A NASA-funded study of ancient and unpolluted South American forests promises to upend longstanding beliefs about ecosystems and the effects of pollution in the Northern Hemisphere.

The study, published in the Jan. 24 issue of Nature, focused on
nitrogen, a plant nutrient that plays a critical role in maintaining
everything from the health of local waterways to the global climate.

The study finds high levels of inorganic nitrogen in the United
States, long thought to be the natural mainstay of the ecosystem, are really the result of acid rain and agricultural fertilizers. The authors argue that the ecosystems of South America, with their preponderance of organic nitrogen, are a window into the past, showing that U.$. ecosystems were very different before the industrial revolution.

Ecologists previously thought that nitrogen-containing minerals,
referred to collectively as inorganic nitrogen, have always been the dominant nutrient in forests worldwide. The study of South American forests, however, showed a sharply different picture: complex, organic compounds are the main form of nitrogen in unpolluted ecosystems.

"We traveled in time by traveling to South America," said Lars Hedin, a co-author of the study and a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University.

The information they uncovered could have far-reaching impacts in many areas of ecology, from predicting the pace of global climate change to understanding the consequences of acid rain and agricultural run-off.

"Nitrogen is a sort of master variable," said Steve Perakis, the
paper's lead author and a research scientist with the U.$. Geological Survey. "If we don't get the fundamental elements of the nitrogen cycle right, we can't answer many other ecological questions."

The findings raise questions about our understanding of global
warming, which is partly caused by fossil fuel burning and increasing levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. When trees grow and mature they remove carbon dioxide from the air. The ability of trees to grow and absorb more carbon is intimately related to the availability of nitrogen.

The remote areas of Chile and Argentina provided prime areas for
conducting the research. In North America the ground is tainted with large amounts of inorganic nitrogen from widespread use of nitrogen-heavy fertilizers, as well as acid rain brought on by fossil fuel burning. In the South American areas the researchers studied, there is no fertilizer use and almost no influx of fossil fuel emissions.

To reach their conclusions, the scientists spent five years preparing experiments in remote Chilean temperate forests and another five years conducting detailed analyses of water in those forests. They also conducted one-time tests in a dozen other remote areas in Chile and Argentina to prove that the preponderance of organic nitrogen they observed was not unique to the site they were studying. At the same time, they repeated their measurements in three U.$. virgin forests, two in the Smokey Mountains and one in Pennsylvania. All of the areas studied contained unlogged primary forests, in ecosystems
that have developed in place for 4,000 years to over 20,000 years.

The results also suggest that in North America the impact of nitrogen pollution from acid rain and agriculture may be more dramatic in years to come than previously thought. That's because North American forests are still young, after recovering from past logging and agricultural clear-cutting. Young trees use nitrogen from the soil for growth, but as they mature, they sequester less nitrogen from the environment. When that happens, more inorganic nitrogen will be available to run off into rivers and groundwater.

Another interesting finding, said Perakis, was that the nitrogen
cycle -- the way nitrogen compounds are exchanged between plants, soil, waterways and the atmosphere -- in South America is more uniform than it is in the United States. "We found that even though there were some noticeable variations in South America, they were pretty small compared to the variations caused by air pollution. We live in a transient world, a world that's changing because of many human activities, so many systems are responding in unique ways."

Perakis' work was funded by a NASA Earth System Science Fellowship.
The overall project was funded by grants from the Andrew Mellon
Foundation and the National Science Foundation.

Contact:

Cynthia O'Carroll
NASA Goddard
Space Flight
Center
Phone: 301/614-5563

Steven Schultz
Princeton University, Princeton, N.J.
Phone: 609/258-5729

Ruth Jacobs
U.S. Geological Survey,
Corvallis, Ore.
Phone: 541/750-7304

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/news-release/releases/2002/02-023.htm


Adi Gaia
Universal Citizen
Universal EarthStar Space Avatar
http://world.care2.com/adigaia -- Check for updates.

Umm, Europe's ecology hasn't been severely altered by the construction of structures for human habitation and for the logisitical support of their inhabitants: power plants, factories, roads, parking lots, garbage dumps, churches, etc?

So, what you're saying is that us excess food-producing nations should cease reliance on fertilizers and herbicides, so as to save the environment, while people in food-deficient nations -- who otherwise would be eating our excess food -- die rather more quickly of starvation instead of eventual toxic poisoning?

Ah. I see. Sacrfice some so that the majority may live. I can buy into that, maybe.

Mr G,

The food never (or almost never) goes to those countries... It's usually go to make Americans even more fat... :(

Besides that, if we don't take care of our planet, who will? Are you saying that you rather destroy the planet to produce an unhealthy food with lots of fertilizers and herbicides than producing healthy food WITHOUT fertilizers? This doesn't make any sense...

Love,
Nelson

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
The food never (or almost never) goes to those countries... It's usually go to make Americans even more fat...Oh. Please. Stop.

Even though I know you abhor facts, I'm forced to throw some at you anyway. The following sampling of food-related export information for 2000/2001 is available from the U.S. Commercial Service Website, located here (http://www.usatrade.gov/website/ccg.nsf/CCGurl/). Select a country then choose option 5: "Leading Sectors for Us Exports and Investments"

Bahrain
600 Metric Tons of Poultry
150 Metric Tons of Beef

Vietnam
10,000 Metric Tons of Soybeans
20,000 Metric Tons of Soybean Meal
45,000 Metric Tons of Wheat
35,000 Dairy Cows
200,000 Pigs
1,450,000 Chickens

Korea
70,000 Metric Tons of Poultry
110,000 Metric Tons of Beef
115,000 Metric Tons of Citrus Fruit
90,000 Metric Tons of Fruits, Nuts and Vegetables
80,000 Metric Tons of Seafood

Israel
950,000 Metric Tons of Wheat
7,000 Metric Tons of Tree Nuts

Dominican Republic
300,000 Metric Tons of Wheat
361,000 Metric Tons of Soybean Meal
975,000 Metric Tons of Corn
70,000 Metric Tons of Rice

Honduras
130,000 Metric Tons of Corn
155,000 Metric Tons of Wheat
79,000 Metric Tons of Soybean Meal
60,000 Metric Tons of Rice

These figures do not even include recent relief efforts by government, corporate and charitable organizations involving India, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Somalia, Djibouti, The Federated States of Micronesia and others. Please take a moment to think before you post statements like these.

Peace.

Well, this is a complete change of subject.

It started as a post about pollution and turns into a foodfight. Oh well, if you guys want to argue about that. Guess the pollution is a big problem on this Planet now-a-days. Humans should take better care of their natural environment and try to stop this crap. If they only could stop their consumption behaviour and have a little more respect for Nature, it would change a lot. Even their attitude on which food products to use and how to share it with others, as they should share their good will with others...:confused:

This is where men really scare me as most are ready to live and let die. They think ohhh no way it would hurt me in my lifetime, lets go ahead and screw this up some more. I should have added this on my legalize pot thread as Hemp per acre yields 3 times more usable forest as trees and we can let the trees live and help clean up this mess

The interesting fact is that the US fought in many of these countries... ;)

Even destroyed a whole ecosystem in one of them... :rolleyes:

Banshee is right... let's get back to pollution...
Let war and food in other thread...



If they only could stop their consumption behaviour and have a little more respect for Nature, it would change a lot.

Yes...
I don't know why people like to have so many things, so many possessions. That's even an illness with some people...

Nature is beautiful... why "we" don't care about it...? :(

Love,
Nelson

quote: <b>Truthseeker: </b><i>"Besides that, if we don't take care of our planet, who will? Are you saying that you rather destroy the planet to produce <b>an unhealthy food</b> with lots of fertilizers and herbicides than producing <b>healthy food </b>WITHOUT fertilizers? This doesn't make any sense... "</i>

You seem to forget (or ignore) that food produced with the help of fertilizers are <b>not necessarily unhealthy, nor food produced without fertilizers are more healthy.</b> Pollution does not seem to be the terrible problem you present. Life expectancy has increased so much (thanks to new technologies in medicine, agriculture, etc, that pollution is not a crucial problem nowadays. The air in Europe and America is now much cleaner than sixty or hundred years ago so, again, pollution is not a problem.<br><br> And about destroying the planet producing food, traditional agriculture using no fertilizers or pesticides are more damaging to the environment than modern technologies. Other issue to consider: traditional agriculture keep the population down, because it does not produce the amounts of food needed to feed large populations. The extinction of the Mayas ought to give you a clue. The reason is simple: without fertilizers and pesticides, you need to use more land to crop the same amount you would using advanced technologies. That means you have to chop down forests to make more room for arable land, and that wouldn't be nice. (Or start growing potato, lettuce and tomatoes on golf courses).<br><br>The fact is: due to the extensive use of fertilizers, pesticides and other evil things provided by science and technology, the area used for crops nowadays (in the U.S. and countries using modern tech) is about half the area used about sixty years ago, with a yield improvemnet almost tripled. With the advance in new hydroponics agriculture the yields are so astonishing you wouldn't believe your eyes. <br><br>The following table shows the results from an experiment performed in Denmark in 1988, as published in the <i>Journal of International society of Soiless Cultivation</i>. From the least intensive (at top) to the most intensive means of producing lettuce (at bottom), there is a dramatic increase in the yield, as measured in number of heads produced and the total biomass weight. Per year, per square meter, the productivity can be increased by increasing the intensiveness of input, such as water and light.<br><br>Believe it or not (as Ripley said), there are environmentalist groups that opposes this way of growing lettuce (or any other green produce) because they resent the way plants are "crowded" --they say lettuces are "living beings" and they suffer. Beware! Lots of freaks are on the loose!<br><br>
<center><B>TABLE 1<BR><BR>YIELD COMPARISONS OF LETTUCE PRODUCTION <br><font size=2>(Total production per suare meter, per year)<br><br></center>
<br><br>Please go down the page to find the Table: there is a problem with the HTML code that puts a lot of empty space before the Table... sorry for that.

<TABLE width="80%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" bgcolor="#acc6c6" bordercolor="#ff0000">
<TR>
<TD bgcolor="#ffff00" align="center">
<B>
Production method
</B>
</TD>
<TD bgcolor="#ffff00" align="center">
<B>
Number of lettuce heads
</B>
</TD>
<TD bgcolor="#ffff00" align="center">
<B>
Fresh weight of lettuce heads (kg)
</B>
</TD>
<TD bgcolor="#ffff00" align="center">
</B>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left">
Soil, outdoors
</TD>
<TD align="center">
40
</TD>
<TD align="center">
8
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left">
Soil, greenhouse, no heating
</TD>
<TD align="center">
80
</TD>
<TD align="center">
12
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left">
Soil, greenhouse, with heat
</TD>
<TD align="center">
120
</TD>
<TD align="center">
18
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left">
Hydroponic greenhouse
</TD>
<TD align="center">
150
</TD>
<TD align="center">
22
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left">
1-dimensional spacing
</TD>
<TD align="center">
360
</TD>
<TD align="center">
54
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left">
2-dimensional spacing
</TD>
<TD align="center">
500
</TD>
<TD align="center">
74
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left">
Maximum spacing and artificial light (2,500 hrs)
</TD>
<TD align="center">
900
</TD>
<TD align="center">
135
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left">
Maximum spacing and artifical light (5,000 hrs)
</TD>
<TD align="center">
1200
</TD>
<TD align="center">
180
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left">
Phytotron experiments under sterile conditions
</TD>
<TD align="center">
1260
</TD>
<TD align="center">
300
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<br></font><font size=1>Source:Adapted from the Journal of the International Society of Soiless Cultivation, 1988.
<br><br></b>
</font><font size=2>
The same goes for intensive production of almost anything, from fodder to trouts. In south Africa, a hydroponic fodder unit called a Gordon Machine was profitable producing fresh grass rations to supplement feed for sheep raised in the pen or battery system. It was found that 250 sheep could be raised in an area of some 520 square meters, in contrast with the conventional open.range South African standard of one sheep per 2,5 hectares (a 12,000-fold reduction of space!). The same goes for cattle fodder, produced by means of the Groenvoer 365 system.

The saving of water under these kind of production is enormous (and saving fresh water seems a sensible thing to do,,,), as an example, for 1 kg of edible cucumber, 10 liters of water are required under hydroponic greenhouse, compared to 205 liters used in the open fields --as Mother Nature used to advice. One kg of lettuce needs 30 liters against 96 required in the open field. One kg of tomato need 13 liters, compared to 123 liters used by "organic" farmers.

And talking about the post that generated this thread, the nonsense of "inorganic" and "organic" nitrogen, there is little to say (technically, at least, because the political origin of such nonsense would require several thick books). It is in the same level of irrationality as the argument used by anti-nukes that say "man-made radiation" is hideous and dangerous, while "natural radiation" is harmless, although they deny it could be beneficial, in spite of the well established concept of Hormesis (the beneficial health effects of low level radiation) as put forward by the <b>UNSCEAR</b>, the <i>United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation</i>, in its April 4th,1994 document.

The nitrogen molecule is only one (leave aside isotopes) and its combination with other elements will male the substances <b>organic</b> or <b>inorganic</b>. Instead of using "inorganic" nitrogen, organic farmers use "organic" nitrogen found in manure --along with lots of campilobacter and other bacteria that causes food borne diseases. Nice going! No organic for me, thanks...

The press release pasted by Banshee also talks about South America, as if we were living in a prehistoric period, where farming is made "naturally", implying therefore, "healthy". Here in Argentina, we have converted ourselves into the <b>highest per-capita producers of soybean in the world</b>, almost doubling the US per-capita output. We are about to have the largest soybean crop in history --thanks to direct plowing, intensive use of fertilizers, and low use of herbicides because we use genetically modified (GM) varieties of soybean, wheat, corn, rice and whatever. In our present condition, we cannot afford to let modern technologies pass by. Because GM varieties are resistant to weeds and insects, the use of pesticides (Roundup, Dieldrin, etc) has been reduced to negligible levels, with beneficial effects on the environment, people and other animals.

However, there are still people who quote <b>Worldwatch Institute, Greenpeace</b>, the <b>WWF</B> and other anti-scientific organizations in their frantic claims against GM crops and foods, global warming, the ozone hole, DDT, PCBs, and other popular myths crowding the environmental issue. These are anti-people, genocidal organizations that have caused more deaths than Hitler's holocaust. Just remember that malaria kills more than 3 million people every year, needless deaths that could have been avoided if Rachel Carson hadn't start her campaign of lies and missinformation back in 1962.

:D Enough for now. There is much more to talk about, but it would take years. Remember what Einstein said: <b>"There are two infinite things: the Universe and the Human Stupidity... but I'm not too sure about the Universe".</b>

We have almost reached the point that without manmade help, such as fertilizers, we could not raise enough food to feed present day population. If you look at the chart that Edufer has posted, he shows that there is still a lot we could do to increase food production. To keep everyone fed though, is a one way street. You can not go back and say we made a mistake and lets not do that anymore. The results are lots of starved and dead people. Everyone hollers about what we are doing to the earth. When your neighbor dies of starvation then other things of more immeadate nature become the item of prime importance. So in the end you must decide what is the most important, people or enviroment. That is not to say that you can not improve enviroment. What must be allowed for is that it takes a little time to first arrange how best to do it and then put into use the technology that best fits the need.

Here in MD the outbreaks of Fisteria are blamed on pig farm runoff into the bay. The initial researchers were caught off guard with this organism not realizing it will travel in air and unfortunetly causes sever to mederate mental retardation. One of the 3 scientists investigating the fisteria bloom developed permanent retardation.

It grows from FL to SC to MD and has had a severe impact on fishing.

Thank you Edufer for the interesting article. :)

I agree with Greenpeace though, no matter what you say. They've done a lot of very good work.

And I stay with it that people should pay a little more attention to what they leave behind in garbage which they just throw away in Nature, like it is a big trash can. Plastic and all that kind of crap is pollution too...

It shall sound cold and hard, there are much to many people walking down on Earth. Perhaps Earth takes care of that problem Herself...

(yes, give me your reasonable, scientific replies, I am awaiting them!)

Edufer, thanks for the interesting seed. Seems promising.

(While this hamster has no concern for crowded cabbages, do feel some attention should be paid to living conditions of farm animals. First obligation is to hamsters, next humans, then other animals, then life.)

Edufer,

Yeah... ok... I don't understand very much about agriculture... (actually I never studied it)... But I do understand of ancient agriculture...
Ancient civilizations used to use even the space in the mountains instead of destroying the florest...
And some used to let the ground rest, going to other places, and then coming back after its recovery.

But since our world is so crowded...

Believe it or not (as Ripley said), there are environmentalist groups that opposes this way of growing lettuce (or any other green produce) because they resent the way plants are "crowded" --they say lettuces are "living beings" and they suffer. Beware! Lots of freaks are on the loose!

They are not freak...
The lettuces don't feel, but they are living beings...
and they deserve respect... :D

I agree with Greenpeace though, no matter what you say. They've done a lot of very good work.

And I stay with it that people should pay a little more attention to what they leave behind in garbage which they just throw away in Nature, like it is a big trash can. Plastic and all that kind of crap is pollution too...

Yup... :)

Love,
Nelson

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
*They are not freak...
The lettuces don't feel, but they are living beings...
and they deserve respect... *

Yep! :)

Originally posted by Imahamster
*First obligation is to hamsters, next humans, then other animals, then life.)*

First obligation is to Nature, as in Forests and other vegetation, animals (including farm animals!), Earth Herself, humans..:bugeye:

It is outrageous what humans do to farm animals, guess that's something for another thread. Like what humans still do to the Whales, they can't get enough of it. Killing, killing, killing!

I quit it, I am getting real angry now! Talk to you later...:(

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Ancient civilizations used to use even the space in the mountains instead of destroying the florest...
And some used to let the ground rest, going to other places, and then coming back after its recovery.

Even today, as in most parts of the Andes (from Mexico down to Peru, Bolivia, Chile, etc) poor people still do it: they make terraces in the mountains and grow crops for their miserable sustain... But when you go to the sabanas and great plains. you'll find huge extensions of modern agriculture being performed. Ancient civilizations did it because they hadn't developed the technology --today Southamericans (and other parts of the world) keep doing it in mountains, where a tractor is not practical, and intensive agriculture is not possible.

Evolution means progress (or viceversa). In the Amazon jungle (where I lived for some years) indians and poor people have small "chacos" (about 1 or 2 hectares of cleared jungle where they plant corn, peanuts, bananas, yuca, potatoes, pumpkins, etc, all together in three levels: underground, low and medium height. After three or four years, the jungle soil fertility disappears and they move to a new "chaco", next to the old one. Hard work, hard life, meager crops, huge famines... it is not nice, believe me.

They are not freak...
The lettuces don't feel, but they are living beings...
and they deserve respect...

How do you know they don't feel? Experiments carried with plants subjected to music coming from loudspeakers, showed that plants "listening" to Mozart grew leaning towards the loudspeakers --and plants subjected to "heavy metal" rock music grew leaning away from the loudspeakers (I can understand them!).

Although the different levels (or stages) of feeling and sensitivity of minerals, plants, animals, humans and "spirits" are a fascinating subject, there is not enough evidence to say anything in favor or against it. Maybe some day... who knows for sure?

And Banshee, why did you get so furious? Take it easy. please. Things could be much worse, but it seems we can improve the state of the planet if everybody wanted to pull in the same direction. In the meantime, have a cold beer and enjoy life... it is not as long as we would it like to be. :D :D

Edufer,

How do you know they don't feel? Experiments carried with plants subjected to music coming from loudspeakers, showed that plants "listening" to Mozart grew leaning towards the loudspeakers --and plants subjected to "heavy metal" rock music grew leaning away from the loudspeakers (I can understand them!).

It's not that kind of feeling I'm talking about. I'm saying that they don't have nerves all around them as we do...

Yeah... I prefer listening to Mozart too... ;)

... But... don't understand me wrong!...

...I'm not a lettuce...

... :D

Love,
Nelson

Do I hear cabbage being muttered in the background?

Just kidding, TruthSeeker. You shouldn't leave yourself so open...

quote

First obligation is to Nature, as in Forests and other vegetation, animals (including farm animals!), Earth Herself, humans..

It is outrageous what humans do to farm animals, guess that's something for another thread. Like what humans still do to the Whales, they can't get enough of it. Killing, killing, killing!

I quit it, I am getting real angry now! Talk to you later...
--------------------------------------------
smiles well said and welcome to the Lakota tribe

Grandfather, Great Spirit, you have been always, and before you no one has been.

There is no other one to pray to but you.

You yourself, everything that you see, everything has been made by you.

The star nations all over the universe you have finished.

The four quarters of the earth you have finished.

The day, and in that day, everything you have finished.

Grandfather, Great Spirit, lean close to the earth that you may hear the voice I send.

You towards where the sun goes down, behold me;

Thunder Beings, behold me!

You where the White Giant lives in power, behold me!

You where the sun shines continually, whence come the day-break star and the day, behold me!

You where the summer lives, behold me!

You in the depths of the heavens, an eagle of power, behold me!

And you, Mother Earth, the only Mother, you who have shown mercy to your children!

Hear me, four quarters of the world - a relative I am!

Give me the strength to walk the soft earth, a relative to all that is!

Give me the eyes to see and the strength to understand, that I may be like you.

With your power only can I face the winds.

Great Spirit, Great Spirit, my Grandfather, all over the earth the faces of living things are all alike.

With tenderness have these come up out of the ground.

Look upon these faces of children without number and with children in their arms,

that they may face the winds and walk the good road to the day of quiet.

This is my prayer; hear me!

The voice I have sent is weak, yet with earnestness I have sent it.

Hear me!

It is finished. Hetchetu aloh!

Now, my friend, let us smoke together so that there may be only good between us.

Yes! :)

Peace...Love...For Earth, Nature and all that walks the Earth in Love and Peace with the Earth and the Cosmos... ;)

That's starting to become really cute... :D:D:D

Everyone praising Love...! :)

That's really good... :)

Now we seem Children of God... ;)

Love,
Nelson

Children of the Cosmos...;)

Well, what do you know! This thread started on the subject of polution. acid rain, organic nitrogen and developed into a religious gatheing... everybody praying and saying LOVE!, LOVE!

Although, as an agnostic, I have religious beliefs --and say my prayers to my own Force before going to bed-- I don´t think science and religion mix too well.

So, why don´t we start another thread about high levels of natural carcinogenics found in organic food, for example?

Or what could have happened to the Twin Towers if asbestos had not been banned when the asbestos covering of the steel beams had reached floor 67? Interesting subject. The beams gave up one and half hour after the fire started, while the asbestos covering guaranteed at least four hours before melting. The firemen could have had time to quench the fire...

Anyway, I love you all, fellers...

quote

The fact is: due to the extensive use of fertilizers, pesticides and other evil things provided by science and technology, the area used for crops nowadays (in the U.S. and countries using modern tech) is about half the area used about sixty years ago
------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't debate that or this line of thought, However, life needs food , oxygen, and water and the three need each other. We harm one ...we harm all three. The USDA (1998) stated 35 percent of the fresh water supply in the USA is impaired. It's not a problem just in the USA as it is worldwide and many countries face a harder challenge.

The mystery of the Maya will never be solved but history suggests war was the fall of their empire. Many ancient tribes of the "Americas" simply disappeared and others stood strong. For the most part the tribes all had hunting grounds (Maya also had farms but not all of the tribes farmed), holy grounds, and camp grounds. An invasion of these grounds caused wars among the tribes many times.

But after 761, he notes, "wars led to wholesale destruction of property and people, reflecting a breakdown of social order comparable to modern Somalia." In that year the king and warriors of nearby Tamarindito and Arroyo de Piedra besieged Dos Pilas. Says Demarest: "They defeated the king of Dos Pilas and probably dragged him back to Tamarindito to sacrifice him."

source Arthur Demarest's excavations

The theory goes the tribe went into civil war and self destructed and some escaped to a new area as the Mayan tribe still lives.

I am 47 and in my lifetime pollution continues to grow mostly out of each industry selfishly more worried about their "money" than the future of the world. We have to stop this trend or we will destroy our entire ecosystem.

Originally posted by Justagirl
*in my lifetime pollution continues to grow mostly out of each industry selfishly more worried about their "money" than the future of the world. We have to stop this trend or we will destroy our entire ecosystem.*

There you go! That is exactly my point, in every post made. It is the main cause of posting the whole article. Maybe it now gets a little more clearer, when more people here at the Forums speak up on the pollution done by industries and the everlasting race to make money, money, money, at cost of all. Good chance they pay the highest price for doing so in the end and nothing will be left to spend their sacred money on...:(

Fresh Water is becoming rare. Keep in mind that there is a lot more salt water on Earth then fresh water. We have to save what is left, not go on with the daily pollution and act like everything is ok, for it gets a huge problem if we go on like this...

in my lifetime pollution continues to grow mostly out of each industry selfishly more worried about their "money" than the future of the world. We have to stop this trend or we will destroy our entire ecosystem.

That was my point too...

In my city I can't breath well and we don't have any industry there! All the pollution is caused by... CARS!!!
When I look into the horizon, I see all the ski brown... :(
It's sick... :(

And look how many cars there are everywhere...
BILLIONS!
And when they get old... like 1 year (normal American) or 2 years (poor American), they just throw it into the "garbage" and buy a new one, because the other was "old"... :mad:

Ok... but where the "old" one is now? Guess where? Perhaps polluting an ocean... or a river... or in a junk yard among other millions of car...

That's an interesting question for another thread...
Which area of the planet is covered by garbage??

Does anyone know...?

Love,
Nelson

Originally posted by Banshee
Fresh Water is becoming rare. Keep in mind that there is a lot more salt water on Earth then fresh water. We have to save what is left, not go on with the daily pollution and act like everything is ok, for it gets a huge problem if we go on like this...

Yes, Banshee, you are right there. But you have to remember that the water cycle keeps going: huge amounts of water are evaporated from the oceans and part of it goes back to firm land in the form of rains. That way rivers are formed and while they make they long journey back to the oceans, they carry mineral sediments that makes the salinity of the oceans. That way, the oceans <b>are getting saltier every minute</b>, although some minerals sediment on the ocean bottom as carbonates ,and other minerals are taken by fitoplankont and other life forms to grow.

But the amout of fresh water is always the same, regardeless of the increasing salinization of oceans. There are some deposit of fresh water that is not available to mankind, as the increasing amount of snow in the Antarctic that form the ice cover. Even so, if we face the risk of running out of fresh water, we can melt snow from glaciers and the Poles to use for our needs. Technically it is possible, politically is less feasible...

However, thanks to science and technology (evil things?) the salt water of the oceans can be desalinated at increasingly lower costs. There was a project for desalinating sea water in Israel and Jordan, by means of a network of desalination plants powered by small, inexpensive and highly efficient nuclear plants, that would provide fresh water for irrigation projects in the dry lands of the Near East.

Unfotunately, that project encountered fierce opposition from the anti-nuke movement. I hope they will someday recover their sanity and recognise that the benefits for the people dwarfs any hypothetical danger coming from radiation.

Originally posted by justagirl [/i]
The USDA (1998) stated 35 percent of the fresh water supply in the USA is impaired. It's not a problem just in the USA as it is worldwide and many countries face a harder challenge.

Statistics are the most elegant way to lie --or to misinform. I am sick of statistic that are used wildly to prove almost anyhting you want. Using the same set of data you can prove exactly opposite views of anything. On famous case was the study made by Dr. E.J. Sternglass and J.M. Gould, back in 1989, sponsored by the "Don´t Waste Oregon Committee", that tried to "prove" that the Trojan Nucelar plant in Multnomah County had provoked a 72% increase of leukemia in the county. If you take a look at the graph used by Sternglass (provided by the Oregon Epidemiological Department), of leukemia deaths from 1950 to 1989, Sterngalss took the figures for his study from 1980 ending in 1989. That is: he took the lowest point of the graph as the beginning (1980) and the ending point was at the highest point (1988). Magic! There is a 72% increase in leukemia deaths. Trojan nuke plant was responsible. But this is a typical case of lousy epidemiological study. (sorry for a graph in Spanish, but it belongs to our website of the Argentine Foundation for Scientific Ecology http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INDICE/CAP14-AnalisisPolitico.htm

<img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images/Sternglass.gif">

Using the same data from the graph, if we take as starting point the year of 1977 (one year after Trojan inauguration), with 60 deaths, and finish it in 1980, with 32 deaths, we "discover" that the Trojan plant had caused a decrease in leukemia deaths of 32%!. Miracle! Nuclear plants cure leukemia!. Garbage. As it is garbage Dr. Sternglass inescrupulous study. Any serious epidemiological study must be designed on a much larger time scale and on a significant population. Scientifically speaking, Dr. Sternglass' study is pure rubbish...

Originally posted by justagirl [/i]
The mystery of the Maya will never be solved but history suggests war was the fall of their empire. Many ancient tribes of the "Americas" simply disappeared and others stood strong. For the most part the tribes all had hunting grounds (Maya also had farms but not all of the tribes farmed), holy grounds, and camp grounds. An invasion of these grounds caused wars among the tribes many times.

That is true... partly. I am well aware of Demarest's work (I am a founding member of the Cordoba Anthropological Society, here in Argentina). But many serious studies show thta the decline and dissapearance of the Mayas was not caused by wars, but for huge famines. The studies point at the increase in population of the Mayas, and the consequent degradation of their environment by their ancient agricultural techniques that could not supply the food necessary for sustaining such a large population. Malthus delighr!

The Mayas had to abate large portions of the jungle for making their crop lands and, as it was mountainous terrain, the runoff caused by the heavy rains soon provoked an amazing ecological disaster. The hungry people had to look for other places for food and migrated to places where they were exterminated by stronger enemies, or just became part of new tribes and nations, losing their identities.

Anyway, although this seems to be a feasible explanation, it still is highly speculative, as any other theory sourrounding the Mayas.

quote

Statistics are the most elegant way to lie --or to misinform. I am sick of statistic that are used wildly to prove almost anyhting you want
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics never lie as Math doesn't lie. I agree they can show one side of an issue and mislead the public. That's common among the world as for years the tobbaco companies used their own statistics to show smoking didn't kill. Every issue in the world has more than one side and to make decisions based on "just" one side and ignore the other sides is a uninformed decision. Pollution has been debated for most of my life and the medical proof still shows it kills us . Now are some of the "risk" overrated??Yeah, probably but how many can we kill and say it is a safe risk??How many years can the world ignore statistics that show they do kill??

http://ens.lycos.com/ens/may2001/2001L-05-04-02.html

You may find that link interesting as Argentina allowed the use of PCB's many years after it was found to cause health hazards to humans.



Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution


C. Arden Pope III, PhD; Richard T. Burnett, PhD; Michael J. Thun, MD; Eugenia E. Calle, PhD; Daniel Krewski, PhD; Kazuhiko Ito, PhD; George D. Thurston, ScD


Context Associations have been found between day-to-day particulate air pollution and increased risk of various adverse health outcomes, including cardiopulmonary mortality. However, studies of health effects of long-term particulate air pollution have been less conclusive.

Objective To assess the relationship between long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution and all-cause, lung cancer, and cardiopulmonary mortality.

Design, Setting, and Participants Vital status and cause of death data were collected by the American Cancer Society as part of the Cancer Prevention II study, an ongoing prospective mortality study, which enrolled approximately 1.2 million adults in 1982. Participants completed a questionnaire detailing individual risk factor data (age, sex, race, weight, height, smoking history, education, marital status, diet, alcohol consumption, and occupational exposures). The risk factor data for approximately 500 000 adults were linked with air pollution data for metropolitan areas throughout the United States and combined with vital status and cause of death data through December 31, 1998.

Main Outcome Measure All-cause, lung cancer, and cardiopulmonary mortality.

Results Fine particulate and sulfur oxide–related pollution were associated with all-cause, lung cancer, and cardiopulmonary mortality. Each 10-µg/m3 elevation in fine particulate air pollution was associated with approximately a 4%, 6%, and 8% increased risk of all-cause, cardiopulmonary, and lung cancer mortality, respectively. Measures of coarse particle fraction and total suspended particles were not consistently associated with mortality.

Conclusion Long-term exposure to combustion-related fine particulate air pollution is an important environmental risk factor for cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality.

JAMA. 2002;287:1132-1141
http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v287n9/abs/joc11435.html

Though I long ago lost the links, I remember doing some research on this. There was some geologic stuff done on the lake that supplies the main source of drinking water. Don't remember the name of the lake. Anyway, there was found a layer of gypsium in the bed indicating that the lake dried up and it is thought that the civil wars were basically wars over water.

Errr... guys...

I just happened to repare in the title of the post...:
"U$ ecology dramatically altered by fertilizers and acid rain..."

Well... first of all we are talking about U$...
And I would like to emphasize that the U$ seems to be much more concerned with their economy than with what their economy do with their ecologic system...

Acid rains, for example. It's a problem in many places in the world. See for example the Acropolis in Athens. The acid rain is eating all of it... Hundreds of years of history that survived many wars it's not surviving acid rain...

But we are tslking about U$ anyways...

Do you know that the U$ energy system is mostly supplied by Nuclear power? And where do they put the nuclear garbage? In the ocean? Underground? And if something happens and it starts to get out of there? Or they send to Developing countries to dump in OUR backyards!! :mad:

Anyways... And all this industrial waste being thrown in the rivers...

Wake up people! Stop thinking in the past!
Let's do something with our present before we have no chance anymore!

Act! If everyone start to complain they will HAVE to do something about it! Change it!

Love,
Nelson

TruthSeeker, I second your post. Though there is a lot pollution outside the U$, this article was specific about the U$.

Good question anyway! What does the 'god blessed' government of the U$ do with their nuclear garbage? They have to leave it somewhere. I bet they found a nice solution for it, not that the people hear about it. No, imagine!

Perhaps Edufer has statistics on this one. Let's hear it Edufer!

Now I'm dying to know what becomes of the nuclear garbage...:confused:

(am too lazy to have a look for it on the internet, it'll change nothing!)

P.S. If you can tell me where they keep their nuclear garbage, I will personally go and blow it up, so the U$ doesn't have to worry any more about their war on terrorism. Goodbye Cruel World, Goodbye Blue Sky... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Do you know that the U$ energy system is mostly supplied by Nuclear power?Not so, Anti-Fact Boy.


Capability by Fuel Source (Megawatts) Coal-fired - 285,798
Gas-fired - 121,479
Nuclear-powered - 94,689
Hydroelectric - 92,999
Petroleum-fired - 43,114When country-bashing, please get your information correct before posting. You should have hung on to your acid rain thought, backed it up with the fact that the United States produces most of its power through coal-fired production facilities, then finished off with a link illustrating how the sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrous oxides (NOx) released into the atmosphere can travel for thousands of kilometers before coming back down to earth in the form of dry particles or acid precipitation. Man, you could have had a post with substance!Wake up people!Yes, please do. Think.

Peace.

quote: <b>justagirl:</b> <i>"You may find that link interesting as Argentina allowed the use of PCB's many years after it was found to cause health hazards to humans".</i>

Yes, I am a consultant to our provincial government on environmental risks as PCbs, DDT, radiation, and know very well how ignorant politician are when it comes to science and political decisions about the environment. The link you gave me is interesting as there appear some ministers and officials well known for their utter incapacity for anything else beside stealing from the public treasure. They were expelled from office back in December. That is a consequence of a perverse policy being implemented for decades in Argentina: the destruction of the public education, especially the scientific education in primary schools, and later in high school and colleges.

That was toppled with the destruction of two really important scientific projects: the nuclear program (Argentina was selling reactors to other countries as Peru and lately to Australia), and the aerospace project called "Condor", that had managed to launch a 600-mile range missile. The British feared it could be used to attack the Malvinas Islands (400 miles away from Argentina´s coast) and the U.S. feared that Saddam Hussein could buy the missile for attacking Israel. Competitors in those fields (nuclear industry and weapon trafficking) are not welcome.

So, going back to the PCB scare, you´ll see that the accusations are based on the perss releases that say: <i><b>"PCBs</b></i> (or any other substance, for that matter) <i><b>has been linked to cancer in humans". </b></i> Scientific studies have shown there is not link whatsoever between human cancer and PCBs. I would suggest you to visit this link --the <A HREF="http://www.acsh.org/HealthFactsAndFears/index2.search"> (American Council on Science & Health),</A> where you will find scientific material on the PCB subject (and many other public health related issues). I promise you won´t be losing your time. The link will take you right to a page where there are 11 other links to articles on the PCBs subject, and one I selected is this: <A HREF="http://www.acsh.org/press/releases/BrownerBrodsky072398.html">BrownerBrodsky</A>

Quote: <b>Statistics never lie as Math doesn't lie.</b>

I cannot agree with that. Maths are not a simple matter, (I have a love-hate affair with them) and better leave it to mathematicians. In statistics you mostly use simple maths: add, substract, multiply and divide. And when using figures you can play nice and clever tricks. When I was studying computing some years ago, the first rule we learned from the masters was what has become the Golden Axiom of Programming: <b>"Garbage in, garbage out"</b>.That means that the electronic moron we know as "computer" or CPU, or whatever, will efficently carry away calculations according to the input, following precise instructions from the programmer. And this take us to the matter of the honesty (and no so much to the ability) of the programmer.

It is widely known that if you have a hypothesis you want to prove, there is nothing better as writing the adequate program. In other words, if you "know" the answer in advance, it is quite easy to select the adequate data to input to a program that will give the answer you want. An example: Global Warming. Another one? The Ozone hole hoax. Still another: overpopulation.

Quote: <b>How many years can the world ignore statistics that show they do kill??</b>

Or put it on reverse: "How many years can the world ignore statistics that show they do not present a real threat?" A two sided coin... Why they keep misinforming people about the alleged harm caused by some chemicals, especially when the concentration they are found in nature is minimal? Take the case of dioxins: once they said TCDD was the most deadly toxin known by man. It is not. Aflatoxin B1 is. They say all garbage burning facilities must be banned because they produce dioxin that is harmful for people. Then, what are they going to do about forest and prairies fires, that have been producing dioxin in quantities that makes garbage burning look like child's play? Why don't they tell people there is nothing to worry about these natural fires, because the amount of dioxin produced is minimal? Or is there another reason behind all this misinformation...? Is there a gigantic business where politicians and NGOs are profiting? You bet there is!

Quote: <b>"That's common among the world as for years the tobbaco companies used their own statistics to show smoking didn't kill. Every issue in the world has more than one side and to make decisions based on "just" one side and ignore the other sides is a uninformed decision.</B>

I couldn't agree more with you. You are absolutely right. To be informed is the duty of any concerned citizen. The problem arises when you start looking for sources of your information. Once you get hold of any, then you must compare both informations with universally accepted facts (as scientific facts --not "factoids"-- physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, etc.) And this is a tremendous job! It will take most of your time to check the accuracy and seriousness of all information you get. If you do it well, you won't have time to dinner or sleep, let aside go to work. In my case, my job in FAEC (Argentine Foundation for Scientific Ecology) is doing precisely this: check the information and, as we say, try to discover where the cat is hidden.

Quote: <b> Argentine electric utilities Edenor and Edesur eliminated PCBs from their transformers in 2000. </b>

Yes, they did. And soon afterwards happened tha biggest blackout known in the history of Buenos Aires, when entire bouroughs were without power for weeks! The new transformers, cooled with mineral oil instead of PCBs, started to explode and start fires that render most of the power grid useless. There were people killed, many died as a result of the loss of power, many small business connected with the food supply, restaurants, grocery stores, etc, went bankrupt because the food rot in the useless freezers and refrigerators.

Now listen to this: there is not a single case recorded in the medical history that show somebody died because of PCB exposure (leave aside suicides). Show me just ONE case where PCB was responsible of a human death. Just ONE. And the same goes for DDT and dioxins: just ONE human death related to an exposure to environmental concentrations. Even the Sevezo accident in Italy caused nothing more severe than a skin rash. No cancers, no leukemias, no birth defects at all. But yes, there hundreds of abortions performed by terrified pregnant women. Then, who are the criminals? Those who produce useful chemicals for mankind, or those who misinform and terrify people with imaginary dangers? Those like Erin Brokovich, who made a fortune with a hoax; or those who discovered DDT, the chemical pronounced by the World Health Organization as the most useful chemical ever discovered by man, that have saved more lives than antibiotics?

Quote: truthseeker: <b><i>"Do you know that the U$ energy system is mostly supplied by Nuclear power? And where do they put the nuclear garbage? In the ocean? Underground? And if something happens and it starts to get out of there? Or they send to Developing countries to dump in OUR backyards!!</I></b>

OK, Banshee, this goes in your behalf too... You asked for the knowledge. Now do your homework...

I´m sorry, but nuclear energy amounts to barely 20% of the electricity used in the US. In the mid 90s, the figures for nuclear borne electricity for different countries were: France 78%, Belguim 65,5%, Hungary 48,9%, Sweden 46,9%, South Korea 46,9%, Taiwan 41%, Switzerland 37,4%, Spain 36,1%, Finland 36,2%, Bulgary 35,6%, Germany 34%, Japan 40%, Checoslovaquia 26,7%, United States 20%, Great Britain 19,3%, Canada 17%, Argentina 17%, and Russia 12,6%.

<b>"Nuclear garbage"</b>, as you call it, is not garbage: it is a highly valuable material that can be reprocessed (recycled, the word adored by environmentalists) in a process that concentrates 96% of the radioactivity in only 4% of the original volume, and the resulting nuclear fuel is used in the advanced and ultra-safe fourth generation reactors (fast breeders, pressurized gas, HTWRs, and the like) until it is completely burned <b>--no leftover, no residues, no "garbage".</B> Everything converted into clean, environmenatly friendly electricity. Oddly, this type of "recycling" is strongly opposed by the anti-nuke movement (and most of their gullible and ignorant followers). Why? There is no scientific explanation for their oppostion, just emotional arguments, "remember Chernobyl" and other nonsense.

There is a much better way to deal with nuclear spent fuel (or garbage, as you like): the Argonne National Laboratory has synthesized a substance known as <b>CMPO</b> (octyl {fenil]-NN-diisobutyl-carbamyl-methyl-phosphine oxide), able to selectively isolate <b>transuranics</b> (highly radioactive materials as plutonium) from the rest of the nuclear residues (Horowitz, E. Philip, 1986, <i>"New Radioactive Waste Treatment Could Save Taxpayers Billions"</i>, Logos, Argonne Nat. Lab., <i>Progress Through Science,</i>, Vol. 4, No. 3, Fall 1986, pp.6-9) . the extraction is carried along with nitric and chloridic acids. Extracting the TUM (Trans Uranic Materials) the rest falls into the definition of LLR (Low Level Residues), therefore much easier, safer and cheaper to handle. The TUM are from 100 to 1000 less in volume and can be solidified and vitrified in borosilicate glass. That's enough for you, Banshee? There are many opther safe ways to deal and store with nuclear waste, so don´t provoke me because I might post here all the techniques available. Or better yet, give you the links for you to do your homework...

As the late former head of the American Nuclear Association, Dixie Lee Ray, a marine biologist of world renown, (also former governor of the State of Washington) once stated: <i>"Speaking as a marine biologist, I join the majority of oceanic scientists that say the ocean, the deep ocean, the bottom of the deep ocean, is the proper place for burying waste, whether radioactive or chemical"</I>. Why? Let's see:

The oceans already contain 400 billion Curies (Ci) of Potassium-40, 100 million Ci of Radium, and 1 billion Ci of Uranium-238. The uppermost inch of the oceans hold many millions Ci of uranium. Many marine organisms receive tens of Rems (not millirems!) of radiation coming from Polonium-210 that, as Plutonium, is an Alfa ray emitter, and a certain tpye of crawfish (that we eat without any fears) gets an annual dose of 100 Rems.

And what do you mean by <i>"Or they send to Developing countries to dump in OUR backyards!!"</I> That means that you consider developing countries as <b>the US backyard?</b> Wow! No wonder developing countries resent American Imperialism! :D

Quote: <i><b>"Wake up people! Stop thinking in the past!. Let's do something with our present before we have no chance anymore!" </b></i>

Really, I don´t get you here... Environmentalists keep thinking of the past as the Golden Days and something we must go back to. I think in our future, and seeing all the possibilities modern technologies present to us, it seems nonsensical no to take advantage of it for improving our environment and way of life... something that has been improving steadily for the last century. I agree with you on that: <b>stop thinking in the past, let us think in the future! Wake up!</b>

Ladies and Gentlemen: have a nice evening going through the English page of our website: FAEC - Argentine Foundation for Scientific Ecology (http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html) , the English version of our site.

Please feel free to browse the site at your heart's content. If you click on the link "Fotos" you'll see pictures of the place in the Amazon jungle where I spent three straight years of my life (from 1995 to 1997). It´s beautiful...

In the link "Quienes Somos" you´ll find a picture of mine, back in 1971, when training in the Amazon in the Brazilian Army Commando Training Unit. If you feel lazy, here it is:

(wow! it really came out big! No way of reducing it!)

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images/EduCOSAC.gif

goofyfish,

Indeed... thanks for the information...
I was expecting someone to come up saying that we are still more suplied by coal... which is one of the worse polutant, if not THE worst!

Another thing I was expecting...

Capability by Fuel Source (Megawatts)

You showed the capability...
I was expecting how many types of power plant each one have...

So... how many Nuclear power plants there are in the U$? Not saying that all (or almost all) the gas come from Canada... ;)

You should have hung on to your acid rain thought, backed it up with the fact that the United States produces most of its power through coal-fired production facilities, then finished off with a link illustrating how the sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrous oxides (NOx) released into the atmosphere can travel for thousands of kilometers before coming back down to earth in the form of dry particles or acid precipitation. Man, you could have had a post with substance!

There you go... I wasn't even expecting you to do it for me... :D
They HAD substance. It had so much that influenced you to continue it by yourself... ;)

Ah... don't forget the H2SO4... ;)

Edufer,

Then, what are they going to do about forest and prairies fires, that have been producing dioxin in quantities that makes garbage burning look like child's play?

I would like to remind you that forests consume the dioxin...
And that it's almost allways humans that begin the fires...
And that forests near industries have been dying because of all the pollution created by the factories... :(

That means that you consider developing countries as the US backyard?

No... the other way around...

Really, I don't get you here... Environmentalists keep thinking of the past as the Golden Days and something we must go back to. I think in our future, and seeing all the possibilities modern technologies present to us, it seems nonsensical no to take advantage of it for improving our environment and way of life... something that has been improving steadily for the last century.

Yes... the past days with Nature... :)
... improve... environment?
What I've been seeing is a lot of pollution and dumb things like nuclear boms being created by humans.
I agree with Science as long as it doesn't hurt Nature and dont' make addicted junky people... like those who can't live without cars or other possessions or drugs or whatever...


All this information you gave...
Really... it seems a little to much in accordance with the U$ economy...
I don't really think all this information is true (besides the percentage of nuclear power). It's all done by them just to justify that they are right. Remember that they have the power over media, therefore, over the opinion of people.

You, Americans, and most of people all around the world just seems to be their little puppets, that they play with...

They talk of freedom...
But I only see slavery...

Love,
Nelson

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
All this information you gave... Really... I don't really think all this information is true...Really, Edufer. Please stop trying to clutter TruthSeekers brilliant orations with somthing so trivial as facts.

Peace.

Show me just ONE case where PCB was responsible of a human death. Just ONE. And the same goes for DDT and dioxins: just ONE human death related to an exposure to environmental concentrations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------i . Data supplied to the Senate Environment Committee by EPA last year estimate the annual health bill from 7 million tons of SO2 and NO2: more than 10,800 premature deaths; at least 5,400 incidents of chronic bronchitis; more than 5,100 hospital emergency visits; and over 1.5 million lost work days. Add to that severe damage to our natural resources, as acid rain attacks soils and plants and deposits nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay and other critical bodies of water


The following letter of resignation was submitted on Feb. 27, 2002, by Eric Schaeffer, head of the U.S. EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement, to protest White House and Energy Department attempts to weaken federal clean air policy. Schaeffer's resignation has prompted Senate hearings into the Bush administration's environmental record.

Christine Whitman
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004

Dear Ms. Whitman:

I resign today from the Environmental Protection Agency after 12 years of service, the last five as Director of the Office of Regulatory Enforcement. I am grateful for the opportunities I have been given, and leave with a deep admiration for the men and women of EPA who dedicate their lives to protecting the environment and the public health. Their faith in the Agency's mission is an inspiring example to those who still believe that government should stand for the public interest.

But I cannot leave without sharing my frustration about the fate of our enforcement actions against power companies that have violated the Clean Air Act. Between November of 1999 and December of 2000, EPA filed lawsuits against nine power companies for expanding their plants without obtaining New Source Review permits and the up-to-date pollution controls required by law. The companies named in our lawsuits emit an incredible 5 million tons of sulfur dioxide every year (a quarter of the emissions in the entire country) as well as 2 million tons of nitrogen oxide.

As the scale of pollution from these coal-fired smokestacks is immense, so is the damage to public health. Data supplied to the Senate Environment Committee by EPA last year estimate the annual health bill from 7 million tons of SO2 and NO2: more than 10,800 premature deaths; at least 5,400 incidents of chronic bronchitis; more than 5,100 hospital emergency visits; and over 1.5 million lost work days. Add to that severe damage to our natural resources, as acid rain attacks soils and plants and deposits nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay and other critical bodies of water.

Fifteen months ago, it looked as though our lawsuits were going to shrink these dismal statistics, when EPA publicly announced agreements with Cinergy and Vepco to reduce Sox and Nox emissions by a combined 750,000 tons per year. Settlements already lodged with two other companies -- TECO and PSE&G -- will eventually take another quarter million tons of Nox and Sox out of the air annually. If we get similar results from the nine companies with filed complaints, we are on track to reduce both pollutants by a combined 4.8 million tons per year. And that does not count the hundreds of thousands of additional tons that can be obtained from other companies with whom we have been negotiating.

Yet today, we seem about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We are in the ninth month of a "90 day review" to reexamine the law, and fighting a White House that seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce. It is hard to know which is worse, the endless delay or the repeated leaks by energy industry lobbyists of draft rule changes that would undermine lawsuits already filed. At their heart, these proposals would turn narrow exemptions into larger loopholes that would allow old "grandfathered" plants to be continually rebuilt (and emissions to increase) without modern pollution controls.

Our negotiating position is weakened further by the Administration's budget proposal to cut the civil enforcement program by more than 200 staff positions below the 2001 level. Already, we are unable to fill key staff positions, not only in air enforcement, but in other critical programs, and the proposed budget cuts would leave us desperately short of the resources needed to deal with the large, sophisticated corporate defendants we face. And it is completely unrealistic to expect underfunded state environmental programs, facing their own budget cuts, to take up the slack.

It is no longer possible to pretend that the ongoing debate with the White House and Department of Energy is not effecting our ability to negotiate settlements. Cinergy and Vepco have refused to sign the consent decrees they agreed to 15 months ago, hedging their bets while waiting for the Administration's Clean Air Act reform proposals. Other companies with whom we were close to settlement have walked away from the table. The momentum we obtained with agreements announced earlier has stopped, and we have filed no new lawsuits against utility companies since this Administration took office. We obviously cannot settle cases with defendants who think we are still rewriting the law.

The arguments against sustaining our enforcement actions don't hold up to scrutiny.

Were the complaints filed by the U.S. government based on conflicting or changing interpretations? The Justice Department doesn't think so. Its review of our enforcement actions found EPA's interpretation of the law to be reasonable and consistent. While the Justice Department has gamely insisted it will continue to prosecute existing cases, the confusion over where EPA is going with New Source Review has made settlement almost impossible, and protracted litigation inevitable.

What about the energy crisis? It stubbornly refuses to materialize, as experts predict a glut of power plants in some areas of the U.S. In any case, our settlements are flexible enough to provide for cleaner air while protecting consumers from rate shock.

The relative costs and benefits? EPA's regulatory impact analyses, reviewed by OMB, quantify health and environmental benefits of $7,300 per ton of SO2 reduced at a cost of less than $1,000 per ton. These cases should be supported by anyone who thinks cost-benefit analysis is a serious tool for decision-making, not a political game.

Is the law too complicated to understand? Most of the projects our cases targeted involved big expansion projects that pushed emission increases many times over the limits allowed by law.

Should we try to fix the problem by passing a new law? Assuming the Administration's bill survives a legislative odyssey in today's evenly divided Congress, it will send us right back where we started with new rules to write, which will then be delayed by industry challenges, and with fewer emissions reductions than we can get by enforcing today's law.

I believe you share the concerns I have expressed, and wish you well in your efforts to persuade the Administration to put our enforcement actions back on course. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican and our greatest environmental President, said, "Compliance with the law is demanded as a right, not asked as a favor." By showing that powerful utility interests are not exempt from that principle, you will prove to EPA's staff that their faith in the Agency's mission is not in vain. And you will leave the American public with an environmental victory that will be felt for generations to come.

Sincerely,
Eric V. Schaeffer, Director
Office of Regulatory Enforcement



Even the Sevezo accident in Italy caused nothing more severe than a skin rash
-------------------------------------
http://www.foxriverwatch.com/monsanto2a_pcb_pcbs.html

That link will show the first two recorded deaths of PCB's in the world and also show a picture of a little kid with that skin rash you are talking about. It os not pretty.

An unfolding technology has increased our economic strength and added to the convenience of our lives. But that same technology—we know now—carries danger with it. From the great smoke stacks of industry and from the exhausts of motors and machines, 130 million tons of soot, carbon and grime settle over the people and shroud the Nation's cities each year. From towns, factories, and stockyards, wastes pollute our rivers and streams, endangering the waters we drink and use. The debris of civilization litters the landscapes and spoils the beaches. Conservation's concerns now is not only for man's enjoyment—but for man's survival.
-Lyndon B. Johnson (1908-1973) 36th President of the United States,
Special Message to Congress, "To Renew a Nation"
8 March 1968

Reducing air pollution in just four of the world's largest cities--New York; Mexico City; Sao Paulo, Brazil; and Santiago, Chile--could prevent 64,000 premature deaths and 37 million lost workdays over the next two decades, according to research that examines the health effects of the use of fossil fuels. Worldwide, the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels leads to pollution that can result in elevated rates of infant mortality, asthma, cardiovascular problems and respiratory ailments and could cause millions of avoidable deaths worldwide over two decades, according to the new work, which reviewed more than 1,000 scientific studies… Also, "the benefits of lowering emissions are immediate" because many of the gases emitted when fuels are burned are also pollutants, said George Thurston, one of the review's authors and an associate professor of environmental medicine at the New York University School of Medicine. "Universal studies have shown when air pollution levels go up, you get an increase in the numbers of deaths and hospital admissions, missed days at work and school, and other adverse effects"
-Aparna Surendran, "Fossil Fuel Cuts Would Reduce Early Deaths, Illness, Study Says,"
Los Angeles Times, 17 Aug 2001


Diseases caused by environmental degradation kill one in five children before age five in the poorest areas of the world, international health experts said Friday. Worldwide, almost one-fourth of disease was linked to environmental factors of poor water and sanitation, indoor and outdoor air pollution, and vector-borne diseases, according to a report by the United Nations, the World Bank and the World Resources Institute, a Washington-based think tank.
-Reuters News Service article reported by CNN Earth News, 1 May 1998

A small neighborhood in Bossier City, Louisiana has some of the highest levels of chemical contamination, cancers and birth defects ever documented in the United States, according to National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientists. The Lincoln Creosote plant is now a Superfund site on the National Priorities List of the most hazardous sites in the country. It was operated in a 20 acre field next to a residential area from 1935 to 1969 by several different owners and operators, producing telephone poles and railroad ties. The wood was pressure treated with creosote, copper-chromium arsenate and pentachlorophenol (PCP) and hung out to dry. Eventually, two large creosote ponds formed leaving arsenic and carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as deep as 15 feet in the ground. Large residential neighborhoods border the Lincoln Creosote facility to the north, northeast, south and west… According to Dr. Patricia Williams, the high incidence of cancers and birth defects in Bossier City was probably caused by the contamination in the ground, air and water. Dr. Williams found that the incidence of leukemia from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s is as much as 40 times higher than normal populations, the rate varies depending on the type of leukemia. Breast cancer incidence is as much as five times higher than normal. Incidences of birth defects are 300 percent higher that those recorded during a comparable time period in Osaka, Japan which is near Hiroshima where an atomic bomb was dropped in 1945 to end World War II.

After the U.S. government has stolen most of our lands, your government believes that whatever Indian land is left is still good to be used as a garbage dump for your nuclear wastes that no one else with any good sense wants. I cannot speak the words to tell you how absolutely abhorrent this concept is to me.
- Kerry Cartier of the Native American Tribal Organization,
quoted by Tom Meersman in the Minneapolis Star Tribune 9 July 2000

Kathy Wallace, a Hopi Indian basket weaver and a member of the California Indian Basketweavers Association (“CIBA”), notes how Native Americans in Northwestern California are exposed to forestry herbicides sprayed by federal agencies and timber companies to kill grasses, brush and trees that surround commercial lumber sites. Herbicides can drift as far as forty miles from the spray site, according to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. The Yurok reservation located near the Klamath River is sprayed by helicopters each year with herbicides, like 2-4-D, an Agent Orange component. The Native American people suffer negative health effects as a result of animals and plants, gathered for traditional subsistence food, being contaminated by pesticides. Native Americans have experienced high rates of cancer, respiratory and heart ailments, birth defects and infant deaths as a result of those contaminants. As Kathy Wallace has stated, many Native Americans who practice their traditional cultures do so at risk to their own health. They often unknowingly enter forestland and wetlands that have been sprayed with pesticides while hunting, fishing and gathering food and medicines. The environmental degradation of their communities renders it unsafe for them to continue practicing many of their cultural activities such as basket weaving. “Often the materials pass through our mouths during processing or weaving. Basket weavers fear that in passing down our traditions we will be passing on a legacy of disease and death to our children and future generations.” (Kathy Wallace, 1994 WCC/NCC Hearings, Oakland, California)
More than 300,000 Latino farm laborers suffer each year from illnesses related to their exposure to dangerous pesticides. The rate of anencephaly (babies born without brains) is four times the national average, due to exposure to pesticides sprayed on the fields along the U.S./ Mexican border.

http://www.woatusa.org/cerd/enviro.html

http://department.stthomas.edu/recycle/POLLUTION.HTM

One example Edufer...

http://www.fumento.com/reasonagent.html

In this link... they talk about the Agent Orange.
"The Agent Orange is our friend."
That's what they almost said, isn't it?

Well... Have you seen how is Vietnam today? Most of it's ecologic system is destroyed. And it didn't recovery very much since the Agent Orange...

And people there? Lots of people with cancer and other diseases because of that thing. And now you send a site that says... :

"Congress and the Department of Veterans Affairs have responded with two official presumptions. First, that all Vietnam vets had Agent Orange exposure, even though blood testing has shown that only a handful had any exposure. Second, that certain cancers and one type of severe birth defect, spina bifida, are caused by the presumptive exposure. "

False?!?!?

Are you kidding???

First... they used Agent Orange even in cities. Second it causes all those things because it contains many chemical substances, not only dioxin.

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy is sponsored by the U$ government to difund all those lies. And here is the proof:

"Some would have us think Uncle Ho was a good guy compared to those who ordered the Agent Orange spraying. "

That's a common statement promoving the U$ "inocence". The U$ is allways a victim... isn't it. That's the idea the media passes. But the Truth is that U$ is allways manipulating all information. This above statement just proves it...

I had a link about the chemical composition of Agent Orange... but I unfortunatly don't know where it is. It's somewhere in sciforums... take a look... ;)

Love,
Nelson

Now I am really speechless. From sadness!!! :( When I read the post from Justagirl, I have the urge to go and kill the government of the U$ at once. It doesn't solve anything though, for the Americans live on, their daily life. Head in the sand, like always.

A month ago or so I had email information about skin rash which was raging in different states. Nobody knew where it came from. Doctors said it was harmless, it showed up in a lot of states. Wish I had saved those emails.
Maybe one of you has heard or read about it.

Then there are the chem-trails in the Sky and the trails of little particles they leave behind on the porches of peoples houses. More and more voices speak about the obnoxious(?) feelings they get and how ill they get when exposed to the chem-particles during an amount of time. The last word about this is not said in a long run.

And so it goes on and on. It gets worse and worse. Not only in the U$ no, big part of the pollution is caused by the U$ and you know it! D**N!

It has to stop! If it's not already too late...!

I quit with this. Now I get sick from it.
People, dig your heads up, from under the thick layer of sand you dug it in...:confused:

quote

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TruthSeeker
All this information you gave... Really... I don't really think all this information is true...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really, Edufer. Please stop trying to clutter TruthSeekers brilliant orations with somthing so trivial as facts.

-----------------------------------
His links to the facts wouldn't open for me. It might be my PC as it has been acting funny recently but those links have not opened for me .

quote
Once you get hold of any, then you must compare both informations with universally accepted facts (as scientific facts --not "factoids"-- physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, etc.) And this is a tremendous job! It will take most of your time to check the accuracy and seriousness of all information you get. If you do it well, you won't have time to dinner or sleep, let aside go to work. In my case, my job in FAEC (Argentine Foundation for Scientific Ecology) is doing precisely this: check the information and, as we say, try to discover where the cat is hidden.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Oh I agree and I don't work as I found it suppressive to me( I worked for a Top 5 Fortune company that supressed the truth about a lot of things and had Congress in it's back pocket) and just retired at 39. I am single with no children so I can spend my days reading and learning and normally do.

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
goofyfish,

Indeed... thanks for the information... improve... environment?
What I've been seeing is a lot of pollution and dumb things like nuclear boms being created by humans... All this information you gave... I don't really think all this information is true (besides the percentage of nuclear power). It's all done by them just to justify that they are right. Remember that they have the power over media, therefore, over the opinion of people.

Truthseeker: where have you been seeking for the thruth? You have seen a lot of pollution. Maybe you didn´t travel far enough away from your city. I have traveled ALL South America, from Tierra del Fuego to the Darien strait, from west coast to East coast, and I assure you I have seen only small spots of pollution, always centered in big cities as Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Rio, Caracas, Santiago de Chile, etc. I have lived among indians in the amazon, and found how destructive to the environment they can be --only if they were more.

I wont argue about the truth in the information I gave you. that's something you have to do. Choosing to Ignore the facts is the Ostrich syndrome; hide your head in the sand and keep beliving in your own misinformed knowledge. (By the way, ostrich hiding their head in the sand is another popular myth, and I have to point it out for you because our mission in FAEC is to debunk myths.

So make your homework: go to these sites and check nuclear facts for yourself:

Argonne National Laboratory (http://www.ant.gov)
Lawrence National Laboratory (http://www.llnl.gov)
Los Alamos National Laboratory (http://www.lanl.gov)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (http://www.ornl.gov)
Sandia National Laboratory (http://www.sandia.gov)
U.S. Office of Science (http://www.science.doe.gov)
National Nuclear Security Administration (http://www.nnsa.doe.gov)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (http://www.nrc.gov)
Nuclear Power: Energy for Today and Tomorrow (http://pw1.netcom.com/~res95/energy/nuclear.html)
EPA's Yucca Mountain home page (http://www.epa.gov/radiation/yucca/)
EPA's Radiation Protection home page (http://www.epa.gov/radiation/)
Michael Fumento's mythbuster articles (http://www.fumento.com/columns.html)

And these are only a small fraction of sites where you could seek for the truth. Truth is a two sided coin; be brave and dare to visit the otehr side...

And starting in your home country (Canada) go to:

Atomic Energy of Canada website (www.aecl.ca/index.asp?layid=1)

And please, search in Google with "AECL" to find many pages and articles relating AECL. By the way, I worked at AECL while they were building our nuclear reactor in Cordoba, Argentina (Embalse nuclear plant) as head of the Technical Translations Dept. It is supposed I know about nuclear matters...

Have fun!

Justagirl, you don'l look like <b>"just a girl"</b>. It seems you have a sensible spirit, but it would be nice if you compared the information from different sources under the light of serious science.

I am sorry, but I couldn't find the informatin about the "two recorded deaths attributed to PCBs" in the link you gave (Fox River Watch). Maybe my sight is decreasing or my skills in English reading are not good enough. The only death attributed to PCB found on Fox River Watch website are these:

<b>"1970: Campbell’s Soup Company had to slaughter 146,000 chickens after detecting high levels of PCBs in chickens raised in New York State. --- 1971: Monsanto destroyed another 88,000 chickens in North Carolina because a PCB leak from a heating system had contaminated the feed.</B>

The picture of a child with a skin rash is not beautiful. Chloroacne is not beautiful, but it is not deadly. It cures in a week or so. It was the misinformation that urged former (and deceased) Minister of Prevention of Environmental Disasters of France, the scientist Haroum Tazieff jump aboard the wagon of "brownlashers" or eco-myths debunkers. Let's hear what he said in his Foreword to the book "The Holes in the Ozone Scare", by Rogelio Maduro: (bold emphasis added by me).

<i>"I had believed in what was thus universally and imperatively affirmed as incontestable truth: that PCBs, and the dioxins they emit when heated to 300°Celsius, were frigthful poisons. One or two years of this propaganda had led government officials --just as incompetent as I was in matters of polychlorobiphenils-- to make them officially illegal."

"A half dozn years later, I found myself responsible for the prvention of disasters, natural and technological disasters for the French government. ... As for technological disasters, <b...>it was necessary to inform myself.</B> The very first dossier I asked to have delivered to me was --so much I had been convinced of the extreme hazard of PCBs-- was the one on the explosion at the chemical plant in Sevezo, Italy, in July 1976. The study of this dossier and the inquest Ied at the time revealed to me, first of all, that this so-called catastrophe <B>had not one single victim.</B>

Second, I learned that dioxins, according to the judgement of ALL the actual experts consulted (and the very knowledgeable Academy of Science), are not at all "frightful" and have never, anywhere, killed anyone."

"Thus, the matter of presenting the industrial accident at the IMECSA factory in Sevezo as an apocaplyptic catastrophe was <B>a matter of deliberate disinformation</B> --in less diplomatic language was what one calls a LIE. ... The production and commercialization of PCBs was coming to an end. These substances, used as dielectrics, whose extraordinary qualities of chemical stability, <b>nontoxicity</B>, nonflammability, and nonexplosivity explain why they were being used by the entire world, with annual benefits that figure in billions of dollars... As for the billions of dollars involved in the destruction of PCBs --which is by now has become obligatory-- and the cost of their replacement, this bill will be paid by the consumers and taxpayers --for that matter without their knowledge. If by chance they are informed of it, they do not rebel, since it is a question of "defending the planet".</I>

And Tazieff finish his Foreword with these words: <i>"Here I have summarized the quite solitary path that I followed in discovering thet the catastrophes announced by great blowing of trumpets are no more than windmills for naive ecologists to tilt at. After I took my stand, first in a little book published in 1989, then in public debates and radio and television appearances, I had the surprise --oh, how pleasant-- of receiveing the approbation of numerous scientists, especially specialists in these matters. On the other hand, I have attracted innumerable enemies, some naive and some from certain people of doubtful honesty. But a small number of friends of quality is worth more than a bunch of fans or a bunch of foes."</i> Signed: <b>Haroum Tazieff</b>.

One thing people should know is how lab test are conducted for determining toxicity and carcinogenicity: feed rodents with huge (sub letahl doses) of the suspected chemical. According to studies made by Dr. Bruce Ames at University of California at Berkeley, show this technique will induce "mitogenesis", an uncontrolled cell growth (normally known as cancer). But when the rats are fed the chemical with doses at levels found in the environment, the results are negative.

Please read this page in our website at FAEC (it is in English): <A HREF="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Nat-vs-Synth.html">Natural vs Synthetic</A>, were you'll find what Dr. Bruce Ames and Dr. Louise Gold have to say about this matter.

Moreover, when they tried to blame BHT (buto-hidroxy-toluidine, a preservative used on bread and butter) of being carcinogenic, the tests concluded that rats fed with BHT lived twice as much as the control rats! So no wonder this appears in the Fox river website:

<i>Testimony about the IBT Labs scandal in a Texas lawsuit against Monsanto indicates that IBT was aware that PCBs caused extremely high numbers of tumors in test rats, with 82 percent developing tumors when fed Aroclor 1254 at 10 parts per million and 100 percent at 100 parts per million. Yet IBT Labs certified PCBs a noncarcinogen"</I> Why? Because when rats were fed with dose levels found in the environment, the results were negative.

Quote: <i>" Diseases caused by environmental degradation kill one in five children before age five in the poorest areas of the world,"</i>

Indeed, it happens in poor countries, where they have not the money for aplying modern technologies for preventing or the cleanup of their pollution. Don´t blame it on the pollution but blame it on the neocolonial status imposed on them by the Seven Big industrialized countries that have their skies cleaner now than fifty years ago. Let's be honest, guys, MONEY TALKS. And the conditions imposed on those countries by the IMF are designed for stopping their industrial developing and tecnological advance. Greed talks trough Malthus' mouth...

quote

I am sorry, but I couldn't find the informatin about the "two recorded deaths attributed to PCBs" in the link you gave (Fox River Watch

-----------------------------------------------
There was a lot of data on that page but they are in 1937 to help locate them.


I am going to make a brief responce as today I have to do some things around here. Some of your points are well stated and I can't dispute them. The lab test do have a way of distorting the facts but lab test can't erase actual deaths. Many companies have been sued and lost the lawsuit over the use of environmental hazards. Some were probably a wrong judgement but I am able to find many that seemed to be flagrant and did kill the environment. I can't ignore those kinds of facts. Those are real facts and not an opinion.

Use of energy is a real problem in the world as the logical choices seem to be hydro and solar. Hydro needs a natural source as we know it now but I think a manmade hydro source is very possible. Solar power still needs to be improved but can help "some". A government faced with money "Issues" has to look at coal or gas if they have it as a natural resource.

The cost of food will go up if the farmers went back to using natural fertilizer as it isn't as effective. The fertilizers are good about not harming the crops they were designed for but sadly they get washed away and can cause problems elsewhere. The world is full of tough choices on how to provide jobs, food, water, and energy. But I feel instead of fighting the facts of actual deaths and the slaughter of marine life that science should be more concerned over finding new and better ways. But what is happening in our world is the economy and governments are fueld by money and some "real" hard choices have to be made. Most of the time I can show prejudice on any claim for or against unless it's actual deaths which happens at times.
I don't claim to know the answers because if we DID make all of our choices based on the environment the world would have a whole new set of "real" problems. That's the real cause of the debate as companies and countries need to back up their choices and don't have the time to wait for something new. Don't have the funds to go a better way. Bottom line "money" and politics are slowly hurting the environment. The largest river close to me is unfit for fishing. Many stories like that across the United States. That is facts and not an opinion.

Quote from "The History of PCBs" (Fox River Watch):

"In 1936 three workers at the Halowax Company died. Autopsies of two revealed severe liver damage. ... One man died and the diagnosis may have attributed his death to halowax vapors, but we are not sure of that...."

Did the autopsies revealed the real cause of death? They don't say. The autopsies sureley also showed the men had prostate cancer developing, and PCBs can not blamed for that. So this case is quite vague, as is the second case were "... the diagnosis may have attributed his death to halowax vapors, but we are not sure of that....". If they were not sure, why blame PCBs. Guilts and accusations must be based on factual evidence. We don't know if those men died of pneumonia or a car accident, or stroke or a heart attack. Based on what is posted in the article, the accusation is based on flimsy evidence --although it could have been caused by PCBs, the medical history does not have a record of <b>deaths</B> attributable to PCBs. Epidemiological studies are a difficult job to perform.

I would like very much if you take a brief look at this article on our website at FAEC, that will give you an idea about the difficulties in performing epidemiological studies in order to discover the causes for any disease:

<A HREF=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES\Epide.html>How to Understand Scientific Studies and Epidemiology</A>

On the whole, I agree with you on what you say in your last post, because it sounds reasonable. It is also my belief that we must take care of the environment and make anything possible to keep the aire, water, oceans, and land clean. There is a lot of pollution done, but I also believe that we have been detecting and correcting it. We have learned a lot, we have made great technological advances that are useful for keeping the woprld clean. There are abuses, yes, and it is our task to stop them and make sure they are not commited again.

But I don't think that banning useful chemicals, pesticides, and fertilizers is the way to do it, especially if there is a lot of evidence that the problem is being highly overestimated and grossly exagerated (as the case of DDT, PCBs, CFs, lead in gasolines, etc). Of course, you may disagree with me, but that is a risk I can accept without enraging myself, as Banshee seems to do when somebody contradicts him.

We´ll keep this amicable discussion later. Have fun!

Are the harmful effects of PCB's and Dioxins exaggerated? Possibly, as both sides spin the data to uphold their view. The problem, I think, is that dioxins produce a wide spectrum of biochemical and toxic effects in experimental animals, and these effects depend on species, strain, gender, age and tissue. For the most part, the mechanisms of these impacts are still obscure, which hampers rational risk assessment.

A wide variety of health effects in humans have been linked to high exposure to dioxins, including mood alterations, reduced cognitive performance, diabetes, changes in white blood cells, dental defects, endometriosis, decreased male/female ratio of births and decreased testosterone levels. Presently the effects have been proven only in the case of chloracne. Another concern is the possible developmental effects. There is some data that dioxin exposure from breast milk is associated with abnormal development and "mineralization" of teeth.

My problem with chlorinated compounds in the body is that our body is not able to metabolize them and, because they are fat-soluble and practically not at all water-soluble, they cannot be excreted in urine. So they can accumulate in our body over decades, even at a low exposure. I think it is important that the levels of these compounds in our food be minimized. It has been suggested that the accumulation in the human system is so slow that it would take 40 to 50 years to reach critical levels. Possibly true; has there been a serious study by either side for such an extended period?

My vote is to err on the side of caution.

Peace.

As it happens an enormous amount of our food is directly and indirectly possible to produce only because of the cultivation of corn (maize)...The percentage may be high as 75%. Then there are the industrial products we can make because of corn. The implications are unthinkable.

It sounds like genetically modified corn has proliferated to such an extent since 1994 that original strains of corn are virtually impossible to grow without specialized technology. These genetic changes in corn could produce nearly unthinkable changes.

Earthquakes and volcanoes are most likely not life-threatening to the planet. Nuclear, biological and chemical components of modern civilization are the sources of devastation to this world. The real threat we are facing is the byproducts of the civilization we have created that has the potential to alter all life forms on this planet. This has been done with the implicit and explicit agreement of every man and woman who opens a plastic bottle without thinking of the long-term consequences of plastic -- which produces an over-abundance of estrogen and other problems -- for the sake of immediate convenience.

The world as we have known it has changed! In a few more generations, the difficulty in obtaining a high functioning body in which to incarnate on this planet will be unfathomable to most people. Badly damaged genetics will result in the majority of survivors going back to caves.

This is a done deal at this point, and the majority, who will start back up the evolutionary ladder in future incarnations, ignored the warnings when the curve could have been easily changed.

The earliest messages warned of damage being done to the environment by nuclear technology back in 1950. Rather than listen to the message about the dangers, the majority ignored obvious evidence and ignored the implications of the messages about environmental contamination.

President Eisenhower's farewell speech warned that the military-industrial complex posed the most dangerous threat to the American way of life. Not only did messages warn about the advancing line of technology on this planet, but an American president also warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex.

What do you do when a large number of people don't want to hear a message repeated at great expense to a few people, who were threatened with financial and political ruin and social ostracism for delivering the message?

There are no innocent victims in this situation. The presently dangerous situation has been created by the consuming public who has kept the military-industrial complex thriving. We all have in common Homo sapien bodies for which we have battled to win human rights for centuries.

Beyond the shared body form, there are vast differences in awareness, knowledge and destiny among us. Each will inherit the destiny created from the awareness and knowledge manifest in the journey of life on Earth.

Please check out http://www.fao.org to see the United Nations site on Food and Agriculture.

:(

Originally posted by goofyfish
The problem, I think, is that dioxins produce a wide spectrum of biochemical and toxic effects in experimental animals, and these effects depend on species, strain, gender, age and tissue. For the most part, the mechanisms of these impacts are still obscure, which hampers rational risk assessment.

You are right, but the whole truth must be said: the effects vary according to species (a miligram of dioxin is instantaneously lethal to hamsters, but you need hundred times more to notice any effect on a rat, and thousand more to make an effect on humans. What we must take into account is that dioxin levels normally found in our environment is minimal and barely affect humans or higher animals. As many toxicologists insist on pointing out, the harmful effects become noticeable in animals under lab test, given huge amounts of dioxin (or other toxic substances) in doses know as MTD (or Maximum Tolerated Dose), that is, a sub-lethal dose that won't cause the instant death of the animal being tested.


A wide variety of health effects in humans have been linked to high exposure to dioxins, including mood alterations, reduced cognitive performance, diabetes, changes in white blood cells, dental defects, endometriosis, decreased male/female ratio of births and decreased testosterone levels. Presently the effects have been <i>proven</i> only in the case of chloracne. Another concern is the possible developmental effects. There is some data that dioxin exposure from breast milk is associated with abnormal development and "mineralization" of teeth.

Again, the problem lies on <b>"linked to high exposures"</b>... that is, there is no scientific evidence that this is an established fact. As you state, only chloroacne has been an established (and accepted) fact. Also abounds the claims as "the possible ... effects", or "there is some data that suggest", or "it is believed that", or "it seems associated with", etc., a wide variety of claims in potencial tense. White is white, and black is black, and don´t try to confuse people who have not the scientific or technical knowledge with "white could be black" (without saying that only if there is no light to see the colors)"


My problem with chlorinated compounds in the body is that our body is not able to metabolize them and, because they are fat-soluble and practically not at all water-soluble, they cannot be excreted in urine. So they can accumulate in our body over decades, even at a low exposure.

So, how do you explain the fact that about 80% of remedies and medicins are "hydrochlorates"? Most generic medical substances come in the form of hydrochlorates (I am taking "ervastatin hydrochlorate" -Lipitor- for reducing cholesterol, and most antihistaminics are hydrochlorates. Nobody seems to feel adverse effects from medicins (leave aside overdoses), so we arrive at the Golden Axiom of Toxicology: <b>"The Dose is the Poison"</b>. Theophilus Bombastus von Hohenheim (better known as Paracelsus) said back in the 16th century: <i>"Everything is poison, and nothing is poison; only the dose makes the poison"</i>.

My vote is to err on the side of caution.

You seem to be in favor of the infamous "Precautionary Principle". Life on Earth is for the brave of spirit; history shows that timids and cowards are rapidly erased from the surface of Earth. As I said before, had mankind applied the "precautionary principle" from the beginning, we would still be hanging from tree branches looking down on fierceful tigers and lions.

And, of course Peace. But what is Peace? Peace has different meanings to different people. To me "peace" is to live without worries, gardening my backyard. But when there comes somebody telling me I can´t use herbicides on my orchard or else I'll go to jail, that is not peace... that means war. Or I can't use water for irrigating my farm because a species of fish will be "endangered", that is violence imposed on me. That means war. If not, take a look at Klamath (?) county...

Now, really, peace for all.

This has nothing to do with the subject being discussed, but since you are here, I would like to know your opinion about your next Queen, Princess Maxima Zorreguieta, an Argentinian as myself...

Also, what do you think about the fact that her father was banned from the wedding ceremony because he was Secretary of Agriculture during the government of President Jorge Videla, back in 1976, when we sucessfully got rid of the communist guerrilla (ERP) in Argentina?

I know that Dutch people has a long history of hating dictators, but there is something that doesn't fit in the picture: why an obscure secretary of agriculture in a forgotten country was not permitted to atend the wedding of his daughter, but Prince Bernhard, Queen Juliana's husband, was at the ceremony?

Edufer,

You have seen a lot of pollution. Maybe you didn´t travel far enough away from your city.

I don't need to!!
The whole city is polluted... and there are only cars and other vehicles! We not even have factories!

Another thing... I traveled to many polluted places. Napoli, for example. I couldn't breath there! And the pollution made the air really hot... i could even see the sky all brown in Napoli, when I went to Capri... :(
Another place: Milan. I didn't even needed to get out of the airport to see the pollution. It was raining and it was everything brown and gray... :(
Venice, pollution of water... London air... etc...

There are lots of other examples that I saw thorugh TV, like garbage... but I guess this is enough... :(

I have lived among indians in the amazon, and found how destructive to the environment they can be --only if they were more.

Are you kidding? What did they do...? :confused: :confused:

And starting in your home country (Canada) go to:

Little misinformation...

Location: Canada (now)

As you see... I'm NOW in Canada...
Look clearly when you are reading the Truth... otherwise it can pass directly through you and you don't see it...
I'm from Brazil... ;)

Btw... much better wait for fuson... :)
Fuson will be better than those nuclear plants... ;)
And those nuclear plants will soon be discardable (do you have this word? We have somewhat in Portuguese...)

PS: Do you speak Portuguese??

Posted by Banshee:
It sounds like genetically modified corn has proliferated to such an extent since 1994 that original strains of corn are virtually impossible to grow without specialized technology. These genetic changes in corn could produce nearly unthinkable changes.

I totally agree with Banshee. The whole post...

Love,
Nelson

quote

In 1936 three workers at the Halowax Company died. Autopsies of two revealed severe liver damage. ... One man died and the diagnosis may have attributed his death to halowax vapors, but we are not sure of that...."

Did the autopsies revealed the real cause of death? They don't say. The autopsies sureley also showed the men had prostate cancer developing, and PCBs can not blamed for that
although it could have been caused by PCBs, the medical history does not have a record of deaths attributable to PCBs. Epidemiological studies are a difficult job to perform

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using that logic one could say "AIDS" doesn't kill as AIDS is never shown on the birth certificate as the cause od death and we could always say "well, they were gonna dia anyways"

Man found with 47 arrows in body. Sheriff says suicide...

LOL....


Yes, your Honor I shot that man 6 times but I didn't kill him as I will prove he was gonna die in 2 to 5 years from lung cancer anyways...

*why an obscure secretary of agriculture in a forgotten country was not permitted to atend the wedding of his daughter, but Prince Bernhard, Queen Juliana's husband, was at the ceremony?*

I disagree with the decision made that the father of the bride was not allowed to be at his daughters wedding. No matter what he's done before, it's his daughter, so he should have been there. Satisfied???

Then we can go back on topic. For a discussion on this wedding I have to direct you to the Dutch Forum of SETI, in Dutch, for it's a Dutch Forum, situated in the Netherlands. You can always enter the chat room if you want and tell them you speak English. They will immediately change their talk into English. Enjoy...

www.seti.nl

Click on communicatie and then on chat...

Nelson (Piquet?): meu chapa, acho que eu ainda falo Portugues bastante bem—morei in Manaus, Rio, Sao Paulo, Santos por meses e tomo mias ferias en Florianopolis (Canasvieiras) todos os anos (meu teclado es para espanhol, de modo que nao se como usar todos os signos e acentos Portugueses; sepa disculpar) mais mihna escritura e gramatica nao e muito boa, é ruim!. Eu escribo a meus amigos en Espanhol e recebo seus emails en Portugues.

Eu fiz uma expedicao (falta cedilla, reemplazo con "c,") no Amazonas en 1971 (Janeiro  Junho) e pegue um curso de Supervivenc,a na Selva e Ac,oes de Commando no COSAC en Manaus (Centro de Instrucc,ao de Guerra na Selva e Ac,oes de Commando, o velho CIGS), por invitac,ao especial do Exercito Brasilero. (Eu era reportero especial da revista Siete Dias de Buenos Aires, e estaba filmando una documentaria en 16 mm). Teve de camarada de viagem e interprete ao Major (agora Brigadeiro retirado) Roberto Guaranys, sub-chefe do ParaSAR (Busqueda e Salvamento da FAB).

Sempre conte con a muito prezada ajuda do governo Brasilero que teve a gentileza de enviarme a cualquer parte do Amazonas nos avioes da FAB. Dai que eu aprendi a amar ao Brasil, sua gente, sua selva e seus indios --mais no por iso deixo de reconhecer os defeitos que eles tem... eles sao so seres humanos como nos. Ninguem e perfeito.

Acordo con voce: os reactores de fusion sao el futuro do mundo. Pero os reactores de fisao de hoje tem una seguridade incrível e una eficiencia elevadíssima. Perdao por la ortografía.
Voce fala Espahnol? Pero é melhor si o bate papo continua en Inglés... os outros nao entenderán nada!

Um abrac,o

Eduardo Ferreyra(Edu-fer)

justagirl: <b>Using that logic one could say “AIDS” doesn’t kill as AIDS is never shown on the death certificate as the cause of death and we could always say “well, they were gonna die anyways”</b>

AIDS is another topic I would like to discuss because lots of evidence makes it another exaggerated issue. As this could be a long discussion, I will only point to you some facts not well known to the general public, or even to most scientists, and are related not with the medical side of AIDS, but with statistics --the most elegant way of lying, as I said before.

Dr. Eduardo Leschot, an Argentinian doctor, spen