Happy Earth Day!

[Parkbandit]

I wonder what amazing 'science' will come out of this years Earth Day? Here's some from the past:

• “…civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.

• By 1995, “…somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.

• Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor “…the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.

• The world will be “…eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age,” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.

• “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” biologist Barry Commoner, University of Washington, writing in the journal Environment, April 1970.

• “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from the intolerable deteriorations and possible extinction,” The New York Times editorial, April 20, 1970.

• “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…” Life magazine, January 1970.

• “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.

• “…air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone,” Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.

• Ehrlich also predicted that in 1973, 200,000 Americans would die from air pollution, and that by 1980 the life expectancy of Americans would be 42 years.

• “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.

• “By the year 2000…the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine,” Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.



And people wonder why I laugh at the latest 'predictions' from the Global Warming alarmists.

But like Gore.. I'm planning on riding this hysteria to the bank bitches!! GO GORE!!

[Gan]

Those quotes are awesome.

[NocturnalRob]

I had lunch outside today in Bryant Park with some friends. As I was leaving, there were some people handing out flyers (i'm not saying they were hippies, but they were wearing birkenstocks and bandanas), and wishing everyone a Happy Earth Day. Fine. Whatever. Thanks.

A girl I was with took one. It was thicker than posterboard and let everyone know different earth day facts and how to save the earth. I looked around...there were dozens of them strewn all over the park. There were a bunch shoved in the trashcans around as well.

My friend took the flyer back to Hippy Guy--

"Are these made from recyclable paper?"
"Umm...no."
"Are you planning on cleaning up the mess you made in the park?"
"Ummm..."
"How can you possibly claim to promote Earth Day when you're creating so much waste?"
"Ummm...we can pick them up before we leave."
"And then do what? Save them for next year?!"

There were a couple more comments, but whatever. You get the idea. It's not the promotion of Earth Day. It's just the hypocrisy and the lack of foresight that went into planning this.

[Mabus]

It's not the promotion of Earth Day. It's just the hypocrisy and the lack of foresight that went into planning this.
While not about Earth Day, I remember getting a hand bill for a "Save the Rain Forest Festival". It listed the date, the venue, all the bands, a "fabulous light show" and at the bottom in all cap's:

HUGE BONFIRES!

I had a great laugh at the thought of a benefit to save those poor peasants from burning trees to plant farms so that we could have bonfires at outdoor music festivals.

[longshot]

PB, that was great. Thanks for posting that.

[Nieninque]

• “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.

Well that one is right...although I'm pretty sure it was happening in 1970 anyway. I don't believe Live Aid was the birth of the famine.

[Keller]

Here's my point, and I've said it till I'm fucking blue in the face but people continue to squabble about whether global warming is true: we will have another ice age. It is in our best interests to develope reasonable and effective methods of geo-engineering to reverse any dramatic shifts in the atmosphere/temperature. Whether its caused by man or the natural cycles of mother earth, we have in our power the possibility of saving our civilization from one possible threat but no one wants to talk about that. Instead they want to be "right" about whatever global phenomenon is occuring at that place and time.

[crb]

The only constant about climate in Earth's billion year history is change.

[Asha]

The only constant about climate in Earth's billion year history is change.

.....
Genius.

[Parkbandit]

.....
Genius.

It's this obvious thing that is missing in most climate crisis theories.

[crb]

ps... this guy should be the one we go too for the environment, not Al Gore:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120882720657033391.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries

[TheEschaton]

LOL @ WSJ Op-Ed.

(Edit: Not to mean I don't find Greenpeace hilariously awful, though. I'm glad "the environment" is not one of my causes.)

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

Hippy.

[crb]

Did you bother clicking the link? The guy is the cofounder of Greenpeace, maybe he knows what he's talking about, hmm?

But no, WSJ published it, so it must be some capitalist bullshit right paid for by the oil companies and big pharma of course....

[crb]

ps, think he's the same dude interviewed here:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Penn-Teller-Bullshit-Environmental-Hysteria

[TheEschaton]

LOL, I think my edit addresses your concerns. Greenpeace does good work, but like any progressive organization, takes in anyone who has something nominally related in the hopes of being "inclusive" and "diverse". I would not label Greenpeace's work as these three campaigns against various industrial chemicals.

That the WSJ was looking for an op-ed addressing only these three criticisms of GP, and not all the good it does in doing real conservation work, is what I was LOLing at. The Op-Ed page of the WSJ has long been known to be a haven for right wing parrots.

-TheE-

[Miss Ismurii]

:hippie: hippy.

[crb]

LOL, I think my edit addresses your concerns. Greenpeace does good work, but like any progressive organization, takes in anyone who has something nominally related in the hopes of being "inclusive" and "diverse". I would not label Greenpeace's work as these three campaigns against various industrial chemicals.

That the WSJ was looking for an op-ed addressing only these three criticisms of GP, and not all the good it does in doing real conservation work, is what I was LOLing at. The Op-Ed page of the WSJ has long been known to be a haven for right wing parrots.

-TheE-
And hitler was a vegetarian who loved animals and was against unemployment.

A few good works are no excuse for extremism.

[Miss Ismurii]

It's Jenix's player's B-day today too =]

[Parkbandit]

Bump for Earth Day 2010!

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Today is Bring Your Child to work day at my office. I bet the germ donkeys get me sick.

[AnticorRifling]

Today is Bring Your Child to work day at my office. I bet the germ donkeys get me sick.

Quit touching the children and you won't have that problem.

[NocturnalRob]

Quit touching the children and you won't have that problem.
Now you tell me!

[Vyst]

.

[Xanator]

Today is also my birthday. I imagine I'll celebrate in the traditional way (scattering uncut six-pack rings in the forest while spraying aerosol cans at the sky) just as soon as I turn on all the lights in my house, open the refrigerator, and finish my tub bath.

[Cephalopod]

http://media.pennlive.com/photogallery/photo/5fbdf9ec402bddcbb40336558bba7cc5_custom_665xauto.j pg

[Vyst]

.

[Showal]

The concept of earth day is a fucking oxymoron. A day is defined by the rotation of the earth, therefore every day is an "earth day".

That part aside, how stupid is it that we're supposed to take 1/365 of our lives to celebrate the place where we live and how we're completely sustained? Are we so busy that we can give the earth back just one of its "days"? I love you earth! I'm going to be grateful for you 0.3% of the time!

The only thing dumber than this is "earth hour". For those of you fortunate enough to have not heard of this, you're supposed to turn all the lights off in your house 1 hour a week in an effort to save the earth.

Uh. What?

So we've upgraded from 1/365 of our lives to 1/168? Or can we assume you're doing both and add them together for a whopping 0.9% of your time on earth actually showing gratitude for that earth?

Don't get me wrong here. I'm all for turning your lights off and saving excess electricity to save on money, resources, and to give our electrical grid a break. I'm also for showing gratitude for the earth, because it is indeed the place where we live and it really needs to be taken care of in a time we're destroying it as fast as we possibly can. But don't parade around me like your on some sacred mission to save the earth by shutting your lights off an hour a week. From what I've seen, most "environmentally minded" people wouldn't know an environmental issue if it smashed them in the face.

It's almost like the environmental movement was created and is maintained as a distraction for keeping well-meaning people from actually doing something constructive for the environment.

Slight change of subject: from what I understand it actually takes more chemicals and energy to "recycle" something than it does to just make it in the first place. Does anyone know a little more on this subject?

You are in no way restricted to just one hour a week or one day a year, or a combination of the two. If you believe you're not too busy, then by all means, make this something you actively work on more than one day a year. Don't let a "holiday" hold you back.

Mother day is one day a year. Do you only think and pay attention to your mother for 1/365th of your year?

Sadly, without times like Earth Day, most people wouldn't even think of the Earth a single day out of the year.

I'm all for setting aside days or even hours of the week that can sort of formalize and popularize responsibility for our Earth. For example, my office building gave out mugs for Earth Day to everyone today. They also made the announcement that they'll not order paper cups for the coffee machines anymore after June 1st. That'll save 7000 paper cups a week. I am quite sure no one would have thought to have done this if Earth Day didn't make them think about doing something.

You're right, it's sad that for some people that's all there is, but on the other hand, at least it's something.

[Vyst]

.

[Latrinsorm]

You vastly overstate the effects of the causes you agree with ("toxic", "radioactive wasteland") and vastly underestimate the effects of those you disagree with. The way you describe GMO as "contaminating the Earth" makes me feel like you're trolling, though, so I'll leave it at that.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

You vastly overstate the effects of the causes you agree with ("toxic", "radioactive wasteland") and vastly underestimate the effects of those you disagree with. The way you describe GMO as "contaminating the Earth" makes me feel like you're trolling, though, so I'll leave it at that.

My thoughts, too, but I will elaborate.

I dislike Monsanto and disagree with their business practices (I take issue with patenting genes in the first place) but that doesn't make the practice of using a scientific process to speed up something humans have been doing for centuries (it simply took longer) evil or inherently 'bad'. The earth is no more 'polluted' by genetically-modified seed created in the span of a week in a lab than it was when farmers would select only the best/hardiest/whatever of their seeds and breed only those. Corn as we know it today or even a half century ago is only the way it is because of the process of selective breeding done to wild corn (maize) long ago. There are non-profits that work on developing GMOs for use by farmers and people living in regions that regularly experience drought and crop failure, and thus famine and starvation. I'm not going to condemn a scientific advancement that could potentially save thousands of lives globally and better utilize land here in the US. Do I think the laws need to be re-examined and changed to stop the abuses that come with patenting genes? Yes, absolutely, but I CAN see the forest for the trees.

[Vyst]

.

[Amber]

Ok, the fact that 7000 fewer cups per week are going to be used isn't, in and of itself, going to make a significant difference. However, when multiple companies enact similar policies, the effects are cumulative so that the baby steps made by individual companies and people can turn into huge advances overall. Also, while paper consumption and waste may not be the biggest challenge to our planet, it's naive to consider them negligible issues.

[Rocktar]

Slight change of subject: from what I understand it actually takes more chemicals and energy to "recycle" something than it does to just make it in the first place. Does anyone know a little more on this subject?

Incorrect. Glass takes about 1/3 less energy to make using recycled glass. Plastic takes 10% of the energy to recycle as needed to make new plastic.

http://www.wisegeek.com/does-plastic-or-glass-require-more-energy-to-recycle.htm

Recycled Aluminum takes 5% of the energy needed to make it from raw ore. Steel saves about 60% of the energy needed to refine it from raw ore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling

Now, some things are not 100% recyclable, plastics for instance usually produce some residue that cannot be reused by current mass production recycling methods. Most other materials will leave some residue however most of that is from additional materials like ink, glue and other things added in the manufacture of the final product.

Now, what is interesting to note is that a new technology shows promise in producing energy and being self sustaining while recycling most hydrocarbon materials. Plasma arc gasification, which can be seen here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_arc_waste_disposal) will be more efficient in reducing waste products and shows much promise for the future of recycling plastics and fuel wastes.

There are 3 benefits from recycling, reduced use of primary natural resources, reduced use of energy in the manufacture process and reduced volume of waste needing disposal in landfills. There is no case where large scale recycling is going on where it takes MORE to produce the final product than to use raw resources. There are techniques used that are impractical however and thus, they are not used large scale. One such instance is the use of liquid nitrogen to freeze radial tires to facilitate the separation of the metal and other belt materials from the rubber. While 100% effective, it simply isn't cost effective to use. So, tires for the most part are ground up in large machines to use as road mix filler with the belting material mixed in which does work and is quite cost efficient.

For a chemical engineer (I think you said you were or were working on it) you fell for the same old "he said, she said" thing that the general populous does. You should know better and google it.

[Cephalopod]

I dislike Monsanto and disagree with their business practices (I take issue with patenting genes in the first place) but that doesn't make the practice of using a scientific process to speed up something humans have been doing for centuries (it simply took longer) evil or inherently 'bad'.



Pardon me for being so direct, but this simply isn't true. Genetically modifying organisms is not what farmers have been doing for centuries. There's a difference between separating out the best of your crop and splicing genes. Example: Monsanto's new SmartStax corn. It has eight modified genes. Six of which are for pest resistance and two for herbicide tolerance.

(...more railing against Monsanto...)


You realize you just spent half of your post refuting a point that was acknowledged early in the post you responded to, but didn't respond to the actual key point of that post? (i.e. "Using science to improve crops isn't inherently bad.")

Just making sure.

[Back]

If someone goes around and says “fuck the Earth” aren’t they basically saying “fuck everybody else” since the Earth is common property to everyone?

If someone says “fuck environmentalism” aren’t they also basically saying “fuck you and your kids” since we all share the environment?

I mean, if someone were to come over to your house, and starts throwing trash on the floor, or start pissing in the closet, or start burning stuff, or pouring toxic chemicals in your water pitcher, or shitting on the carpet, wouldn’t you basically tell them to GTFO?

[Parkbandit]

If someone goes around and says “fuck the Earth” aren’t they basically saying “fuck everybody else” since the Earth is common property to everyone?

If someone says “fuck environmentalism” aren’t they also basically saying “fuck you and your kids” since we all share the environment?

I mean, if someone were to come over to your house, and starts throwing trash on the floor, or start pissing in the closet, or start burning stuff, or pouring toxic chemicals in your water pitcher, or shitting on the carpet, wouldn’t you basically tell them to GTFO?

And you really aren't drunk right now?

People saying something isn't the same as actually affecting anything.. Except maybe your feelings.

And are you now saying if someone takes a shit in the woods, we should put them on a rocket and tell them to GTFO our planet?

[Back]

And you really aren't drunk right now?

People saying something isn't the same as actually affecting anything.. Except maybe your feelings.

And are you now saying if someone takes a shit in the woods, we should put them on a rocket and tell them to GTFO our planet?

When Joe Dipshit doesn't believe in environmentalism and dumps his old antifreeze down the sewer he is becoming a public nuisance to not only the current but future population and should be arrested.

[Parkbandit]

When Joe Dipshit doesn't believe in environmentalism and dumps his old antifreeze down the sewer he is becoming a public nuisance to not only the current but future population and should be arrested.

When Joe Dipshit dumps his old antifreeze down the sewer.. how is he affecting Billy McBob who lives in a small village in Ireland?

Oh.. he's not.

Stop being stupid.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

You're right, I'm sorry. I guess I am being pretty biased when I say that hexafluorosilicic acid, sodium fluosilicate, and the heavy metals found with them when produced from the aluminum industry (arsenic, cadmium, lead, uranium, etc. (http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/tenorm/aluminum.html)) are toxic, despite the fact it says it right on the bag (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZRWvcvPo3o) (pause the video at 0:06).

And I must be overstating to even suggest that depleted uranium creates (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=117557&sectionid=351020201) a (http://www.infowars.com/depleted-uranium-is-destroying-life/) radioactive (http://www.seattlepi.com/national/95178_du12.shtml) wasteland (http://www.infowars.com/israel-using-depleted-uranium-against-gaza-victims/). Man (http://uruknet.info/index.php?p=m58926&hd=&size=1&l=e) I'm such (http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m25045&hd=0&size=1&l=e) a troll (http://blacklistednews.com/news-421-0-6-6--.html).

And I'm definitely trolling to even think that Monsanto and other GMO companies have anything but our best (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18499) interests (http://www.infowars.com/death-of-the-bees-gmo-crops-and-the-decline-of-bee-colonies-in-north-america/) at heart (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14570).

I also have to admit that it's quite the understatement to say that CO2 isn't toxic and is fundamental to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle) all life on earth (http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/478.html).



Pardon me for being so direct, but this simply isn't true. Genetically modifying organisms is not what farmers have been doing for centuries. There's a difference between separating out the best of your crop and splicing genes. Example: Monsanto's new SmartStax corn. It has eight modified genes. Six of which are for pest resistance and two for herbicide tolerance.

Doesn't sound all that bad, right?

However, if you look into the specific genes you find that three of the eight have literally grafted genes from a bacteria called bacillus thuringiensis into the corn! Here is an example (http://www.monsanto.com/pdf/products/yieldgard_vt_pss.pdf) of the patented gene YieldGard in SmartStax. Bacillus thuringiensis naturally creates proteins (http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/insect/05556.html) that bind to the guts of certain bugs so they can't digest their food and they starve to death. Now the corn makes the same proteins inside itself at levels WAY higher than the original bacteria. Simply put: SmartStax corn naturally produces pesticides and you're supposed to be safe eating it.

Combine this with Monsanto's wonderful business practices of suing farmers when their seed contaminates the farmers' fields (http://www.savethepinebush.org/News/04FebMar/PercySchmeiser.html), you begin to quickly see how these GMOs, which in my humble opinion are nothing more than contaminated crops, will proliferate.

This is to say nothing about the Terminator seeds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seed_controversy) which are incapable of reproducing, forcing farmers to purchase their seed from Monsanto each year instead of keeping their own and "doing what farmers have been doing for centuries".

Again, I will reiterate that cutting down on your paper cup usage, while in and of itself is a great way to reduce waste, is not doing anything to significantly impact or slow the current whole environmental destruction of the earth.
You pretty much completely missed the whole point of my post, genius.

And yes, I stand by what I said- farmers have been dabbling in genetics from the beginnings of us becoming farmers and not just hunter gatherers, it's just that now thanks to science we can do it faster.

I've already pointed out that a) I disagree with monsanto's business practices and b) I think patent law and laws in general related to GMO's need to be reexamined and rewritten.

HOWEVER, it doesn't make GMOs inherently evil, bad, unhealthy, or "polluting the earth".

TL;DR version.. stop railing against monsanto because you're preaching to the choir there, but stop being a dipshit and hating a technology due to a business practice and not for its actual merit.

[Methais]

If someone goes around and says “fuck the Earth” aren’t they basically saying “fuck everybody else” since the Earth is common property to everyone?

If someone says “fuck environmentalism” aren’t they also basically saying “fuck you and your kids” since we all share the environment?

I mean, if someone were to come over to your house, and starts throwing trash on the floor, or start pissing in the closet, or start burning stuff, or pouring toxic chemicals in your water pitcher, or shitting on the carpet, wouldn’t you basically tell them to GTFO?

Just like saying "fuck Obama" is saying "fuck black people."

Right?

PS: This is how I celebrate Earth Day:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/GamerDump.jpg

[Methais]

Here's my point, and I've said it till I'm fucking blue in the face but people continue to squabble about whether global warming is true: we will have another ice age. It is in our best interests to develope reasonable and effective methods of geo-engineering to reverse any dramatic shifts in the atmosphere/temperature. Whether its caused by man or the natural cycles of mother earth, we have in our power the possibility of saving our civilization from one possible threat but no one wants to talk about that. Instead they want to be "right" about whatever global phenomenon is occuring at that place and time.

http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/trolled_hard.jpg

[Vyst]

.

[Vyst]

.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

You're disregarding all the good and potential for good from GMOs because of something 1 company is doing that you disagree with. That is condemning a process due to business practices and not on the merit of the process itself.

[Back]

Definitely. And when high-ranking officials in the military make the necessary arrangements to use depleted uranium munitions in foreign wars (and testing grounds at home), knowing full well the incredible danger and toxicity to human beings and the environment for thousands of years (despite the fact that tungsten is more effective at armor-piercing), they should be promoted and patted on the back. Joe Dipshit is definitely the greater of two evils in this case.

Not in the least. And I have no idea how you are making that connection by what I posted. I sure as hell do not condone the use of depleted uranium for munitions.

You have this passive/aggressive attitude of absolutes and say nonsense like “while I believe not polluting is a good thing, the people who tell you not to pollute are crazy liars”.




Seriously, did you even read the rest of the thread before you posted?

Sorry, who the fuck said I had to?

[Cephalopod]

Not sure I was hating technology due to a business practice, but we'll say I was.


You're effectively saying "GMO" crops are bad. That's throwing the needs-driven GMO crop baby out with the profit-driven GMO crop bathwater.



So you think grafting bacteria genes into corn genes is just speeding up what farmers have been doing for thousands of years?

The point is that farmers have used science and technology to improve farming over the last thousands of years. We have learned a lot about selective breeding, animal husbandry, herbicides, pesticides, and much more. We'd be idiots not to put that to use, so we do.

While your specific example (Bt corn) may or may not turn out well, grafting genes is a new wave of science and it will likely help crop productions around the world in the coming decades.

Your brand of "OMG IT'S BAD!" alarmism is very similar to back in the mid-90s, when scientists first genetically modified tomatoes with Cauliflower Mosaic virus. These scientists were using small interfering RNA (siRNA) methods before they were even 'discovered'; and the result? Tomatoes that ripen on the vine that blazed a trail into genetically modified foods.

But... then there's the evil side. The wicked side. Combining a virus with foodstuffs!? OH NOES (http://www.psrast.org/jccamv.htm)! If you incorporated viral DNA into the genome of a plant, then that DNA could mix/match with other viruses and bacteria to create the ultimate super-bug that will kill everyone and everything on this planet!

...except it doesn't actually work that way, despite Joseph E. Cummins's assertions.

Fast forward to today, and obviously Monsanto acquired the rights to the FlavrSavr, and they never really took off thanks to newer LSL tomatoes... but you can't discount the importance of this discovery or that fact that genetically engineered food is an important step in future farming.



(read that article I posted about bees, at least).


I can't tell what article you linked about bees, please relink? (I'm not being snarky -- I looked, and didn't see it.)

[Vyst]

.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Sorry, everyone's right. I really do exaggerate about everything. DU isn't that bad and companies lowering their paper cup usage are making a difference. Genetic engineering is great and many positive things have come from it. Current GMOs are great for the earth and are an awesome and safe source of nutrition. I recommend everyone incorporate them into their diets.

I'll quit trolling and let everyone get back to their normal lives.

They already are in pretty much everything and you consume them daily.

Your hate for genetic engineering would amuse me were it not absolutely infuriating to me that people who have never faced famine/starvation are so against something for reasons that have no basis in fact or science. Fucktards of your ilk go after the non-profits that develop drought-proof seeds for starving Africans. Keep fighting the good fight!!!1

[Cephalopod]

Sorry, everyone's right. I really do exaggerate about everything. DU isn't that bad and companies lowering their paper cup usage are making a difference. Genetic engineering is great and many positive things have come from it. Current GMOs are great for the earth and are an awesome and safe source of nutrition. I recommend everyone incorporate them into their diets.

I'll quit trolling and let everyone get back to their normal lives.

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kw5cadkoyu1qa3536o1_400.jpg

[Bobmuhthol]

I'm late to the party but is anyone not "against unemployment"?

[Latrinsorm]

I guess I am being pretty biased when I say that hexafluorosilicic acid, sodium fluosilicate, and the heavy metals found with them when produced from the aluminum industry (arsenic, cadmium, lead, uranium, etc.) are toxic, despite the fact it says it right on the bag (pause the video at 0:06).Cadmium is toxic. Water with cadmium in it is not necessarily toxic - if you have 1 atom of cadmium in a billion gallons of water, it is an exaggeration to describe the water as toxic. In the same fashion, no one disagrees that uranium (of any kind) is radioactive. Your description of countries with uranium in them as radioactive wastelands is the exaggeration part.

[Showal]

I'll give it one more shot before I give up:

I'm not just saying it's negligible, I'm saying it's negative. The reason being is that people who are actually well-meaning and very interested in cleaning up and harmonizing in the place they live are putting their energy and time into something incredibly insignificant while utter rampant environmental destruction goes on around them. Using less paper cups in and of itself is great, but if you think you're "doing your part to save the earth" by doing it, your energy has been completely wasted. If you don't feel that some of the previous examples I gave aren't examples of rampant environmental destruction, then I don't know what else to say.

You're putting a LOT of emphasis on my company's reducing the use of paper cups. I doubt anyone at my company thought that cutting out 7000 paper cups a week would offset our state's reliance on coal power plants. I don't think anyone thought that we were doing a significant job to change environmental destruction.

While it might be insignificant, it's not completely wasted energy. It did not take a significant amount of energy to stop our standing orders on paper cups. All in all, this act probably involved two or three employees giving up about 3 or 4 hours of one working day.

Sometimes, it's the thought that can make a difference. It would be foolish to stop doing things because they're not having a significant impact on improving the environment. I turn off the faucet when I brush my teeth. I bet the 0.04 kcal of energy wasted on turning the handle is truly wasted effort, but it doesn't mean I shouldn't do it. Getting in my car to drive from one end of the mall to the other would save my legs the effort and wouldn't significantly affect the environment, but I still don't do it. I guess I should get in my car, race across the mall, then race home and use the 10 minutes of time saved to single handedly stop global warming. That would be a significant impact.

Small things, while each by themselves, may be insignificant, they can add up.

The average American only drives 25 miles a day. If ONE of those Americans decides not to drive it, but use a bike, should we say he's having a negative impact because he, alone, is not significantly impacting the environment? Should we even tell him that his efforts are wasted?

Your arguments have essentially been "Earth Day and Earth Hour are a waste of time because there are such bad things out there that are more significant". My point was Earth Day and Earth Hour popularize putting in the thought and energy to better our planet's situation.

I doubt the vast majority of people believe they've done their duty by participating in either activity. I doubt anyone really at my work wiped their hands and thought that because our company cut their use of paper cups, they can feel less guilty about their own waste at home.

If you need to get more into my company's thought of being environmentally concious, they've constructed the building to optimize the use of natural light, so we rarely use any supplemental lighting during the day. This is in part a response to my last company, which constructed the largest platinum rated LEED building in the world, in the same city. That one building, insignificant over the scale of the world, inspired numerous other buildings in our city. People have come from other companies all across the world to view that building, take a tour, and use a lot of the same ideas in their own constructions.

So, yeah ... while insignificant in and of itself, the effort put towards energy conservation and waste reduction and emissions reduction can, and will, inspire competition. "Company A built this building. The positive PR that building raised takes the focus off us. Let's outdo them."

[Tea & Strumpets]

Off topic, but that last duck picture made me laugh.

[Rocktar]

I would refute your second long post Vyst about depleted uranium (it is better than anything else used for armor piercing sabot ammunition, let me give you 2 hints why "cross-sectional density" and "fluid mechanics of liquid and plasma metals") and all the other exaggerations you made, as well as the information regarding the "radioactive wasteland" of Iraq and gulf War Syndrome but really, it comes down to this in a nutshell:

Extremist views backed by very thin science, perpetuated by reporters with a vested interest in selling ratings.