This Is Why I Am Not An "Enviromentalist"

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3024842
Oxygen, last time I checked, is a gas, and too much will kill ya!

When did you become a comedian? Tell that to the people with the oxygen tanks strapped to their faces 24/7. Seriously, think about what you just said.

 

[bs21]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3025576
When did you become a comedian? Tell that to the people with the oxygen tanks strapped to their faces 24/7. Seriously, think about what you just said.
"The result of breathing elevated concentrations of oxygen is hyperoxia, an excess of oxygen in body tissues. The body is impacted in different ways depending on the type of exposure. Central nervous system toxicity is caused by short exposure to high concentrations of oxygen at greater than atmospheric pressure. Pulmonary and ocular toxicity result from longer exposure to elevated oxygen levels at normal pressure. Symptoms may include disorientation, trouble breathing and vision changes such as myopia. Prolonged or very high oxygen concentrations can cause oxidation damage to cell membranes, the collapse of the alveoli in the lungs, retinal detachment, and seizures."
this is why scuba divers do not breathe pure oxygen. and for those wearing masks their pulse ox level or their lung function may be low causing a need for increased pressures of oxygen. but again to high of a pressure can be dangerous
for example my father in law was in he hospital.....his blood oxygen level was falling below normal range so he was on a mask. His level was dropping because the tumor that was supposedly shrinking had actually grown around his pulmonary artery which reduced the function of that lung but as a result caused his other lung to completely fill with fluid as a defence mechanism. that sounds crazy to me because i would think the body would do what it could to increase lung function not take it away by filling a lung with fluid. Anyway the point is he was on a mask with oxygen at a pretty high pressure to force a higher concentration of oxygen into his blood. The valve had to be constantly closed or opened further as his oxygen level would either rise above normal levels orfall below again. As the quote says above to much oxygen could have caused even more complications. That is why people wit oxygen tanks have valves to adjust the pressure of oxygen flowing ito the mask/tube.

 

[uneverno]

Tell that to the people with the oxygen tanks strapped to their faces 24/7. Seriously, think about what you just said.
There is a reason that the anti-oxidant vitamins/minerals (C, E, cruciferous vegetable compounds, in particular) are considered beneficial.
Over-oxidation results in the production of free radicals, which are significant contributors to the #1 and 2 killers of humankind: Cancer and Heart disease. (Soon to be taken over by diabetes and obesety, but that's another thread.)
People get O2 tanks prescribed because for whatever reason, their lungs and/or bloodstreams are no longer capable of absorbing what oxygen is necessary to sustain life, not because they need more than the rest of us.

 

[slf125]

So we have been slowly getting of course here(although quite interesting).
The questions that need answered are these:
1. Is Global warming/global climate change occurring?
2. Is it human caused/significantly contributed to by humans?
3. Should we/can we slow or stop it?

 

[stdreb27]

So we have been slowly getting of course here(although quite interesting).
The questions that need answered are these:
1. Is (deleted on purpose) global climate change occurring?
of course, if you think that the earth isn't changing you're nuts. If you think that man is large enough to cause catastrophic harm by driving a car around, using an incandescent light bulb, or running his AC. You're nuts.
Lets not forget, the global warming crowd isn't saying influencing to one degree or another, they are saying destroying.
2. Is it human caused/significantly contributed to by humans?
Statistically impossible to prove.
3. Should we/can we slow or stop it?
no we can't

 

[slf125]

I probably should have phrased the questions better but still.
Another thing I, personally, would like to know is: While some of you may not believe in global warming, what are your opinions on alternative fuels? Oil isn't gonna be around for ever.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3025593
There is a reason that the anti-oxidant vitamins/minerals (C, E, cruciferous vegetable compounds, in particular) are considered beneficial.
Over-oxidation results in the production of free radicals, which are significant contributors to the #1 and 2 killers of humankind: Cancer and Heart disease. (Soon to be taken over by diabetes and obesety, but that's another thread.)
People get O2 tanks prescribed because for whatever reason, their lungs and/or bloodstreams are no longer capable of absorbing what oxygen is necessary to sustain life, not because they need more than the rest of us.

True, but to poison yourself you would have to be breathing PURE oxygen for 3 days straight....this is not possible in the NATURAL atomospere, thus it is safe to say that a slight elevation in CO2 would not harm plant life and such as was implied. To do harm with oxygen it has to be PURE...which is not the case. The original person that brought it up was saying to much of something will kill you in response to us getting an elevated amount of co2 in the air. Just like to much water and to much vitamin c.
But I do stand corrected on the oxygen thing, didn't realize their was a downside....

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by SLF125
http:///forum/post/3026027
I probably should have phrased the questions better but still.
Oil isn't gonna be around for ever.
I am fine for alternative fuels IF they are cheaper OR they result in more output. How do you know oil isn't going to be around forever? Humans and life on earth in general have been consuming water on a regular basis for centuries and the water isn't disappearing.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3026032
Humans and life on earth in general have been consuming water on a regular basis for centuries and the water isn't disappearing.
Yeah, but think about it for a sec. It's recycled dinosaur pee.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3026029
...thus it is safe to say that a slight elevation in CO2 would not harm plant life and such as was implied.
I didn't imply that

I'll let the implicator respond, because you are correct, the statement is false.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3026017
So we have been slowly getting of course here(although quite interesting).
The questions that need answered are these:
1. Is (deleted on purpose) global climate change occurring?
of course, if you think that the earth isn't changing you're nuts. If you think that man is large enough to cause catastrophic harm by driving a car around, using an incandescent light bulb, or running his AC. You're nuts.
I think the state of the Great Lakes in the late 70's is evidence enough that humankind is capable of affecting the environment on a large scale.
Lets not forget, the global warming crowd isn't saying influencing to one degree or another, they are saying destroying.
2. Is it human caused/significantly contributed to by humans?
Statistically impossible to prove.
Then I would not count myself in the global warming crowd, as I believe that the evidence warrants further study, but is, as yet inconclusive. Imminent catastrophe is the domain of the doomsayers. I ain't one of them.
That it is statistically impossible to prove, however, is arguable, and I have, in fact, provided statistics to the contrary upthread.
3. Should we/can we slow or stop it?
no we can't
Again, I would argue that. The Great Lakes deteriorated as a result of anthropogenic pollution, to the point that what fish were still alive were so contaminated with Mercury (a byproduct of coal burning) that they were such a serious health hazard that the fishing industry there almost disappeared. The Lakes have subsequently improved dramatically as a result of humans actions to reduce that pollution.
Air quality has improved substantially since the 70's as well, especially in urban areas, as a result of legislation regarding auto exhaust and scrubbers in coal fired powerplant smokestacks. If you need evidence that these things don't affect the environment directly, I would challenge you to spend a week in Beijing, Shanghai or Mexico City sometime this August...
And yes, I'm making a socialist argument that it was legislation that mandated the change. Capitalism would have been unwilling to undertake the expense otherwise.

 

[bs21]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3026032
I am fine for alternative fuels IF they are cheaper OR they result in more output. How do you know oil isn't going to be around forever? Humans and life on earth in general have been consuming water on a regular basis for centuries and the water isn't disappearing.

I would disagree and say that usable water is disappearing. At least in the form of underground aquifers that supply springs and seeps that then slowly release water into streams and river throughout the year. Using the midwest as an example where farms have a hard time using wells to water their crops in the summer time due to a lowered water table. This is because of human development, deforestation etc... As any civil engineer or landscape architect can tell you the ammount of water allowed to infiltrate and the rate at which that water infiltrates or is released into a watershed is substantially slower in a natural environment than it is in developed or disturbed areas. If you want a simple way to see this take a tile or any impervious surface and pour a glass of water on it. This tile represents a roof or driveway, road etc..... what happens to the water? it runs off with a small amount being left behind to evaporate (not absorb into the ground). while evaporation and transportation is also normal in the hydrologic cycle the ammount of runnoff and the rate or speed at which water runs off of impervious surfaces is greater. So where does the water go? well it goes into a storm sewer system or lawn etc...
In the case of a storm sewer that water is automatically directed into the nearest drainage way such as an intermittent stream or perennial water body. This volume of water and its velocity are greatly increased compared to natural levels which causes a large amount of water to enter a stream for example cusing high water levels which lead to stream bank erosion and destruction of habitat.....especially true in streams that are encroached on by developed areas where their natural flood plains are built upon or they have been channelized and straightened to make more room for development. Look at the LA river as an example here among many others.
So naturally what would occur. That rain would fall to the ground on a vegetated surface where plant material and soil composition slow the rate at which the water travels over a certain piece of land. This slowing allows more contact time with the surface which means more time for infiltration and evaporation. When water infiltrates into the ground it goes down to the water table where depending on the direction of flow it is directed to a spring or seep. At this point i forgot to mention that the plant material and soil also help to trap and filter out sediments and other things (pollutants) that would otherwise be released in a water body. Ok so back to the spring or seep. because of infiltration the change in depth of the water table during dryer or wetter seasons is minimized and kept more constant. this allows for a constant release of water into streams throughout the year. This means that by prematurely directing water into a stream causes a more drastic swing in the depth of the water table and also combined with the use of wells whose water is used also is directed to a storm/septic sewer or more impervious surface than a natural environment further helps to reduce the depth of the table. The lowering not only can turn perennial streams into dry beds in the summer but also increases cost for people by causing water shortages in summer or costs associated with having to dig even deeper or new wells to find the water table.
to be contd.......

 

[bs21]

Now when i say natural this can ean any number of things. Some examples are a housing development that was built on an open meadow or a logging site or strip mine that used to be a forest. The lawn even though it is still considered vegetation only slows and absorbs 30 percent of the water that flows across it so if there is an inch of rainfall only 30 percent is slowed and allowed to infiltrate (these numbers come from storm water management manuals that are used to calculate pipe sizes retention ponds etc... because for any watershed you are dealing with all the different surfaces and speeds etc... that water flows on them are all inputed into equations to size the necessary storm water feature). Ok back to the case of a lawn. lets say the lawn is located where a field was before. Because of the density and height of the fields grasses and root depth etc... (and depending on soil composition) it is able to allow a 70 percent infiltration rate (this is the mid point of the range). As you can see this is a pretty big difference in volme and speed of water which again only increases with the more impervious the surface.
Recap: because of development and disturbed areas water which would normally recharge groundwater is prematurely released into a body of water which as we know leads to the ocean where it becomes unusable to the majority of people as drinking water or for use on crops, landscaping, livestock etc.. Another problem if you remember above is stream bank erosion because of this. Well the sediments from stream bank erosion or from impervious areas (parking lots, buildings, lok out your window and i'm sure you can find more examples) are eventually transported into streams, rivers, lakes, ocean where they are deposited eventually. For the trout fisherman out there this causes a problem because trout breed on gravel bottoms and when to much silt i present it reduces their breeding habitat (not to mention increasing nutrients like our tanks which lead to harmful algea blooms). When you consider it making it to the ocean you also have excess sediments onto reefs destroying habitat there not to mention the increased anoxic zone in the gulf because of the excess freshwater entering before it is able to be mixed in with salt water.
For those of you that may live along the mississippi and experience flooding every year....try to imagine all the impervious surfaces that channel rainwater into even the tiniest tributaries upstream from you and add all those together. That makes for a frightening ammount of water that would normally be in the ground and slowly released but instead is barrelling down the watershed to your local town or levee. Why are we so surprised then when chaotic flooding is occuring more frequently?
Vegetation as said above slows water allowing for more evaporation and transpiration through plants. This causes a cooling effect similar to a water cooled fan. Now in an urban area the vegetation is removed causing what is called the urban heat island effect. this is shown by thermal satalite images of cities where the temperature is significantly higher than the surrounding area. Another reason to improve stormwater management and reduce impervious surfaces (adding green roof, rain garden, bioswales/ponds) because on a large scale can help ruduce the temp in these areas and helps filter air. Which means less money we spend on heating and air conditioning(also causes insulation which i didn't mention hence the saving on heating).
Impervious surfaces also collect pollutants such as oils chemicals other nastiness from pavement which is washed off into that body of water reducing water quality. Again causing excess plant growth or in severe cases even killing wildlife.
So finally to sum up. Yes the lack of proper storm water management where natural levels are not hard to replicate by the use of storm ponds swales green roof etc... has led to a lack of water because of human use or disturbance. As i pointed out there are a number of other issues associated with this one problem. Pretty simple to understand one action influences countless other things. And the best part is whether you want to save the environment or punch it in the face everyone benefits from protecting water...either you get to protect the environment or you see the $$$ in your wallet instead of paying more on bills.
What allows life on this planet? what makes up 70% of our bodies? What is our most important resouce that needs to be protected FROM US?

WATER

 

[reefraff]

You can't destroy or ruin water, simply bodies of water.
As one aquifer is depleted another is formed somewhere. There is x amount of water on the planet and that wont change. We have to be concerned with keeping those bodies of water that support life clean and trying to keep Aquifers in the right locations replenished.

 

[bs21]

as i said usable water. water that would normally be in uderground aquifers is prematurely tansported to the ocean. So if i live in Iowa where there is a massive aquifer that has been severely lowered and my drinking water comes from a well i am screwed.
The point is protecting our water sources not only has the benefit of protecting our water sources it can also save us money and helps change numerous negative effects of development. cleaner air, lower urban temps, reduces flooding etc.... the list goes on
and with proper planning and site analysis this can be achieved at no to minimal cost to a landowner. Development can occur while preserving the function of the natural environment on a particaular site and those preserved areas can be utilized for human interaction so basically you get your cake and can eat it too. I'm a developer if i spend more to build with preserving and enhancing certain environmental features of my property it will in turn make a more aesthetic or enjoyable place for the people who would use it. Such as a residential development with preserved green space to be utlized by the people that live there. More people will want to live there then as opposed to a development where you are up on your neighbor and have to drive 20 minutes to a park. Which means i make more than what i spent back as the developer. This applies to commercial or industrial development.
There is no downside to this even a homeowner can create a rain garden which increases property value through landscaping while improving the natural function of their property. It is my opinion that storm water management and the subsequent improvement of water quality is the most important environmental issue we face. Also by protecting water i feel that indirectly we help solve other issues of our effect on the environment (whether you think it is an issue or not). Killing multiple birds with one stone so to speak.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bs21
http:///forum/post/3026107
as i said usable water. water that would normally be in uderground aquifers is prematurely tansported to the ocean. So if i live in Iowa where there is a massive aquifer that has been severely lowered and my drinking water comes from a well i am screwed.
The point is protecting our water sources not only has the benefit of protecting our water sources it can also save us money and helps change numerous negative effects of development. cleaner air, lower urban temps, reduces flooding etc.... the list goes on
and with proper planning and site analysis this can be achieved at no to minimal cost to a landowner. Development can occur while preserving the function of the natural environment on a particaular site and those preserved areas can be utilized for human interaction so basically you get your cake and can eat it too. I'm a developer if i spend more to build with preserving and enhancing certain environmental features of my property it will in turn make a more aesthetic or enjoyable place for the people who would use it. Such as a residential development with preserved green space to be utlized by the people that live there. More people will want to live there then as opposed to a development where you are up on your neighbor and have to drive 20 minutes to a park. Which means i make more than what i spent back as the developer. This applies to commercial or industrial development.
There is no downside to this even a homeowner can create a rain garden which increases property value through landscaping while improving the natural function of their property. It is my opinion that storm water management and the subsequent improvement of water quality is the most important environmental issue we face. Also by protecting water i feel that indirectly we help solve other issues of our effect on the environment (whether you think it is an issue or not). Killing multiple birds with one stone so to speak.
The only way to keep the water local is 100% recycling of sewer water. That is really hard to do. Trying to break down the remaining nitrates in treated water takes time. Dumping in in a river or ocean is the most efficient method in most places. I know of a few locations where they use the sewer water on hay fields, get water and fertilizer in one shot and the water is purified at the same time.

 

[slf125]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3026045
I didn't imply that

I'll let the implicator respond, because you are correct, the statement is false.
I don't believe I implied that either, if I did i did not intend to.

 

[slf125]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3026032
I am fine for alternative fuels IF they are cheaper OR they result in more output. How do you know oil isn't going to be around forever? Humans and life on earth in general have been consuming water on a regular basis for centuries and the water isn't disappearing.
Water also doesn't take millions of years to form and is recycled easily. We won't "run out" per say, but it will get to the point where we don't have enough to continue using it. I believe there is a study that says 2008 was the peak of oil production and will slowly decline from there. That or the polar ice caps will melt and we will have the abundance there. However, even if that happens, it will eventually get to the point where we must find another fuel source.

 

[bs21]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3026123
The only way to keep the water local is 100% recycling of sewer water. That is really hard to do. Trying to break down the remaining nitrates in treated water takes time. Dumping in in a river or ocean is the most efficient method in most places. I know of a few locations where they use the sewer water on hay fields, get water and fertilizer in one shot and the water is purified at the same time.
you are talking about septic sewers. If you use a septic tank that water is then allowed to infiltrate through the drainfield. I am talking about unantural ammounts of water and pollutants because of impervious surfaces from development. stormwater runoff....not sewage is the leading cause of water pollution and the subsequent loss of usable water because of a lack of groundwater recharge.
natural:
rain falls
hits ground
absorbs into groundwater>>>slowly released into waterways
small ammounts evaporate/runoff
Developed:
rain hits ground some absorbs in areas
most runs of into storm sewer
large and fast moving quantities of water empty into stream and river eventually ocean
lowers water table which people and environment need for useable water
aquifers are large underground expanses that flow like rivers so water never stays local but that doesn't change the fact that the water table (depth to groundwater) is lowered because of a lck of recharge. Which is the primary cause for all the problems i mentioned in my lengthy post. and that same natural system is able to be accomplished in any area impacted by man but is not.
ps. there are a lot of places that use converted stormwater management practices (as in man made wetlands) to filter sewage water and allow for groundwater recharge. It utilizes a chamber like a septic tank to remove solids and the gray water is then filtered through wetlands where it can infiltrate or be reused in a building to flush toilets etc...

 

[bs21]

from state of wisconsins website:
"In Wisconsin, 70% of residents and 97% of communities rely on groundwater as their drinking water source. Protecting groundwater from contamination and overuse is vital to the health of Wisconsin’s people, ecosystems, communities, and economy.
Many Wisconsin communities are facing groundwater stress in various forms and can benefit or have benefitted from groundwater planning."
this is common throughout the entire mid west. water companies don't want groundwater recharge to occur because then there is less need for their resovoirs. They see it as you stealing their water.