spark fierce responses from any angle.

I, personally, have been against school vouchers since the mainstream discussion really took off in the 90s. I whole heartedly back it when the local district can not adjusted provide for a child's needs (largely disabilities of all sorts) but I have had a problem with money being taken out of districts to go toward other schools based on parental choice alone. I have always just seen it as something that should be used for the NEEDS of a child, not the preference of the parent.

There is a lot of wiggle room allowed by the department of education among private and charter schools and while I understand fully privately funded schools, I do think it makes great education much more difficult for those who come from lower income access excellent education.

It isn't about the people running schools necessarily - I do believe the intentions are often well meaning. The problem, for me personally, is leaving kids whose parents do not have the means financially to pay for the school itself, or the transportation or boarding (when that is a factor).

All kids should have full and free access to excellent education, and the more private and charter schools that pop up, the families who are just getting by, or even just a little comfortably get by, have less access to quality education. That isn't the private institutions fault necessarily - but if public schools didn't essentially require their teachers to pay for supplies on their own, while offering salaries far below those at private - the quality of educator will inherently lower in there public sector.

We should have never allowed vouchers that weren't bad in need to begin with is my real issue - but if you are trying to f found a school that teaches truly thorough curriculum and is accessible to any child that wants to go, I wouldn't say it's the worst thing. I just think what the education system has become with not just the de-emphasis on public schooling, but also financially punishing schools that do not do as well on standardized tests. These are the places that need MORE funding, and instead the municipal/state/department of education takes money away from "failing schools". They have become a place of Calvinist indoctrination instead of true learning - and that I DO blame on alternative school options.

But reality is, there is no turning back. We already have irreparably fucked up the public school system so I guess all you can do is try to provide somewhere for any child to be taught how to learn and think critically, and not just rote memorization and how to follow orders.

6

Tullyswimmer t1_jdxlyf4 wrote

Reply to comment by opperior in NH House passes abortion-rights protections by IBlazeMyOwnPath

> The part you are missing is that the time frame doesn't matter. My original point is that, by 24 weeks, any abortion would be because it is medically necessary. That medical necessity is the point, whether it happens at 24 weeks or at 17 weeks.

It absolutely does matter. A 17 week fetus is not viable. A 24 or 25 week one is. If the law says "elective abortions are legal until 24 weeks, and only medically necessary after that" how does that "medical necessity" affect a 17 week pregnancy?

>If there is a law in place that an abortion isn't allowed after a given time (whatever that time is) unless medically necessary, then any such abortion must be legally defended. Otherwise, what would be the point of the law? If all that is necessary is for a doctor to say it's necessary, then the law would be unenforceable.

So again, there wouldn't be a problem with it? What you're arguing for is a law where elective abortions would be available until birth with no questions asked. If those never happen, why is it so critically important that they're legal?

>So if abortions that late are medically necessary, and such a law is unenforceable, why have it? At that point it just causes more harm.

Because you and I both know that elective abortions can and do happen after that point. Simple as that. You can try and dance around it all you want, but at the end of the day, if it was really that uncommon for them to happen, you wouldn't have a problem with restricting them.

1

TurretLauncher t1_jdxlolu wrote

Reply to 'We just don’t need this in our neighborhood': Proposed asphalt plant draws crowd to Nashua Planning Board by NewEnglandBlueberry

> An asphalt manufacturing plant—which breaks down used product, and makes 1,500 to 2,000 tons of new hot mix asphalt for paving and construction contractors daily—found itself in the middle of new housing developments, as a nearby town grew into the previously uninhabited vicinity around the facility. Being proactive, the plant knew it needed to mitigate its odorous releases, or else they would end up as a popular target for complaints online and at town hall meetings.
>
> Initially, the plant tried using masking chemical products, but it found these agents did not adequately hide the asphalt processing smells, and the coverups made the problem worse in some cases. A lab then analyzed a sample to determine the most effective product for the unique odor combination.
>
> Using GC-MS and a human nose panel, the team determined an additive blend made to reduce hydrogen sulfide, mercaptans, styrene and general hydrocarbons in asphalt neutralized the offending odors of the unique asphalt blend. The plant now adds about one gallon of this formulation to each of its 6,000-gallon hot mix tankers, and remains in the good graces of its neighbors.

https://www.controleng.com/articles/odor-measurement-control-at-industrial-plants/

> A hot mix asphalt plant located in a rural area of North Carolina has a community of neighbors living approximately a quarter mile away. They began complaining about strong odors from the plant.
>
> The plant typically has several trucks a day arriving at the plant to offload liquid asphalt, with a volume that fluctuates depending on workload. The general amount of liquid asphalt is 6,000 gallons per truck, pumping into two 10,000-gallon tanks and one 20,000-gallon tank. In addition, a 16,000-gallon fuel tank accepts reprocessed motor oil #4.
>
> The asphalt plant, already keen on being a “proactive good neighbor,” addressed these odor issues by contacting us. With over 25 years of neutralizing odors in the asphalt industry, OMI Industries has experience in addressing the complex odor issues in the market.
>
> OMI responded quickly, and after an initial phone conference to establish the details of the problem, one of the company’s field sales engineers visited the facility. We recommended Ecosorb® additives, mixed directly into the asphalt. Ecosorb asphalt additives were successful in eliminating the odors from the facility by reducing hydrocarbon emissions during production and transport of hot mix asphalt.
>
> OMI’s additive injection equipment automates the process of feeding Ecosorb products into liquid AC or waste oil received at an asphalt plant. In this case, the customer chose to manually add the Ecosorb asphalt additive as the liquid AC and waste oil are offloaded on-site. This facility is using Ecosorb 206A at a feed rate of 0.7 gallons per 25 ton load of liquid AC. For the fuel oil, a feed rate of 1.5 gallons of Ecosorb 206A per 25 ton load is used.

https://ecosorbindustrial.com/resources/case-studies/asphalt-plant/

9