Living in the big country

[loCAtek]

A free population creates ...

Pollution, scads of it. We're killing the planet faster than it can recover. The bigger the population the bigger the pollution, which shortly will start killing us. Human societies used just 'move away' from the congested areas and exploit new resources. We've run out of places to run to, and the congestion's effects are reaching even unpopulated areas now. Stop the growth, and start the renewal.

[dgs49]

Well, that's mainly a concern if you consider that CO2 is "pollution," which it is not.

But I concede that coal-fired electric plants are environmentally harmful, and anywhere in the world that you have a third-world country trying to improve its lot, you are likely to have coal-fired plants.

Still, good government is the solution, not birth control and massive abortions. Or plague/war/pestilence, as hinted at above.

[loCAtek]

Well, that's mainly a concern if you consider that CO2 is "pollution," which it is not.
.

Which I don't, I consider more than CO2 a pollutant.


ThX from Wiki;

The major forms of pollution are listed below along with the particular pollutants relevant to each of them:

* Air pollution, the release of chemicals and particulates into the atmosphere. Common gaseous air pollutants include carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrogen oxides produced by industry and motor vehicles. Photochemical ozone and smog are created as nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons react to sunlight. Particulate matter, or fine dust is characterized by their micrometre size PM10 to PM2.5.

* Light pollution, includes light trespass, over-illumination and astronomical interference.
* Littering
* Noise pollution, which encompasses roadway noise, aircraft noise, industrial noise as well as high-intensity sonar.
* Soil contamination occurs when chemicals are released by spill or underground leakage. Among the most significant soil contaminants are hydrocarbons, heavy metals, MTBE,[10] herbicides, pesticides and chlorinated hydrocarbons.
* Radioactive contamination, resulting from 20th century activities in atomic physics, such as nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons research, manufacture and deployment. (See alpha emitters and actinides in the environment.)
* Thermal pollution, is a temperature change in natural water bodies caused by human influence, such as use of water as coolant in a power plant.
* Visual pollution, which can refer to the presence of overhead power lines, motorway billboards, scarred landforms (as from strip mining), open storage of trash or municipal solid waste.
* Water pollution, by the release of waste products and contaminants into surface runoff into river drainage systems, leaching into groundwater, liquid spills, wastewater discharges, eutrophication and littering.

[dgs49]

I like that summary.

How about this: Seawater desalination plants discharge water that is slightly more salty than the water they take in. There is no other chemical or biological difference between the intake and the outflow other than an increase in salinity.

I once worked on a de-sal project that was delayed by a year because the local tree-huggers were concerned that the plant and animal life around the outfall would be harmed by the discharge of this slightly saltier water. Last I heard, the fish and other marine life were fine with it.

Was the increase in salinity, "pollution" of the water?

[Crackpot]

That depends on the volume of output and the area availiable to absorb it. If the water would "pool" in the area without a current to dissipate it it could very well make a dead zone. (it ain't called the dead sea for nothin) IIRC it only takes a couple of points change to kill the most sea life.

[Guinevere]

Well, that's mainly a concern if you consider that CO2 is "pollution," which it is not.

But since you don't enforce the Clean Air Act, or interpret it, that is not your decision. The Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, found that the CAA specifically included the ability to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, and allows citizens groups to sue EPA toundertake such regulation if the agency continued to refuse to so regulate (as it did under Bush2).

[dgs49]

I'm sure the federal Ninth Circuit would agree.

Balderdash.

Political activism, masquerading as law.

[Andrew D]

On what basis do you contend that CO2 is not a pollutant?

[rubato]

I like that summary.

How about this: Seawater desalination plants discharge water that is slightly more salty than the water they take in. There is no other chemical or biological difference between the intake and the outflow other than an increase in salinity.

I once worked on a de-sal project that was delayed by a year because the local tree-huggers were concerned that the plant and animal life around the outfall would be harmed by the discharge of this slightly saltier water. Last I heard, the fish and other marine life were fine with it.

Was the increase in salinity, "pollution" of the water?

You're piffling about use of the word "pollution".

It is a legitimate question whether changing the salinity to the degree which such a plant is predicted to do in normal operation would be harmful to the natural environment and one which a reasonable person would want answered by empirical data. There might be engineering questions which have to be resolved to keep any negative impact within an acceptable range.

yrs,
rubato

[Guinevere]

I'm sure the federal Ninth Circuit would agree.

Balderdash.

Political activism, masquerading as law.

In case I wasn't clear, that decision was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Still think its balderdash?

[dgs49]

CO2 is NOT pollution, any more than is animal waste, rain, or sweat. They are entirely normal and natural by-products of terrestrial biological activity and natural processes, for which the planet provides the means of beneficial re-use.

No fucking court decision can change that.

What great irony that the blowhards at the EPA and their tree-hugger advocates are polluting not only the air but the political landscape with their nonsensical anti-industrial campaigns. Would that all of them could just get a job and grow up.

[loCAtek]

Animal Waste is a pollutant;

POLLUTION FROM ANIMAL WASTE HARMS PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
The concentration of livestock in factory farms leads to a buildup of animal waste in the areas where these livestock operations reside. The enormous volumes of waste cannot be assimilated by natural processes, and therefore require special treatment. In the majority of cases, the systems used to treat animal waste are inadequate. Waste is pumped into open air pits called "lagoons", and from there, liquid manure is sprayed onto fields. The amount of waste applied often exceeds what the crops can take up, leaving the rest to escape into the air or runoff into surface waters. Such outdated and improper treatment of animal waste can lead to serious pollution problems. Improper collection and disposal of untreated animal waste can harm groundwater and human health. Nutrients and bacteria from animal waste can cause fish kills and harm shellfish in contaminated streams, creeks, and estuaries. In addition, dangerous and offensive odors and other air pollutants are also emitted, often making life for farm neighbors intolerable. Finally, because antibiotics are routinely used on factory farms (to compensate for unsanitary growing conditions and to promote slightly faster livestock growth), they promote development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria that are present in animal waste.

[BoSoxGal]

What about the fact that our global supply of fresh water is not limitless, especially when utilized - as you suggest - to create farmland in arid desert zones?

[rubato]

CO2 is NOT pollution, any more than is animal waste, rain, or sweat. They are entirely normal and natural by-products of terrestrial biological activity and natural processes, for which the planet provides the means of beneficial re-use.

No fucking court decision can change that.

What great irony that the blowhards at the EPA and their tree-hugger advocates are polluting not only the air but the political landscape with their nonsensical anti-industrial campaigns. Would that all of them could just get a job and grow up.

Your piffling just got worse.

By your standards arsenic, mercury, lead, cyanide, anthrax, botulinum toxin are all 'entirely normal and natural'.


Animal waste in drinking water is a pollutant. Animal waste dissolved in runoff which kills a large area of the gulf of Mexico is pollution.


yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Yet again, rube, you prove yourself an idiot.

Water - when deposited in the lungs - is poison.

Good point?

CO2 is not a pollutant (except to the extent that you produce it). It is tree food.

[Scooter]

Animal waste which is teeming with E.coli is not a pollutant? Best tell all the people who have died from drinking groundwater contaminated with it.

Oh, right, can't tell them, 'cause they're dead.

Here's a clue - "natural processes" can deal with animal waste, CO2, etc. that is dumped into nature in natural ways, like the dumps left behind by buffalo roaming over the plains, or by the occasional forest fire ignited by lightning. "Natural processes" do not include penning tens of thousands of pigs into barns and then dumping their accumulated tons of shit into lagoons that leach into groundwater, or burning hundreds of billions of tons of coal that would have remained buried deep in the earth except for the fact that humans decided they could fuck with those "natural processes" with impunity.

[rubato]

Yet again, rube, you prove yourself an idiot.

Water - when deposited in the lungs - is poison.

Good point?

CO2 is not a pollutant (except to the extent that you produce it). It is tree food.

More useless piffling.

The amount and location of a substance determines whether it is a problem or not. At lower levels potassium is an essential nutrient. At high levels it will kill you. This is true of a lot of 'perfectly natural' elements. Saying that they occur in nature does not mean they are not harmful in the wrong quantities and in the wrong place.

You are not competent to discuss what levels of CO2 might be harmful or beneficial.


yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

We have a river or two on the east end of Long Island that were screwd up years ago by the duck farms. They are contemplating cleaning them up but are worried that stirring up the duck shit might cause more harm than good.

[rubato]

This is a list of essential nutrients which are elements:

(from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_nutrient)

See also: dietary minerals

* Calcium (Ca)
* Chloride (Cl−)
* Chromium (Cr)[3]
* Cobalt (Co) (as part of Vitamin B-12)
* Copper (Cu)
* Iodine (I)
* Iron (Fe)
* Magnesium (Mg)
* Manganese (Mn)
* Molybdenum (Mo)
* Nickel (Ni)[4]
* Phosphorus (P)
* Potassium (K)
* Selenium (Se)
* Sodium (Na)
* Sulfur (S) numerous roles[5]
* Zinc (Zn)[6]

But because they are nutrients at the right levels does not mean that they are not harmful at higher levels. Many can cause serious disease in levels which are too high. Just like CO2, too much makes it a 'pollutant'.

Have you ever wondered why you can't buy supplemental K (potassium) without an Rx? Because the lethal dose is too close to the therapeutic dose.

yrs,
rubato

[BoSoxGal]

What about the fact that our global supply of fresh water is not limitless, especially when utilized - as you suggest - to create farmland in arid desert zones?

Did you miss this query, dgs49?