B
bizorky
Guest
Are you saying there is naturally occurring Deca-BDE or PVC in plants and animals?
Nope. Didn't say that all.
Who cares what chemicals exist at the center of the planet... obviously if there is an unnaturally high temperature any chemical is possible but a chemical made in a factory at over 80'C has little chance of existing on the surface of the planet barring volcanic eruption. Maybe because hot lava comes out of the ground naturally we should take nickel mine tailings from Sudbury and simply sprinkle them over the rain forests to simulate a volcanic eruption? If I draw a moustache on Mona Lisa does is it toxic or damaging? Where is the scientic evidence of harm... some people like a good moustache don't they? If I dump relatively inert garbage on your front lawn which is non-toxic is it really a problem? Where is the scientific evidence that the Coke can on your lawn and my dogs feces isn't actually good for your lawn... perhaps I was helping you out.
Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean here.
Maybe you are expecting science to justify all change we exert on the environment but I don't believe that this planet is ours to consume and spit out. Just because an asteroid might hit the planet in a few weeks and destroy the planet it hardly justifies us blowing it up now. So a chemical might exist in volcanic lava... well volcanic lava hasn't shown up on the St.Clair river lately so should there be new sources of those chemicals on the St.Clair river?
Expecting science to justify change? Again, I'm not too sure what you are getting at here. You are speaking as if science is a monolith, some kind of purpose-oriented bulldozer. At its most basic, science is knowledge. The notion of "consuming and spitting out" could also be described as "ingesting and excreting." No doubt too much excrement can make the local environment a little foul. Too little can also have negative effects. So it's worth understanding something about the range of "too much" and "too little."
With respect to large systems like climate, animal population and the like, balance is a nice word, but too tame. Dynamic equilibrium is a little more accurate. Take a look at global history and you will quickly see that things don't remain in some idealized, perfect balance. There are fluctuations that on the small, local level appear catastophic. these are the "natural" processes of the planet. The trouble is you seem to be mixing many different topics up here.
You aren't going to be convinced that there is a natural balance in the environment and that we shouldn't be the ones unbalancing it. The oceans are large so rather than trying to deal with "so called" toxic substances (everything is toxic so WTF are they talking about right??) simply dump them at sea... the chemicals probably already exist somewhere and once the sea dilutes it probably will be no biggie. Dinosaurs went extinct so maybe those whales are meant to go next... might as well get their blubber while we can. The atmosphere is huge and will dilute whatever crap we expel into it eventually... and who is to say a volcanic eruption wouldn't have done it anyways. Avian flu is probably going to kill more people than gangsters in Toronto so why worry about it... violence is normal in the animal kingdom. In history we would have had a big war by now... many we are overdue and should get at it.
Convinced? Why, because you say it? You invoke a nice word like "balance" and demand that everyone live by it? But what do you mean by "balance?" Should we get back to the "balanced" life as it existed in 1900? Or maybe 1200? Or maybe 15,000 BCE? Should live the "balanced" life of Medieval peasants or Neanderthals? Again,which one? The species we belong to has gone from a few million to over six billion in 10,000 years. What do you call the "balance?"
You live in a human-built city, by some measures a totally "unnatural" environment, constructed out of a huge menu of materials that have been fabricated, chemically altered, treated and so on. You share that city with millions of people and rely on artificail agricultural techniques to sustain yourself. You light your home by way of a artificially imposed electrical grid, the electricity derived from heat capture of atomic fission in a highly structured process. You use artificial techniques of mobility to get around that city of millions of people, devices also fabricated and processed. You wear clothing made, in many cases, of "unnatural" fibres, and with chemically created dyes. You've eaten foods that have been processed, treated and packaged, in many cases for your very safety. You've been innoculated against diseases which could only have been done through "unnatural" laboratory processes, and could very well find yourself protected from a pandemic because of these unnatural processes.
So amid this, what do you mean by "balance?"
I could go on, but won't.