4
   

Is the world being destroyed?

 
 
abid007
 
Reply Thu 21 May, 2015 05:36 am
Associated with the is the introduction involving particulates, biological molecules, as well as other harmful materials straight into Earth's atmosphere, causing ailment, death to humans, problems for other living organisms including food crops, or your natural or built natural environment. Air pollution may are derived from anthropogenic or natural solutions.

Water pollution is your contamination of water systems (e. g. waters, rivers, oceans, aquifers along with groundwater). This way of environmental degradation occurs while pollutants are directly as well as indirectly discharged into normal water bodies without adequate treatment to take out harmful compounds.

Soil contamination or soil pollution is a result of the presence of xenobiotic (human-made) substances or other alteration inside natural soil environment. It can be typically caused by business activity, agricultural chemicals, as well as improper disposal of squander. The most common substances involved are petroleum hydrocarbons, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (including naphthalene and benzo(a new)pyrene), solvents, pesticides, steer, and other heavy mining harvests. Contamination is correlated while using degree of industrialization along with intensity of chemical consumption.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 4 • Views: 6,796 • Replies: 272

 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2015 02:55 pm
@abid007,
No, just the soil.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2021 04:25 am
Pesticides Are Killing the World’s Soils

They cause significant harm to earthworms, beetles, ground-nesting bees and thousands of other vital subterranean species

Quote:
Scoop up a shovelful of healthy soil, and you’ll likely be holding more living organisms than there are people on the planet Earth.

Like citizens of an underground city that never sleeps, tens of thousands of subterranean species of invertebrates, nematodes, bacteria and fungi are constantly filtering our water, recycling nutrients and helping to regulate the earth’s temperature.

But beneath fields covered in tightly knit rows of corn, soybeans, wheat and other monoculture crops, a toxic soup of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides is wreaking havoc, according to our newly published analysis in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science.

The study, the most comprehensive review ever conducted on how pesticides affect soil health, should trigger immediate and substantive changes in how regulatory agencies like the EPA assess the risks posed by the nearly 850 pesticide ingredients approved for use in the U.S.

Currently, regulators completely ignore pesticides’ harm to earthworms, springtails, beetles and thousands of other subterranean species.

Our study leaves no doubt that must change.

For our analysis, conducted by researchers at the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth and the University of Maryland, we looked at nearly 400 published studies that together conducted over 2,800 experiments on how pesticides affect soil organisms. Our review encompassed 275 unique species or types of soil organisms and 284 different pesticides or pesticide mixtures.

In just over 70 percent of those experiments, pesticides were found to harm organisms that are critical to maintaining healthy soils—harms that currently are never considered in the EPA’s safety reviews.

The ongoing escalation of pesticide-intensive agriculture and pollution are major driving factors in the precipitous decline of many soil organisms, like ground beetles and ground-nesting bees. They have been identified as the most significant driver of soil biodiversity loss in the last decade.

Yet pesticide companies and our pesticide regulators have ignored that research.

The EPA, which is responsible for pesticide oversight in the U.S., openly acknowledges that somewhere between 50 percent to 100 percent of all agriculturally applied pesticides end up on the soil. Yet to assess pesticides’ harms to soil species, the agency still uses a single test species—one that spends its entire life above ground in artificial boxes to estimate risk to all soil organisms—the European honeybee.

The fact that the EPA relies on a species that literally may never touch soil in its entire life to represent the thousands of species that live or develop underground offers a disturbing glimpse of how the U.S. pesticide regulatory system is set up to protect the pesticide industry instead of species and their ecosystems.

What this ultimately means is that pesticide approvals happen without any regard to how those pesticides can harm soil organisms.

To add to this, as principles of regenerative agriculture and soil health gain popularity around the world, pesticide companies have jumped on the bandwagon to greenwash their products.

Every major pesticide company now has Web materials touting its role in promoting soil health, often advocating for reducing tilling and planting cover crops. As general principles, both of these practices are indeed good for soil health and, if adopted responsibly, are great steps to take.

However, pesticide companies know that these practices are often accompanied by increased pesticide use. When fields aren’t tilled, pesticides are often used to kill weeds, and cover crops are often killed by pesticides before crop planting.

This “one step forward, one step back” approach is preventing meaningful progress to protect our soils. Pesticide companies have so far been successful in coopting “healthy soil” messaging because our regulators have demonstrated no desire or willingness to protect soil organisms from pesticides.

The long-term environmental cost of that failure can no longer be ignored.

Soils are some of the most complex and biodiverse ecosystems on the planet, containing nearly a quarter of the planet’s diversity.

Protecting them should be a priority, not an afterthought.

Our research indicates that achieving this will require that we face the task of reducing the world’s growing and unsustainable addiction to pesticide-intensive agriculture.

And it will require that the EPA take aggressive steps to begin protecting the health of our soil by addressing the well-documented harms of pesticides to our long-overlooked subterranean species.

sa
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2021 06:55 am
@hightor,
It is my impression without doing a whit of investigation that the use of pesticides may keep on increasing every season.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2021 07:04 am
1. Pesticides save lives. We need them to make sure that human beings are fed.

2. Of course pesticides can be harmful to the environment and to humans They should be used intelligently and thoughtfully.

3. Genetic modification of crops is an important way to reduce the use of pesticides. Unfortunately there is unscientific opposition to this technology that is inhibiting its use.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2021 07:08 am
@maxdancona,
- Stopping the use of Pesticides.
- Stopping the use of Genetically Modified Crops.
- Preventing lots of people from starving.

We need to decide which of these is most important.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2021 07:19 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
1. Pesticides save lives. We need them to make sure that human beings are fed.

Human beings aren't the only form of life worth caring about. Soil life is an important part of the chain of biological activity that enables us to grow food in the ground.

Quote:
2. Of course pesticides can be harmful to the environment and to humans They should be used intelligently and thoughtfully.

That's the point of the article.

Quote:
3. Genetic modification of crops is an important way to reduce the use of pesticides.

But that's not how it's worked out in industrial farming. GMO crops are being sold which have been modified to resist common pesticides like glysophate. The crops are planted and the rows are heavily sprayed with Roundup® to kill weeds. This is a questionable use of GMO technology and heavily promoted by the giant chemical corporations like Monsanto.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2021 07:25 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
- Stopping the use of Pesticides.

Unrealistic
Quote:
- Stopping the use of Genetically Modified Crops.

Too late.
Quote:
- Preventing lots of people from starving.

As the climate warms and new weather patterns develop, large areas of the world historically devoted to agriculture may become unproductive. This is happening in the USA as drought conditions have led to a precipitous drop in the level of water in aquifers which have existed for thousands of years. Using pesticides and GMO crops won't do anything to prevent droughts and heatwaves.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2021 07:27 am
@hightor,
1. I value human life above any other form of life. This is a value judgement that isn't really open to logical argument (but when I had termites in my house, I had no problem exterminating them).

2. We agree on point #2.

3. If the facts were that Monsanto's roundup resistant Genetically modified crops reduced the amount of pesticide used (and proved benefiticial for the environment) ... would you then support it?

I understand your political feelings about Monsanto. But if they have a product that factually benefitied humans and the environment, would you be able to accept the facts?

hightor
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2021 07:45 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
1. I value human life above any other form of life. This is a value judgement that isn't really open to logical argument (but when I had termites in my house, I had no problem exterminating them).

Lovely sentiments but you're not absorbing the message of the article. Healthy soil life promotes healthy crops. Just writing off the biological world which we can't see because we only care about humans will not work out well for humans in the long run. Personally, life is life and I see no reason to place our species on a pedestal.

Quote:
3. If the facts were that Monsanto's roundup resistant Genetically modified crops reduced the amount of pesticide used (and proved benefiticial for the environment) ... would you then support it?

That's a big "if" — you mean if glysophate didn't have a negative effect on soil life would I support its use? Maybe. I'd prefer other strategies. Like modifying the DNA of harmful insects to make them sterile and releasing them (this is being done now, with some success), or genetically modifying crop plants to resist drought or particular plant diseases. I use glysophate, by the way. It's actually one of the best herbicides for homeowners when used for spot treatment of invasive species because it doesn't last for a long time in the soil. But that sort of use is completely different from the repeated broadcast use in industrial farming.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2021 07:52 am
@maxdancona,
The use of pesticides may be of a far less destructive nature as opposed to man-made and do far less harm than the ones the big industrial and smaller farms use. They are looking to do overkill maximizing their profit and pick short term solutions. The use of Roundup (glyphosate) and neonicotinoids (Shell and Bayer consortium) is at the heart of this issue.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2021 08:15 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
I value human life above any other form of life.

Would you feel that way if you weren't human?
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2021 08:19 am
First, let'd dispatch with the fantasy that humans can live on "natural food". Human beings have advanced to the point where we rely on "man-made" food for many of our basic needs. Corn doesn't exist in the wild. The chickens we eat are man-made (and engineered to have big breasts in a way natural selection would have never developed). Bananas, turkey... the list of man-made foods we take for granted is endless.

Without artificial fertilizer, the world would be plauged with famine (and actually it was, even with a much smaller population). Fewer people are dying of starvation now than at any time in human history. This is thanks to modern agricultural technology which includes artificial pesticides and artificial irrigation.

Of course, we should study the effects of agricultural technology, and pesticides should be carefully watched for their possible effects on humans and the environement.

But the knee-jerk reaction against new technology isn't reasonable. Agricultural technology prevents famines.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2021 08:42 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
I value human life above any other form of life.

Would you feel that way if you weren't human?


I am pretty sure that if I were a dog, I would feel the same way. I don't know how this matters.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2021 08:54 am
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:

The use of ”natural” pesticides may be of a far less destructive nature ...


The effects of man made pesticides HAVE and are being watched and have been proven to be destructive. The death of beehives all over the world have been well documented. Particularly notable is the loss of beehives in North America where there is extensive use of neonicotinoid, etc.

Lose the bees and you lose several important food crops. Ostriches still don’t fare very well when they stick their head in the sand. Danger
is just as present and just as deadly.

Man is the dominant life form and theoretically the most intelligent. As such, it behaves man to “Do No Harm”. The effects of these and other bad agricultural mistakes (complimentary crop rotation and irrigation and water misuse) are further depleting the soil and reducing the nutritional value of the food.
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2021 09:13 am
@Ragman,
Furthermore, it is man’s responsibility to be good custodians of the environment and use its power over the environment to better it for all of the life forms... not just for itsvown short term gains.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2021 09:20 am
@Ragman,
You are making a very one sided (and short-sighted) argument.

1. There have been some negative impacts of some uses of some artificial pesticides. We agree on this. If a pesticide is causing a harm that outweighs the benefit, then we should stop using it.

2. Modern human beings depend on articial pesticides. There are 7 billion of us, and we now think that famine is unacceptable. We need the security and productivity that modern technology gives us.

1000 years ago there were horrible famines. Some of them were caused by insect pests... and even those that weren't would have been helped by the higher yields provided by modern technology including artificial pesticides. When a famine struck, lots of people died with nothing that anyone could do about it.

For the first time in human history, we have the ability to ensure that no one dies of famine (and right now, the only people who are dying of famine are in a war zone. This is a different problem altogether).

The problem is that modern human beings don't accept people dying of famine. That is one reason we rely on modern technology.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2021 09:23 am
@Ragman,
The agricultural pollution has already destroyed enough of the vulnerable freshwater systems, runoffs from farms and fields contain a range of pollutants that impact habitats downstream. And our local tap water.
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2021 09:24 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

First, let'd dispatch with the fantasy that humans can live on "natural food". Human beings have advanced to the point where we rely on "man-made" food for many of our basic needs. Corn doesn't exist in the wild. The chickens we eat are man-made (and engineered to have big breasts in a way natural selection would have never developed).


I buy all my meat, eggs and produce from organic farms. The animals are raised non-GMO, antibiotic- and hormone-free, and they are free range.

I pay about $18 Cdn for a 5 - 7 lb bird. They are huge. The eggs are slightly more than what you'd pay at a big grocery store, but they come from those chickens.
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2021 09:52 am
@Mame,
Organic food is only an option for a privileged few.

Organic food uses more water and more land to produce lower yields with greater risk (crops vary from year to year). It is not sustainable for feeding people world wide.

It is good if you can get it. But people without priviledge still need accessible and affordable food.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel Proves the Desalination Era is Here - Discussion by Robert Gentel
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
What does water taste like? - Question by Fiona368
California and its greentard/water problems - Discussion by gungasnake
Water is dry. - Discussion by izzythepush
Let's talk about... - Question by tontoiam
Water - Question by Cyracuz
Evaporation of Water - Question by gollum
What is your favorite bottled water? - Discussion by tsarstepan
water - Question by cissylxf
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is the world being destroyed?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/28/2021 at 11:23:19