It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The State of the Union thread.

page: 53
60
<< 50  51  52   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I would say that the policy has failed for more than 60 years of trying to nation build and of isolation and sanctions that don’t really work.

Ecology is an interesting field of study, though most experts will tell you that it is a confined system. Nature can only clean up so much of the mess and pollution, with the excess being passed along from point to point. One of the best case examples of that would be to look at the remains of Chernobyl or Bikini Atoll, where the area and thus the animals around are highly radioactive. It is not contained, and it does spread far and wide. The animals and plant life grow, nature has come back, but the toxic nature of the area remains, that in turns spreads to the animals and plant life. The same can be said about some of the more industrial pollution from factories, where it gets into the environment and then spreads further than intended and further causes problems. Yes they moved out of the population areas, but now those areas and surrounding are ever creeping towards once again where there inhabitation. It is not the planet that we should be seeking to save but ourselves. The planet existed years before man and will exist long after we are all dead and gone, for about 5 billion years more, give or take a million when our own sun will grow and consume the earth.

Yes those nice sandy beaches are failing as well, be it erosion from increased climate activity, or the fact that it is now covered in plastics that have washed up from the oceans onto the beaches.
Yes they removed the regulations, but at what cost to the environment? That is never considered, and no system is 100% safe, accidents always happens, yet when they do, it gets worse and worse, and ultimately the bill is shipped to the people, not the companies that are cleaning up the mess. And what is worse, is that there are laws that are on the books that prevents other countries from sending help in the way of technology to come and assist.

I mention the Flint Michigan disaster as a good example of why these regulations are important. If you look at the history of the Flint river and the aging infrastructure and a government that is not interested in the people this was bound to happen and is not the only story out there. But here is the back ground on such. The Flint River in Michigan is a main water source there. For years the industrial base there used the river as a dumping ground for waste, both inorganic and organic. The idea was that the city would draw in water upstream and down stream, where the industry was, it would discharge untreated waste. In the 1930’s fish started to disappear from first the Flint River, and then in the surrounding rivers and streams. It was not until the 1960’s and after the industrial boom following World War II that the pollution of the river was at an all time high and people starting to get concerned. What was being dumped into the water was chemical from the auto industry, to organics from the paper and the meat packing facility, along with run off from the rains and snows, bringing in other contaminates from the surrounding areas. The population grew and they switched to another water source. Course there were also dumping raw sewage into the river as well. Following the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, it showed some improvements upstream but significant toxins downstream. Then the landfills that seeped toxins into the ground water also found its way into the water as well. Add in the use of salt on the roads for ice removal and the water was a danger. When it went back to the companies that were responsible for the contamination, they did what most companies did, sold it cheap and got out of there, like GM. That left far greater contaminants in the way of heavy metals, like arsenic, mercury, lead, toxic solvents, volatile organic compounds and PNA’s along with petroleum compounds. And all of that was going into the river. Now the oxygen level was low in this water, so one would get a large amount of algae growth and bacteria. They pull water out of the river, treat it for the organic, the bacteria and viruses, and then push it through an aging system of pipes that corroded and added lead to the water.

So while yes the economy is important, but business should also be held accountable for its use of natural resources, if they pollute say water, they should pay the price for cleaning it up and mitigating the damage that is done and not just sell the site for a very low price and then skip town.

While radioactivity material in the land fill is part of the problem, however if it heats up, and catches on fire, it is the particulates that get into the air, that is the problem cause then it would travel to far greater areas and would spread. Remember when Chernobyl? The fire cause the radioactive material to burn and the particulates spread and went west. Or say Fukoshima?

Usually the government does deficit spending when they are short on money for the current expenditures, not for future projects. And this would not be just deficit spending but an adding to the national debt, for things long past that should have been paid off long ago.

Well perhaps if you did not start making it personal, and making snide comments at the end of your posts. And if you were to consider, that you are not the only one with experience. Alot of the stuff I am stating in this posting, I have seen first hand. I have seen rivers so toxic due to industry that cities cannot use the water. I have seen air pollution so bad that there was a court fight over it. I have seen beaches polluted, from what is washing up.




posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig


I would say that the policy has failed for more than 60 years of trying to nation build and of isolation and sanctions that don’t really work.

And I would agree. That's my point. We have to use our military, at least in a limited fashion, in order to allow the area to recover politically from our nation-building exercises in futility. Experts be damned. So far none of those who claimed to have once been a pert have managed to get us out of the mess we're in in the ME.


I mention the Flint Michigan disaster as a good example of why these regulations are important.

My understanding of the Flint disaster is that the primary cause of the high lead content was the aging pipes. Over time, the lead from the primary water source had to be changed due to too much pollution. The new water supply was more chemically active than the old supply (which, yes, could be accounted for by road salts) and began to leech lead out of the old leaden pipes. The entire disaster could have been prevented by upgrading the pipes. They would have still been faced with pollution issues, but they would be addressable. As you point out, water treatment is a must in that area due to pollution... but it does no good to pump cleaned water through contaminated pipes.


So while yes the economy is important, but business should also be held accountable for its use of natural resources, if they pollute say water, they should pay the price for cleaning it up and mitigating the damage that is done and not just sell the site for a very low price and then skip town.

On this i will agree. My earlier point was simply that just saying 'we need less regulations" does not automatically mean removing the regulations that are needed. There are quite a few that do little to no actual good for the ecology but seriously hurt the economy. Those need to go, so the ones that are needed can stay and people can still remain financially comfortable.

A large part of the problem in Flint can be traced back to the economy. Had Flint had a booming tax base during the years leading up to the disaster, they could have replaced at least some of the pipes and prevented the problem. Unfortunately, the rust belt has been dying economically for many years, in large part due to over-regulation, and did not have the funds to fix their infrastructure. It's hard to make poor people make more ecologically-friendly but economically expensive decisions, but it's relatively easy to convince those financially comfortable to do so.


While radioactivity material in the land fill is part of the problem, however if it heats up, and catches on fire, it is the particulates that get into the air, that is the problem cause then it would travel to far greater areas and would spread.

From your description, it sounds like groundwater is likely already spreading it. Radioactive materials can oxidize, but are not exactly highly flammable... a fire would simply smolder, not flame. The airborne particulates would increase, yes, but not as much as I think you think they will.


Well perhaps if you did not start making it personal, and making snide comments at the end of your posts. And if you were to consider, that you are not the only one with experience.

You started the snide comments, by insinuating I had no experience... in actuality, the exact opposite is true. If you throw a rock at someone, it is disingenuous to then complain if a rock comes back your direction.

I happen to love this mountain dearly. It has protected me from storms, mellowed out temperature extremes, provided me with shade in the summer heat and food all my life. I not only know how to live in harmony with nature, I do so every day. Perhaps you should realize that you are not the only one familiar with ecology. I can track a bobcat by sound when he sneaks around a camp. I can walk up on deer close enough to get a closeup view. I can tell by the sky what time it is, whether cloudy or not. I can find food where most would starve. I can live in the mountain, alone, with nothing but a knife for days on end; when I was younger, I did so quite a bit... could you?

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

If you call together experts on the subject, would it not be prudent to listen to them and what they say or to ignore them time and time again? Cause that ultimately is what all we are looking at, is that they were called together, and the one administration started to edge back from that part of the world, and subsequent administrations did not heed such and increased activities in that part of the world.

On the Flint, the point being that the water is already contaminated badly. And when combined with the aging infrastructure, it was going to cause problems. And this is one of many such rivers in the country, where there was heavy industry that was done along the river and the water still remains contaminated heavily, that then spreads to the wildlife and surrounding waters. This is from years of contaminating the water shed.

Yes there was a GM plant in Flint. But when it found out that it would be on the hook for paying for cleaning up the toxic waste that was there due to the auto industry, then it sold the land back to the city and left. Thus removing the good jobs and tax basis as it did not want to take responsibility for the toxic waste or the cleanup. And in many communities this can be seen time and time again.

If you look at the studies done on Chernobyl and the Bikkini atoll islands, 2 areas that were heavily contaminated by radioactive materials, it spreads, from the earth and water, to the flora and fauna. Studies are continually being done, as no one is really sure how long those areas will remain radioactive for years and are seeing some very disturbing results, and they are not sure of the long term effects .



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig


If you call together experts on the subject, would it not be prudent to listen to them and what they say

Certainly, but we have taken the advice you claim they have offered. If that advice is taken and does not produce the desired result, indeed, results in the opposite of that desired result, then no... just because one holds a title it does not follow they are infallible.


On the Flint, the point being that the water is already contaminated badly. And when combined with the aging infrastructure, it was going to cause problems.

My point was that the contamination can be cleaned, and is being cleaned, even during the height of the disaster. It was not water pollution that caused the immediate problem with lead poisoning; it was the pipes the water flowed through after it was cleaned. That is an infrastructure problem.

Obviously it would be optimal to have clean water directly from the river, but at this point in time that is a pipe dream (no pun intended). The contamination is there, and wishing it away won't work. We simply do not have sufficient technology to return the river to a pristine state, no matter how hard we try. It will take nature many years to accomplish that, and would take us an eternity with present technology.

Should we stop polluting the river? Obviously! But then what do we do with the waste we produce? That's the real issue I have with most who claim environmentalism: they are happy to buy the electronics, the batteries, the cars, all the little things we have that make life easier, but they don't want to actually solve the problems... it is far easier to simply demand it be in someone else's back yard, and that will not solve anything.


If you look at the studies done on Chernobyl and the Bikkini atoll islands, 2 areas that were heavily contaminated by radioactive materials, it spreads, from the earth and water, to the flora and fauna. Studies are continually being done, as no one is really sure how long those areas will remain radioactive for years and are seeing some very disturbing results, and they are not sure of the long term effects

Of course not. Nuclear technology is still a new science. We can run models all day long,but the results may well be different than their predictions when it happens for real.

Example: for many years, some scientists believed in the 'China Syndrome' in the event of a full-blown meltdown. We now know this is not true. Fukushima was a full-scale experiment in what will happen during a complete meltdown, and we are still gathering data. It was an expensive experiment, because a goodly portion of the Pacific Ocean is now contaminated with radioactivity, and will be for a few hundred years. We have no physical way to stop it.

That is why, as much as I like the idea of nuclear power, I also acknowledge that we need much more research and development into methods of dealing with waste and methods to make the reactors safe even at high cost. Nuclear is clean, efficient, and geographically flexible, but it comes with the high price of being dangerous if not used properly.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics
 
60
<< 50  51  52   >>

log in

join