Forests and Environmental Damage

[Savanik]

Carried over from the 'What is it with forests' discussion in the General Discussion group.

Before we begin, I'd first like to say that I have a good deal of respect for hallucinatingfarmer. No matter how much I might disagree with his conclusions, he has at least done his research. Most of the time, when I ask people for sources, they just clam up. He's also drawn on a number of sources that are very reputable.

The matter under discussion was the environmental impact of foresting operations, with particular attention to those caused by mining.

I'll first of all admit that whole villages is somewhat of an exaggeration - although villages getting wiped out by mutlinationals making international news? I don't think so - ever heard of Plachimada in Kerala, India? See http://www.indiaresource.org/ and look at my previous thread Killer Cola

I took a look at both of these links, and from what I can tell, while villages have suffered economic and environmental damage, they haven't been wiped out, and the local authorities have been acting to prevent further damage from happening. In addition, word about what happened there has spread to other communities through news and internet resources, and other communities are taking a second look at whether they want a Coca-Cola plant in their area at all. It seems like a perfect example of what happens when large corporations abuse the public trust in this information age.

"The Brazilian rainforest : politics, finance, mining and the environment" - David Cleary, London ; Economist Intelligence Unit, 1991

I don't have a copy of this book either, and neither does my local library (the punks!) so I can't offer anything one way or the other.

"Indigenous peoples, resource extraction and sustainable development: An ethical approach"
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS 56 (3): 239-254 FEB 2005

Good, solid source... I'm not quite sure how this applies to the discussion, however. From what I read, it seems like an ecological triumph.

In this case a scientific panel comprised of Nuu-Chah-Nulth elders, forest scientists and management professionals, achieved full consensus on developing sustainable forest practice standards by drawing equally on Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge and Western science ... The resulting sustainable forest practice standards were later adopted by leading forestry firms operating on the coast.

That's good news. Very good news, in fact! Going to sustainable forest practices is something that I highly approve of - just as lumber companies replanting forests they cut down for paper and better forest-fire fighting techniques have resulted in temperate forests in North America expanding in the last 40 years1 continued economic development of trees and lumber as a commodity requires sustainability... which is what they're implementing. So I'm a little puzzled why you included this reference.

Title: Downstream effects of erosion from small-scale gold mining on the instream habitat and fish community of a small neotropical rainforest stream
Author(s): Mol JH, Ouboter PE
Source: CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 18 (1): 201-214 FEB 2004

Another good, solid source. However, they're talking about fairly small-scale operations in this article. By definition, these don't reflect a large-scale area. Most of the pollution they're talking about comes from sediment. They do breifly mention mercury, but only detected at 0.67 micrograms per liter of water, and that only during low-water seasons. That's the same as 0.67 parts per billion (ppb). The EPA, here, in America, requires that drinking water contain less than 2 ppb of mercury2. That water's safe enough to drink!

They do show definite effects in the genetic diversity of the area, but it's all due to this sediment. And sediment runoffs happen all the time, naturally3. The biosphere is perfectly capable of adapting to sediment flows occuring within naturally occuring levels. There will be some short-term loss of diversity, but that is because it is a dynamic system and will naturally correct itself for environmental changes.

As a side note, environmentalists concerned with the Colorado River say that sediment is a good thing4. They note that since the waters of the river below the dam have changed to clear, cold waters that certain species of fish are dying out, and are being replaced by trout. My point - they are being replaced by trout. It's not turning into a lifeless biohazard area. The ecology of the system is changing, it's not going away. Life is change. You can't stop it, any more than you can stop the tide from coming in.

Mud, mines and rainforest: a short history of human impact in western Tasmania, using pollen, trace metals and lead-210

Good source on this, too. This is another piece of evidence that aptly demonstrates the link between industrialization, a developing country and the exploitation of natural resources. However, Queenstown is hardly an environmental damge area. 'From rugged mountains to a wild and deserted coastline, golden hill country to crystal alpine lakes, the Southern Lakes region is one of the most diverse and physically beautiful on earth.'5 While runoff from the mines may have caused some localized damage to ecosystems... it's certainly not a toxic wasteland.

Title: From rainforest to wasteland in 100 years: The limnological legacy of the Queenstown mines, Western Tasmania
Author(s): Hodgson DA, Vyverman W, Chepstow-Lusty A, Tyler PA
Source: ARCHIV FUR HYDROBIOLOGIE 149 (1): 153-176 AUG 2000

Couldn't find this one - but I'm sure your quotes from it are equally accurate. I disagree with the author's assessment of the situation of the area, based on my previous source. The statement that 'much of the area is bare rock' conflicts both with what I can see in my source, and with the LandSat 7 satellite photography of the region I got from NASA's World Wind application.

<break for lunch, to be continued>

Sav

[Savanik]

Rainforestweb.org
www.rainforestlive.org.uk

These would be the 'less than credible' resources I was referring to. These web pages contain little more than blanket statements that mining is damaging the jungles, and contain no empirically falsifiable information. Like any religion, their statements are something you have to take on faith, and are directed largely towards raising hysteria in order to raise funds for their organizations.

However, the other sites you gave (mongabay.com, www.minesandcommunities.org, and www.rainforestinfo.org.au) contain much more credible information and are worthy of more attention.

Let's begin with mongabay.com. Mongabay mentions the Guyana Spill, an environmental disaster that made international headlines, in which four billion liters of cyanide contaminated water broke out of a tailings dam and was released into the watershed, contaminating a 50-mile stretch of river. There is no doubt in my mind that this contitutes an environmental disaster.

However, the damage done was by no means a long-term effect. 'Preliminary conclusions by international experts who carried out tests show that cyanide contamination at various points were below the level of 0.07 ppm accepted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and 0.2 ppm accepted by the Canadian authorities.' 6 That was based on samples taken on August 27th. The tailings dam broke on August 19th. In under ten days the disaster was over. There were no human casualties, and no lingering toxins they can detect that would prevent the ecosystem from repairing itself.

To reiterate: In 'one of the worst mine disasters in history' 7, no people were killed, and the primary danger was over in a matter of days.

I'm not going to defend the mining company (if they had been doing their job, the spill wouldn't have happened in the first place), but to claim that there were 23,000 victims8 is just as irresponsible. As a result of fears about poisoned fish, Jamaica and Barbados banned fish and shrimp imports coming from Guyana, directly damaging the efforts to clean up the mess by putting Guyana into an economic choke-hold. This was despite the facts that almost all the fishing done on the affected river was used locally, that the government immediately put an embargo of its own on fishing in the area, and that the government instructed that all exports of fish be tested for contamination and encouraged the important countries to check again. 9 Baseless fears and accusations can damage the environment, just like a mining company can.

www.minesandcommunities.org - This web site is pretty decent. The article quoted wasn't really talking about pollution, but rather deforestation by the mining company of Placer Dome. However, if you check over at the Mineral Policy Institute10, they note that as of 2004, Placer Dome dropped their plans for exploiting the area in light of the backlash from local community leaders - so deforestation isn't really occuring here.

And lastly, www.rainforestinfo.org.au - a list of cyanide spills and leaks around the world. They have done a fair job of mentioning their sources (mostly news outlets), and there's no obvious reason to doubt the accuracy of their reports. They are, however, fairly breif in each of the reports, and many of them don't mention what environmental impact the spills had. Some of them are so breif as to not even mention the quantities involved.

I'm going to have to say that while the source is probably accurate, I don't particularly consider it to be particularly authoritative. Using media outlets as a primary source is generally a bad idea. Media reports are often inaccurate and biased towards catching eyes, not revealing facts. There are a number of questions that the page doesn't answer as well. What lasting environmental impact did each event have? How do these events compare with each other? While it may be useful in pointing out areas that need more attention (such as why most of the events in the US happened in Nevada) it's not something you can really draw any solid conclusion from without more research.

I'd like to thank hallucinatingfarmer for bringing all this to my attention. I was previously unaware that mineral deposits can occur in forest areas, and was laboring under the notion that mines are only built on mountains. If I'd stopped to think about it, most mountains are actually fairly well covered in forests up to the tree line. It's clearly evident that mines can cause both pollution and deforestation, but I don't think the problem is perhaps quite as bad as his sources make it out to be.

I also still believe that the majority of global deforestation is caused by subsistence farming. According to a paper submitted to the XII World Forest Congress in 2003, subsistence farming accounted for 63% of deforestation, while mining accounted for only 1%11.

I'm as much as an environmentalist as most people. I think it's important that we save the rain forest. But it's important that we correctly identify the reasons for deforestation if we want to do that. If we direct our attentions in a manner that's ineffective, we won't accomplish our goals.

Sav

1. Bjorn Lumborg. The Skeptical Environmentalist. Cambridge University Press, 2001, p117
2. Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction. "Mercury." 2004
3. Timothy P. Brabets. "Precipitation-Runoff, Suspended-Sediment, and Flood-Frequency Characteristics for Urbanized Areas of Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska." USGS Water Resources Division, 2003
4. Living Rivers. "Grand Canyon's Colorado River - The Facts." 2002.
5. Queenstown. "The Southern Lakes Region." 2005.
6. Ambassador Odeen Ishmael. "Statement by Ambassador Odeen Ishmael, Permanent Represenative of Guyana to the Organization of the American States (OAS), to the Permanent Council of the OAS." 1995.
7. Marcus Colchester. "Gold Fever Leads to Disaster." World Rainforest Movement, 1995.
8. Pratap Chatterjee. "Canadian Mining Company Tries to Muzzle Canadian Activists." Saxakali, 1997
9. Ambassador Odeen Ishmael. ibid.
10. Igor O'Neill. "Govt and indigenous community demand Placer Dome out of Borneo forests." Mineral Policy Institute, 2004.
11. Jean-Paul Lanly. "Deforestation and forest degradation factors." XII World Forestry Congress, 2003.

[kabl00ey]

Mud, mines and rainforest: a short history of human impact in western Tasmania, using pollen, trace metals and lead-210

Good source on this, too. This is another piece of evidence that aptly demonstrates the link between industrialization, a developing country and the exploitation of natural resources. However, Queenstown is hardly an environmental damge area. 'From rugged mountains to a wild and deserted coastline, golden hill country to crystal alpine lakes, the Southern Lakes region is one of the most diverse and physically beautiful on earth.'5 While runoff from the mines may have caused some localized damage to ecosystems... it's certainly not a toxic wasteland.

Title: From rainforest to wasteland in 100 years: The limnological legacy of the Queenstown mines, Western Tasmania
Author(s): Hodgson DA, Vyverman W, Chepstow-Lusty A, Tyler PA
Source: ARCHIV FUR HYDROBIOLOGIE 149 (1): 153-176 AUG 2000

Couldn't find this one - but I'm sure your quotes from it are equally accurate. I disagree with the author's assessment of the situation of the area, based on my previous source. The statement that 'much of the area is bare rock' conflicts both with what I can see in my source, and with the LandSat 7 satellite photography of the region I got from NASA's World Wind application.

Developing country? *coughs* I think you'll find New Zealand is not a developing country. The OECD certainly would argue otherwise, ranking New Zealand 22nd in 2005 and 2002, behind Germany, Spain and Israel. [http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/0/34256797.pdf]

I think the Queenstown you're after is: http://www.tased.edu.au/tot/w/queenstown.html

In saying that, it's now even harder to argue Queenstown, TA is in a developing country, since now we're talking about Australia.

[Schme]

Australia ain't no devoloping country, bud.

Well, maybe in some of the aboriginal reserves, but not where they're clear cutting.

[Savanik]

I think you'll find New Zealand is not a developing country.

Quite true. New Zealand as it is today is quite well developed. The period that the article's research covered was from roughly 1811 AD through the 1950's, and during that time period it was developing - just like America was once a 'developing nation' right around then and doing its own clearcutting.

And you're also correct in your second point - I got the wrong Queenstown. My bad on that - I'm not nearly as familiar with that part of the world as I should be. I apologize for my error.

However, the levels of economic development of New Zealand and Australia seem roughly parallel, give or take a couple decades, and the satellite photos of the Australia area seem quite well forested as well, so I think my original points still stand.

Sav

[Jos Elkink]

I don't want to contaminate this thread and let it go off-topic, but I just want to say I quite enjoy reading those well-sourced posts. Way to go, hallucinatingfarmer and Savanik!

[formerly known as hf]

I was considering splitting the topic - I should have done it at the time, I didn't think anyone would have the sense to start a new one...

I will be the first to admit that my original post used emotive langauge, and exaggerated the circumstances. If I had been more moderate, would anyone have taken notice?

I'd also like to point out that my 'sources' were gathered in the space of twenty odd minutes of online journal searching and googling...

Either way, I feel my points still stand, which were that;
1) Rainforest mining exists
2) It adversely affects local ecosystems
3) It adversely affects local human populations

The extent of points 2 and 3 are a matter of debate.

First off, in response to the suggestion that sediment is 'good', I would disagree. Increased sediment loads do adversely affect the biodiversity of an ecosystem. These effects are "complex and unpredictable"(Donohue and Irvine 2004), but experiments have shown that increased sediment loads do affect biodiveristy, especialy affecting smaller species such as snails and moluscs, even over the long term (Donohue et al. 2003). In terms of biodiversity, it should be clear that "biodiversity is best protected in rivers where physical regimes are the most natural"(Power et al. 1996).
Increased sediment load does not only affect biodiversity, it also changes the flow dynamics of a river, including increasing flooding frequency, which will affect riverside settlements downstream (Robert 2003 and Korup et al. 2004).

It seems, therefore, that the scientists you quoted as suggesting that sediment is 'good' are talking in relation to natural levels of sediment - it is when these natural levels are exceeded, beyond the capacity of the river ecosystem, that adverse effects occur.

What is lacking, however, is adequate reserach into what extent rainforest mining does increase the sediment load of river systems. I do think though, that, considering the nature of rainforest mining (blasting high pressured jets of chemical solutions at bare rock and earth) and that it requires, at least localised, deforestation (which, as any physical geography textbook on the matter will tell you, increases run-off by reducing interception of rain by vegetation, and reducing the extent to which the ground is 'bound' by roots, so allowing more of it to be eroded by rainwater, and carried into streams and rivers.), it can be said that it would increase sediment load. Which is certainly not a bad thing. How bad though, is obviously debateable, without adequate research.


The second major concern of rainforest mining is chemical contamination. My original case studies I hardly even read myself, so it unsurprising that holes were easily picked into them. I don't think it can easily be suggested that major conatmination can be over in 'a matter of days'. In research in to Mercury (Hg) contamination, used in gold mining, (Fostier et al. 2000), it was clear that the contaminants are absorbed by local flora and fauna, and become part of the chemical cycle, and tarces can be found over the long term. Stuides of local populations for Hg contamination also showed that it was higher in areas with gold mining than comparable areas without (Julius et al. 1998). Whilst levels may be low, and again not meet quite the exaggerated levels I suggested, I don't think any kind of contamination of dangerous chemicals can be acceptable. Neither can it be believed to be a short term problem. It has long been suggested, not only in the research cited here, that chemical contamination of ecosystems and humans is not something that can be easily 'absorbed' - and the effects of low-level, but constant contamination are poorly researched and possibly very dangerous. The WWF have recently produced a number of scientific studies into the effects of long term, low level contamination of humans ito a variety of toxins, from many household products and packaging - indicating adverse effects and real worries over the effects on the unborn human foetus (the research can be gained via their UK webiste).

In terms of deforestation, I wouldn't disagree that mining accounts for a very small proportion of deforestation. But, remember, that with mines, come infrastructure requirements, such as roads, pylons and the like (Ofomata 1981). Your source from the World Forest Congress also stressed the importance of taking into account these indirect factors, noting that roads often encourage further deforestation as farmers set up alongside them.


As I suggested before, my first post was excessive in terms of the emotive laguage and the exaggeration. I don't think that was such a bad thing, as I was trying to bring to attention what is actually a destructive and harmful process. Not on similar levels as other problems the rainforests of the world face, but a significant one, and one which is creating long term, harmful effects.



References

Robert A (2003) "River processes : an introduction to fluvial dynamics", London : Arnold

Donohue I, Irvine K (2004) "Size-specific effects of increased sediment loads on gastropod communities in Lake Tanganyika, Africa" In HYDROBIOLOGIA 522 (1-3): 337-342 JUL 2004

Donohue I, Verheyen E, Irvine K (2003) "In situ experiments on the effects of increased sediment loads on littoral rocky shore communities in Lake Tanganyika, East Africa" In FRESHWATER BIOLOGY 48 (9): 1603-1616 SEP 2003

Fostier A H, Forti M C, Guimarães J R, Melfi A J, Boulet R, Espirito Santo C M, Krug F, J, (2000), "Mercury fluxes in a natural forested Amazonian catchment (Serra do Navio, Amapá State, Brazil)", In The Science Of The Total Environment, Volume 260, Issue 1-3, October 9, 2000, Pages 201-211

Julius F. M. de Kom, Gijsbert B. van der Voet and Frederik A. de Wolff, (1998), "Mercury Exposure of Maroon Workers in the Small Scale Gold Mining in Suriname", In Environmental Research, Volume 77, Issue 2, May 1998, Pages 91-97

Korup O, McSaveney MJ, Davies TRH (2004) "Sediment generation and delivery from large historic landslides in the Southern Alps, New Zealand", In GEOMORPHOLOGY 61 (1-2): 189-207 JUL 1 2004

Ofomata G.E.K, (1981) "Impact of road building, urbanisation and general infrastructural development on the Nigerian rainforest ecosystem", In Landscape and Planning, Volume 8, Issue 1, February 1981, Pages 21-29

Power ME, Dietrich WE, Finlay JC (1996) "Dams and downstream aquatic biodiversity: Potential food web consequences of hydrologic and geomorphic change", In ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 20 (6): 887-895 NOV-DEC 1996

[Savanik]

Allow me to clarify slightly on the 'sediment is good' comment. I don't believe that sediment is always good - nor do I think that sediment is always bad. What I believe is that the presence of sediment, within naturally occuring limits, is fine.

The arguments presented for the Colorado River (1) are numerous and varied. The dam itself has caused a major, clearly measurable impact on the type of fish and plants found along the river. I readily acknowledge this. However, I don't believe that the dam's impact on the world at large is particularly serious. The river otter and the muskrat haven't gone extinct - they've just moved to different areas.

It's important that environmentalists recognize that the natural state of nature is change. Species can and do go extinct without human interference. We need to set firm, realistic goals that both promote the environment and increase human welfare. Too many environmentalists directly oppose change as a knee-jerk reaction without recognizing that ecosystems are consantly undergoing change, and thus have to have coping mechanisms built into them for changes in the environment. They want to 'preserve' the environment, as if it were a priceless painting, forever unchanging.

Perfectly natural events often occur that affect global climate. (2) In 1815, the Tambora eruption ejected over 200 million tonnes of SO2 gas, dropping temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere dramatically for the next few years. 1816 was particularly bad, known as 'the year without a summer'. But within a few years, temperatures had returned to normal. Natural processes compensated for the increased levels of SO2. The Earth didn't go into another Ice Age because of the event, despite the short-term effects. I don't think environmentalists give the ecosystem nearly enough credit for being able to adapt and weather major climate changes.

I also think that at least in part, we're disagreeing on terms. Specifically, 'long-term effects'. In the experiments done in Lake Tanganyika that you referenced, the data was only collected for 6 months. When I talk about long-term effects, I'm talking of periods of time ranging from decades to centuries or even longer, to where world-wide effects can be seen and measured. I'm not particularly concerned with a single stream in Brazil when there's so much we can do to help the world at large.

I also agree that with regards to deforestation, more research is needed. To a large degree, scientists' access to jungle sites is limited - sometimes by politics, other times by the simple fact that these areas are far away from civilization. I'm particularly enthusiastic about the use of satellites to monitor deforestation and expect that these will lead to more accurate measurements of the locations and severity of the problem.

Whilst levels may be low, and again not meet quite the exaggerated levels I suggested, I don't think any kind of contamination of dangerous chemicals can be acceptable.

It's interesting that you might say that. A few years back, a study came out demonstrating a link between transfatty acids (more well known as partially hydrogenated oils) and a rise in low-density-lipoproteins (or 'bad cholesterol). (3) This study prompted a world-wide media frenzy and obesity hysteria, leading many to proclaim that the Institute of Medicine had concluded, "there is no safe level of exposure to transfats". (4)

Unfortunately, that's a misquote. What the IOM actually said was, 'There are no known requirements for trans fatty acids for specific body functions.' (5) This somehow became 'there is no known safe level of exposure to transfats', and from that to the above statement.

The fact of the matter is, the original study was flawed. If you go back and look at their measurements, it's quite clear that their standard deviation was rather large. For reference, data that falls within one standard deviation only accounts for 68% of the values. You have to go two standard deivations to get to where 95% percent of the values are. This means that for a 95% confidence interval (the standard that medical studies are typically held to) you have to double the standard deviation. Their 95% confidence interval included LDL values from 113 to 241. That is a variation of over one hundred percent. It also includes levels of LDLs which are perfectly normal and healthy. And there's a further 5% chance that their values fell outside of even that widespread range. This study had no statistical significance.

'There is no safe level of exposure to transfats.' I still laugh every time I hear that. The EPA has established a safe level of exposure to arsenic, cyanide, mercury, and lead - obviously, these substances are safer than something we use everyday in our cooking, and have been doing so for the past 50 to 60 years! But to get back on topic...

The first principle you learn in toxicology is that the dose makes the poison.(6) There is a minimum dose below which, no effects can be measured in the subject. There is always a safe level of exposure for a chemical. For particularly toxic chemicals, that may be a very low value, but there is always some level that is poisonous, and a lower level that is not. Even oxygen and water can be toxic when in high enough concentrations, but no one in their right mind would argue that we need to eliminate oxygen and water completely from our daily lives.

The WWF have recently produced a number of scientific studies into the effects of long term, low level contamination of humans...

Ah, yes. Those studies. I've been hearing about them for a few months now, and had been wondering who they'd been written by. The people I've been hearing about them from have been saying that these publications are a veritable study in how to misuse statistics to cause public hysteria and create lawsuit manufacturing engines.

But let's not take their word for granted - let's do some research!

The WWF's report first spends four chapters talking about how dangerous these chemicals are. I agree, in sufficient doses, these chemicals can probably cause serious damage. One of them, alkylphenols, are commonly used in plastics, textiles, argricultural pesticides, and in many other ways. They tested for nonylphenol (NP) and octylphenol (OP) alkyphenols in blood taken directly from pregnant woman and in their child's umbilical cord. (7)

They found no OPs at all. They had 'some analytical problems' when testing for NPs in the maternal blood samples, meaning that their results weren't accurate, but said they found its presence in two samples and cautioned that the results 'may well therefore be an underestimate' because of their errors. It's just as likely that those were false positives. But:

There were no similar problems with the analysis of the cord blood samples. In that case, NPs were found in 12 of the 17 samples in concentrations ranging from 0.5 to 7.5 ng/g of serum. That is within the range of concentrations reported in the previous Greenpeace study.

0.5 to 0.75 ng/g. Okay - but what's the toxic dose? Let's refer to an EPA animal study. (8)

In a 90-day rat feeding study, para-nonylphenol was administered to four groups of rats at dietary concentrations of 0, 15, 50, and 150, mg/kg/day... Based upon the minor findings for the high dose group, the NOAEL in this study is considered to be 50 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL is 150 mg/kg/day.

NOAEL stands for 'no observed adverse effect level', while LOAEL is 'lowest observed adverse effect level'. Let's be generous and use the 50 mg/kg figure, even though that's the same amount the rats were being fed every dayfor three solid months and Greenpeace claims that these chemicals are bioaccumulative, meaning that they build up in the body.

50mg/kg works out to be 50 parts per million. 0.75 ng/g works out to be 0.75 parts per billion. That means that these chemicals were detected in the umbilical cord at concentrations over 50,000 times lower than a level which causes absolutely no effect!

The Dose Makes The Poison!

I could continue with the in-depth tearing up of this paper, but suffice it to say that it is thoroughly unacademic. In many cases they simply fail to mention the concentrations at which they detected the substances, and I suspect it is with good reason. If they had, than any person with basic math skills would be able to see that the levels of chemicals present in no way, shape, or form constitutes a health hazard.

In everyday speech, emotive language and exaggeration can be useful to make a point, but when put in the context of a scientific paper, it is inexcusable and worthy of contempt. When we make decisions based on bad information, we make bad decisions.

The question of how mercury or other chemical concentrations affect the jungle as a whole isn't answered by the research I've found, however. While a number of papers cite local effects in small areas, the extent of contamination in the jungle, as well as the overall effect of that contamination, seem to be largely unknown. Hopefully someone will get around to doing a full analysis of the watershed soon - if they're thorough, with regards to both sediment levels and chemical contamination.

Sav

1. Living Rivers. "Grand Canyon's Colorado River - The Facts." 2002.

2. Newhall and Daniel Dzurisin. "Historical Unrest at Large Calderas of the World: U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1855". USGS, 1988.

3. Alice H. Lichtenstein, D.Sc., Lynne M. Ausman, D.Sc., Susan M. Jalbert, M.L.T., and Ernst J. Schaefer, M.D. "Effects of Different Forms of Dietary Hydrogenated Fats on Serum Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels." New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 340:1933-1940, June 24, 1999

4. CANTOX. "Food Update." Health Sciences International, Summer 2002.

5. Food and Nutrition Board. "Letter Report on Dietary Reference Intakes for Trans Fatty Acids." Institute of Medicine, 2002.

6. M. Alice Ottoboni. The Dose Makes the Poison: A Plain-Language Guide to Toxicology, 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1997.

7. Jacqueline Schuiling, Wytze van der Naald. "A Present for Life: Hazardous Chemicals in Umbilical Cord Blood." Greenpeace International, Sep 2005.

8. EPA. "Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food." Federal Register: April 18, 2002.

[Jos Elkink]

It's important that environmentalists recognize that the natural state of nature is change. Species can and do go extinct without human interference. We need to set firm, realistic goals that both promote the environment and increase human welfare. Too many environmentalists directly oppose change as a knee-jerk reaction without recognizing that ecosystems are consantly undergoing change, and thus have to have coping mechanisms built into them for changes in the environment. They want to 'preserve' the environment, as if it were a priceless painting, forever unchanging.

I love that quote ... It puts in very clear words something I've long been thinking ... I like the rest of the analysis too, of course, but this in particular ...

I'm totally on Savanik's side for now ... you'll have to argue a little harder, hallucinatingfarmer!

[Savanik]

Well, keep in mind that for the most part, I'm agreeing with hallucinatingfarmer. More study is needed to determine the extent of environmental impact on and damage to the jungle, so that we can know how to properly protect it. I just hate sloppy statistical practices, really. His academic sources have all been quite good.

Sav

[Jos Elkink]

Yes, I understood ... I just mean to say that I agree with you on your attitude towards environmentalist research and statistics ...

I teach statistics in political science, so I know the importance of being strict with it ... People too easily "because it's numbers, it's true".

[formerly known as hf]

I suggested the WWF papers simply as a starting point. Whilst the research was pretty much inconclusive, it's the one of the first papers in what is an area of growing concern, both among the general public, and scientists - the uncertainty of what the adverse effects of conastant, albeit low level, contamination by man made chemicals.

That is the point at which, however, the scientific research ends, and speculation begins. I would agree with sav
- I wouldn't want to come to any definitive conclusions in my mind until there was sufficient research. But where I would differ, is that, until that research is done, I would err on the side of caution, and suspicion.
- This is an ideological difference. Which is where Sav and myself seem to differ.

Ideological differences in areas where scientific reserach, whilst possibly extensive, is not conclusive or consensual, is a difficult area, and it's easy to get bogged down in.

I'm going to avoid paraphrasing anyone or referencing anyone for this. If anyone was to head to a University library and look for information about chemical contamination of the kind the WWF have studied will likely find that both sides of the argument are there in equal parts.

More so in the realms that Sav touched on in the quote:

It's important that environmentalists recognize that the natural state of nature is change. Species can and do go extinct without human interference. We need to set firm, realistic goals that both promote the environment and increase human welfare. Too many environmentalists directly oppose change as a knee-jerk reaction without recognizing that ecosystems are consantly undergoing change, and thus have to have coping mechanisms built into them for changes in the environment. They want to 'preserve' the environment, as if it were a priceless painting, forever unchanging.

This is an ideological standing, much more so than the science behind contamination and toxins.

I'd start by saying that I agree with the quote - not wholeheartedly - but at least with the general principles. Many environmentalists do wish to 'preserve' the environment - which, when taken to mean preserving in a static way - is almost certainly a bad thing. I think, however, that Sav is discrediting a lot of people - the static preservation is rarely what environmentalists are looking for - as it doesn't take too much intelligence to realise that the environment is an ever shifting, an ever changing arena. Species become extinct, adapt, grow, decline, all without any human interference.
That change is a constant in the natural world is something that very few people would argue with, least of those are the environmentalists who are interested in protecting it. What a lot of the work is towards is minmising, if not totally cutting out, human interference with natural systems.

I, personally, would begin with the suggestions that we, as humans, are not something 'apart' from the environment. Rather than seeing natural systems as a black box and human systems as a seperate black box, which feed to and from each other, we must invisage a single black box of the envrionment, of which humans are just a part.
It is from this that we reach the realms of 'sustainability' - an area which I have real interest in. The sustainability principle is actually something very difficult to tie down. When people talk about 'sustainable development' - it'll mean something very different to a greenpeace activist than it does to the CEO of a logging company. For myself, I take sustainability as the level at which human activity can occur within a natural system, without disrupting it beyond repair. This can either be short or long term.

What must then be considered is just how much natural systems can absorb changes. It's very easy to talk about natural ecosystems as 'fragile' and worthy of extreme care and attention. It is this kind of language that environmental acitivists use to encourage public support. By describing them in this way, it fosters a feeling that preservation is something important. This kind of language is somewhat irresponsible - it's false - natural systems aren't really all that fragile - but it does get attention on what is a very important subject, which is often ignored, or not taken seriously, by many people.

What is also irresponsible, however, is to suggest that the environment is so strong, so solid, so able to adapt, that we can contnue to pump out horrendous amounts of greenhouse emmissions without any fear of change. Or that we can dessimate vast tracts of rainforest with no consequence.

Sav and myself seem to be somewhere in the middle of the two sides of the argument. The point that

We need to set firm, realistic goals that both promote the environment and increase human welfare.

is a worthy one. But what what it exactly means is highly debateable. It's one of those common quotes about sustainable development - it's easy to roll something like that out - but what it, in practice, means, is another matter. There are more than six sides to this die - verging from the opinion that we can do a lot of change before we cause any permanent, unrepairable change - to the opinion that we can only go a very short way before we start irreversibly changing the nature of the world we live in. I generally feel that we have already made some very drastic, totally irreversible, unabsorbable change - and we are continuing to. The adaptive capacities of the global system are being stretched, in terms of carbon sinks for CO2 emmissions, and natural systems in adapting to upcoming climate changes from the pollution we create, as well as locally in terms of deforestation, pesticide and herbidiced use, urban exapnsion etc. etc.
We are near breaking point, if those adabtive capabilities have not already broken, and some, possibly quite extreme, measures do need to be taken, both at global and local levels.

I feel that maybe you err to a less cautious side Sav?

Either way, this is something ideolgical, which I don't feel can be argued by resorting to scientific studies. Even the same piece of reserach can be selectivly used to make any number of wide, opposing points. As such, I have avoided any referencing this time. I have drawn from a number of sources, mostly academic - the situations, suggestions and theories I have run through have been suggested and echoed by many people. At the same time, the opposing theroies and suggestions have been aired by just as many people.

[Nick]

I wouldn't liken the rapid effects of humans on the environment since the industrial revolution to the level of change that would naturally be experienced by an environment.

[formerly known as hf]

Neither would I, and those that do are no part of the minority (whereas they were the majority before).
Those that claim recent changes may just be part of a natural cycle in the Earth's climate have been heavily discredited. The climate of the Earth does fluctuate, but ice core drilling has traced that back millions of years. No change has been anywhere near as dramatic and over such a short term as the past two centuries.

[Savanik]

I was typing up a much longer message, but then my computer crashed. And then the game wasn't responding. *Grumble* Being lazy, I'll devolve to what I felt was the most important part. On most of his points, I agree with Hf, but...

Either way, this is something ideolgical, which I don't feel can be argued by resorting to scientific studies. Even the same piece of reserach can be selectivly used to make any number of wide, opposing points.

I cannot disagree with you more on this point - and this is what I consider the major failing of the modern environmental movement. If you don't base your ideology on a reasoned, rational foundation of ideas then you'll end up with an irrational ideology. You can't replace rational thinking with emotions. It's true that many pieces of research can be interpreted differently, especially with regards to 'is this good or bad', but when the evidence is incontrovertiable, you shouldn't ignore it.

Take power plants, for example. Modern nuclear power plants are safer, cheaper, cleaner, and produce more power than coal power plants. But most environmentalists are even more strongly opposed to nuclear power than coal - despite a multitude of studies that prove all the above points. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, many more available)

DDT has been banned for 30 years due to fears about its effect on the environment. The growing scientific consensus now is that DDT is environmentally safe - after its 30 year global ban. Tens, if not hundreds of millions of people, have died from malaria over those 30 years, and many of these deaths could have been prevented by the use of DDT.

What about CFCs? Since 1985, CFCs have been being gradually phased out of existence by the Montreal protocol. Now, studies linking CFCs to ozone layer depletion are now falling under greater scrutiny from researchers. CFCs could provide cheap refrigeration to third-world countries and help save millions from starvation.

And there's still other issues where emotions rule over reason - GM crops that could feed millions in third world countries, opposed by environmentalists as 'Fraken-foods'. Environmental toxins in mother's milk - at levels thousands of times below where they could show an effect. Global warming - even the existence of which is now under question because of the urban heat-island effect.

Environmentalists seem to feel like doing a cost-benefit analysis on the environment is like putting a price tag on clean air or birds singing. And I can understand and even share that very emotional response. But if we can spend $100 over here and save 100 acres of trees, or we can spend $100 over here and save 1000 acres of trees - that's the sort of thinking that I want to see in something I believe in.

Sav


1. J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, R. E. Blanco. "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants." Science, Dec 8, 1978.
2. J. O. Corbett. "The Radiation Dose From Coal Burning: A Review of Pathways and Data." Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 4 (1): 5-19.
3. National Council on Radiation Protection. Public Radiation Exposure From Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S. Report No. 92, 1987, 72-112.
4. OECD/ IEA NEA 2005, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity
5. "Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors." Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 14, Oct 2005.