I hate President Bush so much. It's colder than crap in Indiana- highs in the 40s. This weekend we had half inch thick hunks of ice raining down. Almost the end of April, and there's snow piling up on the car. Stupid Bush.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
76 - Demi
This is such a Hot topic!!! Oh my, Oh my ohmyoh moyamo moy a a a a ahhhhh.
thanks guys
77 - Dave Nalle
Richard, are you honestly trying to say that our waterways and groundwater are MORE polluted now than they were 30 years ago? Can you even honestly say that they're as much as half as polluted overall as they were in the 70s?
Dave
78 - Al Barger
Has anyone got an mp3 of the instantly infamous Randi Rhodes radio comedy sketch that supposedly involves promoting shooting W? There was a link for a fan page on Drudge, but they look to have been instantly overwhelmed by the Drudge traffic.
79 - Richard
Dave,
I am saying the pollutants in our waterways today are less understood than the ones used back in the 70's. The implications of endocrine disrupting chemicals and the interactions of these and the drugs pissed out of old and sick people are a growing threat to our waterways and no one is doing anything about it. The Clean Water Act was not designed to address these problems. I also believe that there are more waterways that are polluted than in the 70's, just due to population increases. Richard
80 - Dave Nalle
The Clean Water act does theoretically keep wastewater from getting into our rivers directly, so that ought to minimize the impact anything coming from the urine of old people even if that's not included specifically in the act.
Dave
81 - Richard
Dave,
Bush and his cronies keep making the sewage treatment plant rules laxer and laxer, so yes although you are right that a total revamp of nearly all sewage treatment plants would put clean water back into the system, the republicans just this year made it even more difficult to have clean water in our streams and ocean. Richard
82 - Richard
The Clean Water act does theoretically keep wastewater from getting into our rivers directly, so that ought to minimize the impact anything coming from the urine of old people even if that's not included specifically in the act.
Dave, Your staement above shows how little you know of this subject. Circular thinking/statements aren't convincing
83 - Dave Nalle
Frankly, Richard, your doomsaying is extraordinarily unconvincing. If this is all such a problem where are the studies, where are the disasters, where's the 'smoking gun' as it were?
And as for Bush's environmental regulations all I've seen are minor changes, some of which actually strengthen regulations. Plus this kind of regulation is properly the role of state legislatures and Bush doesn't control them.
Dave
84 - Richard
Dave, I gave you a link to information on endocrine disruptors, I told you that BushCo has eased the sewage treatment plant rules this year,(find it yourself) and there is no doomsday scenario at all. It is what is is Dave.
Tell me, what environmental regulations regarding water have been strengthened? There Are None! Absolutely None, and Water is the Subject here Buddy Boy! If you read all of my posts here you would see that Bush avoids studies so there appears to be no problem, or did you fail to grasp that?
85 - jadester
methinks the key with the environment, as with so many other issues, is [i]balance[/i]. And, [b]as with so many other issues[/b], it's the more extreme elements on both sides that actually serve to fuel each others' tempers, leaving the moderates on both sides feeling somewhat annoyed and fed up with the whole argument.
I suppose I can be grateful that here in england, at least, our environmental lobbyists do not seem anywhere near so effective. Which in turn, means the "green" cause does not lose quite so much credibility to extreme elements.
However, seeing as how the US is so much larger, maybe you guys should send alll the extreme people on both sides over here, and we'll swap them for the moderates over here, and just maybe we can come up with a reasonable solution?
Hah! i must be drunk to even consider such a pipe dream...
86 - Dave Nalle
>>Tell me, what environmental regulations regarding water have been strengthened? There Are None! Absolutely None, and Water is the Subject here Buddy Boy! If you read all of my posts here you would see that Bush avoids studies so there appears to be no problem, or did you fail to grasp that?<<
Getting a bit defensive, are we? Ever bothered to read the EPAs regulations on water? While there may not have been major legislation on water quality during the Bush administration, the EPA has been quite active in monitoring the types of contaminants you're concerned about and issuing regulations under the authority of existing law impacting disposal of waste and monitoring and treatment of ground and surface water. It's all there on the EPA website.
Perhaps you should check out some of the recent new regulations, like the new rules making dyes and pigments hazardous waste. If you search the site you can find new regulations on all sorts of questionable substances. Sure looks like they're still doing their job under Bush.
Dave
87 - RJ
That's the thing. Executive-branch agencies essentially make their own law. And federal courts generally uphold these laws.
So, while there may not have been any mojor federal legislation on the particular issue of water pollution over the last 4+ years, that does not mean that increased standards and regulations haven't been approved...
88 - Richard
Dave, as usual, you don't seem to read much what others write. The things I am concerned about are drugs and personal care products into the sewage treatment plants. No one has issued any regulations about their disposal into the sewers, what are they going to do, ask you to pee somewhere else? What about Bush's poor attempt at eliminating Clintons arsenic standards, and subsequent rollover?
89 - Richard
Dave, Sorry, the link you gave was as stupid as your argument. Tell me more about water, not hazardous wastes. Richard
90 - Nancy
I'm still boggled by the male roe-carrying fish. Will that apply to male humans, too? Does that mean GUYS will now have an equal chance at getting pregnant? Yee-HAH! I KNEW there had to be justice somewhere in the universe!
91 - sydney
Richard,
Bush won't touch those issues (re. drugs/personal care products).
IT isnt an issue thats on teh forefront of Ameria's conscience and so he'll ignore it. Same as most politicians do, and same as GWB always does.
92 - Dave Nalle
I guess I'm missing something here, Richard. You now think that water is in and of itself dangerous? Isn't the problem actually the hazardous wastes and the process by which they get into the water? That's what the link I provided addresses. In this case specifically hazardous waste relating to personal care products, which is what you brought up.
And don't keep trying to blame this on Bush. This is the sort of thing the EPA should deal with and has dealt with in the past primarily on its own authority. It doesn't require presidentially-signed legislation.
Dave
93 - Richard
Dave, care to comment on arsenic? How about sewage treatment plants? Or the clean water act? or is it just Bush is doing a good job and the rivers are cleaner than ever? What a load! Come on, give me something! BTW, George's appointees for the EPA are a very sorry lot.
94 - Dave Nalle
I'm opposed to arsenic and sewage, except in the cases of certain individuals who refuse to see reason, in which case I recommend the first for ingestion and the second for bathing.
I do like facts, though. Regardless of your endless dooming and glooming, the rivers are cleaner and the EPA is passing measures to control all sorts of pollutants under the authority of the clean water act and other acts. You can not like Bush all you want, but you can't change these basic facts.
Dave
95 - Richard
Dave, to bad you can't present any facts that you proclaim to "like".
Again, I am not dooming and glooming, you cannot prove that our waters are cleaner. And the EPA recentle relaxed sewage treatment rules:
www.usatoday.com/news/washington/ 2003-11-02-sewer-rules-usat_x.htm
Get your facts straight boy
96 - Richard
Dave,
I think you wanted this link
97 - Dave Nalle
So the EPA has done an analysis of the issue you're most concerned with, Richard. Isn't that a first step towards doing something about it? I don't see what your problem is with that. It seems like what you'd want.
As for cleaner water, let me direct you to this story from the best news station in my old home town of Washington DC, about waterways I have personal experience of both before and after cleanup. http://wrc.iewatershed.com/index.php?pagename=news_021016
Dave
98 - Richard
Dave,
Its too bad you have to embrace happy little articles like this and presume that they are based on facts. If you don't measure certain pollutants, of course the water appears cleaner. How about this:
http://www.nos.noaa.gov/products/pubs_hypox.html
which shows the problem is growing.
99 - Dave Nalle
I provided the info you asked for Richard. If you chose to ignore it, and ignore the implications of the links you yourself provided, that's fine. There's clearly not much point in discussing this with you. As far as you're concerned there will never be any progress and water will always be tainted by something until humanity and all its works are wiped from the face of the earth. Are you familiar with the term 'luddite'. Embrace it, own it.
Dave
100 - Richard
Dave, You provided nothing, and you proved yourself by embrasing "touchie feelie" news rather than hard science.
Dosen't that make you a luddite?
101 - Dave Nalle
You clearly have no idea what a luddite is, nor can you spell.
Richard, all you have is more and more negativity and no acceptance of anything positive. As news articles go the one I linked to was loaded with specific detail and actual fact. But if you want some hard data on the improvements in the area here's this link - http://www.potomacriver.org/water_quality/water_quality.htm - take a look at some of their testing report PDFs. But overall look at this site as an example of how a region can work with businesses and local governments to improve water quality more effectively than just complying with what's required by the EPA. It's a model example of how progress can be made when you put scaremongering aside and look for real solutions.
But I know the facts don't matter to you because improvement isn't of interest to you. No matter how much better things have gotten it's clearly never good enough for you.
You're literally a classic example of the 'glass half empty' mentality and you seem to be completely unable to break out of it.
Dave
102 - Richard
Spelling schmelling If you are afraid of technology, you seem to be a luddite.
How nice the potomac is cleaner, too bad the Nation's waters are not. Did you not read about the growing dead zone in the Gulf? or is that too much science for your little head?
103 - Dave Nalle
So now the Potomac region, all 14,000 acres of it has seceded and joined another country? Well, at least it's nice to see you acknowledge that it actually IS cleaner. That's progress in my book.
You're clearly not familiar with the gulf, unlike those of us who live here who are aware that the hypoxia zone is a seasonal phemoenon caused by the relative stillness and shallowness of the gulf waters and the heat of the summer. There's no reason to think it hasn't been there for ages despite the fact that it has only been officially studied since the 1970s. If it has grown larger it's mainly because the hurricaines in the last few years have mostly gone north rather than west, so it took longer to break up at the end of the summer season.
There are sedimentary studies which show the hypoxic zone has been there for hundreds of years and marine biologists believe it may be part of the natural cycle of the gulf ecology. It is almost certainly not caused by pollution from fertilizers as some have claimed, as similar zones exist in other shallow seas like the Red Sea where there is virtually no runoff.
For a good article debunking the Dead Zone theories see http://www.fumento.com/environment/sharks.html
Dave
104 - Richard
Dave,
I finally get it! You take that happy unscientific news and proclaim it science! Then you can discount the scientists what actually know what the hell is going on. That hakes us all feel better, now let us hold hands and sing Kumbaiya! Luddite?
105 - Richard
Source of nitrogen in the Mississippi basin
106 - Dave Nalle
Fumento is one of the most widely read and respected science columnists in the country. He writes for all the major news outlets. You're telling me he has no idea what he's talking about?
Dave
107 - Richard
If you bothered to look at the link in his site where he questions nitrogen as the source of hypoxia, you will see that the first few years the coorelation is tenuous, but the last 5 years they are dead on. So, in answer to your question, yes his skepticism has no real basis. You see I have a science background also and can think and read charts for myself.
108 - RJ
Richard:
Since you maintain that you have a scientific background, and claim to know so much about aquatic life, what are your thoughts on the harvesting of krill in the oceans around Antarctica?
It's considered cheating, BTW, to simply post a link to an article...
109 - Dave Nalle
Richard, I have a background in statistical demography so I'm more than familiar with charts myself. I'm also familiar with what is and is not good data, and on the gulf hypoxia issue there just isn't enough data over any meaningful span of time to draw anything like the conclusions you've drawn. Plus you completely ignore the sediment analysis which shows that it's been going on for centuries.
Dave
110 - Wah
Dave,
You are well off-base for your "there's no scientific consensus" theory re: global warming. You don't even have to take my word for it, as this is the 21st century and superior forms of mass communication exist. ASK THE FOLKS THEMSELVES. Go tell them what they believe, I'm sure they'll appreciate it.
Also, now would be a good time to thank the environmentalists for keeping your rivers from burning.
Try to fit that into your leftie bashing at some point, if you have the power.
111 - Richard
Wow, I thought this had died. RJ, I never claimed to "know so much about aquatic life". And Dave, Your boy Fumento has nothing on Dr. David Suzuki. I tend to believe real scientists with actual data, rather than a "science columnist". Didn't know a link was cheating, though you people did it all the time.
112 - Dave Nalle
Wah: "You are well off-base for your "there's no scientific consensus" theory re: global warming. You don't even have to take my word for it, as this is the 21st century and superior forms of mass communication exist. ASK THE FOLKS THEMSELVES. Go tell them what they believe, I'm sure they'll appreciate it."
I'm not a climatologist, just someone who's interested in learning about the subject and finding the truth which seems to be obscured by politics far too often. Thanks for the link to that site, though. I doubt I'll ever post there, but it looks like a great resource for further information.
Wah: "Also, now would be a good time to thank the environmentalists for keeping your rivers from burning."
Pretty sure I already did that a number of times. Wish I could get Richard to do the same.
Dave
113 - Richard
I just want to thank Bush for my roe carrying male fish
114 - Dave Nalle
The problem with Roe carrying male fish and sex changing frogs actually pre-dates the Bush administration, does it not, Richard?
Dave
115 - -E
I'm glad you're getting the winter in Spring that I never got this year.
116 - Richard
Yes it does Dave, and we have Bush to thank for cleaning our waters up, so we won't have to worry about that anymore! Yeehaw!
117 - Dave Nalle
We should thank Bush, Richard? From what I've seen he pretty much supported the status quo and has left management of the environment to the EPA. He hasn't made things significantly worse, but the progress I've been talking about predates Bush by years and years.
Dave