Poisoning Ourselves: Our Water Supply by BYTEMITE

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Poisoning Ourselves: Our Water Supply

POSTED BY: BYTEMITE
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:51
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 899
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 4:55 AM

A quick overview of how long-lasting a pollution problem can be, how bureaucratic our system is, how polluters get away with murder, how outdated our safety standards are, and the politics that go into setting those standards.

And that's just for one compound (Chromium 6).

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/03/erin-brockovich-lied
-to-you-hinkley-calif-is-not-ok/?utm_source=smithsoniantopic&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130317-Weekender

This is why I'm anti-fracking, BTW. I don't have a problem with SAFE scientific progress, but if a business refuses safe practices or safe practices don't exist to protect the public from pollution and toxins, as a consumer I don't really want to even give such a business a foothold. I don't want to buy their services, I don't want them to do well. I want them to wither away without investors and leave us alone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 5:28 AM

CANTTAKESKY

When will we wake up to the fact that the government is either unwilling or impotent to protect us from evil businesses?

It's up to us to defend our environment and our water.

What would you do if someone came into your home and dropped some chromium 6 into your drinking water?

These people do whatever they want with no consequences. They are opportunistic predators.

It's time for prey to fight back.

-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 6:21 AM

BYTEMITE

Agreed. Sometimes there is something to be said for eco-activism of the Monkey Wrench Gang kind.

Hacktivism also quite useful.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 6:53 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Obscure reference suggestion.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 6:56 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Agreed, CTTS, but any of us with half a brain already know that, and it changes nothing. Bear in mind it's the REPUBLICANS who want to keep cutting regulation--if they could, to NONE--and they've got enough power to keep chipping away at virtually every regulation put in place. They're also big on cutting funding to programs that monitor pollution of virtually any kind.

I love it when our righties talk about "fairness" through taking from one and giving to another is so bad; they conveniently leave out that politicians work HARD every day to TAKE from us and GIVE to corporations every kind of freebie, gimmie and break they can. It's so easy to say efforts to reverse that are what's wrong, and ignore the fact that efforts to get RID of those freebies are trying to REVERSE taking from one segment of the people and give to another, richer, smaller segment. Less regulation = more pollution. More pollution = more health costs. More health costs = taking from everyone to give to the rich. But hey, gawd forbid we should look at THAT, let's just snark about the efforts to reverse it. Sorry, ranting off topic, but it's all of a piece. Government and politicians ALREADY "take" from everyone to "give" to those who already have an enormous advantage...it's just not as easy to point to as laws/regulations trying to reverse the effect.

We fight a constant battle in California, and it's a never-ending matter of two steps forward, one step back; then one step forward, THREE steps back...

Quote:
California’s water pollution reveals itself in stream and river damage, reduced fish populations and a lower quality of available water for human use. “Point” pollution from industrial discharge and municipal sewers is relatively easy to control with existing technology and methods. On the other hand, “non-point” pollution -- runoff from urban areas, farm and livestock lands, roads, logging, and abandoned mines -- is the largest source of water pollution in California and the hardest to control.

The battle against industrial discharge is hard enough, but when it comes to that "non-point pollution", it's an ongoing battle against the forces of agriculture, logging, development, etc., etc. Land-use monitoring has emerged a primary target for controlling NPS (non-point source) water pollution; guess who pays for land-use monitoring? Guess what's being cut?

A significant move for NPS water pollution reduction would be for governments to remove fertilizer or pesticide subsidies to farmers and instead, provide technical assistance in applying agrochemicals in a more scientific and appropriate fashion. Removal of subsides would force farmers to rethink excessive usage and hence result in reducing the quantity of pollutants carried in the runoff. Guess how easy it is to get governments to remove subsidies??

And on and on. The agricultural lobby, logging interests, developers, all fight tooth and nail for their piece of the pie. If we can't even measure how much pollution there is and where it comes from, how do we even start to fight?

We do; we are; and we're thankfully not the only state--in fact in some cases not even in the forefront. The first permit to undertake point/non-point pollution trading was issued in Minnesota and was expected to help in the reduction of NPS water pollution. "However, this move drew flak from certain sections of environmentalists on the reasoning that it is difficult to assign responsibility for NPS water pollution and hence the credits were difficult to monitor or enforce." It's a valid point; until you have the information, offenders can fight all day as to whether they're "responsible" or not...so we're back to monitoring. You know, that stupid waste of government money Raptor was complaining about in another thread...

It's complex, difficult, and I'm not hopeful, is what I'm saying I guess.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:42 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Here you go; this just came down the pike. When it comes to non-point water pollution, we've lost another battle:

Quote:
Logging companies do not need a federal permit regulating rainwater flowing off logging roads in an Oregon state forest, the US Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

Wednesday’s opinion ends a legal battle first launched in 2006 by the Northwest Environmental Defense Center. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0320/Supreme-Court-rejects-e
nvironmentalists-plea-why-Scalia-dissented?nav=87-frontpage-entryNineItem

Six years it's continued while the case went through the courts, and now the non-point water pollution can legally continue.

And that's just one teeeeny slice of what's poisoning us. And yes, the Supremes ruled the way they did for legalese reasons, but that doesn't change that more pollution will be permitted because of their decision, and it may well set precedent for future decisions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:51 PM

BYTEMITE

Interesting. I guess you don't usually think of silt run-off as a pollutant, but that'll kill fish as sure as anything.

Sounds like the first stepping stone to saying big players and states aren't liable for the contaminants they put on the roads, like salt or fracking "brine" in the winter (that then catches fire).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE