Regarding their proposed plastics-recycling plant along the Susquehanna River, I snagged this recent Q&A post directly from ENCINA's website. The redlining is my add-on.
Specifically, I was interested in what they had to say regarding the required archaeological study. Without further adieu:
I believe "Additionally" would have been a more appropriate opening to their response on this subject, as would a consistent spelling of archaeological.
Not knowing what the heck a "resource exchange study" is, I looked it up using both Bing & Google and came up empty using those exact words, both in open and bracketed searches. I did, however, come up with this result on both:
"Resource exchange theory (RET) is the result of work by Foa and Foa in 1971 as a means for explaining reciprocal social interactions of humans. The core tenet of RET is that people exchange six distinct categories of resources: love, status, information, money, goods and services [6– 8] (see Table 1)."
Now, in this day and age of, umm, social enlightenment, I acknowledge there are a lot of beyond traditional partnerships out there. However, transparency and blatant obfuscation are - at best - bedfellows that just don't mingle...right up there with oil and water or matter and antimatter. Both are very messy, at best.
I also spent some time this morning on PHMC's Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) website. Again, in the time I had available, I could find no references to "resource exchange study". So, as of right now, this is what I think it means:
"Resource exchange theory (RET) is the result of work by Foa and Foa in 1971 as a means for explaining reciprocal social interactions of humans. The core tenet of RET is that people exchange six distinct categories of resources: love, status, information, money, goods and services [6– 8] (see Table 1)."
Now, in this day and age of, umm, social enlightenment, I acknowledge there are a lot of beyond traditional partnerships out there. However, transparency and blatant obfuscation are - at best - bedfellows that just don't mingle...right up there with oil and water or matter and antimatter. Both are very messy, at best.
I also spent some time this morning on PHMC's Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) website. Again, in the time I had available, I could find no references to "resource exchange study". So, as of right now, this is what I think it means:
****
Some guy, gal or per$on of intere$t with a shovel and a degree found in a box of Cracker Jacks is going to do a quick walkaround the proposed site in Point Township, scratch up some dirt in a few spots, take a few photos, lick their index finger and hold it aloft to determine the direction and speed of the prevailing winds and declare the "resource exchange study" complete and submit the same declaring that - in the past ~14,000 years or so - there is no evidence of any significant and/or important human activity along one of the most ancient rivers on earth and that the Susquehannock, the Iroquois, the Nanticoke, the Lenni Lenape, the Tuscarora and any other Native Americans never set foot on this land.
Wow. Nary a rhyolite point or coprolite to be found.
Go figure...
****
Anyway, I'll be visiting the proposed site along Rte. 11 next week to experience, firsthand, what the area looks, smells, sounds and feels like. I have no doubt whatsoever that my NA ancestors will guide me. Until then my advice to ENCINA is:
- Do a much better job proofreading, and
****444****
No comments:
Post a Comment