Pollution May Cause 40 Percent of Global Deaths?
Pollution May Cause 40 Percent of Global Deaths? |
|
| log in |
Message boards : Politics : Pollution May Cause 40 Percent of Global Deaths?
1 · 2 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070910_pollution_deaths.html | |
ID: 638599 ·  | |
On top.: hehe I also read similar conclusions. But: They only fit as long as the guesstimates are close to the wanted results. Otherwise I must agree to you: that industrial-like stock-farming IS polluting. It'd be better for the environment if they held the animals in their natural surroundings: meadows instead of concrete buildings, free movement instead of small barns, eating grass (or whatever these animals normally eat) instead of chemically produced pellets. It's the raping of the environment which produces so much pollution. The lack of respect against our surroundings. ____________ Account frozen... | |
| ID: 638868 · | |
|
Well something i was reading only in the last week about dams being bad greenhouse gas producers. Apparently all the vegetation and animals that are killed by the flooding dies off under all the water and in decomposing it lets off gasses. Thus hydro power can actually be more polluting than fossil fuel based powers. | |
| ID: 638878 · | |
|
Great points guys. | |
| ID: 638915 · | |
|
Pollution of the environment is problem, and frequently it takes years or even decades to show up. In my opinion, solving this problem is even MORE urgent than solving the climate change problem. After all, human-caused environmental pollution has been conclusively proven to be a problem, and human-caused climate change hasn't even been conclusively proven to exist, yet. Plus with climate change, while undoubtedly some would suffer, others might have their lives made easier, for instance as rainfall patterns shift, and growing seasons lengthen. With environmental pollution, we ALL suffer. | |
| ID: 638956 · | |
|
When discussing environmental pollution as oppossed to climate change it is important to note that while climate change is difficult to regulate due to its global nature environmental pollution can be much more region specific. | |
| ID: 639159 · | |
For instance if Australia has laws and regulations working to prevent nuclear meltdowns but China does not then will I be seriously affected when one of China's under regulated plants has an incident and renders a large part of that country useless? Probably not, though it would be a shame. Not to be picky or anything. But if there is a nuclear meltdown and explosion at a power plant, the effect will be widespread. Australia may not be affected directly (it could depending on factors like size of explosion, wind and weather) but it will be affected indirectly (through changes in the world). Remember, Chernobyl? That affected a lot of areas. From Wikipedia: "The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (now Ukraine) was the worst nuclear accident in history and is the only event to receive an INES score of 7. The power excursion and resulting steam explosion and fire spread radioactive contamination across large portions of Europe. A large 2005 study found that the death toll includes the 50 workers who died of acute radiation syndrome, nine children who died from thyroid cancer, and an estimated 4000 excess cancer deaths in the future, added to an estimated 100,000 cancer deaths in this population due to other factors." "The plume drifted over parts of the Western Soviet Union Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Northern Europe, and Eastern North America. Large areas of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia were badly contaminated, resulting in the evacuation and resettlement of over 336,000 people. According to official post-Soviet data, about 60% of the radioactive fallout landed in Belarus." As for how seriously you would be affected? Who knows. You won't until it happens. But you hope that it never does and you have to find out... ____________ Never surrender and never give up. In the darkest hour there is always hope. | |
| ID: 639165 · | |
When discussing environmental pollution as oppossed to climate change it is important to note that while climate change is difficult to regulate due to its global nature environmental pollution can be much more region specific. They already have been banned. Long ago. In 1973, some uses of PCBs were banned, domestic manufacture of PCBs was banned in 1978, with the UK following suit in 1983. The only PCBs still in use are in equipment from before the ban. The problem with PCBs is their extreme persistence in the environment. While most release of PCBs happened in urban areas, they have spread globally. You can even detect them far north of the arctic circle. PCBs are nasty stuff, and unfortunately there isn't much that can be done about what has already been released. This illustrates my point. We are dumping huge amounts of stuff into the environment, and we don't really know the effects it will have years, decades, or centuries from now. For other problems it is much more difficult to find a simple solution. Problems such as hormones in waste water are a difficult to solve as they play such a vital role in birth control. It is easy to see that the benefit outweighs the cost. Further it is difficult to envision a safer alternative (and I'm aware that some purists out there are going to advocate abstinence but thats not a workable alternative). Yes, this is a sticky situation, all right. There are some solutions, but people won't like them. Much like the 'climate change problem'. There is, at this point in our technology, only one solution. People won't like *it* either. | |
| ID: 639174 · | |
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070910_pollution_deaths.html Pollution and waste products are two big problem I deal with on a daily basis. Any process for creating a product from raw materials will create a waste stream. These waste materials can be anything from harmless gases (H2O) to toxic solids (heavy metals). I have the added problem that the product itself can be a pollutant if released into the environment before it is completed. How do I deal with these problems? Environmental controls. If the waste stream is handled properly, it poses no danger to the environment. More environmental controls need to be in place in a large part of corporate America. The main reason these are not put in place is cost. This is where politics comes into play. The government needs to implement fines that far surpass the cost of compliance. Companies would then be swayed to implement controls. Until the fines are enacted, corporations will continue to rid themselves of waste products by the cheapest methods available. On a lighter note - 40% of the population may die from pollution but that's better than dying while in bed with an escort if you are a leading member of the right wing. ;) ____________ Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges. Moderation in all things. | |
| ID: 640237 · | |
|
Just as a footnote...there are over 60,000 man made chemical compounds, of which less than 1% have been extensively tested for toxicity. | |
| ID: 640268 · | |
Just as a footnote...there are over 60,000 man made chemical compounds, of which less than 1% have been extensively tested for toxicity. That 1% are only the tastey ones. We can't get the grad students to try the ones that taste like crap. ____________ Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges. Moderation in all things. | |
| ID: 640278 · | |
Just as a footnote...there are over 60,000 man made chemical compounds, of which less than 1% have been extensively tested for toxicity. I remember making aritifical food flavorings in Chemistry class. Although fairly safe, the actual ingredients by themselves can be toxic...they tend to neutralize each other once mixed. Amyl alcohol being one of them...hydrochloric acid another. ____________ Account frozen... | |
| ID: 640281 · | |
The main reason these are not put in place is cost. This is where politics comes into play. The government needs to implement fines that far surpass the cost of compliance. Companies would then be swayed to implement controls. Until the fines are enacted, corporations will continue to rid themselves of waste products by the cheapest methods available. Problem is this: US and Australia (for example) decide to be proactive on environment and put in place an agreement to enforce strict standards punishable by hefty fines. Business finds a simple solution by moving the manufacturing process to China where no such standards exist and they can freely exercise the cheapest (often polluting) method of dealing with waste products. Best solution is to encourage companies to find ways of turning waste products into useful commodities. Often it can be done. Companies tend not to do it because there can be high costs initially and also because the new business is outside of the companies core competencies. However, government support might make such programs more attractive and encourage production companies to remain in developed countries AND minimise environmental impact. ____________ Kolch - Crunching for the BOINC@Australia team since July 2004. Search for your own intelligence... | |
| ID: 640342 · | |
The main reason these are not put in place is cost. This is where politics comes into play. The government needs to implement fines that far surpass the cost of compliance. Companies would then be swayed to implement controls. Until the fines are enacted, corporations will continue to rid themselves of waste products by the cheapest methods available. What we need is a transfer rule like the NCAA. If you move your company from the US to China, you can't sell your product in the US for at least a year. ____________ Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges. Moderation in all things. | |
| ID: 640349 · | |
|
Lol yeah. That's probably a pretty good deterent for companies planning to leave the US, I'm just not convinced it'll work so great for Aust :-P | |
| ID: 640357 · | |
Great points guys. Go Gray!! ____________ Nobody is nobody. Everyone has something to offer | |
| ID: 640440 · | |
Just as a footnote...there are over 60,000 man made chemical compounds, of which less than 1% have been extensively tested for toxicity. hehehehe =) ____________ Nobody is nobody. Everyone has something to offer | |
| ID: 640442 · | |
|
One good way to reduce pollution is not to have children until age 25 or later and have no more than two during the total lifetime (supply two gametes). Of course this would have to be a worldwide effort. | |
| ID: 640477 · | |
One good way to reduce pollution is not to have children until age 25 or later and have no more than two during the total lifetime (supply two gametes). Of course this would have to be a worldwide effort. ...been saying that for years...few are listening, least of all the Islamics, Catholics, Mormons, Anabapists, etc. ____________ Account frozen... | |
| ID: 640562 · | |
...been saying that for years...few are listening, least of all the Islamics, Catholics, Mormons, Anabapists, etc. Mm I would say that Africans and Asians are the rabbits. ____________ Kolch - Crunching for the BOINC@Australia team since July 2004. Search for your own intelligence... | |
| ID: 640645 · | |
Message boards : Politics : Pollution May Cause 40 Percent of Global Deaths?
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |
