View Full Version : US is the no. 1 polluter in the world
OneToughHerring
12-09-09, 04:13 PM
Thought I'd make a thread about this so the issue won't get buried in the thread about some hackers.
So my claim is that the US is the no. 1 polluter in the world. I base this on the combination of per capita and absolute pollution figures. What is pollution then, well IMO it should cover pollution in all forms, whether airborne, liquid or solid. Or radioactive.
Ducimus
12-09-09, 04:16 PM
I'd be interested in seeing what China's putting out.
http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/BeijingSmogComparison-Aug2005a.gif
GIS "china smog". Ain't no way we compete with that. We did something about our smog years ago. Hell, the state of California is really nazi about it. Every other year, as part of regestering my car, i have to clear my car through the "smog gestapo". If you get nailed as a gross polluter, its a royal PITA.
edit: as an aside, last i was there, Asia didn't have anything like the EPA. You could dump your schitt anywhere, and there was nobody to tell you otherwise.
AVGWarhawk
12-09-09, 04:23 PM
OTH, I just found an article that Australia is the #1 offender. Resent.
http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/09/11/...-in-the-world/
Define the pollution. Air? Trash? Chemical?
OneToughHerring
12-09-09, 04:23 PM
In terms of absolute figures China has the no. 1 spot at least when it comes to airborne pollution. At least according to these sources.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7347638.stm
Although it's possible that the UK media might have an agenda against China and therefore they might be inclined to put out info that paints China negatively and gives a more positive image of their war ally the US.
Torvald Von Mansee
12-09-09, 04:26 PM
Although it's possible that the UK media might have an agenda against China and therefore they might be inclined to put out info that paints China negatively and gives a more positive image of their war ally the US.
Do you know how profoundly paranoid that sounds?
OneToughHerring
12-09-09, 04:28 PM
OTH, I just found an article that Australia is the #1 offender. Resent.
http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/09/11/...-in-the-world/
Define the pollution. Air? Trash? Chemical?
Well all of them I guess. It becomes difficult when defining how they relate to each other and what about radioactive stuff, is that more dangerous then say several hundred tons of plastic waste etc.
I think what also has to be looked at here is how wealthy the country is, how can they afford to put into antipollution technologies and policies and what is the track record of that country. If say China has passed the US a couple years ago, that still means that the US has been no. 1 for decades before that, right?
AVGWarhawk
12-09-09, 04:29 PM
In terms of absolute figures China has the no. 1 spot at least when it comes to airborne pollution. At least according to these sources.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7347638.stm
Although it's possible that the UK media might have an agenda against China and therefore they might be inclined to put out info that paints China negatively and gives a more positive image of their war ally the US.
China does keep popping up as numer one. I do not see a purpose or a means to an end for UK media to attempt what you suggest.
Ducimus
12-09-09, 04:29 PM
Although it's possible that the UK media might have an agenda against China and therefore they might be inclined to put out info that paints China negatively and gives a more positive image of their war ally the US.
I think your reaching a bit with that. China is one reason why the price of fuel has gone up. Greater demand from China. Nevermind all the factories and crap there now. Just about everything is made in China now. I suspect China is doing the same thing Korea has for awhile now. To coin a phraise we used alot, "Trying to become a first world nation in one generation." The rate of their industrial expansion has been too quick for other items like pollution control or maybe even labor laws to keep up.
AVGWarhawk
12-09-09, 04:31 PM
Well all of them I guess. It becomes difficult when defining how they relate to each other and what about radioactive stuff, is that more dangerous then say several hundred tons of plastic waste etc.
I think what also has to be looked at here is how wealthy the country is, how can they afford to put into antipollution technologies and policies and what is the track record of that country. If say China has passed the US a couple years ago, that still means that the US has been no. 1 for decades before that, right?
I can not say for sure US was #1 for decades before China because I find lists and articles that show other countries as the leaders in pollution. I did find the US number one for radioactive waste and taking the number one spot.
OneToughHerring
12-09-09, 04:31 PM
Do you know how profoundly paranoid that sounds?
Well the study that the BBC link refers to is made by a US institute. I'd say you are pretty gullible if you think that the US isn't actively trying to use all means it has to put out info that makes the US look less of a polluter that it is.
And that's not paranoia, that's just the way things are. The institutions of a country make studies that favour that country. US universities are also very much funded by big corporations that have a vested intrest in seeing studies that are anti-environmental in some way.
I'm looking for UN studies concerning pollution since despite what people especially in the States say about the UN, it's still the no. 1 most reliable organisation that makes studies on a global level.
Ducimus
12-09-09, 04:34 PM
You know, if you don't like the US, you don't have to go through such lengths to qualify your hatred of us.. Just say, "I hate the US!" and be done with it.
Skybird
12-09-09, 04:35 PM
You have to compare living styles, and that means on emissions: pollution and ressources consummation per head.
that's what makes the US wordwide leader, followed by Canada, Austrlia and Europe.
for example CO2 emissions, because these currently get debated so much:
USA 19 metric tons per capita
CAN 18
AUS 17
GER 10
JAP 10
UK 9
FRA 6
SWE 5
CHN 5
IND 1
Just some key players. Complete lists around the web.
This also must be seen in context with population sizes. Actually some of the small but super-rich Gulf states (Quatar, Emirates, Kuwait) see 2-3 times as high CO2 pollution per capita than in the US, but due to their small population sizes that is less hurting to the planet than the US level. India on the other hand weighs heavier than you could think from that low number per capita, because of it's huge population. If you balance both against each other, per capita pollution versus population size, it is fair to say that the US is the greatest CO2 polluter on earth, said to be responsible for 21% this year, with China following with 20%. But the US citizen has a way of life that makes him producing 4 times as many emissions as the Chinese citizen, and 20 times as many as an Indian.
AVGWarhawk
12-09-09, 04:40 PM
You have to compare living styles, and that means on emissions: pollution and ressources consummation per head.
Why? To me pollution is pollution. Life style has nothing to do with it. Pollution is still pollution. If China is 6 part air pollution to 1 part clean air (6:1) and the US is 5 parts air pollution to 1 part clean air (5:1) then China would lead the way as being # 1. Does not matter how many are creating the pollution. If the air quality in the city of 2 is worse that the air quality in a city of 12, the city of 2 is the number one polluter.
Ducimus
12-09-09, 04:41 PM
And yet, our sky's do not look like China's. In my opinion, the proof is in the end result, not in statistics.
edit:
But the US citizen has a way of life that makes him producing 4 times as many emissions as the Chinese citizen, and 20 times as many as an Indian
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Have you been to asia? do you know their way of life? Do you know how many drive? Work in factories? Burn coal to heat their homes? You do know they make up nearly 20% of the worlds population?
OneToughHerring
12-09-09, 04:46 PM
Why? To me pollution is pollution. Life style has nothing to do with it. Pollution is still pollution. If China is 6 part air pollution to 1 part clean air (6:1) and the US is 5 parts air pollution to 1 part clean air (5:1) then China would lead the way as being # 1. Does not matter how many are creating the pollution. If the air quality in the city of 2 is worse that the air quality in a city of 12, the city of 2 is the number one polluter.
On some level I agree with you. But I also think there should be some kind of common economic base from where a country like China should build it's nation and it's industry on. If China was a few years ago and in some ways still is a developing nation then the starting off point is very different then with the US.
However I do agree that China and whole Far-East Asia is problematic in that they have very low environmental standards coupled with a very large population clamouring for higher standards of living which is causing increasing amounts of pollution. But this is also a problem caused partly by western industry that outsources there because of low limitations for pollution etc.
Skybird
12-09-09, 04:51 PM
Sounds like this: we are rich, we live a fat live, and we do not see a reason why we should stop that if the others could as well live with much less than we claim for ourselves. this is even more true since the US also is the greatest consumer of goods and of energy and production ressources, and the greatest producer of waste as well.
Living style is all what it all is about. And that is one of the reasons why climate scepticism is waged like a war with all dirty tricks and cheats possible.
It's a conflict of sheer material egoism and egocentrism. And of course the rich do not like to be told and being fingerpointed at.
In the end the fiugures stand: 21% of global CO2 polution made in america, 20% made in China. Just that China reaches that with almost four times as many people in population size. What makes their living style currently still being far more moderate, even compared to Germany. The average German still produces twice as much CO2 per year than a Chinese.
I was surprised to see France scoring so relatively low. i would have estimated them to rate higher, in the realm of Germany and the UK.
AVGWarhawk
12-09-09, 04:52 PM
On some level I agree with you. But I also think there should be some kind of common economic base from where a country like China should build it's nation and it's industry on. If China was a few years ago and in some ways still is a developing nation then the starting off point is very different then with the US.
However I do agree that China and whole Far-East Asia is problematic in that they have very low environmental standards coupled with a very large population clamouring for higher standards of living which is causing increasing amounts of pollution. But this is also a problem caused partly by western industry that outsources there because of low limitations for pollution etc.
Yes, China is a problem. Some of it created by the US by outsourcing. Bush was the worst President when it comes to pollution (air, ocean, all). I can not argue that statement. As you stated, everything ties in with the economic situation or lack their of. I think the really question is not who is the worst offender but who is really attempting to become non-polluters or at the very least, better to the environment. The US automanufactures have been at if for over 25 years. I think they have done a fine job. Our cars are check yearly for emission problems. At least in my state. We might seem to be bullheaded about it but strides are being made to correct the problem.
OneToughHerring
12-09-09, 04:53 PM
And yet, our sky's do not look like China's. In my opinion, the proof is in the end result, not in statistics.
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/environment-book/Images/LA-smog-2.jpg
Skybird
12-09-09, 04:54 PM
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Have you been to asia? do you know their way of life? Do you know how many drive? Work in factories? Burn coal to heat their homes? You do know they make up nearly 20% of the worlds population?
Yeah, damn lies, cheating, betrayal! Zeter und Mordio! Traraaa und Brimborium! It's all a conspiracy! Nobody loves us! It's all antiamericanism! I feel so unhappy! Nobody understands me. Mamaaaa...
It cannot be what should not be.
AVGWarhawk
12-09-09, 04:55 PM
Sounds like this: we are rich, we live a fat live, and we do not see a reason why we should stop that if the others could as well live with much less than we claim for ourselves. this is even more true since the US also is the greatest consumer of goods and of energy and production ressources, and the greatest producer of waste as well.
Living style is all what it all is about. And that is one of the reasons why climate scepticism is waged like a war with all dirty tricks and cheats possible.
It's a conflict of sheer material egoism and egocentrism. And of course the rich do not like to be told and being fingerpointed at.
In the end the fiugures stand: 21% of global CO2 polution made in america, 20% made in China. Just that China reaches that with almost four times as many people in population size. What makes their living style currently still being far more moderate, even compared to Germany. The average German still produces twice as much CO2 per year than a Chinese.
I was surprised to see France scoring so relatively low. i would have estimated them to rate higher, in the realm of Germany and the UK.
Why yes Skybird....I think of all of that when I drive my Volkswagen Passat 4 cylinder turbo. Guess what, I traded in a Lincoln V8 for this car. Better gas mileage and less emission. I do not know what TV shows you watch but it is not living high on the hog as you believe it to be. Not everyone has a Hummer:doh: Curbside once a week my recycables are in a bin to picked up. So, please with blanket coverage that we all live fat and happy in the US. People are concerned. As far as consumers. Well, if we do not consume it seems the world goes into an economic tailspin. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Ducimus
12-09-09, 04:58 PM
. But this is also a problem caused partly by western industry that outsources there because of low limitations for pollution etc.
This isn't a nationality problem, if you boil it down, the problem is executive greed. There are many who would NOT like to have their jobs oursourced to some chinese sweatshop.
Sounds like this: we are rich, we live a fat live, and we do not see a reason why we should stop that if the others could as well live with much less than we claim for ourselves. ........
No, what this all sounds like to me is a little game called, "Pin the tail on the donkey" by some who really dislike the US. In every post, there is an anti US punchline. People hating the US is not new to me. I've been told to my face everything ranging from "Yankee go home" to "No Americans here!". I've been spat at, denied service in resturants, and shunned because of my nationality while overseas. So anti US sentiments do not break my heart. But really, is it neccessary to validate your opinions with statistics? I get it.. really.
Sailor Steve
12-09-09, 05:00 PM
Gee, I don't own a car at all. And when I did it was a 32/44 mpg Ford Escort wagon. I would like to get my poor old 50+ mpg Kawasaki running again, but it's too cold to ride it right now. Ditto my unlimited mpg bicycle.
But, if you're really serious about fixing the pollution problems, throw out your computer, phone and television, and anything else made of plastic, shut of your electricity if it comes from a coal-fired plant, and live in a tent - or else you're not doing your part!
OneToughHerring
12-09-09, 05:07 PM
Ok, this is as far as I've gotten so far looking for recent info about pollution on UN's pages.
http://www.who.int/topics/environmental_health/factsheets/en/index.html
Haven't yet perused through any numbers but thought I'd share it with you anyway.
Well here's something.
UNITED STATES
Pollution: By far the world's biggest polluter, emitting 64.2bn tonnes of carbon between 1997 and 2007.
Position: Under President Bush, used to be the world's villain blocking global action. Now, under President Obama, things look better.
Promise: To cut carbon emissions 17per cent by 2020, compared to 2005.
Politics: Facing major opposition to pollution cuts from fossil fuel industries and their political cheerleaders in Congress.
Don't ask: "Hey guys, why not give up all those hummers that are heating up the planet?"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20091206/ai_n42802396/
Platapus
12-09-09, 06:49 PM
I guess the first thing is to do is define and bound the problem
1. What is "pollution" (and what is not)?
2. How does one measure "pollution"?
3. How does one collect the measurements across an area (earth)?
4. What is the method for analyzing the measurements?
Until those are answered, I can't opine whether one country is #1 or not.
Task Force
12-09-09, 07:01 PM
Im just wondering... whats this thing with OneToughHerring... and this strange hate of the United States...
Just one question... have you ever been to the states, or do you just go over what you hear on the web...
just wondering...
yep, we create polution, just like everyone else... but when you look at it, were a huge country, were gonna make a large ammount of polution... smaller countrys= less...
oah and china...
http://img.skitch.com/20080211-tpdipnsapr976gqq1ywiwtai8i.jpg
http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/&_/images6/environment/smog_beijing.jpe
http://www.treehugger.com/20090610-china-air-pollution.jpg
yea, weve got smog... but they have it worse... just think what its doing to the atmosphere...
Skybird
12-09-09, 07:30 PM
Well, if we do not consume it seems the world goes into an economic tailspin. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Yes, it is heavy a burden you have to carry. All that much consummation really eats away life quality and makes you unsensitive to the easy, the simple joys of life. Maybe the third world delivering those ressources and second world producers of items you buy, should pay you compensation for your sufferings?!
CaptainHaplo
12-09-09, 07:53 PM
OK - if your going to go so far as to think the UN is an "unbiased" source of data - your arguement is already flawed. The UN is a political organization, and as such, has a power structure that is out to pull down any other power there is. The US - being the lone superpower in the world, and an outspoken critic (both with words and manpower) of situations in the world, has earned the ire of that political body.
So quoting data from an organization that wants America to "shut up, sit down and open your wallet" is not going to go very far unless it is corroborated with data from more objective sources.
The World Health Organization post you made proves that it is neither informed, nor objective.
Don't ask: "Hey guys, why not give up all those hummers that are heating up the planet?"
Lets see - the latest DOT info on record I could find after a quick search dated from 2004 - so they are a bit old - but not terribly so. Lets take a look at what it showed us, shall we?
The resident population - 294 Million
The number of licensed drivers - 199 Million
Number of vehicles - 237 Million
So first off - nearly one third of the population is/was either walking - or carpooling in some fashion. That's a pretty good number in any society. Only 1 out of 5 drivers on average had more than one vehicle that they owned - meaning 4 out of 5 people were "evilly consuming" only one vehicle that is a necessity to do things like go to work or get food. Funny, the "consumerism" bias makes it sound like all Americans are and were living "high on the hog" - when the data shows that the vast majority were consuming only what is necessary. One more fact that shows that far away, uninformed picture is untrue - though I doubt it will matter to those who have no place for truth in their world view.
Oh - as for "when are we giving up our hummers" - the Hummer brand sold a grand total of 27,485 vehicles in 2008. In the first nine months of 2009, it was a mere 8,193 - so the total for 2009 will likely be under 10,000. The total number of vehicles sold in the US in 2008? Roughly 13.2 Million total.
So the total "hummer" sales equated to all of .2 percent of of vehicle sales in the US. Most rational people would say that the numbers from 2008 - and the further drastic reduction seen in 2009 would indicate that the US already HAD given up its hummers - when the question was asked. But the question wasn't asked from a basis of fact - it was a question asked with the purpose of inflaming those with an already formed idea, because nothing gets someone going when you feed their view, regardless of whether or not its an intellectually honest question or not.
Sorry - but this alone demonstrates that the W.H.O. is simply not unbiased.
It also shows that this "American just consume more than their share" can be proven to not be the case - at least in the matter of vehicle ownership. When 1 out of 3 americans do not own a vehicle - and 4 out of 5 that do only own one, I fail to see how we somehow are consuming so much more than everyone else - except maybe third world countries.
Links follow.
2004 Federal data: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/dlchrt.htm
Total US vehicle sales for 2008:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/dlchrt.htm
Hummer Sales of 2008
http://ask.cars.com/2009/01/hummer-sales.html
Hummer sales in 2009
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-10/10/content_8773950.htm
Torvald Von Mansee
12-09-09, 08:07 PM
Our cars are check yearly for emission problems. At least in my state.
Which is the BEST GODDAMN STATE IN THE UNION!!!!
AVGWarhawk
12-09-09, 08:57 PM
Yes, it is heavy a burden you have to carry. All that much consummation really eats away life quality and makes you unsensitive to the easy, the simple joys of life. Maybe the third world delivering those ressources and second world producers of items you buy, should pay you compensation for your sufferings?!
Oh, I'm sorry Skybird, I did not make the rules. I'm just required to live by them. Simply put, so do you. Shameful for you to say this as VW makes cars in friggin Mexico....yes sir, no issue there in this developing backwards country. VW is represented in all 5 continents. China makes parts for the cars. Watch the stones inside that glass house you are living in. BTW, how would you on the other side of the world know anything about me becoming 'insenstive' about the simple joys of life? You have no idea and it will remain so for a person who openly admits to wanting to live in a place were you do not see much of people. You really warm the cockles of my heart with your dissertation concerning third world countries. BTW, these countries are lesser developed. Get it right.
You just posted his today;
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/dec2009/gb2009129_521712.htm
AVGWarhawk
12-09-09, 09:00 PM
But, if you're really serious about fixing the pollution problems, throw out your computer, phone and television, and anything else made of plastic, shut of your electricity if it comes from a coal-fired plant, and live in a tent - or else you're not doing your part!
This would seem to be the answer Steve but our lives are based around these things. Urban sprawl, the commute to work, etc. Well except for Skybird. His country does not stink nor does the manufactures seek lower wage earners to build their cars. :hmmm:
AVGWarhawk
12-09-09, 09:06 PM
Which is the BEST GODDAMN STATE IN THE UNION!!!!
Well, I would not go that far. To be honest. They really do not check nor do they have too. If the check engine light is not blazing away on the dashboard the car should be running as clean as it can. Basically they hook the cars computer up to the ALDL and check for any fault codes. If not detected you are 50% there for passing. If there is visible smoke at the tailpipe other than water vaper which is what an engine generally creates the car will fail. It was not like the old days were the put the car on rollers and took it up to highway speeds while testing the emissions at the tailpipe. But you know what, does not matter, most think the folks in the US are fat douche-bags who drive Hummers and consume like there is no tomorrow. Sorry to say it is not true.
nikimcbee
12-09-09, 09:19 PM
Im just wondering... whats this thing with OneToughHerring... and this strange hate of the United States...
Just one question... have you ever been to the states, or do you just go over what you hear on the web...
just wondering...
yep, we create polution, just like everyone else... but when you look at it, were a huge country, were gonna make a large ammount of polution... smaller countrys= less...
oah and china...
http://img.skitch.com/20080211-tpdipnsapr976gqq1ywiwtai8i.jpg
http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/&_/images6/environment/smog_beijing.jpe
http://www.treehugger.com/20090610-china-air-pollution.jpg
yea, weve got smog... but they have it worse... just think what its doing to the atmosphere...
Wow, TF, you learn quick:salute: You're okay in my book.:yeah:
nikimcbee
12-09-09, 09:25 PM
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1216673#post1216673)
Our cars are check yearly for emission problems. At least in my state.
I really hate this law, this is the biggest scam in the world. It's just an easy way to collect a fee out of people:shifty:.
They might as well make a law that says all wheels must be round, then create a gov't agency for inspection and enforcement. For $50 a year, we can certify that your wheels are round.:shifty:
CaptainHaplo
12-09-09, 09:29 PM
Boy - nobody dealt with me facts - I guess I wasted time on it. Oh well.
Niki - man I like ya - but don't go giving the government any ideas!
As for emission testing - we have it here as well. You even get a fancy little pie chart printout showing how much of what types of waste gasses your car is putting out.
Of course - if they ever managed to measure a politician - the would find it would be one uncut pie - 100% hot air.
nikimcbee
12-09-09, 09:37 PM
Boy - nobody dealt with me facts - I guess I wasted time on it. Oh well.
Niki - man I like ya - but don't go giving the government any ideas!
As for emission testing - we have it here as well. You even get a fancy little pie chart printout showing how much of what types of waste gasses your car is putting out.
Of course - if they ever managed to measure a politician - the would find it would be one uncut pie - 100% hot air.
It's a good idea for older cars, but the new ones are all computer controlled. Some of this eco stuff is just plain dopey (meaning not practical or "not in my back yard"). It really reminds me of Jr high science class, where you have some problem to over come and you must brain-storm ideas. Who cares if they are practical or not.
Torplexed
12-09-09, 09:43 PM
Im just wondering... whats this thing with OneToughHerring... and this strange hate of the United States...
Just one question... have you ever been to the states, or do you just go over what you hear on the web...
just wondering...
yep, we create polution, just like everyone else... but when you look at it, were a huge country, were gonna make a large ammount of polution... smaller countrys= less...
http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/&_/images6/environment/smog_beijing.jpe
Looks like China needs the Chinese equivalent of the "Crying Indian" PSA of the 1970s where the noble Indian wandering among the streaming smokestacks and waste choked rivers of America sheds a bitter tear for the beauty that once was. That commercial probably guilted millions of impressionable young Americans into becoming fanatic ecological anti-pollution warriors...at least until they found out the actor, Iron Eyes Cody was Italian American---not Native American. Then cynicism set in. :D
http://img2.ifilmpro.com/resize/image/stills/films/resize/istd/2891277.jpg
http://www.thewall.net/view/547/psa-native-american-1970s/
AVGWarhawk
12-09-09, 09:43 PM
I really hate this law, this is the biggest scam in the world. It's just an easy way to collect a fee out of people:shifty:.
They might as well make a law that says all wheels must be round, then create a gov't agency for inspection and enforcement. For $50 a year, we can certify that your wheels are round.:shifty:
Yes, I agree. It is a scam these days. I drop $16.00. Guy plugs up the computer and out comes the old form showing 0.00 in all the emission boxes. These used to show actual numbers when the probe was put in the tailpipe. The ROM computers and sensor set up these days are quite good. Some of these computers (VW and Mitsubishi that I know for sure) will record and keep any redline of the motor. Really, if the car was pouring pollution the check engine light would be blazing away. The cost should be reduced to $4.00 for the check. The emissions is now checked every two years I believe (in MD anyway). In some ways I like the program as there are some cars that just do not belong on the road and others that do not get repaired when the check engine light is blazing away.
AVGWarhawk
12-09-09, 09:45 PM
Looks like China needs the Chinese equivalent of the "Crying Indian" PSA of the 1970s where the noble Indian wandering among the streaming smokestacks and waste choked rivers of America sheds a bitter tear for the beauty that once was. That commercial probably guilted millions of impressionable young Americans into becoming fanatic ecological anti-pollution warriors...at least until they found out the actor, Iron Eyes Cody was Italian American---not Native American. Then cynicism set in. :D
http://img2.ifilmpro.com/resize/image/stills/films/resize/istd/2891277.jpg
I remember him as a kid. He was shedding a tear as trash was thrown on the side of the highway. I can relate. That type of pollution is really uncalled for. I hate seeing trash tossed from a car.
Torplexed
12-09-09, 09:53 PM
I remember him as a kid. He was shedding a tear as trash was thrown on the side of the highway. I can relate. That type of pollution is really uncalled for. I hate seeing trash tossed from a car.
I can relate. It was a VERY effective commercial for it's time. ;) Like everything it's on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4ozVMxzNAA
nikimcbee
12-09-09, 10:00 PM
Looks like China needs the Chinese equivalent of the "Crying Indian" PSA of the 1970s where the noble Indian wandering among the streaming smokestacks and waste choked rivers of America sheds a bitter tear for the beauty that once was. That commercial probably guilted millions of impressionable young Americans into becoming fanatic ecological anti-pollution warriors...at least until they found out the actor, Iron Eyes Cody was Italian American---not Native American. Then cynicism set in. :D
http://img2.ifilmpro.com/resize/image/stills/films/resize/istd/2891277.jpg
http://www.thewall.net/view/547/psa-native-american-1970s/
That's a great idea!
We'll start submissions now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrf_1DEoF20
:haha:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By0akZIFIhQ&NR=1
:har:
:haha:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxymwN7nYQQ&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opfntS_La8w&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKEJ96qHMT4
SteamWake
12-09-09, 10:01 PM
Boy - nobody dealt with me facts - I guess I wasted time on it. Oh well.
Niki - man I like ya - but don't go giving the government any ideas!
As for emission testing - we have it here as well. You even get a fancy little pie chart printout showing how much of what types of waste gasses your car is putting out.
Of course - if they ever managed to measure a politician - the would find it would be one uncut pie - 100% hot air.
You just wait that pie chart will soon be a taxation chart.
Snestorm
12-09-09, 10:03 PM
OTH, I just found an article that Australia is the #1 offender. Resent.
http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/09/11/...-in-the-world/
Define the pollution. Air? Trash? Chemical?
You may want to try a repost. The link came up as a "404 ERROR".
That's a shame, as it realy caught my interest.
Torvald Von Mansee
12-09-09, 10:30 PM
Well, I would not go that far. To be honest. They really do not check nor do they have too. If the check engine light is not blazing away on the dashboard the car should be running as clean as it can. Basically they hook the cars computer up to the ALDL and check for any fault codes. If not detected you are 50% there for passing. If there is visible smoke at the tailpipe other than water vaper which is what an engine generally creates the car will fail. It was not like the old days were the put the car on rollers and took it up to highway speeds while testing the emissions at the tailpipe. But you know what, does not matter, most think the folks in the US are fat douche-bags who drive Hummers and consume like there is no tomorrow. Sorry to say it is not true.
I remember I was once in Fairfax County, Virginia, and saw a line of SUVs waiting at a Burger King drive through, all of them w/single drivers. Out onto the road they went, blocking traffic. I remember feeling distinctly embarrassed to be an American at that point.
Onkel Neal
12-09-09, 10:35 PM
You know, I don't see why anyone has to be ashamed to eat a burger or drive an SUV. Maybe that's what they like, and last time I checked, it was still a free country. :)
nikimcbee
12-09-09, 10:48 PM
RE-boot of thread:
back on subject:
http://www.siliconfareast.com/pbfree.htm
Torvald Von Mansee
12-09-09, 11:07 PM
You know, I don't see why anyone has to be ashamed to eat a burger or drive an SUV. Maybe that's what they like, and last time I checked, it was still a free country. :)
Oh, ok. I guess I can light up a joint somewhere outside without fear of arrest, or go to the local red light district and legally bang a prostitute if I so choose.
You can't claim that we aren't a free country if we prosecute criminals. Last I checked pot and prostitution were illegal.
Torvald Von Mansee
12-09-09, 11:18 PM
You can't claim that we aren't a free country if we prosecute criminals. Last I checked pot and prostitution were illegal.
And the circle of logic is complete.
And the circle of logic is complete.
So your logic is we aren't free because we don't allow murder, rape and robbery?
Snestorm
12-09-09, 11:45 PM
Why yes Skybird....I think of all of that when I drive my Volkswagen Passat 4 cylinder turbo. Guess what, I traded in a Lincoln V8 for this car. Better gas mileage and less emission. I do not know what TV shows you watch but it is not living high on the hog as you believe it to be. Not everyone has a Hummer:doh: Curbside once a week my recycables are in a bin to picked up. So, please with blanket coverage that we all live fat and happy in the US. People are concerned. As far as consumers. Well, if we do not consume it seems the world goes into an economic tailspin. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Going back and forth between DK and USA, the lack of recykeling in USA used to irk me to no end. Some places still do. However, due to the lack of landfill space, and the high costs of hauling trash long distance, much of USA has literaly cleaned up it's act.
Long Island, New York even managed to surpass DK in one respect.
It's the only place I know of that even goes so far as to recykel plastic!
You go, USA!
Onkel Neal
12-09-09, 11:48 PM
Oh, ok. I guess I can light up a joint somewhere outside without fear of arrest, or go to the local red light district and legally bang a prostitute if I so choose.
C'mon, man! Did I say anything about being arrested? I said "ashamed". You know the difference between being ashamed for something that is completely legal and fearing arrest from illegal activities? Read what I wrote. It wasn't that much. ;)
You can't claim that we aren't a free country if we prosecute criminals. Last I checked pot and prostitution were illegal.
Thank you.
FIREWALL
12-09-09, 11:59 PM
I really hate this law, this is the biggest scam in the world. It's just an easy way to collect a fee out of people:shifty:.
They might as well make a law that says all wheels must be round, then create a gov't agency for inspection and enforcement. For $50 a year, we can certify that your wheels are round.:shifty:
Boy - nobody dealt with me facts - I guess I wasted time on it. Oh well.
Niki - man I like ya - but don't go giving the government any ideas!
As for emission testing - we have it here as well. You even get a fancy little pie chart printout showing how much of what types of waste gasses your car is putting out.
Of course - if they ever managed to measure a politician - the would find it would be one uncut pie - 100% hot air.
A tie for two best posts. :haha:
I drive a Hummer and it passes emissions tests with flying colors. :D
Snestorm
12-10-09, 12:07 AM
Lets see - the latest DOT info on record I could find after a quick search dated from 2004 - so they are a bit old - but not terribly so. Lets take a look at what it showed us, shall we?
The resident population - 294 Million
The number of licensed drivers - 199 Million
Number of vehicles - 237 Million
So first off - nearly one third of the population is/was either walking - or carpooling in some fashion. That's a pretty good number in any society. Only 1 out of 5 drivers on average had more than one vehicle that they owned - meaning 4 out of 5 people were "evilly consuming" only one vehicle that is a necessity to do things like go to work or get food. Funny, the "consumerism" bias makes it sound like all Americans are and were living "high on the hog" - when the data shows that the vast majority were consuming only what is necessary. One more fact that shows that far away, uninformed picture is untrue - though I doubt it will matter to those who have no place for truth in their world view.
The numbers are actualy much lower than that.
Take a look at the Car vs Truck ratio on USA's roads.
A very substantial part of that "1 out of 5 drivers" drive trucks for a living while also owning a personal car.
Sailor Steve
12-10-09, 09:35 AM
So your logic is we aren't free because we don't allow murder, rape and robbery?
Those things all hurt other people, innocent people. Torvald's examples only hurt Torvald.
No, we're also not free as long as state governments pass seatbelt and helmet laws. Meddling just because you're offended by the action is indeed a denial of freedom, liberty, and rights.
Those things all hurt other people, innocent people. Torvald's examples only hurt Torvald.
No, we're also not free as long as state governments pass seatbelt and helmet laws. Meddling just because you're offended by the action is indeed a denial of freedom, liberty, and rights.
That's not why those things are done and you know it. Take seat belt laws for example. There is a much higher injury and death rate among people who do not use them and this raises the cost of insurance for everyone. Now 'splain to me why should I have to pay for the consequences of your poor judgment.
NeonSamurai
12-10-09, 12:01 PM
Those things all hurt other people, innocent people. Torvald's examples only hurt Torvald.
No, we're also not free as long as state governments pass seatbelt and helmet laws. Meddling just because you're offended by the action is indeed a denial of freedom, liberty, and rights.
I could make an argument about how much prostitution hurts the prostitutes, and all the associated stuff.
ETR3(SS)
12-10-09, 12:40 PM
Those things all hurt other people, innocent people. Torvald's examples only hurt Torvald.
No, we're also not free as long as state governments pass seatbelt and helmet laws. Meddling just because you're offended by the action is indeed a denial of freedom, liberty, and rights.
That's not why those things are done and you know it. Take seat belt laws for example. There is a much higher injury and death rate among people who do not use them and this raises the cost of insurance for everyone. Now 'splain to me why should I have to pay for the consequences of your poor judgment.Here's my take on this. There should be no law passed with my safety in mind. If I'm too stupid to wear a seat belt or a helmet and I get in an accident and play superman for about 100ft, my fault no one else's. That being said it's up to the insurance companies to put it in their policies to be discretionary when it comes to that sort of thing. Get in an accident and didn't wear your seat belt, coverage denied, plain and simple.
Sailor Steve
12-10-09, 01:25 PM
Here's my take on this. There should be no law passed with my safety in mind. If I'm too stupid to wear a seat belt or a helmet and I get in an accident and play superman for about 100ft, my fault no one else's. That being said it's up to the insurance companies to put it in their policies to be discretionary when it comes to that sort of thing. Get in an accident and didn't wear your seat belt, coverage denied, plain and simple.
Well, that just about sums up what I would have said, and I completely agree about the insurance part.
I could make an argument about how much prostitution hurts the prostitutes, and all the associated stuff.
Yes, you could, but you would have to ignore the fact that most of the "associated stuff" goes with the illegality. Legalise prostitutes, register and tax them and they get to keep the money they earn, disease is reduced and only the women who actually want to do it are affected. You could even license them and only allow those who passed certification to ply the trade, thus making the state more money as well. The only reason prostitution is illegal is because it offends some people's morals.
Here's my take on this. There should be no law passed with my safety in mind. If I'm too stupid to wear a seat belt or a helmet and I get in an accident and play superman for about 100ft, my fault no one else's. That being said it's up to the insurance companies to put it in their policies to be discretionary when it comes to that sort of thing. Get in an accident and didn't wear your seat belt, coverage denied, plain and simple.
Yet you can still go to any emergency room and get treated, insurance coverage or not, money to pay for it or not, so your fellow citizens are still forced to pick up the tab for your foolishness.
OneToughHerring
12-10-09, 03:55 PM
Captain Haplo,
the part about Hummers wasn't from the WHO link although the whole SUV-thing is pretty significant IMO.
So far US has been the no. 1 opponent of all global anti-pollution efforts. And so far Obama hasn't done anything to counter this.
About deaths caused by pollution in the US.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05180/529969.stm
"Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides help form fine airborne particles and soot, which trigger asthma attacks and cause lung and heart disease linked to more than 20,000 premature deaths a year."
So far US has been the no. 1 opponent of all global anti-pollution efforts. And so far Obama hasn't done anything to counter this.
From your own link:
State sues utility for U.S. pollution violations
I've highlighted the important parts for you...
Im just wondering... whats this thing with OneToughHerring... and this strange hate of the United States...
It's called "Enemy". Do you think OTH really cares about the environment? Give him anything, and he will tailor it to make points against the US. It doesn't matter what it is: Environment, economy, religion, war.
Those who hate the US got one thing right: You might be a bit naive. And it shows when you try to reason with those who hate you, e.g. right here in this thread. But then again, that's what makes the difference between the free people of your country, and the people of some other countries who - in public schools and on state sponsored TV - are taught beforehand what to think about the world, including an Anti-US resentment. Be it on the Native Americans, be it on nuclear armament and foreign policy during the Cold War, be it on the economy, be it on social security, be it on the environment, be it on gun ownership, or be it on freedom of speech (translated into "ignorance" or "insensitivity"). See, it's because their own governments are afraid that their people might otherwise become too American themselves and discover that the biggest monopolist, money waster, liar and hack-job is the government itself. In their OWN countries.
As long as you can blame all the world's problems on those ignorant, delusional and SUV-driving Americans, the party of building up the EUSSR back home can go on undisturbed.
OneToughHerring
12-10-09, 04:16 PM
From your own link:
I've highlighted the important parts for you...
Yes...? This prevents the US from being the no. 1 opponent of global anti-pollution measures in what way?
I guess the first thing is to do is define and bound the problem
1. What is "pollution" (and what is not)?
2. How does one measure "pollution"?
3. How does one collect the measurements across an area (earth)?
4. What is the method for analyzing the measurements?
Until those are answered, I can't opine whether one country is #1 or not.
Well I already tried to find a definition in my OP.
1. Waste/pollution can be solid, liquid, gaseous or radioactive materials
2. Some definitions of what pollution is, a starting off point for measuring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste#Definitions
And also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution#Forms_of_pollution
My original idea was to think more about 'concrete' waste/pollution but things such as noise pollution and visual pollution are good points also.
3. Do you mean the technology? Well with the most up-to-date equipment, naturally.
4. Again I'm not sure what you mean. As to the definition of pollution see 2.
ETR3(SS)
12-10-09, 04:23 PM
Yet you can still go to any emergency room and get treated, insurance coverage or not, money to pay for it or not, so your fellow citizens are still forced to pick up the tab for your foolishness.A very valid point. Which also makes me wonder why we need a national healthcare plan.:doh: Current events aside, the money trail on this would lead back to the state or the health care institution that you were treated at. It should be well within the state/hospital to expect their money back from you and to pursue legal means to that end.
Ducimus
12-10-09, 04:39 PM
Re prostitutes:
I do not understand why prostitution is illegal. Why is it illegal to sell what is perfectly legal to give away? Sellling is legal, f*cking is legal. Why isn't selling f*cking legal? :rotfl2:
NeonSamurai
12-10-09, 06:59 PM
Yes, you could, but you would have to ignore the fact that most of the "associated stuff" goes with the illegality. Legalise prostitutes, register and tax them and they get to keep the money they earn, disease is reduced and only the women who actually want to do it are affected. You could even license them and only allow those who passed certification to ply the trade, thus making the state more money as well. The only reason prostitution is illegal is because it offends some people's morals.
Nope not ignoring anything, I was referring to studies done in countries where prostitution is perfectly legal. Crime is still heavily involved, and there a pile of other problems. Lastly most of these women don't choose prostitution because they want to be that, but because they have no choice (and often an expensive drug habit). That is not even touching on the psychological harm done to them (and porn stars for that matter).
Sailor Steve
12-10-09, 10:27 PM
Yet you can still go to any emergency room and get treated, insurance coverage or not, money to pay for it or not, so your fellow citizens are still forced to pick up the tab for your foolishness.
That's also true of doing home roof repairs, home electrical repairs, and slipping in the shower because you didn't have those little plastic thingies on the bathtub floor.
Should they be illegal too? Or helmets and safety straps mandated by law?
Sailor Steve
12-10-09, 10:30 PM
Nope not ignoring anything, I was referring to studies done in countries where prostitution is perfectly legal. Crime is still heavily involved, and there a pile of other problems. Lastly most of these women don't choose prostitution because they want to be that, but because they have no choice (and often an expensive drug habit). That is not even touching on the psychological harm done to them (and porn stars for that matter).
But the drugs are illegal too. Psychological harm? Should everything that causes - or may cause - psychological harm be illegal? It's illegal because it offends certain people, and no other reason.
That's also true of doing home roof repairs, home electrical repairs, and slipping in the shower because you didn't have those little plastic thingies on the bathtub floor.
Well Steve I don't really think that folks tend to do that stuff if they can afford to hire a professional, but what's the economic necessity tied to helmet wearing? I mean if you can afford the scoot you obviously can afford the brain bucket to go with it.
Should they be illegal too? Or helmets and safety straps mandated by law?
I'll concede there may be some merit to your slippery slope argument especially with the nanny state that will come with national health care but I think we're really only arguing degrees of restriction. At some point personal liberty must and should yield to the common good.
Sailor Steve
12-11-09, 02:11 AM
Well Steve I don't really think that folks tend to do that stuff if they can afford to hire a professional, but what's the economic necessity tied to helmet wearing? I mean if you can afford the scoot you obviously can afford the brain bucket to go with it.
I always wear a helmet. And I always wear a seatbelt. And I believe that you're an idiot if you don't. But I also firmly believe that neither you nor I have the right to impose those restrictions on anyone else. It's not my place to tell you what you have to do for your own good.
At some point personal liberty must and should yield to the common good.
My philosophy on individual liberty: I have the right to do anything I want, as long as it doesn't infringe anyone else's right to do the same. Any law beyond that is tyrrany.
NeonSamurai
12-11-09, 02:35 AM
But the drugs are illegal too. Psychological harm? Should everything that causes - or may cause - psychological harm be illegal? It's illegal because it offends certain people, and no other reason.
Well often in countries where prostitution is fully legal, many drugs are too. Still doesn't change what I stated much.
Let me rephrase to psychological trauma. And yes, stuff that causes psychological trauma to others should be illegal, it is generally as bad, often worse then physical trauma, and can last much much longer.
I don't think you understand the kind of harm (physical, emotional, psychological, etc) prostitution does to the workers, there is a good reason why rates of suicide are considerably higher in the sex trade industry then normal rates. No woman in their right mind willingly chooses prostitution as a career. A few have relatively good lives, the high class call girl types; but even they will build up a whole host of problems in the end.
There are other reasons why its outlawed other then because it offends certain people (including prostitution lowers market values for the neighborhood, increases levels of crime, etc. regardless of if prostitution is legal or not.). I do think though that the law should go after the Johns not the prostitutes though, particularly if they want to cut back on it.
I always wear a helmet. And I always wear a seatbelt. And I believe that you're an idiot if you don't. But I also firmly believe that neither you nor I have the right to impose those restrictions on anyone else. It's not my place to tell you what you have to do for your own good.
A younger me would have agreed with you, but the old me has seen the full effects of not wearing them so I tend to view helmets and belts at least as necessary infringements.
AVGWarhawk
12-11-09, 08:51 AM
A younger me would have agreed with you, but the old me has seen the full effects of not wearing them so I tend to view helmets and belts at least as necessary infringements.
I feel naked without a helmet or seatbelt to be honest. I always wear it.
Onkel Neal
12-11-09, 10:09 AM
Pollution, this thread is about pollution. :O: And how the US is #1. And OTH is compelled to beat us over the head with it.
CaptainHaplo
12-11-09, 10:10 PM
Neal - I can answer that.
We are #1 in nuclear waste - though "pollution" is a stretch because our waste gets buried in Yucca Mountain where it won't harm the environment. But I guess one could say that its existance equals pollution.
However the real crime against humanity comes from the fact that our philosophy of self determination, independance and a refusal to embrace global collectivism means our views, ideals and way of life is the largest possible "pollutant" to many people like OTH.
OneToughHerring
12-12-09, 01:47 AM
Neal - I can answer that.
We are #1 in nuclear waste - though "pollution" is a stretch because our waste gets buried in Yucca Mountain where it won't harm the environment. But I guess one could say that its existance equals pollution.
However the real crime against humanity comes from the fact that our philosophy of self determination, independance and a refusal to embrace global collectivism means our views, ideals and way of life is the largest possible "pollutant" to many people like OTH.
I guess scale is the issue here, what scale do various nations operate with. As far as nuclear power plants, the Soviets already had one accident. I haven't yet been convinced by the end storage systems and facilities in any country. Yes, Finland buries it's nuclear waste in some bed rock somewhere but it's a matter of debate.
How can we know there's not earthquakes or some kind of cracks in the earths core or some similar type system that might rupture the nuclear waste storage. Nuclear waste stays 'live' for millenia so I'd say it's a cause for concern.
The US produces the most nuclear waste but I haven't yet found a reliable list. This one (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_pol_nuc_was-environment-pollution-nuclear-waste) doesn't have Russia in it so it's probably not 100% correct.
Ok according to this (http://www.forbes.com/2007/07/02/energy-electricity-nuclear-biz-cx_bw_0703green_globalnuke.html) Russia is no. 5 but the emerging eastern economies are catching up to the west fast.
And as far as do I have problem with the US 'way of life', yea I guess I do. Partly because Finland is said to be most like the US in Europe in that we brainlessly emulate the States in almost everything. I've even seen some Hummers in the streets.
CaptainHaplo
12-12-09, 12:55 PM
OTH - now we are getting somewhere.
What exactly about the US "way of life" do you have a problem with? If you can give specifics - without turning it into an attack, I can try to represent why it can - and often (but not always) is a good thing. If you want, we can do it in a PM if you are worried that it might cause a negative reaction from the mods.
Your point on radioactive waste is a perfect example of how to present issues. Its not just a US problem - though as the biggest producer we do need to be concerned over the waste that gets put underground. I agree we need to have a better solution. In fact - better solutions are out there. European technological breakthroughs (I forget which European country did it) devised reactors that are much more efficient in their fuel use, and the end "waste" products decays in something like a decade. I read about it in Wired magazine - but don't have a link. It was a couple of years ago I think. Anyway, this style of reactor, though it does put out slightly less energy due to its design, in the end uses like 99.5% of the potential of the fuel - meaning the waste is almost non-existant compared to the reactors in use today.
The problem with its adoption in the US is two-fold. One is capitalism - because the design costs about twice as much to build than a "standard" reactor. Since the initial cost is so high, and the return via energy output is lower, the power generation industry is not screaming for it. I will grant that this style also would save them money in the long run on waste disposal. It is also worth noting that the waste, being so drained of energy - is also no longer capable of being enriched into weapons grade, meaning that it removes a big issue in proliferation.
The second problem is the environmental lobby in the US. Every nuclear plant proposal is met with an onslaught of environmentalists out to stop it - regardless of how safe and clean it can be. Just as a corporation has the knee jerk reaction to "hoard wealth" - the environmentalists have the knee jerk reaction of "no nukes". The fight becomes too hard to actually build a clean source of energy, so it never happens.
Both sides stand in the way of progress. See - I can criticize our system too. Its not perfect - and no - corporations don't just need a free ride to do what they want. There needs to be a level of regulation, just as there needs to be some common sense applied when a clean and safe source of energy is available.
OneToughHerring
12-12-09, 02:25 PM
CH,
what do I have problem with US specifically? I don't think there is any single issue. I think in Europe the UK and possibly Ireland are the closest to the States for obvious reasons, language and culture. The continental Europe is much less connected to the States and could be seen to be more hostile toward the US and things it represents. I don't think it's necessarily a problem of the continental Europe, I think the US is responsible for this state of affairs. My opinions only represent this status quo.
Ok I'm moving on the third point on my list, solid waste. Have been looking at several links but can't find definite comparison of the world's top producers of solid waste. According to one link US was the no. 1 until 2004 when China passed it. Or again, if there was a sample of who has been the no. 1 producer of solid waste during the last 10 years it might very well be US.
Haven't yet found any definite lists about top producers of liquid waste either but since they are often linked to oil products I wouldn't be surprised if US placed high on that list also.
Snestorm
12-12-09, 03:02 PM
OTH - now we are getting somewhere.
Your point on radioactive waste is a perfect example of how to present issues. Its not just a US problem - though as the biggest producer we do need to be concerned over the waste that gets put underground. I agree we need to have a better solution. In fact - better solutions are out there. European technological breakthroughs (I forget which European country did it) devised reactors that are much more efficient in their fuel use, and the end "waste" products decays in something like a decade. I read about it in Wired magazine - but don't have a link. It was a couple of years ago I think. Anyway, this style of reactor, though it does put out slightly less energy due to its design, in the end uses like 99.5% of the potential of the fuel - meaning the waste is almost non-existant compared to the reactors in use today.
Pleasantly surprised. We certainly are getting somewhere.
Very educational post. Although I'm not a supporter of nuclear energy, this is extremely positive news. This kind of technology is definately food for thought.
It's a-bit surprising USA hasn't made more of an effort towards wind power. The price is definately right, and there are no fuel transport costs either.
AVGWarhawk
12-12-09, 05:56 PM
It's a-bit surprising USA hasn't made more of an effort towards wind power
It is coming! Plenty in the mid-west. Here is on problem and it is just stupid. Some of these mills were proposed to be installed off the coast of Marth's Vineyard. Well, we know the Kennedy's reside there and they felt that their view of the ocean would be spoiled by these mills. The project scrapped. :hmmm: There was one case of a town that said the mills gave them migraine headaches or something like that. You can hear them woosh woosh of the blades. There was one program I watched were a small town installed a mill and this mill provided electricity for all in the town. That is a good success story. Mills are just part of the overall picture but certainly a part. I think looking at ocean currents and wave action as the energy to turn turbine needs to be looked at more closely.
Snestorm
12-12-09, 06:34 PM
Mills are just part of the overall picture but certainly a part.
Very true. Danmark is big on wind power, while Norway is big on water power.
When one has an excess of electricity they send it to the other. It works realy well.
Danmark doesn't import any oil, and Norway is an oil exporter.
AVGWarhawk
12-12-09, 08:37 PM
We do have the dams. Hoover Dam for electricity and water supply. But that even comes at a price to the environment. For this to work there needs to be a culmination of all types of energy to make any sense.
AVGWarhawk
12-12-09, 08:53 PM
This is why I laugh at all the finger pointers who blame it all on America. Seems others do follow suit.
$1.5 Million Dollar Russian SUV One Of A Kind Must See!
http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn295/newnewman2002/500x_Prombron_Red_Diamond.jpg
Whale penis leather interior.
That's all you really need to know about the $1.5 million Dartz Prombron Monaco Red Diamond Edition. Yes, the diamond-encrusted white gold gauges and gold-plated bulletproof windows are impressive, but seriously, whale penis leather interior.
The already bulletproof and wildly over-the-top 8.1 liter GM V8-powered Dartz Kombat T98 is getting a name change to Prombron and along with it will come a complete and brain-maimingly bourgeoisie upgrade with the Monaco Red Diamond Edition. The world's most expensive ultra-luxury SUV will debut at the 2010 Top Marques Monaco show with luxe features crazy enough to make a Maybach blush. For your $1.5 million you get the following features:
1. Ruby Red matte paint
2. Gold-plated bulletproof windows
3. 22" Kremlin Red Star bulletproof wheels
4. Whale Penis Leather interior
5. Tungsten exhaust
6. Tungsten and white gold gauges with diamonds and rubies
7. White gold diamond and ruby encrusted badges - grill, side and dashboard
8. Special edition Vertu mobile phone with "alert" button
9. Additional outside kevlar coating
10. Rogue Acoustic Audio System.
And, of course, of course -
THREE BOTTLES OF World Most Expensive Vodka - RussoBaltique Vodka, drink edition, same as in the RussoBaltique car when it visited Monaco at 1912.
We have a lot of questions about this car, most of them whale penis leather-related, but in the bigger picture, this brazen finger-in-the-eye raises a good point, so to speak. What makes a luxury vehicle? Things we used to think of as luxury - bovine leather, wood trim, high-end audio, etc., have become mainstream. Does it take exceptionally ridiculous material selection and bold ostentatious flair to define new luxury? Is it encapsulating yourself in a vehicle capable of taking a direct hit from a rocket propelled grenade? Does it mean emulating the wild excess of past luxury much like the Red Diamond is doing? Who knows. But we're betting the tzars would roll in one of these babies.
Hummer go nothing on this baby!
CaptainHaplo
12-12-09, 09:10 PM
Wind power - in places - is feasible. However it has a number of obstacles here in the states. Some people consider it "unsightly" (I'd rather have electricity than a view personally), the wind doesn't always blow, you have acute standards on how to get the energy onto the grid in a usuable form, etc. I honestly doubt wind is a long range answer - but its foolish not to use it where its appropriate.
The reality is - when it comes to nuclear power - we have the technology and ability to make it "walk away" safe - as in you could walk away for a pizza. A perfect example is the chinese HT-10 reactor - a Pebble Bed design.
The only problem with that design is the waste, being encase in graphite pebbles, creates more volume for the same amount of waste. However, a rollback of the reproccessing rules (that originated with President Peanut... I mean uh.... Carter) would allow for a drastic reduction in waste.
After doing some research, my memory has been refreshed - it is not a new nuclear plant design that provides the increased efficiency, it is the continual reprocessing of the fuel that results in it being used until inert. Basically, old fuel in, new fuel out, in a safe and controlled fashion. The fissionable material (aka the nuke fuel) is seperated from the mass that is no longer usuable for fuel. Without reprocessing, about 95% of the energy in a modern fuel rod is unused when it is "spent". With reprocessing, you can continually strip away the unusable portion and continue to use the fuel source.
France for example, uses reprocessing to not only fuel its standard reactors, but also to fuel its MOX style reactors.
Combine reprocessing with a reactor that by design is inherently safe, and you have a clean, safe source of energy. And another bonus - the Pebble Bed design can be used to create hydrogen in the vast quantities economies would need to move from petroleum to hydrogen.
OneToughHerring
12-12-09, 09:10 PM
AVG,
Except number of units actually in use. Not that the Hummer has been a huge success story but that thing is pretty much a one (or maybe two) off.
AVGWarhawk
12-13-09, 09:57 AM
Wind power - in places - is feasible. However it has a number of obstacles here in the states. Some people consider it "unsightly" (I'd rather have electricity than a view personally), the wind doesn't always blow, you have acute standards on how to get the energy onto the grid in a usuable form, etc. I honestly doubt wind is a long range answer - but its foolish not to use it where its appropriate.
This is something that has to be overcome. People get so worried over property value, noise and unsightly turbines.....live next to an airport then we will talk! I believe these mills also have a storage center for those days they do not turn. Energy is pulled from these batteries. I could be wrong here but it makes sense.
The reality is - when it comes to nuclear power - we have the technology and ability to make it "walk away" safe - as in you could walk away for a pizza. A perfect example is the chinese HT-10 reactor - a Pebble Bed design.
The only problem with that design is the waste, being encase in graphite pebbles, creates more volume for the same amount of waste. However, a rollback of the reproccessing rules (that originated with President Peanut... I mean uh.... Carter) would allow for a drastic reduction in waste.
Same as you wrote above. Unsightly reactors. Remember Three Mile Island. People start screaming Chernobyl. Not storing the waste in a bunker near my backyard!!!! Get's ugly.
AVGWarhawk
12-13-09, 09:58 AM
AVG,
Except number of units actually in use. Not that the Hummer has been a huge success story but that thing is pretty much a one (or maybe two) off.
True but what a waste of time, energy and materials. Not to mention the poor whale missing his penis skin :o
Snestorm
12-13-09, 10:13 AM
Is there a domestic (USA) fuel source for these nuclear plants, or does that too have to be imported, thus continueing the exportation of USDs (Dollars)?
ETR3(SS)
12-13-09, 12:35 PM
Is there a domestic (USA) fuel source for these nuclear plants, or does that too have to be imported, thus continueing the exportation of USDs (Dollars)?
AFAIK all the U-235 is from the US and we don't import any. The majority of our reactors are in our submarines too.
Catfish
12-13-09, 01:16 PM
Hello,
pollution is not all about CO2 and such. Spent nuclear reactors, that are just being sunk east of Novaja Semlja (and the territory afterwards being leased out to Norway, for fishing) by the evil russians, are counterwise sunk in the Bering strait, by the USA.
And then there is Depleted Uranium (DU), a major export article, used in those (in)famous A-10 Thunderbolt "Warthogs". Buried in the ground they only intoxicate is slowly for the next 10000 or so years, while the bullets hitting steel explode into a fine mist, which once getting into the lungs is sure to cause cancer and all kinds of health diseases.
After dropping hundreds of tons of cluster bombs in Afghanistan, an US general - after being asked whether he was sure that all those bomblets really exploded - answered that the only damn sure thing was that "they will reach the ground".
And don't get me started on land mines. :shifty:
Greetings,
Catfish
Just found tons on that, e.g.:
The US Atomic Energy Commission sunk 15000 pounds of high-radiaoctive material, including plutonium, in the Bering strait within one year. Some reactors that are spent beyond refuelling, are also sunk completely for the impossibilty of scrapping them, regularly. They call it disposal.
There's quite some information on the glowing deep ...
Poison in the Well: Radioactive Waste in the Oceans at the Dawn of the Nuclear Age by Jacob Darwin Hamblin, Rutgers University Press
OneToughHerring
12-13-09, 01:22 PM
True but what a waste of time, energy and materials. Not to mention the poor whale missing his penis skin :o
Well that's one Jewish whale swimming around there now. Takes a ballsy mohel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohel) to perform the operation on a whale. :O:
Snestorm
12-13-09, 01:48 PM
For this to work there needs to be a culmination of all types of energy to make any sense.
You speak the truth.
Happy Times
12-13-09, 03:50 PM
Do you know how profoundly paranoid that sounds?
No, he is totally out of this world in all subects.
Happy Times
12-13-09, 04:18 PM
Last week Finnish organisations, representing most of the population, send an open letter to the goverment, pleading for three new nuclear power plants.
Letter was signed by these organisations.
Confederation of Finnish Industries
The Finnish Farmers' and Forest Owners' Union
Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions
The Finnish Confederation of Professionals
Confederation of Unions for Professional and Managerial Staff in Finland
Federation of Finnish Enterprises
The Central Chamber of Commerce
Finnish Homeowners
Tribesman
12-13-09, 04:51 PM
AFAIK all the U-235 is from the US and we don't import any.
Leaving aside the program where they import material which already has very very high 235 levels and then reduce those levels, can you name a few countries that are the main sources of your imports for getting 235?
Snestorm
12-13-09, 05:17 PM
Leaving aside the program where they import material which already has very very high 235 levels and then reduce those levels, can you name a few countries that are the main sources of your imports for getting 235?
Thanks Tribesman. I had no idé what "AFAIK" meant, and it wasn't in my word-book.
If the stuff has to be imported it's not such a good solution anyway. It's a shame, as many of the developements in the nuclear field have been so positive.
Having to import is an Economic and Security negative, perhaps even more-so than oil.
If the negatives of coal could be removed it would be a real boost for USA.
OneToughHerring
12-13-09, 05:23 PM
Last week Finnish organisations, representing most of the population, send an open letter to the goverment, pleading for three new nuclear power plants.
Letter was signed by these organisations.
Confederation of Finnish Industries
The Finnish Farmers' and Forest Owners' Union
Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions
The Finnish Confederation of Professionals
Confederation of Unions for Professional and Managerial Staff in Finland
Federation of Finnish Enterprises
The Central Chamber of Commerce
Finnish Homeowners
Why have elections or referendums when you can just let those organisations decide things. :doh:
AVGWarhawk
12-13-09, 06:04 PM
Well that's one Jewish whale swimming around there now. Takes a ballsy mohel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohel) to perform the operation on a whale. :O:
:har: Good one OTH!
Happy Times
12-13-09, 07:21 PM
Why have elections or referendums when you can just let those organisations decide things. :doh:
They represent the whole political spectrum..
Except for treehuggers and everyone else who dont concern themselfs with the well being of Finlands economy, employment and ordinary citizens.
karamazovnew
12-13-09, 07:44 PM
I stopped caring about pollution years ago because of 2 reasons:
1. It's too late anyway, we're along for the ride.
2. All the green stuff on TV, green this, eco that. It's worse than Christmas commercials. And we're in for many years of this.
They've all started using using pollution as a marketing tool, after yeaaaars of denying the problem and making pressure on GreenPeace. Now all major oil companies show is how they use renewable resources. Yeah right. And the pollution quota for countries, traded between states. This is sick.
The european car developers have jumped the wagon and are desperate to b e the first to mass produce Fuel Cells and Electric cars. What's the bloody point? Most of that energy comes from coal and oil power plants. And it will not be free anyway. Expect to see another huge oil price rise just before they start launching them.
I remember someone saying during the 90's that if we stopped polluting THEN, and turned off all sources instantly, we might have a chance to avoid major changes. As I said, we're in for a very long ride. However I'm not about to hang myself in desperation or refuse to have children. But in the long term it might be a very wise choice to:
1. Move to Tasmania.
2. Cover my house with photovoltaic paint.
3. By an electric car and recharge only at home.
4. Insulate my home well and use a sonic thermal changer.
5. Make an underground shelter and fill it with 100 year warranty cans of food and water.
6. Start learning how to grow plants.... Might need some Marijuana too since Alcohol might get too expensive :D
Because you never know when the aliens will invade us AGAIN!
ETR3(SS)
12-13-09, 09:48 PM
Hello,
pollution is not all about CO2 and such. Spent nuclear reactors, that are just being sunk east of Novaja Semlja (and the territory afterwards being leased out to Norway, for fishing) by the evil russians, are counterwise sunk in the Bering strait, by the USA. We don't dump them in the ocean anymore, we bury them! :D
And then there is Depleted Uranium (DU), a major export article, used in those (in)famous A-10 Thunderbolt "Warthogs". Buried in the ground they only intoxicate is slowly for the next 10000 or so years, while the bullets hitting steel explode into a fine mist, which once getting into the lungs is sure to cause cancer and all kinds of health diseases. I got a chuckle out of this.:haha: When that DU round hits a tank, the dust created is the last thing on the crews mind...if they're still alive. Besides I think we switched to Tungsten instead of DU, less health hazards for the ammo handlers.
Leaving aside the program where they import material which already has very very high 235 levels and then reduce those levels, can you name a few countries that are the main sources of your imports for getting 235?Boy did I have a Homer Simpson moment.:doh: I completely forgot about the Megatons to Megawatts program we have with Russia. And the large reserve in Canada. So I stand corrected on what you quoted me.
Tribesman
12-14-09, 04:08 AM
Well ETR outside of the bombs to energy program there are 17 main countries that supply the US, Canada is often not the biggest supplier, often 3 countries alone each supply more to the US than the US itself produces
What does surprise me though is the costs, on average the price paid for foriegn supplied Uranium is lower than that produced domesticly.
Onkel Neal
12-14-09, 06:44 AM
Hmmm... would it be abusing my power as admin if I changed the title of this thread to simply "US is the no. 1 in the world (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=159023)" ? :D
Skybird
12-14-09, 07:24 AM
What do you mean by "world"...?
karamazovnew
12-14-09, 09:15 AM
Hmmm... would it be abusing my power as admin if I changed the title of this thread to simply "US is the no. 1 in the world (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=159023)" ? :D
US, the no.1 country in North America, between Mexico and Canada. :up: Eat my shorts Homer.
AVGWarhawk
12-14-09, 10:41 AM
US, the no.1 country in North America, between Mexico and Canada. :up: Eat my shorts Homer.
:har::O:
AVGWarhawk
12-14-09, 10:43 AM
Because you never know when the aliens will invade us AGAIN!
I think they are here already. Skybird?
Catfish
12-14-09, 04:39 PM
- - - all your base are belong to U.S. - - -
Hmmm... would it be abusing my power as admin if I changed the title of this thread to simply "US is the no. 1 in the world (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=159023)" ? :D
Do it! Just so I can hear the Euro-whining.
Skybird
12-14-09, 06:23 PM
I think they are here already. Skybird?
Yes. Bring me to your leader.
Happy Times
12-16-09, 10:17 AM
I was surprised to see France scoring so relatively low. i would have estimated them to rate higher, in the realm of Germany and the UK.
Nuclear is the way to go.
AVGWarhawk
12-16-09, 10:28 AM
Nuclear is the way to go.
Yes but there is the nasty by product to deal with.
Torvald Von Mansee
12-16-09, 10:31 AM
Yes but there is the nasty by product to deal with.
Meh. We all gotta die sometime.
Snestorm
12-16-09, 10:35 AM
Meh. We all gotta die sometime.
Do you intend to lead by example?
Happy Times
12-16-09, 10:37 AM
Yes but there is the nasty by product to deal with.
They can be safely stored with modern technology and engineering.
Torvald Von Mansee
12-16-09, 10:37 AM
Do you intend to lead by example?
Well, I'm not going to play chicken with a train!!!!!
AVGWarhawk
12-16-09, 10:46 AM
They can be safely stored with modern technology and engineering.
Yes, we do it right here in the good old USA. However, still a dangerous by product and to keep it short, I know of no one who wants the spent fuel dump in their backyard. It is costly to dig these cavernous holes with thick doors to close off the dump. Not to mention the amount of tractor trailers on the road transporting these containers with the spent fuel. Potential mess. But like anything else, all energy types have a problem or two to contend with.
Skybird
12-16-09, 10:57 AM
They can be safely stored with modern technology and engineering.
No. Not for the times needed. Plutonium has a half life of 24000 years. We even cannot be sure that in 5000 years from now on somebody still could understand those strange graphical symbols on that ton that for us translate into the word: "Attention, radioactivity". Not to mention the meaning of that word. Not to mention the structure of the ton that is constantly bombared with radiation particles. Not to mention the geological stability of the storage site. Not too mention lacking sense of responsibility of the nuclear indusztry. Not to mention the huge criminal energy in illegally disposing waste in general and nuclear and toxic waste in special. It already has been found in the most unexpected places.
For plutonium, usually a minimum of 500,000 years of keeping it isolated from the environment are mentioned.
Nobody in the world has an idea for the safe storage of radioactive waste for long times, all we have are provisional arrangements - and the silent agreement to leave the job to the next generation to deal with it.
Snestorm
12-16-09, 11:07 AM
Not to mention the amount of tractor trailers on the road transporting these containers with the spent fuel.
We call them Suicide Jockeys in the industry.
I've moved HazMats to the top of my Do Not Do list.
AVGWarhawk
12-16-09, 11:10 AM
No. Not for the times needed. Plutonium has a half life of 24000 years. We even cannot be sure that in 5000 years from now on somebody still could understand those strange graphical symbols on that ton that for us translate into the word: "Attention, radioactivity". Not to mention the meaning of that word. Not to mention the structure of the ton that is constantly bombared with radiation particles. Not to mention the geological stability of the storage site. Not too mention lacking sense of responsibility of the nuclear indusztry. Not to mention the huge criminal energy in illegally disposing waste in general and nuclear and toxic waste in special. It already has been found in the most unexpected places.
For plutonium, usually a minimum of 500,000 years of keeping it isolated from the environment are mentioned.
Nobody in the world has an idea for the safe storage of radioactive waste for long times, all we have are provisional arrangements - and the silent agreement to leave the job to the next generation to deal with it.
Not to mention Skybird is correct on these not to mention he mentioned. Very unsafe material....really unsafe. Unless of course one enjoys genetic mutations. :o
AVGWarhawk
12-16-09, 11:14 AM
We call them Suicide Jockeys in the industry.
I've moved HazMats to the top of my Do Not Do list.
I'm in the industry. Hazmat endorsements come at a cost and it is not cheap. To be approved to pull radioactive is not taken lightly. The containers have been tested for crash worthiness and are quite good. Still could be issues.
Snestorm
12-16-09, 12:00 PM
I'm in the industry. Hazmat endorsements come at a cost and it is not cheap. To be approved to pull radioactive is not taken lightly. The containers have been tested for crash worthiness and are quite good. Still could be issues.
Just recently decided not to renew my HazMat endorsement. Nothing to hide, but didn't like the overkill Big Brother finger printing. Besides, I'd rather avoid the off chance of something going wrong, and 3 decades of gear jamming going down the toilet. There is, for the most part, little to no economic incentive worth the ekstra risks, and the ultimate responsability that goes with them.
The last HazMat load I pulled was 55 gallon drums in a sealed reefer.
After leaving origin the only way of checking my load was through that little trap door within the back door. There was no way of telling whether all the drums were still sitting properly on the pallets. In spite of it being an easy no touch load, the thought of something going wrong beyond what I could see through that little trap door bothered me for the whole run.
I may eventualy have to change my stance and get the thing again, but I hope not.
The biggest thing I already miss about it is the ekstra clout. Now I'm down to just Doubles (including 2 x 48s in NY and Mass), and Tanker. Sometimes life forces unpopular decisions on us, so I do keep an open mind on the subject, as is required to survive.
Keep it between the lines, AVG. Catch ya on the concrete sea.
Happy Times
12-16-09, 01:10 PM
No. Not for the times needed. Plutonium has a half life of 24000 years. We even cannot be sure that in 5000 years from now on somebody still could understand those strange graphical symbols on that ton that for us translate into the word: "Attention, radioactivity". Not to mention the meaning of that word. Not to mention the structure of the ton that is constantly bombared with radiation particles. Not to mention the geological stability of the storage site. Not too mention lacking sense of responsibility of the nuclear indusztry. Not to mention the huge criminal energy in illegally disposing waste in general and nuclear and toxic waste in special. It already has been found in the most unexpected places.
For plutonium, usually a minimum of 500,000 years of keeping it isolated from the environment are mentioned.
Nobody in the world has an idea for the safe storage of radioactive waste for long times, all we have are provisional arrangements - and the silent agreement to leave the job to the next generation to deal with it.
You dont believe we have other solutions for them within the next couple of hundred years?
Im not going to go living back in the stone age because of lack of energy, neither will most of this planets population.
There are real limits to what kind of measures people are willing to take because of global warming.
If there werent we would have to start killing people, theres too many in the world, looking from an purely ecological perspective.
For this planet its the same, it will survive even if we kill ourselfs to extinction with an nuclear war.
nikimcbee
12-16-09, 01:17 PM
What do you mean by "world"...?
Amerika uber alles:rock:
:haha:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.