Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, June 11, 2018

By analyzing the waste found in the rivers and surrounding landscape, researchers were able to estimate that just 10 river systems carry 90% of the plastic that ends up in the ocean. Eight of them are in Asia: the Yangtze; Indus; Yellow; Hai He; Ganges; Pearl; Amur; Mekong; and two in Africa -- the Nile and the Niger ... The rivers all had two things in common; a generally high population living in the surrounding region -- sometimes into the hundreds of millions -- and a less than ideal waste management process.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Ban all 10 of those rivers!!!!!!!!!

#1 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-06-11 10:59 AM | Reply

There isn't a river in the continental US that doesn't have PCB warnings

But man has had no impact on our environment

--------

#2 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-06-11 12:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#2,

good deflection, Chief,

Way to not acknowledge that the U.S isn't the problem, but those crap holes you love so much are...

Your hypocrisy has no bounds I see..

#3 | Posted by boaz at 2018-06-11 01:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

This proves we are trying to make the wrong population do lifestyle changes.

#4 | Posted by boaz at 2018-06-11 01:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Does this mean we need to encourage birth control in these countries?

#5 | Posted by Tor at 2018-06-11 01:55 PM | Reply

Way to not acknowledge that the U.S isn't the problem, but those crap holes you love so much are...

#3 | POSTED BY BOAZ

What? That's NOT what the article said. It said the largest problem, 90% of it, comes from those ten rivers.

It didn't say the US isn't a problem or doesn't have PCB issues.

We still need to clean up our rivers and lakes quite a bit.

If you disagree, do tell us why.

#6 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-06-11 02:31 PM | Reply

Plastics in the ocean? It's toys for the fish to play with. I'm jealous.

This is at an aquarium forum talking about the Black Nasty cichlid:

My favorite cichlid. I have a 14" male currently. He's a complete ***hole :)
He's the most personable cichlid I've kept to date, and I'll keep him the rest of his lifespan. My favorite thing is that he bangs on my lids when I walk by to get my attention. Hait's are the most under-rated CA/SA cichlid in my opinion.

Tips for keeping an adult:
-No glass heaters. Mine tries to shatter them. Titanium only if you want an in-tank heater. If you run a sump, use whatever heater you want in the sump.
-No filter extensions that hang deep in the tank. Mine bites them until they break and/or fall off and then plays with the broken pieces.
-I'd probably use a piece of sponge zip tied on the filter intake. Mine likes to spit sand in my filter intakes, and that tends to burn up motors or eat up the impellers.
-I like to use PFS for substrate. It's easy to clean, and gives them something to push around.
-No big/hard/heavy decorations in the tank. Mine would push around very large terra-cotta (sp???) pots and plastic decorations, and would slam them into the side of his aquarium. I think he would have eventually broken the aquarium from slamming stuff into the glass.
-I like to put some fake plants in the tank for him to push around. Gives him something to do.

I keep the temperature steady at 80 Deg.
Since they need a highish temperature, make sure you have a LOT of oxygenation. I run 2 AC110's and a big air pump on my 75 gallon. It seems to do the trick.
They tend to bloat and die if stressed. Keep the temperature stable, and Ammonia/Nitrite/Nitrate at 0/0/Super Low.
I feed only NLS Thera-A+. I think it's got a good mix of veggie and protien for this breed (and they NEED veggies to keep from bloating and dieing).


www.monsterfishkeepers.com

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-11 02:36 PM | Reply

the environment doesn't matter to people whose entire world is experienced via a tv.

Its obvious boaz doesn't own waterfront property because if he did he would realize plastics and pollution is very much a/our problem, (‘our' being people of means and responsibilities)

#8 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-06-11 02:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

None of the rivers were in America?

Don't worry. Trump will ensure we end up on that list.

#9 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-06-11 02:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Five Asian Countries Dump More Plastic Into Oceans Than Anyone Else Combined

China, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam are dumping more plastic into oceans than the rest of the world combined , according to a 2017 report by Ocean Conservancy.

www.forbes.com

#10 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-06-11 03:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Five Asian Countries Dump More Plastic Into Oceans Than Anyone Else Combined"

Nothing can be done
Their behavior dictates our behavior
Why Lead When you can Just Follow

Sincerely

The "Personally Responsible"

#11 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-06-11 03:08 PM | Reply

Apparently Nullie mom used to say, "You Need to Jump Off a Cliff if Everyone Else is Jumping off a Cliff"
Because it seems everything he does is contingent on what everyone else is doing

#12 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-06-11 03:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


@#9 ... None of the rivers were in America? ...

Perhaps because the United Stated currently has better laws and regulations against rampant dumping into our waterways.

General Electric's PCB disaster woke a lot of people up. Though, even today the EPA is trying to let General Electric off the hook.

#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-06-11 03:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Five Asian Countries Dump More Plastic Into Oceans Than Anyone Else Combined

China, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam are dumping more plastic into oceans than the rest of the world combined , according to a 2017 report by Ocean Conservancy.

www.forbes.com

#10 | Posted by nullifidian

And if america doesn't give a crap about the planet, then why should they?

#14 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-11 03:27 PM | Reply

Ban rivers!
--Liberals

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-11 03:42 PM | Reply

Facts are like kryptonite to the blame-America-first haters.

infographic.statista.com

#16 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-06-11 03:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2


@#14 ... And if america doesn't give a crap about the planet, then why should they ...

Funny thing about that.

The United States had been shipping a lot of our recyclable plastic to China ( www.nytimes.com ). Recently, China has started to object to being the dumping ground of the United States.

Gonna be interesting to watch it play out...

#17 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-06-11 03:57 PM | Reply

Facts are like kryptonite to the blame-America-first haters.

infographic.statista.com

#16 | Posted by nullifidian

Those numbers are the result of america having leaders that care about the planet.
What do you think will happen if we keep electing leaders that don't?

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-11 04:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

China, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam are dumping more plastic into oceans than the rest of the world combined , according to a 2017 report by Ocean Conservancy.

Unfortunately. We cannot dictate what other nations can and cannot do. Especially not China.

Fortunately. We can continue to do our best at limiting the amount of pollution we produce.

Hopefully. Other nations will realize the need to reduce the amount of pollution they produce.

#19 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-06-11 04:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Those numbers are the result of america having leaders that care about the planet.
What do you think will happen if we keep electing leaders that don't?

#18 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

You will be hard-pressed to find many leaders who don't care about actual pollution - carcinogens in the water and air, plastic and other litter in our waterways, etc.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-11 04:07 PM | Reply

You will be hard-pressed to find many leaders who don't care about actual pollution - carcinogens in the water and air, plastic and other litter in our waterways, etc.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ

Hard pressed? Take a look inside the white house.

Fox news and all republican propaganda, in defense of fossil fuel profits, brainwashed their morons into associating all environmental protection with a gay wussy liberal agenda. Since those evil libs want to protect the planet, then real red blooded american virile men either don't give a damn about it, or actively promote its destruction.

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-11 04:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

There are still electrical transformers that contain PCBs. Every once in a while, I'd run across one during testing. There are tens of thousands of transformers sitting in electric companies' back lots. Leaking.

This topic came up a couple months ago, and I remember posting a similar infographic in #16.

#22 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-06-11 04:11 PM | Reply

None of the rivers were in America? ...

Perhaps because...
#13 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

While I do appreciate your well thought out response. And agree, up until our current administration, the federal government was doing a lot to help protect and clean up our environment.

My original post was a comment about how the Trump Administration is doing its best to remove environmental regulations so corporations don't need to be responsible for the pollution they create which will help America get on the list of most polluting nations.

#23 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-06-11 04:11 PM | Reply

"You will be hard-pressed to find many leaders who don't care about actual pollution"

Actual pollution? Is that like legitimate rape? You conservatives and your language games...

#24 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-06-11 04:15 PM | Reply

Hard pressed? Take a look inside the white house.
Fox news and all republican propaganda, in defense of fossil fuel profits, brainwashed their morons into associating all environmental protection with a gay wussy liberal agenda. Since those evil libs want to protect the planet, then real red blooded american virile men either don't give a damn about it, or actively promote its destruction.

#21 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

The problem is you conflate CO2 emissions with ALL other forms of pollutants. It's risible to even label CO2 as a pollutant. You're like a religious crusader - if someone thinks that there are better ways to deal with CO2 emissions than top-heavy mandates like Kyoto and Cap and Trade then they are automatically a polluter, according to you, regardless of where they stand on the quality if the water we drink, the air we breathe, preserving our parks and forests, etc.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-11 04:15 PM | Reply

You will be hard-pressed to find many leaders who don't care about actual pollution - carcinogens in the water and air, plastic and other litter in our waterways, etc

And yet the Congress passed, and Trump signed, a bill allowing coal companies to pollute streams with toxic heavy metals. Maybe you just aren't looking hard enough?

#26 | Posted by JOE at 2018-06-11 04:15 PM | Reply

#24

CO2 is not a pollutant. To lump it with something like asbestos is just absurd.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-11 04:16 PM | Reply

Breathe in 1% CO2 and get back to us.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-11 04:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"It's risible to even label CO2 as a pollutant."

Of course it is.

#29 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-06-11 04:18 PM | Reply

www.snopes.com

Actually, all they did was undo an Obama-era regulation:

On 2 February 2017, the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution to block implementation of an Obama administration coal mining regulation known as the Stream Protection Rule, which took effect on the final day of President Obama's term in office (19 January 2017). President Trump had campaigned on this issue, and his intention to rescind the rule was stated explicitly on his administration's transition team web site:

www.snopes.com

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-11 04:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The only things that can be taken seriously as pollutants are the ones designated by scientific semi-literates like Jeff. Makes perfect sense.

#31 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-06-11 04:20 PM | Reply

JeffJ is saying is it's hard to find politicians who won't give lip service to clean air and clean water.

But if you want to find politicians that deny global warming, you have the entire GOP to choose from.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-11 04:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Actually, all they did was undo an Obama-era regulation

...which prevented coal companies from polluting streams with toxic heavy metals.

#33 | Posted by JOE at 2018-06-11 04:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Yep. 1% is 10,000 ppm CO2 is enough to initiate brain asphyxia and death.

Have an HVAC or weatherization contractor measure CO2 levels within your home. If the levels exceed 1,000 ppm, the furnace should be tuned to increase levels of fresh air coming into the building. If levels are above 2,000 ppm, this can be a serious condition that could warrant HVAC modification.

www.dhs.wisconsin.gov

#34 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-06-11 04:22 PM | Reply

The problem is you conflate CO2 emissions with ALL other forms of pollutants. It's risible to even label CO2 as a pollutant. You're like a religious crusader - if someone thinks that there are better ways to deal with CO2 emissions than top-heavy mandates like Kyoto and Cap and Trade then they are automatically a polluter, according to you, regardless of where they stand on the quality if the water we drink, the air we breathe, preserving our parks and forests, etc.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ

Hiding behind semantics as usual.

WHo cares is something is DEFINED as a pollutant?

Water isn't a pollutant but if too much is in your lungs it'll kill you. CO2 isn't a pollutant but if too much is in the air it will kill life on earth.

And I didn't conflate C02 with pollutants, repub morons have. The fight against C02 limits has also made repubs resist environmental protections of any type.

#35 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-11 04:23 PM | Reply

Breathe in 1% CO2 and get back to us.

#28 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

1%? I thought 6% was the point at which CO2 became toxic to humans.

Also, we are exposed to CO2 on a constant basis without negative effect. Try exposing yourself to an equal percentage of asbestos, or mercury on a daily basis and see what happens. Without CO2 all life on this planet would cease to exist.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-11 04:23 PM | Reply

It's as if Jeff thinks that if you call something an "Obama-era regulation," we don't have to look at what it said, what it does, or whether it was a good idea. Just say the word "OBAMA" and suddenly he wins the argument.

#37 | Posted by JOE at 2018-06-11 04:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And I didn't conflate C02 with pollutants, repub morons have. The fight against C02 limits has also made repubs resist environmental protections of any type.

#35 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

That is where you are flat-out wrong and it seems you need to cling to that belief in order to personally demonize those with whom you disagree.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-11 04:24 PM | Reply

It's as if Jeff thinks that if you call something an "Obama-era regulation," we don't have to look at what it said, what it does, or whether it was a good idea. Just say the word "OBAMA" and suddenly he wins the argument.

#37 | POSTED BY JOE

No. That's not it at all. The joint resolution (you incorrectly called it a bill) simply undid a regulation that was a handful of years old and reverted back to how it's been regulated since '83. That it was implemented by Obama is irrelevant. Fact is our rivers have gotten much cleaner since this law was originally passed in '83. I remember back in the early '80's when the Rouge River would catch on fire and was littered almost beyond comprehension.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-11 04:27 PM | Reply

"That is where you are flat-out wrong"

Flint is where he's right.

Name any piece of legislation or EO Trump has signed which promotes environmental causes.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-11 04:29 PM | Reply

"Fact is our rivers have gotten much cleaner since this law was originally passed in '83"

Too clean?

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-11 04:30 PM | Reply

Flint?

People across all sides of the spectrum are sickened by what happened in Flint.

If you view that is an environmental problem brought on solely by one political party, with no other factors at all, you are thoroughly ignorant about the subject.

The best reporting on the Flint water crisis can be found at: Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, Flint Journal.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-11 04:31 PM | Reply

simply undid a regulation that was a handful of years old and reverted back to how it's been regulated since '83.

None of what you posted refutes the fact that Republicans undid a rule that prevented coal companies from polluting our streams with toxic heavy metals.

You claimed it's hard to find a politician who isn't against actual pollution. I provided an example of hundreds of Republicans supporting the repeal of a rule that made it illegal to pollute our streams with toxic heavy metals. It doesn't matter if it was an "Obama era regulation." It doesn't matter that "this is how it was done since '83." Either refute that the rule existed and that Republicans chose to eliminate it or please stop responding to me.

#43 | Posted by JOE at 2018-06-11 04:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"People across all sides of the spectrum are sickened by what happened in Flint."

You aren't. You think it's swell.

#44 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-06-11 04:34 PM | Reply


@#23 ...My original post was a comment about how the Trump Administration is doing its best to remove environmental regulations so corporations don't need to be responsible for the pollution they create ...

Yeah I struggled to show that in my comment. I had hoped that the use of the word "currently" would cover it, but in hindsight, I could have done better to show the unraveling of EPA oversight.

#45 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-06-11 04:35 PM | Reply

"If you view that is an environmental problem brought on solely by one political party, with no other factors at all, you are thoroughly ignorant about the subject."

Flint is a direct result of the Republican administrator's desire to save money.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-11 04:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

No. That's not it at all. The joint resolution (you incorrectly called it a bill) simply undid a regulation that was a handful of years old and reverted back to how it's been regulated since '83. That it was implemented by Obama is irrelevant. Fact is our rivers have gotten much cleaner since this law was originally passed in '83. I remember back in the early '80's when the Rouge River would catch on fire and was littered almost beyond comprehension.

#39 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-06-11 04:27 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

You really don't know jack squat about our environment so your opinion on such matters is of no use. Sorry thems the facts.

#47 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-11 04:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

:You claimed it's hard to find a politician who isn't against actual pollution. I provided an example of hundreds of Republicans supporting the repeal of a rule that made it illegal to pollute our streams with toxic heavy metals"

They think it's okay because the rivers are so clean now.

When the choice is clean rivers or dirty rivers and profits, the right chooses profit every time.

It wasn't always this way, but their disbelief and denial of global warming has bled over into any and all other environmental issues.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-11 04:39 PM | Reply

You think it's swell.

#44 | Posted by DirkStruan

He thinks it's "swell"?

I don't know what's worse....that you're a liar or that you are Beaver Cleaver.

#49 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-11 04:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1


@#30 ... On 2 February 2017, the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution to block implementation of an Obama administration coal mining regulation known as the Stream Protection Rule ...

Beyond the repeal of the Obama-era regulations, the current EPA is also backing away from their enforcement responsibilities, i.e., ~looking the other way~ when companies violate the pre-Obama regulations that remain in force.

#50 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-06-11 04:54 PM | Reply

If you view that is an environmental problem brought on solely by one political party, with no other factors at all, you are thoroughly ignorant about the subject.
The best reporting on the Flint water crisis can be found at: Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, Flint Journal.

#42 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-06-11 04:31 PM | FLAG:

WRONG The Obama era EPA laid the blame squarely where it belonged. Rick Snyder and his Republican cronies. Take it up with them.

#51 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-11 04:55 PM | Reply

socratic.org

How would you calculate the partial pressure of CO2, given an atmospheric pressure of 760 mm Hg and a 0.04% concentration?

The key to this problem is the fact that each component of a gaseous mixture will contribute to the total pressure exerted by the mixture proportionally to the number of molecules in has in the mixture.

More often than not, you will see the partial pressure of a gas being expresses in terms of its mole fraction.

As you know, one mole of any substance is equal to exactly 6.022x10^23 molecules, known as Avogadro's Number.

Now, the percent composition of a gaseous mixture tells you how many molecules each gas contributes in 100 molecules of mixture.

In this case, air is said to be 0.04% carbon dioxide. This means that in every 100 molecules of air, 0.04 will be CO2 molecules.

For example, the number of moles of CO2 in 100 molecules of air will be 0.00004.

Carbon dioxide's partial pressure in air will thus be 0.00004 x 760mmHg = 0.304 mmHg, or 304ppm.

Now it is over 400 ppm.

By the end of the century, it's expected to be 900ppm.

www.climate.gov

#52 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-06-11 05:07 PM | Reply

As you know

I wouldn't assume that...

#53 | Posted by JOE at 2018-06-11 05:10 PM | Reply

Effects of CO2 on the brain:

The brain uses ~20% of available oxygen for normal function, making tight regulation of blood flow and oxygen delivery critical for survival. In a normal physiological state, total blood flow to the brain is remarkably constant due in part to the prominent contribution of large arteries to vascular resistance (see Segmental Vascular Resistance). In addition, parenchymal arterioles have considerable basal tone and also contribute significantly to vascular resistance in the brain [58,105]. The high metabolic demand of neuronal tissue requires tight coordination between neuronal activity and blood flow within the brain parenchyma, known as functional hyperemia (see Neural–Astrocyte Regulation). However, in order for flow to increase to areas within the brain that demand it, upstream vessels must dilate in order to avoid reductions in downstream microvascular pressure. Therefore, coordinated flow responses occur in the brain, likely due to conducted or flow-mediated vasodilation from distal to proximal arterial segments and to myogenic mechanisms that increase flow in response to decreased pressure (see Myogenic Response).

Clinical signs or symptoms of ischemia are not seen until the decrease in perfusion exceeds the ability of increased oxygen extraction to meet metabolic needs. At this point, clinical signs of hypoperfusion occur, including dizziness, altered mental status, and eventually irreversible tissue damage (infarction).

#54 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-06-11 05:11 PM | Reply

"He thinks it's "swell"?"

Indeed. Swell, A-ok, peachy keen.

#55 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-06-11 05:12 PM | Reply

"By the end of the century, it's expected to be 900ppm"

why is it expected? Because we don't intend to slow this trend or even level it off sometime in this century?

#56 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-11 05:12 PM | Reply

Carbon dioxide (CO2) has a profound and reversible effect on cerebral blood flow, such that hypercapnia causes marked dilation of cerebral arteries and arterioles and increased blood flow, whereas hypocapnia causes constriction and decreased blood flow. The potent vasodilator effect of CO2 is demonstrated by the finding that in humans 5% CO2 inhalation causes an increase in cerebral blood flow by 50% and 7% CO2 inhalation causes a 100% increase in cerebral blood flow. Although several mechanisms involved in hypercapnic vasodilation have been proposed, the major mechanism appears to be related to a direct effect of extracellular H+ on vascular smooth muscle. This is supported by findings that neither bicarbonate ion nor changes in Pco2 alone affect cerebral artery diameter. Other proposed mechanisms involved in the response to changes in Pco2 include vasodilator prostanoids and nitric oxide; however, the involvement of these mediators appears to be species-specific.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Copyright © 2010 by Morgan & Claypool Life Sciences.
Bookshelf ID: NBK53082

#57 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-06-11 05:14 PM | Reply

"why is it expected? Because we don't intend to slow this trend or even level it off sometime in this century?"

That's why.

But it's also somewhat from the fact that, as we continue to warm the planet, the warming planet itself will release more CO2, as it warms up.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-11 05:18 PM | Reply

57

That sounds pretty bad.....and it's expected to happen.

#59 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-11 05:25 PM | Reply

Eberly, the governments of the world don't know what to do about it without destroying our economies...which are based upon easily obtainable and transportable fossil fuels. Namely oil, coal, and natural gas.

The transformation would be catastrophic to the United States...with 10,000 small towns relying on around 20 large city megacenters for consumables, electricity, food, etc.

As long as people are cold, they're going to burn something to keep warm. Gas, etc.

It's unavoidable. I don't know what they're going to do in 100 years. Humanity usually finds a way to keep on going.

#60 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-06-11 05:31 PM | Reply

That sounds pretty bad.....and it's expected to happen.

#59 | Posted by eberly

Sounds like a really bad migraine to me.

No wonder folks like Sniper don't care.

Being already brain dead getting more blood or less blood will have no effect.

#61 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-06-11 05:38 PM | Reply

"As long as people are cold, they're going to burn something to keep warm. Gas, etc."

I know we use more natural gas for cooling than heating, not sure if total energy is more used for cooling than heating.

(In case you're wondering how we use natural gas for cooling, we burn it to produce electicity to power air conditioners.)

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-11 05:40 PM | Reply

It's unavoidable. I don't know what they're going to do in 100 years. Humanity usually finds a way to keep on going.

#60 | Posted by madscientist

You must have missed it...I already told you the "Final Solution"...

Thanos 2020!

#63 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-06-11 05:41 PM | Reply

"It's unavoidable. I don't know what they're going to do in 100 years. Humanity usually finds a way to keep on going."

I argued recently that technology will save us, eventually. Or there will be no saving us.

As you said, "it's unavoidable" meaning our consumption levels will only increase or at best level off....either way the trend is continuing.

#64 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-11 05:45 PM | Reply

That is where you are flat-out wrong and it seems you need to cling to that belief in order to personally demonize those with whom you disagree.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ

Really? Republcians haven't taken a firmly anti-environmental stance? Then it should be pretty easy for you to provide a list of environmental efforts lead by modern republicans. Proceed...

#65 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-11 05:49 PM | Reply

I argued recently that technology will save us, eventually. Or there will be no saving us.

As you said, "it's unavoidable" meaning our consumption levels will only increase or at best level off....either way the trend is continuing.

#64 | Posted by eberly

Technology is what helped us realize that we are endangering our existence via environmental destruction.

It can't do everything. Eventually humans are going to have act like advanced animals that can plan beyond the immediate future. Waiting for some magic technological solution is just one more way to keep money rolling in for polluters.

#66 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-11 05:51 PM | Reply

An old boss of mine explained it to me in a metaphor of germs in a Petri dish.

The colony grows exponentially, until it reaches a plateau and levels off.

Then the waste products start piling up to the point it starts poisoning the culture.

Then the colony dies.

The equation is A=Pe^rt

Which is the Arrhenius equation. It's also related to the equation for continuously compounding interest for those of you who too Business Calculus.

#67 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-06-11 06:12 PM | Reply

"Eventually humans are going to have act like advanced animals that can plan beyond the immediate future. Waiting for some magic technological solution is just one more way to keep money rolling in for polluters."

there will be money in the solutions....massive money.

and people will do exactly that...."wait for some magic technological solution".

#68 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-11 06:12 PM | Reply

In statistical thermodynamics, it's related to the Van't Hoft equation. Which is especially effective in estimating the change in enthalpy, or total energy, and entropy, or amount of disorder, of a chemical reaction.

#69 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-06-11 06:15 PM | Reply

"I argued recently that technology will save us, eventually. Or there will be no saving us."

Arguing that either technology will save us or kill us isn't really an argument.

It's more of a pillar of faith that technology is somehow able to do things that man can't do.

Which isn't sensible since technology is manmade.

Modern civilization is dependent on technology, and it's developed a Stockholm Syndrome response to that dependency. For example, you said technology will save us, or were all doomed. But it would also be technology (fossil fuel use) which dooms us. You kind of didn't fully voice that downside of technology. Nobody really does, this isn't about you, it's about how humans have become unwitting slaves to "progress."

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-11 06:20 PM | Reply

and people will do exactly that...."wait for some magic technological solution".

#68 | Posted by eberly

And people will die because of it.

People always die when we ignore the smart people in favor of nationalism and greed.

#71 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-11 06:21 PM | Reply

lnK= (-dH/RT + dS/R)

Which is related to the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship.

dP/dT = L/TdV = dS/dV

which is derived down to:

lnP2/P1 = -L/R(1/T1 - 1/T2) + c

#72 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-06-11 06:21 PM | Reply

People always die when we ignore the smart people in favor of nationalism and greed.

#71 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

It's the Republican way.

#73 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-06-11 06:26 PM | Reply

"The equation is A=Pe^rt"

^
You lose a half a point for forgetting the minus sign. :)

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-11 06:33 PM | Reply

That's if you're using the activation energy. Then it would be -Ea/RT.

#75 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-06-11 06:35 PM | Reply

And the Boltzman constant.

#76 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-06-11 06:37 PM | Reply

Facts are like kryptonite to the blame-America-first haters.
infographic.statista.com

#16 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

I get that some people like Nulli are too stupid to see the issue and think because we do less, we can drop regulations. But lets face it, people like this are complete morons and a true waste of space. They can't function in the real world nor can their thinking.

So let me tell you a short story to illustrate how stupid Nulli is:

When I was living up north, we had a strict, very well funded DNR. They had people watching boat accesses to ensure people cleaned off their boats and didn't spread milfoil and other invasive species. They were constantly out on the lakes ensuring people had fishing licenses and followed state regulations. Regulations included using one pole in use per person at at ime, limits on the amount of fish you could keep, and bait use.

I had family come up from the south. We took them fishing. When we went out, they had no idea they could haven't three poles in the water at once. They were pissed about bait regulations. The limits weren't an issue until later.

What they were amazed at is how clear our lakes were, how you could actually see fish swimming around and how many you could catch quickly. And they could actually eat the fish, no warnings. In the South, they didn't have these regulations. Many of the lakes in Texas, Tennessee and elsewhere were polluted and overfished. They had warnings on what you should eat from a lake or river. And the invasive species were everywhere.

Now in Nulli land, the lakes in the south were better than India so we should drop the regulations. In reality, to people with more than 2 brain cells, our lakes and rivers are doing well but could be doing so much better.

Reality and Facts are actually kryptonite to Conservatives. That's why they avoid talking about them as much as possible.

#77 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-06-11 06:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sometimes I wonder if we had the same boss down the line, Snoofy. Because some of the topics you bring up I've never heard anywhere else but him.

#78 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-06-11 06:38 PM | Reply

Yeah, I stopped fishing Lake Waco and the Brazos and Bosque rivers years ago. The bass were nasty. And God knows what the catfish were eating.

It's a shame, too. Especially with hundreds of square miles of farm/ranchland draining into it. The amount of poop in the lake would get so bad you couldn't drink the water. The algae blooms created 1,3,5-trimethyl borneol and geosmin. Detectable down to ppb. Everything it touched stunk. Including the drinks and tea in the fast food joints.

I had a boss tell me that in Cinncinnatti the water is carbon filtered and good right out of the tap.

#79 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-06-11 06:43 PM | Reply

Thanks, I think!

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-06-11 06:45 PM | Reply

Our water is so nasty where I live in western McLennan county that we have to buy bottled water. The water analyses always come back with coliform bacterial growth. You wouldn't believe it without seeing it for yourself. Why would a community let themselves get screwed like this?

#81 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-06-11 06:45 PM | Reply

Why would a community let themselves get screwed like this?

#81 | Posted by madscientist

Brainwashing. It goes like this: Libs = evil, and libs like environmentalism, therefore if you're not evil you have to be against environmentalism.

Tribe over country, tribe over reality, tribe over your own well-being and the well being of your kids. It's better to let your wrong beliefs kill you and your kids than admit you were wrong about something, because that might mean you are wrong about EVERYTHING.

#82 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-11 06:51 PM | Reply

"Arguing that either technology will save us or kill us isn't really an argument."

It's a statement as to human behavior.

Especially American humans.

#83 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-11 07:19 PM | Reply

Your hypocrisy has no bounds I see..

#3 | Posted by boaz

Says the guy who supports the gay cake ruling but is incensed over Hasidic Jews and Muslims renting a public beach for segregated swim days.

#84 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-11 07:24 PM | Reply

plastic isn't only problem, Boaz. it's simply the subject here.
in Florida it's Big Sugar.

sure, soon you'll have no Everglades, Flint has no decent water, and exo used kids to lead, Nestle steals it, and you still won't the "best polluted rivers" list.

#85 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-06-12 01:15 AM | Reply

WRONG The Obama era EPA laid the blame squarely where it belonged. Rick Snyder and his Republican cronies. Take it up with them.

#51 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

You don't know jack about the Flint water crisis. Sorry, thems the facts.

#86 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-12 06:52 AM | Reply

You claimed it's hard to find a politician who isn't against actual pollution. I provided an example of hundreds of Republicans supporting the repeal of a rule that made it illegal to pollute our streams with toxic heavy metals. It doesn't matter if it was an "Obama era regulation." It doesn't matter that "this is how it was done since '83." Either refute that the rule existed and that Republicans chose to eliminate it or please stop responding to me.

#43 | POSTED BY JOE

Don't be daft. Of course the rule existed and the GOP undid it. You seem to operate under the presumption if the Obama administration implemented something it must be good and if the GOP does anything it must be bad. My argument is that rule was expensive, unnecessary and accomplished very little, if anything. Just like at the very end of the Clinton era when they implemented an exorbitantly expensive rule that required arsenic levels in drinking water to be reduced by one half when the current mandated level of arsenic in the water was WAY below the minimum safe drinking point - a completely unnecessary rule that cost a ton and accomplished nothing. But wow did the left go ballistic when the Bush administration undid that rule and amazingly, somehow, people aren't getting sick from arsenic in the drinking water in this country. Shocking!

#87 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-12 06:57 AM | Reply

You don't know jack about the Flint water crisis. Sorry, thems the facts.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-06-12 06:52 AM | REPLY

The only thing you know is that Detroit charged a higher price for their water and Rick Snyder tried to skimp by using cheaper quality of water. Deal with it.

#88 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-12 07:45 AM | Reply

The only thing you know is that Detroit charged a higher price for their water and Rick Snyder tried to skimp by using cheaper quality of water. Deal with it.

#88 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

I'd fill in all of the gaps in your narrative but I know you won't listen (yes, Rick Snyder the GOP and the EM are ALL culpable).

I'll say it again, if you really want to know the story behind the Flint water crisis you need to go to local media outlets (Detroit Free Press, Flint Journal, etc). These media outlets covered this story much more in depth than did bigger outlets like WaPo, NYT, etc. I am not disparaging how the bigger outlets covered the story, BTW.

#89 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-12 07:49 AM | Reply

I love how you get all condescending and dismissive about an issue that I am more informed about than you.

#90 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-12 07:50 AM | Reply

I love how you get all condescending and dismissive about an issue that I am more informed about than you.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-06-12 07:50 AM | REPLY

You mean partisan about not more informed. HUGE difference.

#91 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-12 07:54 AM | Reply

No. More informed. I live less than an hour from Flint. This story is a much bigger deal in Michigan than it is in Kansas. But, whatever. You're the self-proclaimed smartest person in the room and seem to think I'm wrong about everything 100% of the time.

#92 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-12 07:58 AM | Reply

#91 is exactly why I am not going to waste my time filling in the gaps in your understanding of this issue. You would NEVER listen because your personal prejudice doesn't allow you to listen.

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-06-12 07:59 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

My argument is that rule was expensive, unnecessary and accomplished very little, if anything

The rule prevented coal companies from polluting our streams with toxic heavy metals.

You said it was hard to find politicians who aren't against pollution. I presented you with hundreds of politicians who aren't against polluting our streams with toxic heavy metals. Now, you claim the rule was "too expensive" and "didn't do enough," (contradictory claims, i might add), with zero source to back that up. But that wasn't the point anyway. There is no dispute that the rule "prevented coal companies from polluting our streams with toxic heavy metals" and that "politicians" voted to revoke that rule. So "politicians who arent against actual pollution" aren't nearly as "hard to find" as you claimed: you either aren't looking hard enough or you don't care.

#94 | Posted by JOE at 2018-06-12 08:22 AM | Reply

And i'll entertain your deflection anyways, because of how stupid it is.

In this analysis of 1.9 million live births, children born in MTR mining counties were 26% more likely to have a birth defect than those born in nonmining areas, after adjusting for other risk factors such as maternal age, maternal alcohol consumption during preg-nancy, maternal diabetes, and low socioeconomic status. Prevalences of circulatory and respiratory system birth defects in MTR mining counties were nearly double those in other mining and nonmining counties. Furthermore, the overall prevalence of birth defects in MTR mining areas has been rising with the spread of MTR mining, with increases in the prevalence of several types of defects in the period 2000–2003 as compared with 1996–1999, but declines in others.
Ahern MM, et al. The association between mountaintop mining and birth defects among live births in central Appalachia, 1996–2003. Environ Res. 2011;111(6):838–846.
dx.doi.org

Ask these people whether the rule "did enough," Jeff. Perhaps you're right about one thing though - maybe the rule should have been even stricter.

People who lived in MTR mining areas had a 31% higher risk of reduced health-related quality of life (HRQOL) -- or perceived physical and mental health over time -- compared with people living in nonmining areas in the same states.
Zullig KJ, Hendryx M. Health-related quality of life among central Appalachian residents in mountaintop mining communities. Am J Pub Health. 2011;101(5):848–853. dx.doi.org

Hendryx and colleague Laura Esch compared mortality data from MTR mining areas, conventional mining areas, and nonmining areas within the four Appalachian MTR mining states...They found 703 excess age-adjusted deaths from cardiovascular disease in MTR mining areas of the four states and 369 excess deaths in conventional mining areas, compared with nonmining areas within the same states.
Esch L, Hendryx MS. J Rural Health: Chronic cardiovascular disease mortality in mountaintop mining areas of central Appalachian states. dx.doi.org

#95 | Posted by JOE at 2018-06-12 08:28 AM | Reply

It's funny this thread devolved into a bashing of America, when it's clear the worst polluters putting plastic into the oceans is NOT America.

Even when it's been proven it's not our fault, for liberals, it's still our fault.

#96 | Posted by boaz at 2018-06-12 08:40 AM | Reply

Nobody blamed the pollution referenced in thw article on america, you pathetic imbecile. The point was that America should continue to be a leader on environmental issues instead of going the way of polluters. Can you really not grasp that Americans, on an American website, might want to discuss the import of this article to American politics?

#97 | Posted by JOE at 2018-06-12 08:50 AM | Reply

The point was that America should continue to be a leader on environmental issues instead of going the way of polluters.

#97

I doubt there are many, sane, people in America who don't believe this planet needs to be cleansed of the pollution we've all contributed to, in one way or another. And, I believe the EPA needs a good cleaning if we ever expect to see the Earth, especially its vital water ways, to get the much needed cleansing they deserve.

#98 | Posted by 9mmHeater at 2018-06-12 02:07 PM | Reply

It's funny this thread devolved into a bashing of America, when it's clear the worst polluters putting plastic into the oceans is NOT America.
Even when it's been proven it's not our fault, for liberals, it's still our fault.

#96 | POSTED BY BOAZ

I forget that only Trump can bash America.

Also, not sure how claiming we can do better than leave our lakes and rivers polluted equals bashing America. All I see are people bashing Conservatives for being too dumb to protect their natural resources.

#99 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-06-12 05:15 PM | Reply

Even when it's been proven it's not our fault, for liberals, it's still our fault.

#96 | Posted by boaz

Since when did we need any actual proof to prove anything these days.

If we believe it is your fault and this here is America then if we "believe" in something then it must be true right? I didn't make them rules but those are the new rules in FantasyLand from what I can tell.

So the deal is WE can believe anything WE want. Just like YOU do.

And no silly "proof" is necessary.

#100 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-06-12 05:22 PM | Reply

It's funny this thread devolved into a bashing of America, when it's clear the worst polluters putting plastic into the oceans is NOT America.

Even when it's been proven it's not our fault, for liberals, it's still our fault.

#96 | Posted by boaz

If you rape a child, but your neighbor rapes 8 children, am I BASHING you to call you a rapist since your neighbor is worse than you?

#101 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-12 05:41 PM | Reply

I doubt there are many, sane, people in America who don't believe this planet needs to be cleansed of the pollution we've all contributed to, in one way or another. And, I believe the EPA needs a good cleaning if we ever expect to see the Earth, especially its vital water ways, to get the much needed cleansing they deserve.

#98 | Posted by 9mmHeater

Then you don't know the republican base. A large portion of them don't think it matters what we do to the earth because jesus is coming back soon anyway.

Electing christians is like electing a cult member with a suicide pact. If you don't think there's going to BE a future on earth, why do you get to help decide policies which will influence the future on earth?

#102 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-06-12 05:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And, I believe the EPA needs a good cleaning if we ever expect to see the Earth, especially its vital water ways, to get the much needed cleansing they deserve.

#98 | POSTED BY 9MMHEATER

That won't happen with Republicans in office. Just look at Pruit. The EPA is blocked by Republicans from doing anything.

#103 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-06-12 05:57 PM | Reply

"My argument is that rule was expensive, unnecessary and accomplished very little, if anything."

JeffJ is out of his mind.

#104 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-12 08:47 PM | Reply

"My argument is that rule was expensive, unnecessary and accomplished very little, if anything."
JeffJ is out of his mind.

POSTED BY DANNI AT 2018-06-12 08:47 PM | REPLY

Jeff has no earthly concept of environmental issues nor does he care about them.

#105 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-06-12 08:59 PM | Reply

"Even when it's been proven it's not our fault, for liberals, it's still our fault."

Short memory. We had rivers catching of fire, that's why Nixon started the EPA and he was certainly no flaming liberal. Yes, because of the EPA we are no longer one of the biggest polluters in our rivers but that can certainly be reversed with leaders like Pruitt running the agency responsible for helping us clean up our mess.
What we should be doing is asking India, why are you building nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, etc. but not waste treatment facilities?

#106 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-13 08:11 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort