| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've been reading both sides of this argument and I'd like to add my two
cents....(IE, not worth much). The arguement seems to waver around the FACT (bold type because it is a fact) that fish and other animals deficate in the water. The arguement is that if most people consider water that is full of natural feces to be "clean", then a little of their own will not harm anything. The water ways and oceans have a considerable ability to clean themselves and not only does the natural feces exist, it can benifit the enviroment by adding to the food chain. The problem starts when the natural balances get out of balance. As an example, put the recomended amount of fertilizer on your garden and your flowers and vegetables should grow and produce better, but put 10 or 100 times of the recomended amount of fertilizer on your garden and your yield is not 10 or 100 times better, instead the ground is "burned", nothing will grow. The plants that needed the fertilizer and used the fertilizer can no longer live on the over fertilized soil and it will be many years before it will be possible to use that soil again. Water flowing down from a mountain top is very clean, even though fish are crapping in it (lots of water, few fish), later it goes through a pasture with some cattle in it and it is less clean (still lots of water, but now more crap), it then goes by the Coors plant (not trying to pick on them) and now it is even less clean (water, crap, and some beer), the water is still considered almost pure because there are very small percentages of crap and beer. It then goes to a town and after being treated with clorine, flourine and other chemicals it is used as fresh water, it then gets more crap added, more chemicals, some treatment and is discharged back into the stream. Many towns and cities later it reaches the Ocean, I doubt if there are very many people in this group who would be willing to walk down to the river bank close to where it reaches the Ocean and have several large glasses of river water. So now the water has reached the Ocean, it is a much higher level of crap, chemicals and other polution in it than the water did 200 years ago did, and what do we find on the edge of the Ocean? Some of our biggest cities, producing even more polution, crap and chemicals. So if you look at the Ocean as a garden you can see that the natural cycle would let it clean itself and even a little additional polution can be tolerated, the problem is when the amounts get too high. Early in WWII German submarines ravaged the East coast, this was even more critical when you realize that at the time almost all of the oil for the east coast was transported by ship. for years after WWII you could go to most any east coast beach and dig down a few feet and find oil. Over time all this oil has been cleaned up...by the Ocean, but it takes time, a lot of time. Have you ever driven down a highway and been disgusted by all the trash that you see along the way? All that trash was not caused by one person (usually) but instead was the product of a bunch of people thinking "there is already some trash out there, one more piece won't matter". "No one raindrop blames itself for the flood" I wrote this because I want people to realize that the big question is "are you adding to the problem, or are you adding to the solution" or "a turd in the right place is fertilizer, a turd in the wrong place is polution". Eric |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Eric Currier wrote:
I've been reading both sides of this argument and I'd like to add my two cents....(IE, not worth much). The arguement seems to waver around the FACT (bold type because it is a fact) that fish and other animals defecate in the water. The arguement is that if most people consider water that is full [? -tk] of natural feces to be "clean", then a little of their own will not harm anything. The water ways and oceans have a considerable ability to clean themselves and not only does the natural feces exist, it can benifit the enviroment by adding to the food chain. The word "clean" offends, here. In nature here is no such thing as clean, but only a lick and a promise, part of a process. The problem starts when the natural balances get out of balance. As an example, put the recomended amount of fertilizer on your garden and your flowers and vegetables should grow and produce better, but put 10 or 100 times of the recomended amount of fertilizer on your garden and your yield is not 10 or 100 times better, instead the ground is "burned", nothing will grow. The plants that needed the fertilizer and used the fertilizer can no longer live on the over fertilized soil and it will be many years before it will be possible to use that soil again. Water flowing down from a mountain top is very clean, even though fish are crapping in it (lots of water, few fish), later it goes through a pasture with some cattle in it and it is less clean (still lots of water, but now more crap), it then goes by the Coors plant (not trying to pick on them) and now it is even less clean (water, crap, and some beer), the water is still considered almost pure because there are very small percentages of crap and beer. It then goes to a town and after being treated with clorine, flourine and other chemicals it is used as fresh water, it then gets more crap added, more chemicals, some treatment and is discharged back into the stream. Many towns and cities later it reaches the Ocean, I doubt if there are very many people in this group who would be willing to walk down to the river bank close to where it reaches the Ocean and have several large glasses of river water. So now the water has reached the Ocean, it is a much higher level of crap, chemicals and other polution in it than the water did 200 years ago did, and what do we find on the edge of the Ocean? Some of our biggest cities, producing even more polution, crap and chemicals. So if you look at the Ocean as a garden you can see that the natural cycle would let it clean itself and even a little additional polution can be tolerated, the problem is when the amounts get too high. Early in WWII German submarines ravaged the East coast, this was even more critical when you realize that at the time almost all of the oil for the east coast was transported by ship. for years after WWII you could go to most any east coast beach and dig down a few feet and find oil. Over time all this oil has been cleaned up...by the Ocean, but it takes time, a lot of time. Have you ever driven down a highway and been disgusted by all the trash that you see along the way? All that trash was not caused by one person (usually) but instead was the product of a bunch of people thinking "there is already some trash out there, one more piece won't matter". "No one raindrop blames itself for the flood" I wrote this because I want people to realize that the big question is "are you adding to the problem, or are you adding to the solution" or "a turd in the right place is fertilizer, a turd in the wrong place is polution". Eric Good on ya, Eric. You are on the right track. So, now what? Do we exterminate all coastal cities, or only those inland? We need a better attitude and method of treating huge concentrations of human waste. Not just excretia, but tin lids, old TV's and Gutenburg's revenge, red glossy cardboard, which won't even burn good. To preserve landfill, crude oil, natural gas and recycling requirements, all packaging should be useable as a clean fuel or recycled or refilled. We also need catalytic or limestone converters for carbon dioxide for industrial purposes and eventual home use. Better heavy ash than carbon dioxide? We need photo voltaic shingles for our roofs, hydrogen storage bags in our attics or two wat power meters, we need domestic hot water and heating water preheaters on our roofs to keep the photovoltaic cells cool and save energy production requirements, we need better insulation to keep our houses cool in the summer and warm in the winter and lots more. There is a lot of room for new industry. Only the oil guys have the capital to do it independantly. We need to outbid them for control of the next big power industry. Only a people's government can do anything, but who controls that? Human manure needs to be treated as a valuable resource, which it is. What can we mine from it (cellulose?), or mill from it (fertiliser?), or refine from it (silica? drinking water?), or cook it into with say, agriculural waste product like straw or hemp leaves? Can we convert it into, dare I suggest, crude oil? How can we do it with minimum impact on the potable water supply and on the fishy sea? Why do we waste it by throwing it away, poisoning the shoreline and the boating environment? We will need an honest, non profit approach to some things. Maybe some day a photovoltaic array big enough to shade a significant portion of deserts, with greenhouses in the shade using sewage to grow corn to feed livestock and distill alcohol for fuel? That is a serendipitous synergy that could work. Too many windmills could cause desertification and mass butchery of birds, let alone the noise pollution. Why do we not have seperate sanitary and runoff drainage systems in new housing areas, with boglike discharge areas to grow shellfish and clean our discharge for those downstream? What plans are made for the eventual repair and replacement of present infrastructure municipal sewers? Where do you think fossil oil came from? Dead stuff, is where, common dirt, squashed anaerobically. There is a process which can use household waste food to produce crude oil. I bet the process is poisoned by trace contaminents like, oh I don't know, paint, or the fact that the profit centre for oil is right now located elsewhere, and is infinitely more attractive to anyone with an oil well still producing in his back yard. Yes, this is on topic for better boating with fewer stupid restrictions. Terry K I support David Suzuki as this year's greatest Canadian, but what's he gonna do for us next year? What are YOU gonna do? That will be his real measure. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: More head trip (plumbing issues)
From: rhys It's not about feeling superior as much as it's about noticing even in my 40s how much the weather has changed. It's also about saving money in the long run, and mostly it's about wanting to do as little harm as possible to a planet my kid will eventually inherit. I see your points and agree. It's just that I've seen and heard that "I'm an environmentally correct superior sailor and all you stink potters are polluters" once to often. And like I said it was just a rant. :-) Capt. Bill |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| More head trip (plumbing issues) | Boat Building | |||
| Head trip - "Pipe down, you'se guys!" he said Archly | Cruising | |||
| OT--Not again! More Chinese money buying our politicians. | General | |||
| Third Florida trip report (long, of course!) | Cruising | |||
| Life in Congo, Part V: What a (long) strange trip its being.... | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
