reason #3390987 why worrying about global warming is BS

[jverne]

food contamination

Federal study: Tuna and other Pacific fish has 30% more toxic mercury than in 1990 and will grow 50% more contaminated by 2050.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/tuna-mercury-47050102

http://toxics.usgs.gov/investigations/mercury.html


mercury makes you retarded...and not the youtube kind, but for real.

we are making our planet a toxic dump.

this is the reason why recycling/reuse makes sense, it's because we throw away less stuff. (not talking about energy efficiency)

 

[The Monkey]

What would prevent us from worrying about both?

Just because one more problem has appeared doesn't mean we should ignore all the other ones.

 

[NeptuneUK]

What would prevent us from worrying about both?

Just because one more problem has appeared doesn't mean we should ignore all the other ones.

Don't be absurd! We can only think of one thing at a time!

 

[jverne]

What would prevent us from worrying about both?

Just because one more problem has appeared doesn't mean we should ignore all the other ones.

you're right...but i'd like to see an Al gore dude talking about what really matters. people focus way to much on climate change....way to much! news about climate change far outnumber news like this.

how many of you know (recall) for instance that the US dumped containers with radioactive waste into seas. the containers were usually made of standard non stainless steel and if they wouldn't float they'd shoot holes in them to fill up with water. cant find the source right now but i think the US practiced this until the 80', and some countries from what i gather are still doing it today.

 

[Emporius]

Hey Kath, haven't seen you in a while.

 

[VirusType2]

Anti-pollution enforcement will probably become very strict in the future.

Unfortunately, humans tend not to care about threats that are projected - that aren't immediate.

 

[PvtRyan]

Well, if you would read your own links, you'd have read that the source of this contamination is mostly (if not entirely) from the burning of fossil fuels. You know, the same thing behind global warming.

The emission of mercury into the environment from things like electronics and batteries is quite regulated and minimal. So I don't see how recycling would do anything to combat this contamination, but I do see how meaures against global warming (ie: other energy sources) would.

 

[theotherguy]

reason #3390987 why red herrings are logical fallacies.

 

[gFrohman]

Anti-pollution enforcement will probably become very strict in the future.

Unfortunately, humans tend not to care about threats that are projected - that aren't immediate.

Look at the economical problems the US has now - these problems started well before now, but we were so preoccupied with other issues that we thought, "meh, we'll deal with it later. Let's go bomb more brown guys like good ol' Bush says."

 

[jverne]

Well, if you would read your own links, you'd have read that the source of this contamination is mostly (if not entirely) from the burning of fossil fuels. You know, the same thing behind global warming.

The emission of mercury into the environment from things like electronics and batteries is quite regulated and minimal. So I don't see how recycling would do anything to combat this contamination, but I do see how meaures against global warming (ie: other energy sources) would.

never said these thing aren't interconnected. yes, a lot of mercury comes from burning coal, cement klins,... or when you wash with water something that contains it.
heavy metals have the same source...taking fossil fuels where they shouldn't actually belong (air, water).
as for recycling: plastics, batteries, packaging, metals

China is the world's dump for electronic waste with about 70 percent of the industry's material smuggled into the country, a Chinese scientist said.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/C...ggest_Electronic_Waste_Dump_On_Earth_999.html

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/green-living/the-electronics-junkyard-dismantlers-of-guiyu/1372

obviously very regulated.


the point is that people are talking about the wrong reason when referencing to burning fossil fuels (IMO). but fortunately it goes hand in hand.

i'm not saying we should just forget about climate change (why would we anyway) but i think it might change the perspective on how we (specifically average liberal Joe) look at things. such as what goes with manufacturing a car battery

Results show that lead had the highest concentration in all the samples, with the soil samples having the highest lead concentration (38-12 ppm, 102 ppm) and the water samples having the lowest (0.02-0.20 ppm). Mercury had the lowest concentration (<0.0002 ppm) in all the samples. Soil sample B had the highest concentration of all the metals tested. Cassava water had higher levels of EC, SAL, TH, BOD, and volatile and nonvolatile solids, but lower pH than tap water. Bacterial loads were higher than fungal loads in all the soil samples. Because there was moderate contamination of the environment by some of the metals studied, with lead being exceptionally high and above the specified international standards, the authors recommend control measures to reduce lead exposure to the local populace within and around this industry.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16978194

or solar cells or whatever most people consider green.



edit:

In the United States, an estimated 70% of heavy metals in landfills comes from discarded electronics,[3] while electronic waste represents only 2% of America's trash in landfills.[4] The EPA states that unwanted electronics totaled 2 million tons in 2005. Discarded electronics represented 5 to 6 times as much weight as recycled electronics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste

Increased regulation of electronic waste and concern over the environmental harm which can result from toxic electronic waste has raised disposal costs. The regulation creates an economic disincentive to remove residues prior to export. In extreme cases, brokers and others calling themselves recyclers export unscreened electronic waste to developing countries, avoiding the expense of removing items like bad cathode ray tubes (the processing of which is expensive and difficult).

Defenders of the trade in used electronics say that extraction of metals from virgin mining has also been shifted to developing countries. Hard-rock mining of copper, silver, gold and other materials extracted from electronics is considered far more environmentally damaging than the recycling of those materials.

Opponents of surplus electronics exports argue that lower environmental and labor standards, cheap labor, and the relatively high value of recovered raw materials leads to a transfer of pollution-generating activities, such as burning of copper wire. In China, Malaysia, India, Kenya, and various African countries, electronic waste is being sent to these countries for processing, sometimes illegally. Many surplus laptops are routed to developing nations as "dumping grounds for e-waste".[2] Because the United States has not ratified the Basel Convention or its Ban Amendment, and has no domestic laws forbidding the export of toxic waste, the Basel Action Network estimates that about 80% of the electronic waste directed to recycling in the U.S. does not get recycled there at all, but is put on container ships and sent to countries such as China.[9][13][14][15] This figure is disputed as an exaggeration by the EPA, the Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries, and the World Reuse, Repair and Recycling Association.

same source

 

[<RJMC>]

people will go "well thats normal,mercury is emited by the seas and is how it allways been,this is just fear mongering of that dude al gore,now excuse me while I go to the protest demandng american companies to build fuel efficient cars in my chevrolet v8 suv.."

or "oh yeah now the tuna will kill us,give me a break first birds them pigs now tunas,boo hoo..."

 

[PvtRyan]

never said these thing aren't interconnected. yes, a lot of mercury comes from burning coal, cement klins,... or when you wash with water something that contains it.
heavy metals have the same source...taking fossil fuels where they shouldn't actually belong (air, water).
as for recycling: plastics, batteries, packaging, metals



http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/C...ggest_Electronic_Waste_Dump_On_Earth_999.html

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/green-living/the-electronics-junkyard-dismantlers-of-guiyu/1372

obviously very regulated.


the point is that people are talking about the wrong reason when referencing to burning fossil fuels (IMO). but fortunately it goes hand in hand.

i'm not saying we should just forget about climate change (why would we anyway) but i think it might change the perspective on how we (specifically average liberal Joe) look at things. such as what goes with manufacturing a car battery



http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16978194

or solar cells or whatever most people consider green.



edit:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste





same source

I thought we were talking about mercury and tuna, but fair enough on the above points.

 

[jverne]

I thought we were talking about mercury and tuna, but fair enough on the above points.

well yea...but these things are so interconnected it's easy to drift between similar issues. it's not just about mercury, but the overall pollution with toxic substances (see my other threads). mercury is just one of the factor in the grand scheme of things.

and while we're at it...yes, i try not to eat bigger sea animals, but rather go with sardines and such.
well yea sure...it's not that one tuna will kill you (i think), so we shouldn't get our panties twisted too much.

 

[Ennui]

you're right...but i'd like to see an Al gore dude talking about what really matters. people focus way to much on climate change....way to much! news about climate change far outnumber news like this.

how many of you know (recall) for instance that the US dumped containers with radioactive waste into seas. the containers were usually made of standard non stainless steel and if they wouldn't float they'd shoot holes in them to fill up with water. cant find the source right now but i think the US practiced this until the 80', and some countries from what i gather are still doing it today.

It's all part of the same problem: that we're shitting up our planet A LOT and we need to stop or future generations are going to build time machines and nuke us all into oblivion in the year 1700 (ignore the time paradoxes there).

 

[jverne]

It's all part of the same problem: that we're shitting up our planet A LOT and we need to stop or future generations are going to build time machines and nuke us all into oblivion in the year 1700 (ignore the time paradoxes there).

actually this sounds pretty logical...except...if they nuke us they would never exist...which means...

you see why i hate the concept of traveling in the past...it's just...just...blargh

 

[Sheepo]

lol "Sounds pretty logical, except for this other thing that doesn't sound logical"

 

[Warped]

If evolution is correct, we can kill ourselves and possibly come back looking something different. also we may never come back as smart intelligent beings without the animalistic instincts our "forefathers" once had.

 

[bbson john]

Which one is worse, toxicity of fishes or the total collapse of food chain?

I would say both are bad.

 

[Warped]

Which one is worse, toxicity of fishes or the total collapse of food chain?

I would say both are bad.

we need to also look towards new planets and stars. if we can inhabit some other place and spread out our survival rate chances will increase ten fold

 

[gFrohman]

we need to also look towards new planets and stars. if we can inhabit some other place and spread out our survival rate chances will increase ten fold

I agree.

Let's get off the Earth before we make it completely FUBAR.

 

[Solaris]

you're right...but i'd like to see an Al gore dude talking about what really matters. people focus way to much on climate change....way to much! news about climate change far outnumber news like this.

how many of you know (recall) for instance that the US dumped containers with radioactive waste into seas. the containers were usually made of standard non stainless steel and if they wouldn't float they'd shoot holes in them to fill up with water. cant find the source right now but i think the US practiced this until the 80', and some countries from what i gather are still doing it today.

..............

 

[dfc05]

I do research in environmental remediation (aka cleaning up polluted sites). I work more on organic carcinogens but there are a bunch of people working on mercury. Even though I love my research, I'd have to say that in the grand scheme of things, global warming is a MUCH broader problem. This doesn't mean contaminated sites are not a problem -- we do have toxic levels of chemicals in some places, and if you happen to be in somewhere like Brazil where they're using mercury to mine gold and the rivers get polluted with pesticides, you might be really screwed. Pregnant women aren't supposed to eat fish anywhere due to contamination. But this is really more of a local problem. Global warming is a huge depressing monster of a problem... EVERYONE is screwed.

 

[gFrohman]

Global warming is a huge depressing monster of a problem... EVERYONE is screwed.

And it sucks big time because any solution we find will most likely be a long, drawn out process - it'll be decades before we see any real results whenever we do find a solution.

 

[theotherguy]

Jverne, again I would like to stress that your argument is something along the line of:

Guy 1: "Oh no, I have heart disease. The doctor says I only have 10 more years of life left in me."
Guy 2: "Forget heart disease, you have diabetes! That's also potentially life threatening! It's obviously stupid to worry about heart disease when you have diabetes!"

 

[bbson john]

Pollution is really a difficult problem. I think we have a lot of solutions right now. For example, organic solvent can be replaced by supercritical carbon dioxide or ionic liquids, thereby reduce organic waste pollution.

For nuclear wastes, they are usually buried deep underground and under seabed with stainless steel + concrete confinement. Moreover, a lot of nuclear waste can be renewed to flesh nuclear fuel by re-centrifugation. It is because only around 10% of the nuclear fuel is used in a power plant when the fuel rod becomes expired. The fuel rod becomes unusable owing to nuclear poisoning. Radioactive waste of expired fuel rods can be regenerated into useful fuel rod.

The real problem is that poor countries cannot afford the cost of environmental-friendly industries. And some rich countries refused to do it for economical reasons. Saving the environment: there are ways to do it, but people do not want to do it.

we need to also look towards new planets and stars. if we can inhabit some other place and spread out our survival rate chances will increase ten fold

Ya. We are going to find a new home sooner or later. We can't rely only on the Earth forever. Yet, since we don't have the technology to emigrate to other planets right now, we'd better protect the Earth.

 

[Raziaar]

OH HEY GUYS. LETS NOT FORGET THIS.

Carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural; it is not harmful...We're being told we have to reduce this natural substance to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occuring in the earth.



<straight face>

 

[bbson john]

lol

Carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural; it is not harmful...We're being told we have to reduce this natural substance to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occuring in the earth.

Let replace it with some other words:

Methane is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Methane is natural; it is not harmful...We're being told we have to reduce this natural substance to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occuring in the earth.

Silicon waste is not a harmful solid, it is a harmless solid. Silicon is natural; it is not harmful...We're being told we have to reduce this natural substance to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occuring in the earth.


Cockroach is not a harmful animal, cockroach is a harmless animal. Cockroaches are natural; They are not harmful...We're being told we have to reduce this natural animal to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occuring in the earth.

 

[Raziaar]

Let's not forget good old fashioned water to substitute in there.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I've got it! Let's construct a giant fan and BLOW the CO2 into space! Bulletproof.

 

[dfc05]

I've got it! Let's construct a giant fan and BLOW the CO2 into space! Bulletproof.

Heck, that'd be better than injecting into the ocean (...acidification?), seeding the oceans with iron to grow algae (red tide?), or spraying dust into the atmosphere to block out light (ridiculous/stupid). All of which have actually been considered.

I think the only thing that might work is carbon sequestration and I'm fairly skeptical of that too. Really the best solution is major energy conservation.

 

[jverne]

lol "Sounds pretty logical, except for this other thing that doesn't sound logical"

you do realize i was being sarcastic for most of the part?

..............

In July 1957, when the Navy was disposing of drums containing radioactive sodium at sea, two drums would not sink, a history of the Atomic Energy Commission says. Naval aircraft were summoned to strafe them with machine-gun fire until they sank.

Ocean dumping of low-level radioactive wastes by the United States ended about 1970 with the passage of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, referred to as the ocean dumping act.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/04/world/the-us-too-has-dumped-waste-at-sea.html

this is just the US

Russia is now the only country refusing to ratify the absolute ban on dumping radioactive materials in the sea, which came into force on February 22, following the November meeting of the London Convention, where 72 states recorded their vote. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO), a United Nations agency based in London, announced on February 22 that of the five countries which had abstained in November, only Russia had indicated its unwillingness to sign the latest amendment. Russia was accused in October of depositing several hundred tonnes of radioactive waste in the Sea of Japan.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/04/world/the-us-too-has-dumped-waste-at-sea.html
(article date 1994)

Jverne, again I would like to stress that your argument is something along the line of:

Guy 1: "Oh no, I have heart disease. The doctor says I only have 10 more years of life left in me."
Guy 2: "Forget heart disease, you have diabetes! That's also potentially life threatening! It's obviously stupid to worry about heart disease when you have diabetes!"

i'm not saying global warming is nonsense or that we should completely forget about it. IMO there are more urgent issues that we should be talking about, that's all. i've already established that it's not a black and white issue. stop being a prick

I do research in environmental remediation (aka cleaning up polluted sites). I work more on organic carcinogens but there are a bunch of people working on mercury. Even though I love my research, I'd have to say that in the grand scheme of things, global warming is a MUCH broader problem. This doesn't mean contaminated sites are not a problem -- we do have toxic levels of chemicals in some places, and if you happen to be in somewhere like Brazil where they're using mercury to mine gold and the rivers get polluted with pesticides, you might be really screwed. Pregnant women aren't supposed to eat fish anywhere due to contamination. But this is really more of a local problem. Global warming is a huge depressing monster of a problem... EVERYONE is screwed.

speaking strictly for climate change...i don't think it will be that dramatic like alot of people are screaming about...i believe it will happen gradually so people will get used to it. which doesn't mean we don't have to do something about it.
as for toxic chemicals, living organisms don't have the time to get used to them (especially not humans).

how local are we talking?

Pollution in this region has been extremely high in recent years. The United Nations Environment Programme has estimated that 650 million tons of sewage, 129,000 tons of mineral oil, 60,000 tons of mercury, 3,800 tons of lead and 36,000 tons of phosphates are dumped into the Mediterranean each year.[12] The Barcelona Convention aims to 'reduce pollution in the Mediterranean Sea and protect and improve the marine environment in the area, thereby contributing to its sustainable development.'[13]

Many marine species have been almost wiped out because of the sea's pollution. The Mediterranean Monk Seal is considered to be among the world's most endangered marine mammals.[14]

The Mediterranean is also plagued by marine debris. A 1994 study of the seabed using trawl nets around the coasts of Spain, France and Italy reported a particularly high mean concentration of debris; an average of 1,935 items per square kilometre. Plastic debris accounted for 76%, of which 94% was plastic bags.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Sea

that's quite a lot of countries affected.

when you talk about local pollution you keep forgetting that these areas are actually where most people live.

 

[NeptuneUK]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_Hn0yM00Fo&feature=related

Man... RJ, he so crazy.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

You broke the forum

 

[VirusType2]

we need to also look towards new planets and stars. if we can inhabit some other place and spread out our survival rate chances will increase ten fold

We are fresh out of the stone age if you look at time as infinite. Just think about this date: 1990. That was less than 20 years ago, and it might as well be 1920, and if you go back further, not long before that, science wasn't even legal in many places.

We won't be colonizing other planets and solar systems for a long, long time. We have plenty of time for that (hopefully) since the Sun is expected to last "about 5 billion years as it is now"

Like bbson_john said, we need to worry about this planet in the mean time. Even if we do colonize other planets, we will probably still need THIS one.

you see why i hate the concept of traveling in the past...it's just...just...blargh

Traveling into the past is probably not going to be possible. Things have been done, they can't be undone.

However, if you read up on the subject (not that I have much), they believe that traveling into the future may be possible. Or at least something one might call time travel.

 

[Warped]

We are fresh out of the stone age if you look at time as infinite. Just think about this date: 1990. That was less than 20 years ago, and it might as well be 1920, and if you go back further, not long before that, science wasn't even legal in many places.

We won't be colonizing other planets and solar systems for a long, long time. We have plenty of time for that (hopefully) since the Sun is expected to last "about 5 billion years as it is now"

Like bbson_john said, we need to worry about this planet in the mean time. Even if we do colonize other planets, we will probably still need THIS one.





Traveling into the past is probably not going to be possible. Things have been done, they can't be undone.

However, if you read up on the subject (not that I have much), they believe that traveling into the future may be possible. Or at least something one might call time travel.

kinda true, travel fast enough and you can get somewhere faster than someone else and finish a task before someone else sees it from a distance. lets say you have an advanced telescope and you see a nearby planet almost getting hit with an asteroid. another nearby star system sees the asteroid heading towards that planet but has a slower time getting there. basically you got there fast enough and destroyed the asteroid before the other star system even saw the planet being saved. it would be an amazing feat

 

[Diesel_Power]

Just because you think global warming is BS, doesn't mean you should feel okay with treating the planet like shit.

 

[Saturos]

Worrying about global warming IS BS, but not for the reason the OP stated.

Global warming is a natural cycle that's hardly induced by mankind. In fact, human pollution has probably only contributed around 2% of the depleting ozone issue since the start of the industrial age. The last global warming was some time around the beginning of the cretaceous period millions of years ago and then cycled back into the ice ages years after the dinosaurs' extinction. Global warming is a bunch of mass hysteria BS perpetrated by hippies with no education (or a lack thereof) and the reason why we'll all probably be forced to drive those useless hybrids in the next 10 years or so.

/runs away

 

[Jintor]

Worrying about global warming IS BS, but not for the reason the OP stated.

Global warming is a natural cycle that's hardly induced by mankind. In fact, human pollution has probably only contributed around 2% of the depleting ozone issue since the start of the industrial age. The last global warming was some time around the beginning of the cretaceous period millions of years ago and then cycled back into the ice ages years after the dinosaurs' extinction. Global warming is a bunch of mass hysteria BS perpetrated by hippies with no education (or a lack thereof) and the reason why we'll all probably be forced to drive those useless hybrids in the next 10 years or so.

/runs away

Actually we have no goddamn idea whether this is true or not. Some people are saying it is, some people are saying it isn't. Science hasn't got a firm grip yet. I'm inclined to believe it's wrong, because placing the blame squarely on humanity fits my general worldview of people as bastards.

 

[jverne]

oh boy...here we go again.
"climate change will kill you and rape your family", "stupid hippies and their gay hybrids", "but we're not sure!"


you see now?

stop spending that much brain time on an issue that is way overblown.

 

[Jintor]

Yeah, I should be thinking of how best to wittily respond to you.