Re: Life Duty Death

Joseph Askew (
Thu, 14 Sep 1995 07:08:53 GMT

In article <436h9h$> (Raven (J. Singleton)) writes:

>> This has no relevance whatsoever. If you wish to discuss a
>> new claim then admit it.

>Clearly it HAS relevance. By your reasoning, pollution in the water mains
>should not concern us, because we get water from our taps. But tap water
>COMES FROM the mains. What affects the sources affects the destinations.

Not necessarily. Lakes frequently suffer from an accumulation
of heavy metals in bottom mud. It is possible for a lake to
be polluted but not the rivers that flow from it. Especially
as rivers tend to be more aerated anyway. As I said if you
want to discuss a different claim then do so. Openly.

>>>How do
>>>rivers flow? from lake to lake from lake to sea. f the source is
>>>contaminated then the entire system will become that way in the near

>>Really? That's nice for you. Not relevant but nice.

>Contamination of the entire system is "not relevant"? But it IS "nice"?

It may have escaped your notice but sarcasm makes the odd
appearance in my posts. Also it is wrong. The sources of
most rivers are not lakes but springs or mountain water
sheds which ultimately derive from rain. Lakes have rivers
flow into them and hence out again or they rapidly cease
to be lakes.

>> California was a desert before whites turned up. It is
>> not as if it blowing away would be anything new.

>Except that, NOW, millions of people depend upon that water to live.

No they don't. They depends on that water to live *as*they*
*do*now*. So their water rates would go up a bit. Even tried
to work out the cost of bringing water to LA?

>> Not that any of this relevant except it gives you a chance to whine
>> some more. The world's lakes are not polluted either.

>Lake Baikal, the world's deepest lake, is suffering severe pollution,
>a matter that has received worldwide attention, yet you deny it occurs.

No I don't. I say it is not seriously polluted. If you define
pollution in odd ways you get odd results. There is no present
endangerment of organic life in Lake Baikal I know of. Besides
you can't trust multinational satellite TV can you?

>The entire Aral Sea -- which, despite the name of "Sea", is the world's
>fourth largest lake -- has just been declared biologically dead, no longer
>supporting the myriad forms of life once there, yet you deny it occurs.

Who declared it dead? I have not yet had a chance to laugh
at this moronic comment but I shall now do so. The Aral sea
has problems but it is NOT dead. Some people would have
noticed if it were. Which it isn't.

>US EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner says that (despite intense efforts)
>"Nearly half of our contry's rivers, lakes, and creeks are still polluted
>or threatened, and we have serious and increasing problems with our
>drinking-water supplies." Yet you deny it occurs.

"Or threatened" ie gives us lots of money. Name a city that
has had to invest millions in removing contamination in the
local water supply.

>> Name a dead river in Canada. Any one. The idea that safe
>> waste from paper mills is slowly killing anyone is stupid.

>Sure, the idea that "SAFE waste" could kill anyone is stupid.

>What's stupid is calling it "SAFE".

Not at all. Lots of waste is safe. Some of it is
positively beneficial.

>> Which one did you see and how did you know it was dead?

>Nothing lives in it. There, that was simple, wasn't it?

I didn't ask you to tell me what a dead lake was I asked
(a) which dead lake have you seen (and where is it while
I am at it) and (b) how did you know. I assume you lack
both the equipment and training to test for life so who
told you? Been talking to little Green men perhaps?

>> Bullshit. There are some fish left. Enough for the Spanish
>> to continue fishing even.

>When nations have to start raiding other nations' territorial waters to get
>the fish they used to find in international waters, it might be a hint to
>anyone but you, Joe, that the pickings are getting slim.

Yes and no. It might also be an indication that different
countries have different ideas about where territorial
waters start. This was a real issue when the US was still
sticking to the old cannon shot while some countries were
claiming a 200 km zone. Australia doubled in size last year
when the government moved its claim outwards another 200 km.
Also the Spanish claim their ship was in international waters.

>>>that our oil is drying up and what is left is poor quality. That

>> So?

>Joe, what do you think the world economy depends upon?


>Why do you think
>the OPEC nations got rich?

They produce a lot of oil. Cheaply.

>What do you think sparked the Gulf War?

George Bush's reelection campaign.

>>>our groundwater is laced with pesticides and heavy metals that have
>>>leeched out of our waste dumps.

>> No it is not.

>Oh? Please tell the USA's Environmental Protection Agency. They'd be
>delighted to learn that their worries were unnecessary.

No doubt. About as delighted they would be to hear the news
that they are not needed and should be sacked en masse. Also
the EPA does not quite make this claim. They hint at it.

>But not so nice for human beings, Joe.

Only if they eat the fish.