Environment is Cleaner Than it's Been in More Than 100 Years

[orogenicman]

The argument above clearly reveals why we need an impartial authority on subjects like this, and that is going to be a government agency.

ROFL! The last word any knowledgeable person would use to describe the EPA is "impartial." They are a gang of communist agitators bent on destroying capitalism.

Proving yet again that you have the intelligence of a lemming. Congratulations.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Remember, though, he is a class of one: anarcho-communist lemming.

 

[JFK_USA]

If true, why shouldn't we try to be even cleaner? Why should we revert back to the old times of pollution and destruction?

 

[bripat9643]

The argument above clearly reveals why we need an impartial authority on subjects like this, and that is going to be a government agency.

ROFL! The last word any knowledgeable person would use to describe the EPA is "impartial." They are a gang of communist agitators bent on destroying capitalism.

Proving yet again that you have the intelligence of a lemming. Congratulations.

Your eagerness to regurgitate EPA propaganda shows who is truly the lemming.

 

[bripat9643]

If true, why shouldn't we try to be even cleaner? Why should we revert back to the old times of pollution and destruction?

How clean is clean enough?

Who said anything about "reverting?"

 

[bripat9643]

It's not documented to be a carcinogen at the extremely low levels the EPA claims, moron. the so-called "safe limits" are hypotheses based on projecting on much higher concentrations known to cause cancer. No tests have been done that demonstrate toxicity at the low levels claimed by the EPA.

Wrong. Furthermore. It is not just the EPA that has done this research. It has been conducted by the American Cancer Society, NIOSH, OSHA, and the FDA. Now, if you want to argument with all of those agencies and declare it safe at low concentrations, I challenge you to live on a low concentration diet that includes benzene and lets see how that turns out. Good luck with that:

Benzene

ATSDR - Public Health Statement Benzene

The fact is that there is no known safe level of exposure to benzene.

ROFL! It's not wrong. It's 100% correct. Even the EPA says it's safe at low concentrations. The only question is, what concentration is safe? In most cases, take Mercury for instance, there is no laboratory evidence that the substance is toxic in low doses.

You're document doesn't say a thing about any labratory tests that prove low doses of Benzine are toxic. In fact, it doesn't even discuss doses below 700 ppm - that's parts per MILLION, not parts per BILLION.

Your claim that any dose of benzene is harmful is totally unproven. It definitely not a fact that there is no safe level of exposure to Benzene.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I do believe the statement "safe at low concentrations" refers to casual and limited exposure only - not persistent exposure to low concentrations over extended period - that does make a big difference.

No, it doesn't mean that. Take Mercury, for example. Harm has definitely been demonstrated for exposure to high concentrations, but no harm has ever been demonstrated by exposure to low concentrations. If you eat fish, you've been exposed to Mercury. You don't see the EPA telling you not to eat fish, do you?

Mercury accumulates both in the environment and within the animals that ingest it. That doesn't happen with benzene. Benzene alters DNA (permanently), and does permanent damage to the nervous system.

None of that disproves a thing I've posted.

 

[bripat9643]

It's not documented to be a carcinogen at the extremely low levels the EPA claims, moron. the so-called "safe limits" are hypotheses based on projecting on much higher concentrations known to cause cancer. No tests have been done that demonstrate toxicity at the low levels claimed by the EPA.

Wrong. Furthermore. It is not just the EPA that has done this research. It has been conducted by the American Cancer Society, NIOSH, OSHA, and the FDA. Now, if you want to argument with all of those agencies and declare it safe at low concentrations, I challenge you to live on a low concentration diet that includes benzene and lets see how that turns out. Good luck with that:

Benzene

ATSDR - Public Health Statement Benzene

The fact is that there is no known safe level of exposure to benzene.

ROFL! It's not wrong. It's 100% correct. Even the EPA says it's safe at low concentrations. The only question is, what concentration is safe? In most cases, take Mercury for instance, there is no laboratory evidence that the substance is toxic in low doses.

You're document doesn't say a thing about any labratory tests that prove low doses of Benzine are toxic. In fact, it doesn't even discuss doses below 700 ppm - that's parts per MILLION, not parts per BILLION.

Your claim that any dose of benzene is harmful is totally unproven. It definitely not a fact that there is no safe level of exposure to Benzene.

The maximum concentration limit (MCL) for benzene in drinking water is 5 ppb. That is based on very extensive risk analysis conducted by multiple agencies, not on toxicity tests. So yes, below this level, water is considered safe to drink. That is a very low concentration. The natural level of benzene is 0.1 ppb, which is even lower. But if you think they will allow you to sell water containing benzene at 6 ppb, think again. And we aren't talking here about toxicity. That is a different argument altogether. We are talking about its carcinogenicity. And again, there is no level of benzene that has been shown to be safe. That is a fact based on the chemistry of the chemical. It does nerve and chromosome damage at any concentration because it is a highly reactive organic chemical. The questions are how much damage, where that damage occurs, and over what period of time, and if those effects are short term or long term.

Benzene is a group 1 carcinogen.

List of IARC Group 1 carcinogens - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Your "extensive risk analysis" is mathamatical Voo Doo. As I said, what the EPA and other agencies do is infer that if a high concentration causes harm, then a lower concentration will still cause harm in proportion. This theory has never been demonstrated. In fact, empirical data show precisely the opposite. And it doesn't matter whether you are discussing toxicity or carcinogenicity.

As for your claim the it is a "fact based on the chemistry of the chemical," that's also bullshit. Many chemicals that have been show to be harmful at high concentrations demonstrate no signs of harm at low doses. Mercury is the classic example.

It is a statistical analysis of studies conducted to assess toxicity, carcenogenety, and a host of other issues, including how long a contaminant stays in the environment, whether it reacts with other constituents in that environment and becomes more or less dangerous, whether it breaks down, how long that takes, mode of transport in the environment, mode of contact, etc. These assessments have been conducted by numerous scientific organizations and state and Federal agencies. And none of them support your creationist-like claim that it is "only a theory".

It's mathematical mumbo-jumbo and abracadabra. What it isn't is experimental evidence that low level exposure causes health problems of any kind. That is purely inferred by conjecturing that the low dose has the same effect as the high dose. It often doesn't. The fact that all government agencies use the same abracadabra is hardly surprising.

Mercury bioaccumulates in the environment,. dufus. Eat low doses over a short period of time, and likely you will not be affected. Eat that same dose day in and day out for a long period of time, and it will seriously impact your health. But as I said earlier, you are free to experiment with your own body. You are not free to experiment with mine or my family's.

Again, you haven't disproven what I have posted.

 

[orogenicman]

The argument above clearly reveals why we need an impartial authority on subjects like this, and that is going to be a government agency.

ROFL! The last word any knowledgeable person would use to describe the EPA is "impartial." They are a gang of communist agitators bent on destroying capitalism.

Proving yet again that you have the intelligence of a lemming. Congratulations.

Your eagerness to regurgitate EPA propaganda shows who is truly the lemming.

OMG! Could you be any more idiotic?

 

[orogenicman]

Wrong. Furthermore. It is not just the EPA that has done this research. It has been conducted by the American Cancer Society, NIOSH, OSHA, and the FDA. Now, if you want to argument with all of those agencies and declare it safe at low concentrations, I challenge you to live on a low concentration diet that includes benzene and lets see how that turns out. Good luck with that:

Benzene

ATSDR - Public Health Statement Benzene

The fact is that there is no known safe level of exposure to benzene.

ROFL! It's not wrong. It's 100% correct. Even the EPA says it's safe at low concentrations. The only question is, what concentration is safe? In most cases, take Mercury for instance, there is no laboratory evidence that the substance is toxic in low doses.

You're document doesn't say a thing about any labratory tests that prove low doses of Benzine are toxic. In fact, it doesn't even discuss doses below 700 ppm - that's parts per MILLION, not parts per BILLION.

Your claim that any dose of benzene is harmful is totally unproven. It definitely not a fact that there is no safe level of exposure to Benzene.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I do believe the statement "safe at low concentrations" refers to casual and limited exposure only - not persistent exposure to low concentrations over extended period - that does make a big difference.

No, it doesn't mean that. Take Mercury, for example. Harm has definitely been demonstrated for exposure to high concentrations, but no harm has ever been demonstrated by exposure to low concentrations. If you eat fish, you've been exposed to Mercury. You don't see the EPA telling you not to eat fish, do you?

Mercury accumulates both in the environment and within the animals that ingest it. That doesn't happen with benzene. Benzene alters DNA (permanently), and does permanent damage to the nervous system.

None of that disproves a thing I've posted.

It proves that you misrepresent the facts.

 

[orogenicman]

Wrong. Furthermore. It is not just the EPA that has done this research. It has been conducted by the American Cancer Society, NIOSH, OSHA, and the FDA. Now, if you want to argument with all of those agencies and declare it safe at low concentrations, I challenge you to live on a low concentration diet that includes benzene and lets see how that turns out. Good luck with that:

Benzene

ATSDR - Public Health Statement Benzene

The fact is that there is no known safe level of exposure to benzene.

ROFL! It's not wrong. It's 100% correct. Even the EPA says it's safe at low concentrations. The only question is, what concentration is safe? In most cases, take Mercury for instance, there is no laboratory evidence that the substance is toxic in low doses.

You're document doesn't say a thing about any labratory tests that prove low doses of Benzine are toxic. In fact, it doesn't even discuss doses below 700 ppm - that's parts per MILLION, not parts per BILLION.

Your claim that any dose of benzene is harmful is totally unproven. It definitely not a fact that there is no safe level of exposure to Benzene.

The maximum concentration limit (MCL) for benzene in drinking water is 5 ppb. That is based on very extensive risk analysis conducted by multiple agencies, not on toxicity tests. So yes, below this level, water is considered safe to drink. That is a very low concentration. The natural level of benzene is 0.1 ppb, which is even lower. But if you think they will allow you to sell water containing benzene at 6 ppb, think again. And we aren't talking here about toxicity. That is a different argument altogether. We are talking about its carcinogenicity. And again, there is no level of benzene that has been shown to be safe. That is a fact based on the chemistry of the chemical. It does nerve and chromosome damage at any concentration because it is a highly reactive organic chemical. The questions are how much damage, where that damage occurs, and over what period of time, and if those effects are short term or long term.

Benzene is a group 1 carcinogen.

List of IARC Group 1 carcinogens - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Your "extensive risk analysis" is mathamatical Voo Doo. As I said, what the EPA and other agencies do is infer that if a high concentration causes harm, then a lower concentration will still cause harm in proportion. This theory has never been demonstrated. In fact, empirical data show precisely the opposite. And it doesn't matter whether you are discussing toxicity or carcinogenicity.

As for your claim the it is a "fact based on the chemistry of the chemical," that's also bullshit. Many chemicals that have been show to be harmful at high concentrations demonstrate no signs of harm at low doses. Mercury is the classic example.

It is a statistical analysis of studies conducted to assess toxicity, carcenogenety, and a host of other issues, including how long a contaminant stays in the environment, whether it reacts with other constituents in that environment and becomes more or less dangerous, whether it breaks down, how long that takes, mode of transport in the environment, mode of contact, etc. These assessments have been conducted by numerous scientific organizations and state and Federal agencies. And none of them support your creationist-like claim that it is "only a theory".

It's mathematical mumbo-jumbo and abracadabra. What it isn't is experimental evidence that low level exposure causes health problems of any kind. That is purely inferred by conjecturing that the low dose has the same effect as the high dose. It often doesn't. The fact that all government agencies use the same abracadabra is hardly surprising.

Again, you haven't disproven what I have posted.

Only someone completely illiterate wrt science would make these statements, above. Congratulations.

 

[bripat9643]

The argument above clearly reveals why we need an impartial authority on subjects like this, and that is going to be a government agency.

ROFL! The last word any knowledgeable person would use to describe the EPA is "impartial." They are a gang of communist agitators bent on destroying capitalism.

Proving yet again that you have the intelligence of a lemming. Congratulations.

Your eagerness to regurgitate EPA propaganda shows who is truly the lemming.

OMG! Could you be any more idiotic?

An idiot would swallow the lies the EPA publishes without questioning them.

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL! It's not wrong. It's 100% correct. Even the EPA says it's safe at low concentrations. The only question is, what concentration is safe? In most cases, take Mercury for instance, there is no laboratory evidence that the substance is toxic in low doses.

You're document doesn't say a thing about any labratory tests that prove low doses of Benzine are toxic. In fact, it doesn't even discuss doses below 700 ppm - that's parts per MILLION, not parts per BILLION.

Your claim that any dose of benzene is harmful is totally unproven. It definitely not a fact that there is no safe level of exposure to Benzene.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I do believe the statement "safe at low concentrations" refers to casual and limited exposure only - not persistent exposure to low concentrations over extended period - that does make a big difference.

No, it doesn't mean that. Take Mercury, for example. Harm has definitely been demonstrated for exposure to high concentrations, but no harm has ever been demonstrated by exposure to low concentrations. If you eat fish, you've been exposed to Mercury. You don't see the EPA telling you not to eat fish, do you?

Mercury accumulates both in the environment and within the animals that ingest it. That doesn't happen with benzene. Benzene alters DNA (permanently), and does permanent damage to the nervous system.

None of that disproves a thing I've posted.

It proves that you misrepresent the facts.

No it doesn't. Furthermore, don't think anyone hasn't noticed how you simply sidestep what I've posted. Your posts are all non sequiturs.

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL! It's not wrong. It's 100% correct. Even the EPA says it's safe at low concentrations. The only question is, what concentration is safe? In most cases, take Mercury for instance, there is no laboratory evidence that the substance is toxic in low doses.

You're document doesn't say a thing about any labratory tests that prove low doses of Benzine are toxic. In fact, it doesn't even discuss doses below 700 ppm - that's parts per MILLION, not parts per BILLION.

Your claim that any dose of benzene is harmful is totally unproven. It definitely not a fact that there is no safe level of exposure to Benzene.

The maximum concentration limit (MCL) for benzene in drinking water is 5 ppb. That is based on very extensive risk analysis conducted by multiple agencies, not on toxicity tests. So yes, below this level, water is considered safe to drink. That is a very low concentration. The natural level of benzene is 0.1 ppb, which is even lower. But if you think they will allow you to sell water containing benzene at 6 ppb, think again. And we aren't talking here about toxicity. That is a different argument altogether. We are talking about its carcinogenicity. And again, there is no level of benzene that has been shown to be safe. That is a fact based on the chemistry of the chemical. It does nerve and chromosome damage at any concentration because it is a highly reactive organic chemical. The questions are how much damage, where that damage occurs, and over what period of time, and if those effects are short term or long term.

Benzene is a group 1 carcinogen.

List of IARC Group 1 carcinogens - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Your "extensive risk analysis" is mathamatical Voo Doo. As I said, what the EPA and other agencies do is infer that if a high concentration causes harm, then a lower concentration will still cause harm in proportion. This theory has never been demonstrated. In fact, empirical data show precisely the opposite. And it doesn't matter whether you are discussing toxicity or carcinogenicity.

As for your claim the it is a "fact based on the chemistry of the chemical," that's also bullshit. Many chemicals that have been show to be harmful at high concentrations demonstrate no signs of harm at low doses. Mercury is the classic example.

It is a statistical analysis of studies conducted to assess toxicity, carcenogenety, and a host of other issues, including how long a contaminant stays in the environment, whether it reacts with other constituents in that environment and becomes more or less dangerous, whether it breaks down, how long that takes, mode of transport in the environment, mode of contact, etc. These assessments have been conducted by numerous scientific organizations and state and Federal agencies. And none of them support your creationist-like claim that it is "only a theory".

It's mathematical mumbo-jumbo and abracadabra. What it isn't is experimental evidence that low level exposure causes health problems of any kind. That is purely inferred by conjecturing that the low dose has the same effect as the high dose. It often doesn't. The fact that all government agencies use the same abracadabra is hardly surprising.

Again, you haven't disproven what I have posted.

Only someone completely illiterate wrt science would make these statements, above. Congratulations.

In other words, you can't refute it.

 

[orogenicman]

The argument above clearly reveals why we need an impartial authority on subjects like this, and that is going to be a government agency.

ROFL! The last word any knowledgeable person would use to describe the EPA is "impartial." They are a gang of communist agitators bent on destroying capitalism.

Proving yet again that you have the intelligence of a lemming. Congratulations.

Your eagerness to regurgitate EPA propaganda shows who is truly the lemming.

OMG! Could you be any more idiotic?

An idiot would swallow the lies the EPA publishes without questioning them.

An idiot ignores the law and the science that supports it at his own peril.

 

[orogenicman]

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I do believe the statement "safe at low concentrations" refers to casual and limited exposure only - not persistent exposure to low concentrations over extended period - that does make a big difference.

No, it doesn't mean that. Take Mercury, for example. Harm has definitely been demonstrated for exposure to high concentrations, but no harm has ever been demonstrated by exposure to low concentrations. If you eat fish, you've been exposed to Mercury. You don't see the EPA telling you not to eat fish, do you?

Mercury accumulates both in the environment and within the animals that ingest it. That doesn't happen with benzene. Benzene alters DNA (permanently), and does permanent damage to the nervous system.

None of that disproves a thing I've posted.

It proves that you misrepresent the facts.

No it doesn't. Furthermore, don't think anyone hasn't noticed how you simply sidestep what I've posted. Your posts are all non sequiturs.

Certainly it does, because you do.

 

[orogenicman]

The maximum concentration limit (MCL) for benzene in drinking water is 5 ppb. That is based on very extensive risk analysis conducted by multiple agencies, not on toxicity tests. So yes, below this level, water is considered safe to drink. That is a very low concentration. The natural level of benzene is 0.1 ppb, which is even lower. But if you think they will allow you to sell water containing benzene at 6 ppb, think again. And we aren't talking here about toxicity. That is a different argument altogether. We are talking about its carcinogenicity. And again, there is no level of benzene that has been shown to be safe. That is a fact based on the chemistry of the chemical. It does nerve and chromosome damage at any concentration because it is a highly reactive organic chemical. The questions are how much damage, where that damage occurs, and over what period of time, and if those effects are short term or long term.

Benzene is a group 1 carcinogen.

List of IARC Group 1 carcinogens - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Your "extensive risk analysis" is mathamatical Voo Doo. As I said, what the EPA and other agencies do is infer that if a high concentration causes harm, then a lower concentration will still cause harm in proportion. This theory has never been demonstrated. In fact, empirical data show precisely the opposite. And it doesn't matter whether you are discussing toxicity or carcinogenicity.

As for your claim the it is a "fact based on the chemistry of the chemical," that's also bullshit. Many chemicals that have been show to be harmful at high concentrations demonstrate no signs of harm at low doses. Mercury is the classic example.

It is a statistical analysis of studies conducted to assess toxicity, carcenogenety, and a host of other issues, including how long a contaminant stays in the environment, whether it reacts with other constituents in that environment and becomes more or less dangerous, whether it breaks down, how long that takes, mode of transport in the environment, mode of contact, etc. These assessments have been conducted by numerous scientific organizations and state and Federal agencies. And none of them support your creationist-like claim that it is "only a theory".

It's mathematical mumbo-jumbo and abracadabra. What it isn't is experimental evidence that low level exposure causes health problems of any kind. That is purely inferred by conjecturing that the low dose has the same effect as the high dose. It often doesn't. The fact that all government agencies use the same abracadabra is hardly surprising.

Again, you haven't disproven what I have posted.

Only someone completely illiterate wrt science would make these statements, above. Congratulations.

In other words, you can't refute it.

As if scientifically illiterate statements need refuting. Try again.

 

[GreenBean]

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I do believe the statement "safe at low concentrations" refers to casual and limited exposure only - not persistent exposure to low concentrations over extended period - that does make a big difference.

No, it doesn't mean that. Take Mercury, for example. Harm has definitely been demonstrated for exposure to high concentrations, but no harm has ever been demonstrated by exposure to low concentrations. If you eat fish, you've been exposed to Mercury. You don't see the EPA telling you not to eat fish, do you?

Mercury accumulates both in the environment and within the animals that ingest it. That doesn't happen with benzene. Benzene alters DNA (permanently), and does permanent damage to the nervous system.

None of that disproves a thing I've posted.

It proves that you misrepresent the facts.

No it doesn't. Furthermore, don't think anyone hasn't noticed how you simply sidestep what I've posted. Your posts are all non sequiturs.

Apparently that is his modus operandi as he uses the same side step and deflection quite frequently on other threads - either that or he has his other avatar step in for him.

 

[AntiParty]

I know this will drive the environmental wackos. "How dare anyone claim the environment is clean!"

Michigan s Environment is Cleaner than it s Been in More than 100 Years Michigan Capitol Confidential

Michigan's Environment is Cleaner Than it's Been in More Than 100 Years

Disease, contamination and pollutants are mostly in the past while

Many people view the relationship between humans and nature as a zero-sum game: Our progress comes at the direct expense of the environment. Actually, that’s not the case.


Recently, we’ve been able to dramatically improve our standard of living while simultaneously leaving behind a cleaner environment. In fact, Michigan’s environment is arguably cleaner than it has been in more than 100 years.


Consider how clean our drinking water has become. In the early 20th century, waterborne infectious diseases such as cholera, dysentery and typhoid were leading causes of death, and typhoid epidemics annually sickened thousands in American cities. With technological leaps in filtration – now to the level of filtering microbes and chemical compounds, disinfection and water analysis – these waterborne illnesses have been practically eradicated in Michigan and the United States.

The water in our rivers, lakes and streams is also less contaminated than it used to be. Treated wastewater and storm water contain significantly lower levels of contaminants, as technology and control systems have advanced. Some wastewater treatment plants in Michigan discharge water of higher quality than their receiving streams. For example, the PARCC Side Clean Water Plant in Plainfield, Michigan discharges four million gallons of water per day into the Grand River that is of better quality than the river’s water. Other Michigan treatment plants can also produce effluents better than river water much of the time.


Wildlife habitats are improving, too. In a 2010 Detroit News article, Jim Lynch chronicled the repopulation of wildlife around Detroit, writing, “After decades of struggling to overcome the Detroit River’s polluted past, a variety of fish and bird species have re-established themselves ... [t]he budding osprey population is joined by increasing numbers of walleye, lake sturgeon and whitefish as well as bird species like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon.”​

Ours is. China's isn't.

Watching people strive to be like China where they work for 50cents (USD) and hour in order to stay competitive globally and watching them have "Smog days" out of school should teach the weak minded, but.....

 

[bripat9643]

I know this will drive the environmental wackos. "How dare anyone claim the environment is clean!"

Michigan s Environment is Cleaner than it s Been in More than 100 Years Michigan Capitol Confidential

Michigan's Environment is Cleaner Than it's Been in More Than 100 Years

Disease, contamination and pollutants are mostly in the past while

Many people view the relationship between humans and nature as a zero-sum game: Our progress comes at the direct expense of the environment. Actually, that’s not the case.


Recently, we’ve been able to dramatically improve our standard of living while simultaneously leaving behind a cleaner environment. In fact, Michigan’s environment is arguably cleaner than it has been in more than 100 years.


Consider how clean our drinking water has become. In the early 20th century, waterborne infectious diseases such as cholera, dysentery and typhoid were leading causes of death, and typhoid epidemics annually sickened thousands in American cities. With technological leaps in filtration – now to the level of filtering microbes and chemical compounds, disinfection and water analysis – these waterborne illnesses have been practically eradicated in Michigan and the United States.

The water in our rivers, lakes and streams is also less contaminated than it used to be. Treated wastewater and storm water contain significantly lower levels of contaminants, as technology and control systems have advanced. Some wastewater treatment plants in Michigan discharge water of higher quality than their receiving streams. For example, the PARCC Side Clean Water Plant in Plainfield, Michigan discharges four million gallons of water per day into the Grand River that is of better quality than the river’s water. Other Michigan treatment plants can also produce effluents better than river water much of the time.


Wildlife habitats are improving, too. In a 2010 Detroit News article, Jim Lynch chronicled the repopulation of wildlife around Detroit, writing, “After decades of struggling to overcome the Detroit River’s polluted past, a variety of fish and bird species have re-established themselves ... [t]he budding osprey population is joined by increasing numbers of walleye, lake sturgeon and whitefish as well as bird species like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon.”​

Ours is. China's isn't.

Watching people strive to be like China where they work for 50cents (USD) and hour in order to stay competitive globally and watching them have "Smog days" out of school should teach the weak minded, but.....

So those all the only two alternatives: regulate ourselves into bankruptcy or turn into China?

Do you turds understand why no one pays attention to your idiocies any longer?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know this will drive the environmental wackos. "How dare anyone claim the environment is clean!"

Michigan s Environment is Cleaner than it s Been in More than 100 Years Michigan Capitol Confidential

Michigan's Environment is Cleaner Than it's Been in More Than 100 Years

Disease, contamination and pollutants are mostly in the past while

Many people view the relationship between humans and nature as a zero-sum game: Our progress comes at the direct expense of the environment. Actually, that’s not the case.


Recently, we’ve been able to dramatically improve our standard of living while simultaneously leaving behind a cleaner environment. In fact, Michigan’s environment is arguably cleaner than it has been in more than 100 years.


Consider how clean our drinking water has become. In the early 20th century, waterborne infectious diseases such as cholera, dysentery and typhoid were leading causes of death, and typhoid epidemics annually sickened thousands in American cities. With technological leaps in filtration – now to the level of filtering microbes and chemical compounds, disinfection and water analysis – these waterborne illnesses have been practically eradicated in Michigan and the United States.

The water in our rivers, lakes and streams is also less contaminated than it used to be. Treated wastewater and storm water contain significantly lower levels of contaminants, as technology and control systems have advanced. Some wastewater treatment plants in Michigan discharge water of higher quality than their receiving streams. For example, the PARCC Side Clean Water Plant in Plainfield, Michigan discharges four million gallons of water per day into the Grand River that is of better quality than the river’s water. Other Michigan treatment plants can also produce effluents better than river water much of the time.


Wildlife habitats are improving, too. In a 2010 Detroit News article, Jim Lynch chronicled the repopulation of wildlife around Detroit, writing, “After decades of struggling to overcome the Detroit River’s polluted past, a variety of fish and bird species have re-established themselves ... [t]he budding osprey population is joined by increasing numbers of walleye, lake sturgeon and whitefish as well as bird species like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon.”​

Ours is. China's isn't.

Watching people strive to be like China where they work for 50cents (USD) and hour in order to stay competitive globally and watching them have "Smog days" out of school should teach the weak minded, but.....

So those all the only two alternatives: regulate ourselves into bankruptcy or turn into China?

Do you turds understand why no one pays attention to your idiocies any longer?

Only you are saying regulate into bankruptcy.

Everyone else appears to understand the subject, while you have not a clue.

A robust economy and a clean, healthy environment are both possible.