# U$ecology dramatically altered by fertilizers and acid rain... Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by wet1, Jan 27, 2002. 1. ### TruthSeekerFancy Virtual Reality MonkeyValued Senior Member Messages: 15,162 That's starting to become really cute... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Everyone praising Love...! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That's really good... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Now we seem Children of God... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Love, Nelson 2. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement to hide all adverts. 3. ### wet1WandererRegistered Senior Member Messages: 8,616 Children of the Cosmos... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 4. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement to hide all adverts. 5. ### EduferTired warriorRegistered Senior Member Messages: 791 God Almighty, let us pray! 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... 6. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement to hide all adverts. 7. ### justagirlRegistered Senior Member Messages: 334 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. 8. ### wet1WandererRegistered Senior Member Messages: 8,616 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... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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... 9. ### TruthSeekerFancy Virtual Reality MonkeyValued Senior Member Messages: 15,162 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... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It's sick... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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"... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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 10. ### EduferTired warriorRegistered Senior Member Messages: 791 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. 11. ### EduferTired warriorRegistered Senior Member Messages: 791 [QUOTE[Originally posted by justagirl [/quote] 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... [QUOTE[Originally posted by justagirl 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. [/QUOTE] 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. Last edited: Mar 26, 2002 12. ### justagirlRegistered Senior Member Messages: 334 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 13. ### wet1WandererRegistered Senior Member Messages: 8,616 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. 14. ### TruthSeekerFancy Virtual Reality MonkeyValued Senior Member Messages: 15,162 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!!

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

15. ### wet1WandererRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
8,616
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$do with their nuclear garbage? They have to leave it somewhere. I bet they found a nice solution for it, not that the people hear about it. No, imagine! Perhaps Edufer has statistics on this one. Let's hear it Edufer! Now I'm dying to know what becomes of the nuclear garbage... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (am too lazy to have a look for it on the internet, it'll change nothing!) P.S. If you can tell me where they keep their nuclear garbage, I will personally go and blow it up, so the U$ doesn't have to worry any more about their war on terrorism. Goodbye Cruel World, Goodbye Blue Sky...

16. ### goofyfishAnalog By Birth, Digital By DesignValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,331
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 - 43,114
When 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!

Peace.

17. ### EduferTired warriorRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
791
Garbage, garbage, in and out...

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?

Last edited: Mar 26, 2002
18. ### EduferTired warriorRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
791
Garbage II, this time Nuclear.

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! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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> 19. ### EduferTired warriorRegistered Senior Member Messages: 791 Knowledge one mouse click away! Ladies and Gentlemen: have a nice evening going through the English page of our website: FAEC - Argentine Foundation for Scientific Ecology , 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!) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 20. ### TruthSeekerFancy Virtual Reality MonkeyValued Senior Member Messages: 15,162 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... 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...

There you go... I wasn't even expecting you to do it for me...

They HAD substance. It had so much that influenced you to continue it by yourself...

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

Edufer,

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...

No... the other way around...

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 21. ### goofyfishAnalog By Birth, Digital By DesignValued Senior Member Messages: 5,331 Really, Edufer. Please stop trying to clutter TruthSeekers brilliant orations with somthing so trivial as facts. Peace. 22. ### justagirlRegistered Senior Member Messages: 334 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 23. ### TruthSeekerFancy Virtual Reality MonkeyValued Senior Member Messages: 15,162 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...