Tuesday, August 09, 2005
What is the truth about the environment?
I was and remain deeply distressed about the reported level of mercury in Adirondack fish, and government warnings not to eat them. During my boyhood summers any bass larger than two pounds was consumed by the family. My father was the arbiter of what we kept and what we threw back, and while TH and I did not particularly enjoy cleaning and eating bass (although I find it tasty) we brought all our fish home because we needed a parental signature to enter them into the annual fishing contest at the lake.
On Thing One's second birthday, I cooked him freshly caught bass fillets for breakfast. This year, his first with his own fishing rod, he does not understand why he is not allowed to eat fish out of the lake and asked if we could change the rules. I told him we cannot.
Apparently the sources of the mercury level in Adirondack fish are the big smoke stacks in the midwest, which are also blamed for acid rain in the region. What I don't understand is how long mercurylevels have been elevated. Were we eating mercury laden fish back in the 1970s and didn't know it, or was it simply not an issue?
Given the re-emergence of other types of wildlife in the area, it is hard to believe that the environment is "worse" than it was in the 70s. Back then, I recall my grandmother describing the sound of a loon, and telling me how they used to live on the lake but had disappeared. Since 1990, there have been as many as three breeding pairs at any one time on the lake, and last week we saw a pair with two small young on several occasions, and enjoyed their haunting cries in the early morning. I am told that our lake's limit on boat size make it hospitable for loons, as they nest right on the water's edge and big boat wakes can swamp their nests. But we had no big boats in the 1970s, and no loons either.
For the past three or four years we have also had bald eagles nesting and breeding on the lake, something that was never present in decades past. Conventional wisdom attributes their long absence to the use of DDT, and their recovery to its ban. I never thought I would see an eagle outside of Alaska, and am thrilled to have them back. They are magnificent. But are they doomed to disappear again? Presumably they are living on our mercury laden fish.
12 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Aug 09, 12:29:00 PM:
So-called environmentalists have always been loose with the 'facts' so one can never be sure what if any are the real environmental dangers.
Mercury can cause health problems mostly mental but the level depends on age and other environmental factors. Mercury has been with us a long time. If one has 'silver' tooth fillings one is living constantly in presence of mercury in their bodies. Mercury has also been a preservative in vaccines under the name Thimerosol. The mercury in childrens vaccines is thought to contribute to learning disabilities.
The rap against DDT largely due to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring screed has been debunked. See
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm. The DDT ban has resulted in millions of unnecesdsary deaths from malaria.
By 
Catchy Pseudonym, at
Tue Aug 09, 04:47:00 PM:
When it comes to global warming, you guys are amazing. It's like seeing a car about to run you over, and instead of doing something about it you decide to argue whether it's really a car or not. You'll be momentarily comforted in you decision that it's not, just as it plows you over. The environment doesn't care whether you believe the warnings, or if you can convince others by using weak science that it's all a conspiracy. The environment is going to lay the smack down if you continually take a global dump in the world you live.
If find it interesting that most, and by most I mean pretty much every scientist all over the world, agree that global warming is real, and a real threat. Yet uninformed people and politicians are the ones that say it's not. I think I'll side with the scientists. The real ones, not the 2% who agree with you guys. Oh and there's Crichton, who's science has been has been refered to as really weak and writes fiction. Yes, it's fiction... to sell books. He is very intelligent in that regard.
It's not a conspiracy, and normally I wouldn't care what most people think except when their lack of concern and ignorance affect the health of me and my family. And Viking, when your children or their children choke on crap air, you can know it's God's retribution for your denial of the glaring obvious truth. Or maybe your Lutheran lifestyle gives you superpowers and gills. Do they mention that in the Bible? "And God sayeth unto thine hypocrites, let thine chosen Lutherans have super-powers and gills so that they may prosper while the evil beach-property owning heathens wallow in man's 120-degree ass pit of spew made by his own inventions." If so, I want to sign up to get my gills too.
Maybe you guys are right. Maybe they should bring back lead paint, leaded gas, and we can do bong hits of DDT. Do you know how much you guys sound like ultra left-wing nuts who think the medical community is all a lie. You guys are more similar than you'd ever know.
By joated, at
Tue Aug 09, 05:22:00 PM:
One of the many medical supplies Lewis and Clark took with them on their trek across the northwest was a supply of mercury pills. I forget what disease they were prescribed for, but the pills did no harm to the men. In fact, handling liquid mercury (or even ingesting it—how many children might have bitten through the old mercury thermometers) does minimal harm. Harm is done by mercury vapors. Hence, the “mad hatter” occurs when mercury vapors released from the felting process used to make the old beaver hats.
Far more likely you’d be affected by the vapors you inhale from your campfire than from the mercury in the fish you eat.
By , at
Tue Aug 09, 07:15:00 PM:
> If find it interesting that most, and by most I mean pretty much every scientist all over the world, agree that global warming is real, and a real threat.
That simply is not true.
My physics Ph.D. is in atmospheric spectroscopy. I am a contributor to the HITRAN database of atmospheric absorption parameters, on which global warming calculations are based. My contribution is carbon dioxide energy levels (see L.S. Rothman, R.L. Hawkins, R.B. Wattson, and R.R. Gamache, "Energy Levels, Intensities, and Linewidths of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Bands," J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 48, 537-566 (1992)).
There is widespread doubt in the scientific community about the size of global warming, and whether it is a significant threat. There is also doubt that a significant part of it can be attributed to human activities.
By , at
Tue Aug 09, 08:33:00 PM:
Thank you, Bob, for nicely debunking the global warming part of Catchy's fact-free rant.
As a chemical engineer, I can say with absolute certainty several things. One, the environment in the US is definitely a lot cleaner than it was in the 70's, largely due to environmental regulations and pollution abatement technologies. Second, despite what the LLL's like Catchy will tell you, it is continuing to get cleaner, the Bush administration has not swept away the entire pollution control apparatus/industry or the standards that it it helps to comply with in a scant 4 years (even if it were trying, which it is not).
The air and waters of the US are cleaner today than when Bush came into office, and continue to get cleaner.
Many of the regulatory changes that the Bush administration has made can be characterized as more 'industry friendly', but that does NOT mean that they are 'environment unfriendly', despite what the lefty envoronmental organizations will say. Unfortunately the environmental organizations have all been cmpletely taken over by leftists, who viscerally hate bush, so they have unanimously used their organizations to hammer at the administration - undeservedly so, IMO.
All that said, mercury contamination is a current envoronmental problem, largely caused by mercury released into the envoronment from burning coal. The mercury you have in your teeth as an amalgam is quite a different animal than the organically-sequestered mercury that is a danger in fish today, BTW, there is not parallel to be made there. Almost all fish today can be eaten safely in moderation by otherwise healthy individuals, although heavy fish diets should be avoided by pregnant women.
The current thimerasol development/autism scare is bunk, as far as supporting science is concerned - there isn't any. Yes, mercury is a poision (I used to work very closely with mercury in a mercury cell caustic soda plant), but there is no scientific causal link whatsoever between the small amounts of chemically bound mercury in thimerasol in vaccines and autism - as a matter of fact there are several studies disproving a link. But the trial lawyers won't let THAT stop them, there's money to be made! Just look at John Edwards, who made millions off of a nonexistent ceaserian/cerebral palsy link - who needs science?
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Tue Aug 09, 11:16:00 PM:
I do rant... it's the lack of sleep and caffeine. But are you trying to say the world isn't getting warmer? I have to say the majority of articles and studies that I've read about (even those who say human activity is not the cause) admit that that the world is definitely getting warmer. To me, that part of the debate should be over.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/08/earth.science/index.html
http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/crosscutting/climate.html
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?1049
I admit I'm bad with the reference links. By the time I hunt them down, the discussion usually moves onto something else. So I rant first. It's more fun. These links are from just five minutes of searching. Some of these discuss the debate over the cause, but all admit the world is hotter.
Yes I don't study carbon dioxide energy levels and don't know what the hell spectroscopy means, but I do listen to and read articles from scientists much smarter than myself, not to mention just observing events going on around the world. There are so many signs of global warming, hell they're wrapping tin foil around glaciers in the Alps just to keep them around for a little while longer. To deny it baffles me and makes me think there's either ignorance or an agenda going on. To not strive to eliminate the potential human causes of global warming defies common sense and puts the world in jeopardy.
And West, "The air and waters of the US are cleaner today than when Bush came into office." How can you back that up? Looks like you went on a little factless rant yourself.
"The current thimerasol development/autism scare is bunk..." No, it's not. There are plenty of studies out there to prove otherwise. Google it, you'll see.
"Yes, mercury is a poision..." then what are we arguing about? outside of the spelling of poison. It doesn't need to be in our environment.
(Sorry... spelling crack is lame. Feel free to point out my own mispelilngs.)
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Tue Aug 09, 11:37:00 PM:
Union of Concerned Scientists on Crichton...
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=316580&page=3
"In response to the use of its public service announcement in this "20/20's" segment, the Union of Concerned Scientists sent the following statement:
We hope Michael Crichton fans enjoy his new science-fiction thriller, while keeping in mind there is a very strong consensus among the vast majority of climate scientists that global warming is under way and human activity is a primary cause. Every time we drive a car, use electricity from coal-fired power plants, or heat our homes with oil or natural gas, we release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the air.
Technologies exist today that can cut emissions of heat-trapping gases and make a real difference in the health of our planet. These changes often have other positive benefits such as improving air quality, saving consumers money, reducing our dependence on oil, and creating new jobs and business opportunities.
Our political and business leaders have a responsibility to help move us toward a cleaner energy future. Public investments should shift away from polluting fossil fuels to support for clean renewable energy such as wind and solar power, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and more energy-efficient technologies. People from all walks of life can play a role in slowing global warming by advocating for smarter government policies, better corporate practices, and informed consumer choices."
also... http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2004/story12-13-04b.html
By , at
Wed Aug 10, 02:02:00 PM:
Catchy Pseudonym, there's also another threat to our world that will completely destroy our way of life as we know it. It's called continental drift, and eventually it will cause continents to run into each other! Flights to London will be 30% longer! Do you want that kind of world for your kids? Do you?
In all seriousness, you are correct in noting that most scientists agree we are in a warming trend. What is not agreed upon is the role we play in it. If you believe a bunch of scientists who are smarter than you don't have a political axe to grind, you're a moron. I'm an engineer, and I respond to data. As far as I'm concerned, the data is too questionable to warrant a response on the level suggested by these left wing lunatics. Remember, just thirty years ago, they were yelping about global cooling.
BTW, the post mentioned DDT - I guess our birds are more precious than the lives of countless children in the tropics, who have died as a result of malaria and other mosquito-borne illnesses. Thanks, Rachel, from thousands of families in my mother's homeland, the Philippines!
And the Union of Concerned Scientists is nothing but an organization of left wing hacks whose politics cloud any kind of scientific objectivity they might have.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Wed Aug 10, 02:33:00 PM:
I'm sure you guys would deny continental drift if a left-winger pointed it out. "Continents moving?! Why that's ridiculous. It's just those "continental drifters" at it again. Do you feel like your moving? My house is where it was last night... It's a conspiracy."
I find it hard to believe that you can write off the majority of the scientific community because every single member of it has a political axe to grind. If you think that, then you are yourself are a moron.
I find article after article, fact after fact, data after data (yes other people besides yourself use data) that proves it is happening, it's dangerous and we're the cause. But I know the winger thing to do is to dismiss every organization that doesn't believe in your view as a bunch of left-wing hacks. But a large majority of the world doesn't share your view, and are concerned about it. And my belief is, how can cutting down on pollution be a bad thing. Apparently you guys think things are going great! Why change. Mercury good, DDT good, no worries here.
I'm no Chicken Little. I don't think we all going to die... well we will all eventually die but not in some climate-induced Earth fart. But I do see a general malaise about dealing with global warming. And I fear that the climate changes are subtle and will be easy to dismiss until it is way too late. That people (and governments) are selfish, lazy, accustom to certain lifestyles and no one is going to change or do anything without some constant prodding and reminding that this is real and it's happening.
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Aug 11, 12:38:00 PM:
Hooray for Catchy Pseudonym!
Whether you believe that greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming or not, you can still agree that clean air is better than dirty air, that clean water is better than dirty water, that trees are better than parking lots. So let's get together on the practical end of things, then we can argue ideology.
Being Pro-pollution is untenable.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Fri Aug 12, 09:09:00 AM:
I propose a $500,000,000 cow flatulance study to be done. Then regardless of the results, requiring all cow owners to insert $20,000 cow emission filters into their cows' asses. Then maybe create some kind of cow emission point trading system, where a farmer of very flatulent cows could trade pollution points with farmers of less gassey cows. This is the only way to combat the problem. Cow flatulence - it's not just funny, it could kill you.
By , at
Tue Aug 16, 04:36:00 PM:
Bob,
Is this your most recent paper, "Improving information assimilation by modeling warfighter context"; Zaientz, Jack D.; Wood, Scott D.; Hawkins, Robert L.; Unmanned Ground Vehicle Technology VII. Proceedings of the SPIE, Volume 5805, pp. 153-164 (2005).
Abstract:
"In order to wage successful campaigns, the next generation of intelligence analysts and battle commanders will need to assimilate an enormous amount of information that will come from a wide range of heterogeneous data sources. Complicating this problem further is the fact that warfighters need to be able to manage information in an environment of rapidly changing events and priorities. The consequence of not addressing this problem, or not addressing it as effectively as hostile forces do, is a potential loss of assets, personnel, or tactical advantage. To design effective information displays there needs to be an extensible framework that models the warfighters context including characteristics of the information sources being displayed, the current Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) picture or Common Operating Picture (COP), the warfighters current state and task, and the state of the information display. BINAH (Battlespace Information and Notification through Adaptive Heuristics) uses an agent-based modeling approach coupled with research into temporal and spatial reasoning, novel display management techniques, and development of a formal high-level language for describing model-based information configuration. The result is an information configuration pipeline designed to provide perceptual and cognitive analysis support to Air Force analysts engaged in Time-Critical Targeting target nomination. It has been integrated with the Air Force Research Laboratory's (AFRL) XML-based Joint Battlespace Infosphere (JBI) combat information management system and combines JBI delivered sensor data with a local user model and display strategies to configure a geospatial information display. The BINAH framework will provide a firm grounding for developing new C4ISR displays that maximize the ability of warfighters to assimilate the information presented."
I don't know, maybe its another RL Hawkins. After all, its the first thing that shows up since 1992. But if it is you and you fell into black projects since 1992, then you might have mentioned that your current work is in Defense. And if it isn't you, then you might have mentioned that you haven't done any relevent research since 1992. You present yourself as an expert on the subject but a quick abstract search offers little support. Anyway, I agree with your statement as being technically true. But at the same time I find it misleading. There is little doubt that the earth is warming. And while its true that there are many contributing effects (some of the most important of which are barely understood), there is little doubt that pollution is an important contributor to this warming. And there is no doubt that atmospheric levels of many green house gasses are at levels not seen in a long long time and that this is due entirely to man. But there is huge doubt concerning the long term implications. Hell the models are all over the place, right. So then here's the thing, we (man) are making some big changes to a nonlinear dynamical system we barely understand. It would be foolish to not try to better understand the implications of our pollutants. And until we understand their consequences, it would be foolish not to curtail our contribution to the planet's warming. To me this is the irony to your position, the more uncertainty we have over the current situation and the final outcome, the more stupid we are for not cutting back on polution.
Walton
