When is Bush going to clean up our waters?

[Maverick]

Yeah Laz, you mix it with ketchup and it will all disappear instantly.

[Hangtime]

When hell freezes over.

15 years ago our Bay (Long Islands Great South Bay, home of the Blue Point Clam) was populated by the largest shellfish industry in the North East.

The bay is dead now.. contaminants, road runoff, industrial waste, human waste.. it's disgusting.

Yer waters are doomed. Move inland.

[SunTracker]

Kerry had a plan to reduce powerplant emissions within a few years.  Bush's plan calls for a reduction after 2028.  

But thats a moot point now.  

Laz, I know there are methods to remove arsenic and chromium from water.  For large scale use, different methods would probably be used.  Certain plants uptake heavy metals very easily, and they could be used to remove pollution.

[lazs2]

different methods?   And how pray tell... do you create the huge amounts of electricity needed to remove chrome and arsenic from recieving waters?

kerrie had a plan to get rid of coal?  unless it was nuke then it wasn't a plan that was feasable.  kerrie was a buffoon.

lazs

[Dago]

Originally posted by SunTracker
Kerry had a plan to reduce powerplant emissions within a few years.  

And did Kerry tell how he was going to accomplish this and who would pay for it?

Those are important details you know.  There are huge costs to reducing pollution, and often the price paid is in jobs lost.  It's a very difficult tradeoff.  Kerry had plans, but quite incomplete and could even be called short-sighted unrealistic promises.

dago

[Tumor]

Originally posted by SunTracker

John Kerry had a plan to clean up our waters.  

haha, ya'right... he had a plan to get your vote, thats what plan he had.

[SunTracker]

Here was Kerrys environmental policy:

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/issue-environment.html

And laz, here is an efficient method of removing mercury from water:http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/quality-of-life/wonderslife/project07_en.html

Mercury is a well-known highly toxic pollutant. To remove it from industrial waste-water, US scientists have developed an efficient method by using an easy-to-grow bacterial strain engineered in bioreactors to produce a mercury-binding protein. An EU-funded FP5 demonstration project (Biotechnology Programme) aims to prove the feasibility and profitability of this approach under real-time conditions. Within this framework, a bioremediation plant installed at Usti-nad-Labem (Czech Republic) has been operating since July 2000.

And Chromium: http://thelatestmagazine.com/Articles/0604PoisonedWaters.htm

Heck, California is already poisoned with chromium.  Drink up.

[lazs2]

You are talking pilot projects on small amounts of water... Do you have any idea of what introducing a biological agent in enough quantities to leach out mercury would do to said recieving waters?

lazs

[lazs2]

and... what kerrie plan?  ask/force us to use less and.... get this... put a ballpark in every town?  I don't even like baseball.

lazs

[oboe]

Originally posted by Dago
...There are huge costs to reducing pollution, and often the price paid is in jobs lost.  It's a very difficult tradeoff.  Kerry had plans, but quite incomplete and could even be called short-sighted unrealistic promises.

dago

I agree, but there are also costs to continuing to pollute (including lost jobs)-- as Hangtime pointed out:

15 years ago our Bay (Long Islands Great South Bay, home of the Blue Point Clam) was populated by the largest shellfish industry in the North East.

The bay is dead now.. contaminants, road runoff, industrial waste, human waste.. it's disgusting.

Like John9001 points out, the whole problem is made worse by science funded by special interest groups, that starts out with the conclusion to prove already in mind.   Everything conclusion becomes political and debatable.    Of course, the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico and the dead Great South Bay aren't really debatable, any more are they?

It's pretty safe to say that the environment has been a huge loser under Bush.     Seems like a pretty tall leap to blame Kerry for this, but whatever floats yer boat, I guess.

[SunTracker]

Do you have any idea of what introducing a biological agent in enough quantities to leach out mercury would do to said recieving waters?

Make fish and shell-fish safe to eat again.  Besides, the first thing to do is stop the source of pollution.

what kerrie plan? ask/force us to use less

Why wouldn't Bush sign the Kyoto treaty?  In the biological science community, Bush is thought of as a monster.

[Tumor]

we're all going to die

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by SunTracker

Why wouldn't Bush sign the Kyoto treaty?  In the biological science community, Bush is thought of as a monster.

Because the Kyoto treaty does nothing to stop the greatest ecological disater in history. Or that's what it will be called when China and India really ramp up their industrialization in the coming decades.

CHINA AND iNDIA GET OFF EASY WHILE THE WEST SUFFERS SEVERE RESTRICIONS MAKING IT EVEN LESS COMPETTITVE.

Now I know I'm wasting my time trying to explain economics to you considering you actually voted for Kerry "because he had a plan" but I'm dumb that way.

[Toad]

Google up "combined sewer overflows" and see what kind of effect you think those are having on our seashores, rivers and lakes.

And then blame a politician, any politician.

[oboe]

That's Laz's line isn't it?  Wastewater treatment?    He should know a thing or two about it I would think...