Mercury, lead, and several other pollutants are known for reducing cognitive function. If these pollutants are kept at high levels, then many children will not perform well in school. If many children don't perform well, it will demonstrate that public schools are failing. Thus, private interests, which always do "better" will take over. Of course, they can reject those children adversely affected by pollutants.
I posted the above as a comment to "The Latest G.O.P. Temper Tantrum", Robert B. Semple, Jr., New York Times, 2013-05-09. Temper tantrum is the description Semple gave the walkout by some G.O.P. Senators from the hearings for the confirmation of Gina McCarthy as the head of the EPA. See also "Lead and 'failing' schools".
E. Nowak of Illinois responded to my comment with
"And the closer people live to factories, the more toxins they breath in. The rich, always live far, far away from the industrial centers."
But we don't even have to live close to factories to be introduced to toxins. What are all the pesticides used in agriculture doing to us. What are the neoniconitides used to "kill aphids and other crop-destroying insects" doing to us? These are nerve poisons that disrupt neural activity. They are put into seeds and "become incorporated in the tissues of the adult plant". If we eat these plants what's to guarantee that the neurotoxins won't be affecting us? See "Honeybee die-off brings 'Silent Spring' back to mind", William Souder, Star Tribune, 2013-05-12. In other words, are these neurotoxins affecting the performance of school children?
I'm sorry if you think I'm a scold about free markets and Adam Smith's "invisible hand", but we really have to hold to account those who corrupt both ideas to hide their own self-interest against the public good. Please tell your friends about
"The Invisible Adam Smith" and "Humpty Dumpty and Free Markets".
Showing posts with label pollutants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pollutants. Show all posts
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
A simple arithmetic proof of global warming
Too many people deny that our atmosphere is warming. Many of these do so because they are making lots of money contributing to global warming. They also spend lots of money convincing people of a certain political view that the promotion of the idea of global warming is the plot of people of a certain other political view.
It is relatively simple to prove that there is global warming with one simple assumption: increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause the globe to be warmer.
For centuries there has been a certain balance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. People have used plants for food and fuel for eons. As people use the plant carbon as food, they breathe out carbon dioxide. As they use plant carbon as fuel, their fires give off carbon dioxide. Plants, in turn, use the atmospheric carbon dioxide as food to grow. The balance is such, that even with huge forest fires and volcanoes, the excess carbon dioxide is used up over a few years or decades with the new growth of plants.
We could express this as
CB-CU=0
That is, carbon burned minus carbon used by plants equals zero. That is, we have a long term balance.
Then people took coal, oil, and gas from under the ground. Now are equation is
CB-CU=CG
where CG is carbon from underground: coal, oil and gas. That is, the carbon from coal, oil, and gas is not used up by the existing plants.
To make matters worse, human activity doesn't increase the amount of plant life to absorb the extra carbon. To the contrary, human activity reduces the volume of plant life. Humans cut down huge forests without replacing them with plants of equal volume. Sometimes they replace the huge forests with sugar cane, coffee plants, or corn. Sometimes they don't even replace the plants but cover the same ground with highways, parking lots, and mammoth buildings. Now our equation becomes
CB-CU=CG+CL
where CL is carbon uptake lost. CB, CG, and CL keep getting bigger, and CU keeps getting smaller.
If you assume the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide doesn't cause global warming, consider that residents of many cities are having breathing problems because of all the pollutants, including carbon dioxide, that are in the air because of the cities' dependence on fossil fuels.
It is relatively simple to prove that there is global warming with one simple assumption: increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause the globe to be warmer.
For centuries there has been a certain balance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. People have used plants for food and fuel for eons. As people use the plant carbon as food, they breathe out carbon dioxide. As they use plant carbon as fuel, their fires give off carbon dioxide. Plants, in turn, use the atmospheric carbon dioxide as food to grow. The balance is such, that even with huge forest fires and volcanoes, the excess carbon dioxide is used up over a few years or decades with the new growth of plants.
We could express this as
CB-CU=0
That is, carbon burned minus carbon used by plants equals zero. That is, we have a long term balance.
Then people took coal, oil, and gas from under the ground. Now are equation is
CB-CU=CG
where CG is carbon from underground: coal, oil and gas. That is, the carbon from coal, oil, and gas is not used up by the existing plants.
To make matters worse, human activity doesn't increase the amount of plant life to absorb the extra carbon. To the contrary, human activity reduces the volume of plant life. Humans cut down huge forests without replacing them with plants of equal volume. Sometimes they replace the huge forests with sugar cane, coffee plants, or corn. Sometimes they don't even replace the plants but cover the same ground with highways, parking lots, and mammoth buildings. Now our equation becomes
CB-CU=CG+CL
where CL is carbon uptake lost. CB, CG, and CL keep getting bigger, and CU keeps getting smaller.
If you assume the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide doesn't cause global warming, consider that residents of many cities are having breathing problems because of all the pollutants, including carbon dioxide, that are in the air because of the cities' dependence on fossil fuels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)