Conquer Club

According to AP, 41 million Americans are exposed to drinking water that has drug residue.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_ ... awater_i_4

When are we going to start taking the environment serious?

I fail to see the problem here...

im already high

Towelie, you're the worst character ever.

that article is pure yellow journalism.

they don't actually reveal the parts per billion in the water supply...

certainly because it is so LOW that these particles of pharmaceuticals are so thinly distributed that they really have no effect on your person.

you know, there's lead in drinking water too. but not enough to really cause concern (however, don't drink hot water from the tap. always run it cold).

in order to get high off yo water supply, you'd have to drink so much you'd die from water poisoning before you could ever be adversely affected by the drugs.

the quote from the EPA was a pat PR response. they take it seriously, because if the parts per billion rise significantly, they'll jump on it and ensure the water is safe. but there's no need to take the existing chemicals seriously. they simply cannot harm you.

DaGip, Do you spend all day looking for news bits?

dustn64 wrote:DaGip, Do you spend all day looking for news bits?

All day long!

reminisco wrote:that article is pure yellow journalism.

they don't actually reveal the parts per billion in the water supply...

certainly because it is so LOW that these particles of pharmaceuticals are so thinly distributed that they really have no effect on your person.

you know, there's lead in drinking water too. but not enough to really cause concern (however, don't drink hot water from the tap. always run it cold).

in order to get high off yo water supply, you'd have to drink so much you'd die from water poisoning before you could ever be adversely affected by the drugs.

the quote from the EPA was a pat PR response. they take it seriously, because if the parts per billion rise significantly, they'll jump on it and ensure the water is safe. but there's no need to take the existing chemicals seriously. they simply cannot harm you.

A well thought answer that speaks the truth.

I tried making an image to show approximately what parts per billion would look like, but it crashed GIMP...

DaGip wrote:When are we going to start taking the environment serious?

Not soon enough.

Unfortunately neither business nor gov't will take the lead on this... and most people don't really want to pay what it would cost to keep the enivronment clean.

If you asked random Americans....

*Would you rather have $500 computers... knowing you are helping polute drinking water in Asia. Or would you prefer to have $1000 computers... but you could sleep at night knowing you are not contributing to high cancer rates in 3rd world countries.

What do you think most people would answer? They would say they want to have a clean environment... but when they had to open their wallet they'd buy the $500 PC all day.

or how about...

*Would you rather pay $3/gallon for gas... knowing that you are contibuting to Global Warming and likely harming the environment in several other ways. Or do you want to pay $10/gallon... but we can invest in clean technologies and use the extra $7/gallon to offset carbon emissions?

Again... the station charging $3 would get all the busines. Any polititian suggesting we raise the gas tax to $5/gallon would be hung.

We will do nothing till it is too late.

jimboston wrote:

DaGip wrote:When are we going to start taking the environment serious?

Not soon enough.

Unfortunately neither business nor gov't will take the lead on this... and most people don't really want to pay what it would cost to keep the enivronment clean.

If you asked random Americans....

*Would you rather have $500 computers... knowing you are helping polute drinking water in Asia. Or would you prefer to have $1000 computers... but you could sleep at night knowing you are not contributing to high cancer rates in 3rd world countries.

What do you think most people would answer? They would say they want to have a clean environment... but when they had to open their wallet they'd buy the $500 PC all day.

or how about...

*Would you rather pay $3/gallon for gas... knowing that you are contibuting to Global Warming and likely harming the environment in several other ways. Or do you want to pay $10/gallon... but we can invest in clean technologies and use the extra $7/gallon to offset carbon emissions?

Again... the station charging $3 would get all the busines. Any polititian suggesting we raise the gas tax to $5/gallon would be hung.

We will do nothing till it is too late.

this has nothing to do with the article in question.

and dude, you need to keep in mind, the environment IS NOT CLEAN TO BEGIN WITH.

it's not like nature is some antiseptic operating room. actually, it's the exact opposite.

and throwing money at the problems in the environment aren't the panacea you imply it is. do your homework a bit more. and not just on the blogosphere. go seek out the local branch of your EPA -- they can help you. or the DEP.

once you can clearly state your ideas within the constraints of science and not mere emotional platitudes, attack the issues. see what options there are. see what's realistic.

if you don't, you're just as guilty as the people who'd rather have the $500 computer, because while they think their saved money is more important than someone else's health (assuming that hypo -short for hypothetical- is even plausible), then it is just as bad to think that throwing money at the problem will solve it.

it will not.

Here we are, we have 10'000 red parts per billion compared to the blue...

hecter wrote:Here we are, we have 10'000 red parts per billion compared to the blue...

great visual aid.

the article doesn't even tell us the parts per billion. it could be half that. 1/10th the representation you provide.

thoroughly underscores how unconcerned any reasonable person should be about this bullshit story.

dustn64 wrote:DaGip, Do you spend all day looking for news bits?

Perhaps Gip and Brooksie should start their own news broadcasts here on cc.

reminisco wrote:
this has nothing to do with the article in question.

and dude, you need to keep in mind, the environment IS NOT CLEAN TO BEGIN WITH.

it's not like nature is some antiseptic operating room. actually, it's the exact opposite.

and throwing money at the problems in the environment aren't the panacea you imply it is. do your homework a bit more. and not just on the blogosphere. go seek out the local branch of your EPA -- they can help you. or the DEP.

once you can clearly state your ideas within the constraints of science and not mere emotional platitudes, attack the issues. see what options there are. see what's realistic.

if you don't, you're just as guilty as the people who'd rather have the $500 computer, because while they think their saved money is more important than someone else's health (assuming that hypo -short for hypothetical- is even plausible), then it is just as bad to think that throwing money at the problem will solve it.

it will not.

The question DaGip asked was when are we going to take the Environment seriously.

My reply is my answer to that question.

Nowhere do I state or imply that the world is "some antiseptic operating room". I know it is not. At the same time... the amount of chemicals and other pollutants humankind is pouring into our atmosphere and water is alarming. In fact antiseptics are chemicals... and would hence be bad for all the micro-organisms the environment/nature needs.

Also never said money will solve all the problems. However it is a fact that we will need to expend money to fix the problems and to research cleaner ways of doing things.

The gas tax is a good idea... and attacks the issue from two sides. It forces people to pollute less... and the money could be used to research cleaner/better ways of doing things.

You need to chil my man.

so are there free drugs to be had or what?

heavycola wrote:so are there free drugs to be had or what?

aparently. but not much. not much at all

they just say that so u drink water more and be healthy

jimboston wrote:You need to chil my man.

i am chill. your over-simplifying alters what the layman understands about the environment.

but, i can tell you think you're right no matter what. so i'm going to drop it, because there's no sense working towards consensus with someone as condescending as you. i would have asked you what you think of Superfund and the last 20 years of the EPA in general, etc, but there's no point.

see, i know that money needs to be spent (nice attempt at a put down, suggesting i don't think money NEEDS to be spent, but your implication is that money thrown at the problem will solve it. i say again, it will not.)

look at Superfund.

look at the War in Iraq, for that matter.

money helps, but it is not the panacea you suggest it is. you have to use your mind. but enough of this. i'm done with this.

peace out, "my man."

reminisco wrote:

jimboston wrote:You need to chil my man.

i am chill. your over-simplifying alters what the layman understands about the environment.

but, i can tell you think you're right no matter what. so i'm going to drop it, because there's no sense working towards consensus with someone as condescending as you. i would have asked you what you think of Superfund and the last 20 years of the EPA in general, etc, but there's no point.

see, i know that money needs to be spent (nice attempt at a put down, suggesting i don't think money NEEDS to be spent, but your implication is that money thrown at the problem will solve it. i say again, it will not.)

look at Superfund.

look at the War in Iraq, for that matter.

money helps, but it is not the panacea you suggest it is. you have to use your mind. but enough of this. i'm done with this.

peace out, "my man."

I think we would both agree that the Gov't isn't always great at spending money. I happen to work in a field where I sell to the Gov't... so I see the waste up close.

I am over-simplfying simply because I do not have time or inclination to write a thesis on the subject. How much detail do we want to get here.

The gas-tax example again is a good one... part of this would involve the gov't spending money. The other part... would be how consumers and businesses react to higher gas prices. Some would simply drive less, maybe take public transportation... others would look for more efficient vehicles. Higher gas prices make hybrid vehicles more attractive purchases as you are more likley to make your money back. As more consumers look for alternatives... businesses would respond. Simple economics there.... I coudl spell it all out, maybe that's needed... but I think you (and most here) can follow it.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first sentence... "your over-simplifying alters what the layman understands about the environment"...
aside from that I actually think we agree here more than disagree.

peace... my "chill" man