please show me where I have said that the earth does not deserve our attention... you are arguing that global warming exists!! Even in your back yard! Why are you trying to say that you are not? I know this for sure...arguing with ignorance is pointless. Even Lorien proved you wrong and you won't give it up.
Sorry for the slow reply, I was somewhat dispondent over missing my goal of not using my central air conditioning system this year. I will be blame it on my daughter she was going to cook dinner for someone special and it was over 90 F outside so I relented and turned on the A/C for the first time all global warming year. During early industrialization, pollution is at its worst. Regulation and efficiency in design cleans up what we do. So our level of pollution now is close to negligible and is easily broken down or tolerated by our ecosystem. Where are the pollutants from the 1850s now?
Are you kidding? Do you have some links to back that up? you know that asthma has steadily been increasing and is linked to air pollution http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/asthma/asthma.htm There are areas in mexico and china that are toxic because of recent pollution http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1526301920070815?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews
Feret, Reread your post to find the answer to the question. I said pollution is bad during early industrialization. You mentioned the China and Mexico, these are two of the most rapidly industrializing countries. They are where the US was in the 1950s regarding industrial pollution. Why don't the those acting like they care about pollution come down hard on China, Mexico, and the severe polluters? I worked in manufacturing engineering for 22 years and oversaw the spending of millions to get make the factories very clean to the point that we were putting cleaner water into the city sewers than the city was supplying to us. We eliminated real and imagined environmental problems while our competitors competed in toxic ways. Thanks for making my point, hope you understand it.
you know that in most areas of the US you cannot drink the water, like the water from lakes and streams is un-drinkable for humans Thats great for your company, but what percentage of manufacturers in this country hold themselves to that standard? Coal burning power plants are still fighting having to use scrubbers as we speak aren't they? Because powerful interests are having them do our dirty work for us, cheaper
That's complete foolishness. If it were true there would be signs saying don't open your mouth while swimming. Please provide objective data. All business are required to meet national standards from the EPA, OSHA, etc and here in California we have California Air Resources Board and South Coast Air Quality Management District that holds manufacturers to a higher standard. No they don't, they budget for it and pass on the cost. And all big businessmen are like the Simpson's Mr. Burns, right.
please, there is a difference between swallowing a mouthful of water swimming and being able to use it for drinking water, you can swim in ocean but yet it doesn't make the best drinking water I can't think of anywhere outside of springs directly out of mountain where you can just drink the water, the Adirondack park in NY which covers much of the state, you cannot drink the water or eat the fish what lakes do you know of you can drink the water out of? or streams? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=990DE7DB123EF936A1575BC0A9629C8B63 yeah where did all that pollution go?
ferret, I didn't see any data in your post like how many milligrams or nanograms of lead are found in the fish and what a safe limit is. It was an article written to support John Kerry against George W. on pollution but it slipped up and said that Bush not Clinton enacted current tougher standards. You may not be old enough to know how widely used lead was. In 1978 I was asking customers "Unleaded or regular?", in 1979 I was an engineering student at GM and was tasked with removing all paint formulations from commercial truck paint database (it was a manual process that involved filtering 3000 available mixes). But before all that, the sources told me back around 1973 that I would be wearing a gas mask to go to high school and college. I kinda believed them like you are believing them now. Oh yeah, they were talking about the coming ice age too. Go find some real data in the form of milligrams and smaller units. I'll be waiting here.
the state doesn't say on site the amount of nanograms http://www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/outdoors/fish/fish.htm its just says don't eat it what difference does the amount of nanograms make? the EPA says its bad to eat, do you think they are lying?
lakes and rivers have always been polluted...do you think the fish poop out of water or something??? Again, like you have already been asked, do you have decent proof?
Look mate, water of lakes are not drinkable for more than one reason, one of the most prominent reason is Germs and Bacterias and other micro-organisms in the water. Now about EPA lying, yes quantity of chemical matters, if quantity of dangerous chemical is above the limit, it is dangerous for fish itself, they will die. So if fish is not dieing, in a very layman manner you can conclude that chemicals are not above the limit to harm human. And when you believe the fish from local sources are polluted and not edible, where are you going to buy fish from?
Alright, Tbarr, thanks for the reply. And I think we may be on to something we can have an interesting discussion about. I, too, have to attend to other things - like taking the lad out for a swim. But I hope we can engage on something here. I am open to learning something new.
Fisheries are in disastrous shape. As a chef, I've seen the impact. And, personally, there isn't a chance in hell I'd eat inland species as a mainstay of my diet. Pollutant runoffs are extraordinarily high, and farming practices off-shore (like coastal salmon fisheries, "sea bass" fisheries, etc.) are just as bad, having the additional effect of screwing up other species' natural patterns.
Exactly, I have seen it too, Local Fisheries are dieing.. So What is the answer of my question - And when you believe the fish from local sources are polluted and not edible, where are you going to buy fish from? The answer is hiding too many keys of the pollution stuff...
what are you saying? freshwater and near shore species effected the most by pollution, that and big predator fish which live a long time, I don't buy fish I catch it myself
Well I'm trying to make a very simple point. i.e. with all this pollution and global warming stuffs, small and local businesses are suffering, but on the other hand, Big corporates are making money off this.
Every time I read the foolish shit that comes off the tips of your fingers I do two things: one, I take a second to remember how lucky I am to live in the greatest country in the world where people stopped being ass-backwards hundreds of years ago. The second thing I do is laugh. Thanks for that
I always try to get a laugh...but I still wonder what people are thinking...fisheries in the mountains of NC and SC are doing great...the fish hatchery in Brevard NC is having some of its best production rates that it has ever had.
lol, I have d16man on ignore, but thanks for quoting him, that really made me laugh webmaster, there hasn't been a huge amount of freshwater commercial fishing in the US for many years there might be some in the great lakes still, but I doubt you can eat the fish out of there in any quantity, so the whole tin foil hat theory of the EPA lying about the fish so people buy farmed and ocean fish, doesn't make a lot of sense. Since freshwater fish don't tend to be for sale anyway