Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Water pollution

  1. #1 Water pollution 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    11
    Water is essential for the survival of all known forms of life. The human body is anywhere from 55% to 78% water depending on body size. To function properly, the body requires between one and seven liters of water per day to avoid dehydration
    All known forms of life depend on water. Because of overpopulation, mass consumption, misuse, and water pollution, the availability of drinking water per capita is inadequate and shrinking as of the year 2006.

    40% of America's rivers are too polluted for fishing, swimming, or aquatic life.
    Even worse are America's lakesó46% are too polluted for fishing, swimming, or aquatic life.
    1.2 trillion gallons of untreated sewage, stormwater, and industrial waste are discharged into US waters annually. The US EPA has warned that sewage levels in rivers could be back to the super-polluted levels of the 1970s by the year 2016.
    Asian rivers are the most polluted in the world. They have three times as many bacteria from human waste as the global average and 20 times more lead than rivers in industrialized countries

    Serious water pollution incidents increased by 50% in England and Wales last year with farmers responsible for more than a quarter of them, the Environment Agency says.

    I made this Thread to increase knowledge about water pollution such as industrial water pollution and to share thoughts about how to prevent it.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Water pollution 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by harmonSmith
    the availability of drinking water per capita is inadequate and shrinking as of the year 2006.
    Shrinking?! The availability of water hasn't changed much. What is changing is our demand in regions where precipitation and storage is naturally low. Nothing's "shrinking".

    People disparage "the Wet Coast" where I live so they grow families where it's sunny all year. They want cheap wide-open land so they live on plains without a single alpine lake nearby. Then they moan about the cost of bottled water brought to them by truck. What % of humans really need to live where they are?

    It's an emigration problem. Local governments ought to plan responsibly by emigrating their citizens. There are better places that will take these people and their industries as well.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    I partly agree with Pong although, and i may have read this wrong, the idea that any elected local or national government should start "emigrating their citizens" is incredibly wrong. By simply placing limits on new builds in any particular area you would achieve the same results without resorting to dictatorship type methods.

    The other problem is infrastructure. As in many parts of the world rainfall is becoming more intense yet less frequent, increasing the number and size of rainwater storage facilities would help with these new rainfall pattens rather than letting them overflow and letting the water soak away.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    "emigrating their citizens" is incredibly wrong
    Yet inviting immigration is not? Something doesn't add up.

    I did say there are better places for people to live and work. We will take the diaspora if proper pressure is applied, both internally and externally.

    Ethical digression aside, a lot of capital must go to reservoirs where they don't exist naturally. On the bright side if we build up we're also aiding intermittent power schemes like wind and solar, because we can pump water uphill in times of surplus, and run it down through turbines for continuous generation. A lot of people do not realize that full scale hydro and reservoirs have to be built anyway, to make the new green energy useful.

    In Vancouver we're beginning to separate property rainwater drainage from the household sewage. We always had a separate system for street rainwater, flowing direct into the river and ocean. So, three systems now. The sewage will go through treatment as before, but soon the perimeter drains around houses will be flowing through less rigorous treatment. Heavy rains sometimes fill the combined system so raw sewage overflows into the ocean.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    40% of America's rivers are too polluted for fishing, swimming, or aquatic life.
    Even worse are America's lakesó46% are too polluted for fishing, swimming, or aquatic life.
    Do you have a source, and a little context for these statements? This is a good topic for discussion, but such broad and unsubstantiated remarks don't really form a good basis to start the discussion. One question that immediately comes to mind is if your figures are correct what does it mean in terms of the fraction of total river flow and lake volume? For example, I understand one can fish in the Great Lakes, but they are only five out of thousands of lakes, a tiny percentage of all lakes in the USA by simple numbers. They contain quite a lot of water though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    40% of America's rivers are too polluted for fishing, swimming, or aquatic life.
    Even worse are America's lakesó46% are too polluted for fishing, swimming, or aquatic life.
    Do you have a source, and a little context for these statements? This is a good topic for discussion, but such broad and unsubstantiated remarks don't really form a good basis to start the discussion. One question that immediately comes to mind is if your figures are correct what does it mean in terms of the fraction of total river flow and lake volume? For example, I understand one can fish in the Great Lakes, but they are only five out of thousands of lakes, a tiny percentage of all lakes in the USA by simple numbers. They contain quite a lot of water though.
    You can check my source site
    water-pollution-facts
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    Thanks harmon - always enjoyable to read childish angst that offers no solution (we're all going to die!) and the pretentious claim of the sophomoric to educate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    LOL!!!!!! Harmon's "facts" come from the "grinning planet " website. The others are little more than Simpson cartoons And the poor clown is really serious!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •