The environment thread

[southsider2k5]

No idea where to put this, so here we go.

 

The Yellowstone Caldera has been inflating at the fastest rate recorded since they began measuring in 1923 - about 3 inches a year - for the past 3 years. Some geologist from UU says no imminent threat is apparent. But the timing cycle, if it can be relied upon, does seem to indicate that we are coming up on a slot. This could be nothing of course. Hard to tell, it seems.

 

There is your mildly alarming thought for the day.

 

The biggest volcano in the US with 3 historical eruptions that would pretty much bury Chicago in feet of ash... nope that isn't disheartening at all.

[southsideirish71]

The biggest volcano in the US with 3 historical eruptions that would pretty much bury Chicago in feet of ash... nope that isn't disheartening at all.

 

I wouldnt worry about the Ash hitting Chicago.

 

 

I would however worry about the sun being blocked out from the debris kicked up in the atmosphere.

 

 

There are 2 other supervolcanos in the US, including Long Valley which has had some earthquakes as well, with another large lava field. I wouldnt worry about this though, 5 people from soxtalk are more likely to hit the megamillions jackpot over this happening in our lifetime.

 

 

[Balta1701]

I wouldnt worry about the Ash hitting Chicago.

The reason that map looks like that is that the direction of ash fall is a very strong function of the wind direction on the days of the eruption.

[southsider2k5]

I wouldnt worry about the Ash hitting Chicago.

 

 

I would however worry about the sun being blocked out from the debris kicked up in the atmosphere.

 

 

There are 2 other supervolcanos in the US, including Long Valley which has had some earthquakes as well, with another large lava field. I wouldnt worry about this though, 5 people from soxtalk are more likely to hit the megamillions jackpot over this happening in our lifetime.

 

So burying the food producing plains states is any better?

 

Also, what were the odds of a 9.3 earthquake in the Indian Ocean causing a tsunami that would kill 250,000 people? Just because something isn't likely, doesn't mean we shouldn't be aware of it.

[Balta1701]

So burying the food producing plains states is any better?

 

Also, what were the odds of a 9.3 earthquake in the Indian Ocean causing a tsunami that would kill 250,000 people? Just because something isn't likely, doesn't mean we shouldn't be aware of it.

I'd say that the odds of that happening, if you give me a 100 year timespan with no preparation, approach 100%. That subduction zone produces on average several events of nearly that magnitude, some of them tsunamigenic, every 100 years.

[NorthSideSox72]

So burying the food producing plains states is any better?

 

Also, what were the odds of a 9.3 earthquake in the Indian Ocean causing a tsunami that would kill 250,000 people? Just because something isn't likely, doesn't mean we shouldn't be aware of it.

Yellowstone shouldn't be this country's biggest worry for a geological disaster. The one that the country is least prepared for, and which is in fact overdue and semi-imminent (if anything geological can be called imminent), and which is likely to do the most damage (of those events that are likely), is New Madrid. It won't do as much as that supervolcano of course, but its not a 1 in 1000 shot in the next century - its a 800 in 1000 shot that there will be a significant quake there in this century.

 

[Balta1701]

Yellowstone shouldn't be this country's biggest worry for a geological disaster. The one that the country is least prepared for, and which is in fact overdue and semi-imminent (if anything geological can be called imminent), and which is likely to do the most damage (of those events that are likely), is New Madrid. It won't do as much as that supervolcano of course, but its not a 1 in 1000 shot in the next century - its a 800 in 1000 shot that there will be a significant quake there in this century.

You know what? Right now, I can actually think of a couple that might hurt more than New Madrid going again. A Category 2 hurricane hitting New York comes to mind, which is entirely possible any one of these years. Both the S.F. and L.A. areas are due for a couple of major quakes out here also. And then there's the Levees around Sacramento; basically that city is protected from a series of rivers by some earthen levees that date back to the 1870's, and we're only just now starting to repair them, so a big storm up in the Sierras could quite literally turn it into NOLA. And there's also a tsunamigenic fault, capable of a Sumatra scale event, sitting off the Oregon and Washington coast that hasn't gone in a couple hundred years (it's recurrence interval seems to vary between 100 and 1000 years, so we don't really have a clue when it will go again)

 

Of course, I think 5 years ago someone made a list of the top few potential natural disasters to hit the U.S., and the inundation of NOLA was about #2 on the list following up a magnitude 7+ event in the L.A. Basin. (You hit the right fault out here and you literally destroy 10,000 buildings.)

[NorthSideSox72]

You know what? Right now, I can actually think of a couple that might hurt more than New Madrid going again. A Category 2 hurricane hitting New York comes to mind, which is entirely possible any one of these years. Both the S.F. and L.A. areas are due for a couple of major quakes out here also. And then there's the Levees around Sacramento; basically that city is protected from a series of rivers by some earthen levees that date back to the 1870's, and we're only just now starting to repair them, so a big storm up in the Sierras could quite literally turn it into NOLA. And there's also a tsunamigenic fault, capable of a Sumatra scale event, sitting off the Oregon and Washington coast that hasn't gone in a couple hundred years (it's recurrence interval seems to vary between 100 and 1000 years, so we don't really have a clue when it will go again)

 

Of course, I think 5 years ago someone made a list of the top few potential natural disasters to hit the U.S., and the inundation of NOLA was about #2 on the list following up a magnitude 7+ event in the L.A. Basin. (You hit the right fault out here and you literally destroy 10,000 buildings.)

I think the key with cities in Cali is that they are actually semi-prepared for those events. I'm not saying you can properly prepare for that one really nasty one that destroys 10k buildings, but, I think the fact that California has been preparing for these things for so long will end up saving a lot of lives. People around the New Madrid are, I have found, either mostly or completely unaware of the danger they are in. Then there is the fact that any quake in California will likely have a much smaller range of effect than New Madrid because of the terrain.

 

Now New York, I have no idea what if anything they've done to prepare for a major hurricane.

 

[Balta1701]

I think the key with cities in Cali is that they are actually semi-prepared for those events. I'm not saying you can properly prepare for that one really nasty one that destroys 10k buildings, but, I think the fact that California has been preparing for these things for so long will end up saving a lot of lives. People around the New Madrid are, I have found, either mostly or completely unaware of the danger they are in. Then there is the fact that any quake in California will likely have a much smaller range of effect than New Madrid because of the terrain.

 

Now New York, I have no idea what if anything they've done to prepare for a major hurricane.

One of the problems with the L.A. Basin is that while they've done some steps to prepare a response, there is one thing that they really can't do, and that's make all of these buildings that popped up during the building boom in the middle part of the century safe. Brick and mortar buildings just do a terrible job surviving seismic events, and in this city there are an awful lot of 3-10 story brick buildings where people work or live, and there just isn't enough money to start retrofitting them. IT would basically require rebuilding the city of Los Angeles, and there isn't money for that. So, as far as I can tell, the area has just decided, without really saying it, to wait for the buildings to be demolished for free (saving a large portion of the cost!) and for the Feds to wind up having to foot the bill for rebuilding the city.

[BigSqwert]

Al Gore's next gig, planet-saving venture capitalist.

[NorthSideSox72]

Update on the discussion of the drought in Georgia and the south... Anyone else see this guy? He was using... wait for it... 440,000 gallons of water a month for his residence. That's 14,667 gallons per day, 611 gallons per hour, just over 10 gallons per minute or a gallon for every 7 seconds or so, every second of every day. This is what I was getting at with people lacking an undertanding that natural resources are not unlimited. I mean, is he running two showers 24/7 or something? WTF is this guy doing with all that water?

 

Anyway, good news is, county authorities have dropped the hammer, and this guy now has his consumption down to 121,000 on the last monthly bill - still more than 4,000 gallons per day. Unreal.

 

[southsider2k5]

Update on the discussion of the drought in Georgia and the south... Anyone else see this guy? He was using... wait for it... 440,000 gallons of water a month for his residence. That's 14,667 gallons per day, 611 gallons per hour, just over 10 gallons per minute or a gallon for every 7 seconds or so, every second of every day. This is what I was getting at with people lacking an undertanding that natural resources are not unlimited. I mean, is he running two showers 24/7 or something? WTF is this guy doing with all that water?

 

Anyway, good news is, county authorities have dropped the hammer, and this guy now has his consumption down to 121,000 on the last monthly bill - still more than 4,000 gallons per day. Unreal.

 

It never does say if he is paying for all of that usage. As I understand it in Chicago, people don't actually pay for their usage, just the service, so there is no incentive to cut back.

[FlaSoxxJim]

It never does say if he is paying for all of that usage. As I understand it in Chicago, people don't actually pay for their usage, just the service, so there is no incentive to cut back.

 

Fortunately it's not like that here (don't know about Georgia). A lot of plumbing and irrigation ruptures come to light when one month a consumer sees that his water bill has jumped 1,000%.

[NorthSideSox72]

It never does say if he is paying for all of that usage. As I understand it in Chicago, people don't actually pay for their usage, just the service, so there is no incentive to cut back.

Oh no, us Chicagoans pay for usage levels. It just happens to be that water is dirt cheap in the city, thanks to the lake.

 

[kapkomet]

Yea, there's not a lot of danger of Lake Michigan drying up any time soon.

 

[Balta1701]

Yea, there's not a lot of danger of Lake Michigan drying up any time soon.

"Where did the water go?" asks Ted Shalifor, manager of a marina and campground on Lake Superior's Chippewa Indian Reservation.

 

The water on Lake Superior is so low that he couldn't put his docks in the water this year. Where he used to see water, he now sees sandbars.

 

Lake Superior, the world's largest freshwater lake, has dropped to its lowest level in 81 years. The water is 20 inches below average and a foot lower than just a year ago.

 

The dropping levels have had serious environmental and economic consequences. Wetlands have dried up. Power plants run at half capacity. Cargo ships carry partial loads. Boaters struggle to find a place to dock.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Balta1701]

On a different subject, a BBC reporter spent some time collecting objections to current thinking on anthropogenic climate change from a group of about 15 or so skeptics, and collected responses on their opinions from people within the IPCC group. I found it interesting.

[NorthSideSox72]

According to a study published by the US Climate Change Science Program - that's the Bush Administration's climate research arm, by the way - says that North America only has the ecological capacity to absorb about 27% of the CO2 that is produced here. The rest is left available to contribute to warming and other problems.

 

Now, for those in the unsure or outright denial of CCGW, take a look at that number in a completely different light. Forget CCGW. Where is a lot of that CO2? Its contained in various sorts of pollution generated by human activities. So what does this number tell us? It says that the continent is probably also only absorbing 27% of the pollution being pumped into the air and water. This is what I have been harping on for a while - forget just climate change, and look at how bad pollution can be. This is the air we breathe, the water we drink, the plants and animals we eat... this is us. We're toxifying ourselves.

 

We need more green spaces and green matter (the demand side if you will), and we need to reduce our use of highly polluting products (the supply side). Not doing so will cost us untold amounts of money and pain in health problems alone.

 

[YASNY]

We are toxifying ourselves, for sure. Flourine in our water. Pesticides on our crops. Mind altering drugs being prescribed by our physicians left and right. Who knows what they are putting in the skies with chemtrails. It isn't just CO2, my friend. It's damn near everything we eat, drink or breathe.

[NorthSideSox72]

We are toxifying ourselves, for sure. Flourine in our water. Pesticides on our crops. Mind altering drugs being prescribed by our physicians left and right. Who knows what they are putting in the skies with chemtrails. It isn't just CO2, my friend. It's damn near everything we eat, drink or breathe.

That's pretty much my point. The CO2 is emblamatic of the larger, overall issue. Just a single indicator, if you will, that gives us a clue as to how much other crap we're tossing into out environment.

 

[YASNY]

That's pretty much my point. The CO2 is emblamatic of the larger, overall issue. Just a single indicator, if you will, that gives us a clue as to how much other crap we're tossing into out environment.

 

I note your point, but mine was what we are tossing into our bodies. And it has to be by design as it's damn near everything we ingest. When you sit back and look at it, what choices do we have? Can we avoid drinking flouridated water? Can we avoid eating fruits and vegetables that aren't laced with pesticides and/or preservative chemicals? Can we avoid eating meat that hasn't been fed with pesticide laced corn or whatever. There is something sinister going on, and it goes well beyond the Bush administration. Also, it's been building for about 40 years, at least.

[NorthSideSox72]

I note your point, but mine was what we are tossing into our bodies. And it has to be by design as it's damn near everything we ingest. When you sit back and look at it, what choices do we have? Can we avoid drinking flouridated water? Can we avoid eating fruits and vegetables that aren't laced with pesticides and/or preservative chemicals? Can we avoid eating meat that hasn't been fed with pesticide laced corn or whatever. There is something sinister going on, and it goes well beyond the Bush administration. Also, it's been building for about 40 years, at least.

Actually, I'd suggest you can avoid all of those things you list if you so choose. And that's where the power of the consumer comes in...

 

You can choose to buy fruits and vegatbles from organic markets (or organic brands). I've actually been on organic farms - we have some land in Wisconsin very near one of the farms run for the Organic Valley brand you may have seen in the store, and we've bought from them directly on occasion. You can choose to eat meats that are organic and given organic feed. This all gets back to the food source thing I mentioned here previously - that's going to be a bigger and bigger thing. You can choose to drink bottled water that is not flouridated too - but then, to be honest, I think you are shortchanging yourself a bit. That flouride isn't a bad thing, from everything I've read.

 

This also, to me, ties into people coming up with ways to provide their home's energy independently by way of solar cells, small wind turbines, etc. Living off the grid, or less on the grid in any case, will be a growing trend.

 

[YASNY]

Actually, I'd suggest you can avoid all of those things you list if you so choose. And that's where the power of the consumer comes in...

 

You can choose to buy fruits and vegatbles from organic markets (or organic brands). I've actually been on organic farms - we have some land in Wisconsin very near one of the farms run for the Organic Valley brand you may have seen in the store, and we've bought from them directly on occasion. You can choose to eat meats that are organic and given organic feed. This all gets back to the food source thing I mentioned here previously - that's going to be a bigger and bigger thing. You can choose to drink bottled water that is not flouridated too - but then, to be honest, I think you are shortchanging yourself a bit. That flouride isn't a bad thing, from everything I've read.

 

This also, to me, ties into people coming up with ways to provide their home's energy independently by way of solar cells, small wind turbines, etc. Living off the grid, or less on the grid in any case, will be a growing trend.

 

You are a very trusting soul. I for one don't believe that most organic ingestibles are as organic as you are lead to believe. Also, from what I have read is most bottled water is ... you ready? ... tap water. Then you get the plastic bottles that are being sold by the billions because they can sell tap water for $1.29 a bottle filling our landfills. When will those biodegrade? Oh yeah, the bottles also happen to be a petroleum based product. So, what is being pumped into the air as those plastic bottles are being produced?

[Soxy]

That flouride isn't a bad thing, from everything I've read.

That is a hot topic.

[Balta1701]

You are a very trusting soul. I for one don't believe that most organic ingestibles are as organic as you are lead to believe. Also, from what I have read is most bottled water is ... you ready? ... tap water. Then you get the plastic bottles that are being sold by the billions because they can sell tap water for $1.29 a bottle filling our landfills. When will those biodegrade? Oh yeah, the bottles also happen to be a petroleum based product. So, what is being pumped into the air as those plastic bottles are being produced?

Both Aquafina and Dasani, owned respectively by Pepsi and Coke, are filtered tap water. There are some that are actually pumped out of the ground or from mountain springs or something like that...but that alone means very little to me (seriously, anyone who wants to take a drive up to Owens Valley, look for the Crystal Geyser water bottling plant right along the shores of Owens Dry Lake. It's located in one of the worst environmental areas on the planet).

 

And the major food companies have been lobbying basically as far as I can tell since the word "Organic" was invented for looser standards on what qualifies as organic so that they could label their products as such without having to change their production processes much. For reference, I'll just include the first example that pops up on the Google.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which oversees national organic standards and issues the USDA Organic label, will soon close a public comment period on recommendations to include 38 non-organic ingredients in processed foods labeled organic. The proposed list of newly allowed includes non-organic hops and non-organic animal intestines used as sausage casings.

 

In other words, if these recommendations pass, sausages and breakfast links labeled as "USDA Organic" would be allowed to contain intestines from factory farmed animals raised on chemically grown feed, synthetic hormones, and antibiotics. Also, beer bearing the "USDA Organic" label could be made with non-organic hops.

Even though public comment period will ended August 27, 2007, please keep informed by checking back here and by visiting the Organic Consumer's Association website: http://organicconsumers.org/sos.cfm.

 

Who you buy your organic products from can affect local economies, how food is grown or produced, and its health effects on you. Many consumers who choose organic products are becoming concerned at the increasing power that large scale food producing companies are having in the industry