6 billion?

Great Debates
461

Just to weigh in on MTBE (and help get to 6 Billion posts, of course): I am not convinced that MTBE is as all-fired poisonous as some would have it, but I don’t like the stuff at all. A few years ago I was, on behalf of my clients, an early investor in a large methanol producer that also built MTBE conversion plants, mostly by converting then-useless ammonia plants.

I read enough about the bad reactions of some (it appeared to provoke an immediate and violent allergic reaction in apx. .5% of people who got a good whiff at the pump) and the unique ability this big-ol molecule to osmos through just about anything at a quick rate that I got nervous. Once the stuff got in widespread use, I further learned that the actual effects it has on emissions are, well, negligible is too strong a word, but limited. I concluded that, at least for purposes of my clients’ conservative investment philosophy, a sale was warranted. (Full disclosure: the investment had made a lot of money, probably about as much as was reasonable to expect, and I might have sold it anyway)

I don’t believe that the limited benefit of its use justifies its continued inclusion in gasoline formulae, even if the groundwater contamination stories are overblown. But Akat’s point, I believe, is correct. The present storm seems to have been brewed by some of the same people who wanted an oxygenating alternative to ethanol in the first place (along with the ADM guys who have been crying all along). If they want to really reduce automobile emission levels, they’d sell their 20-year old cars and get a current model, which is about 90% less emissive. But that would require them to do something, as opposed to requiring everybody else to do something.

Sign up now to claim your share! Who Wants To Be A Phaedrusaire?

462

Here is the American Council on Science and Health’s article on the 60 Minutes Alar scare:

http://www.acsh.org/publications/priorities/0903/aforalar.html

acsh.org may have an agenda of sorts, but at least theirs isn’t as pronounced as junkscience.com’s is.

463

More population means scare water and more pollution.

Tri-Valley agency won’t inject sewage.
Two water agencies in the Tri-Valley area were well on the way with plans to inject treated sewage into the aquifer - until the Safe Water Committee and Sierra Club raised a warning.

The Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) was planning construction of a reverse-osmosis sewage-treatment plant. The district would then have pumped the treated water into the aquifer under the Tri-Valley, one of the major sources of drinking water for Zone 7 of the Alameda County Water District, which provides drinking water to Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore, Sunol, and parts of San Ramon.

But would the treated water be safe to drink, or would it contaminate the aquifer?

The Safe Water Committee raised concerns such as insufficient monitoring of sources of contaminants, and rising water tables, which would interfere with agriculture and mining.

The Tri-Valley Group of the Bay Chapter emphasized two fundamental objections.

Our aquifer is a closed aquifer. Should the treated water prove to have contaminants that are not now recognized, there would be no way to flush them out. The entire aquifer would have to be abandoned. No other reverse-osmosis plant in the nation uses a closed aquifer; they either store the water in above-ground reservoirs for a year, while monitoring for contamination, or inject the water into open aquifers that are continually refreshed by natural processes.
The added water supply would be an added stimulus to development. There is not currently a water shortage, but planned developments such as Dougherty Valley can easily outstrip present water resources.
On Sep. 15, however, the Zone 7 Board heard testimony from 35 residents. After three hours of testimony, the Board unanimously voted against the project. The project will not be happening, at least for now. The Board also agreed to create better educational tools and to obtain citizen input before any further plans are developed for use of reverse-osmosis-treated water.

The Board’s actions are a victory for clean water in the Tri-Valley, and a precedent for careful consideration of future proposals for reverse osmosis in other communities.

Sewer water tastes bad.

Things are not what they seem to be; nor are they otherwise.
[lankavatara Sutra]

464

“scare water” is right. Some Northern California residents were scared that reverse-osmosis-treated sewer water MIGHT contain contaminants not yet known to exist. And the only justification for their fear was that the treatment plants were going to put the treated water in a closed aquifer, not an open aquifer or an above-ground storage facility, which all other existing reverse-osmosis treatment plants use.

And this community is not currently experiencing a water shortage, despite California’s reputation as one of the most drought-ridden states in the Union.

So tell me … how does THIS article demonstrate that a higher population will make water scarce?

465

tracer, I think John John’s sig line explains that very succinctly. Even the bogey man is not what he seems. Scared of unknown contaminants that might exist; that’s a good one.

A couple hundred posts ago he was talking about overpopulation being a cause of increasing deaths. Here’s a

It sounds to me like the good old Earth is doing a fine job controlling population. I’ll bet they’d just love Johnny over at www.junkscience.com There’s always a good population debate going over there.

“That it is unwise to be heedless ourselves while we are giving advice to others, I will show in a few lines.” - Phaedrus, translator of Aesop’s Fables

466

tracer

Scarce, of course. sorry. The article, I hoped, would indicate how overpopulation, more technology=more pollution, had a greater chance to pollute ground water sources. Sorry, I was taking for granted you might make the connection.

Things are not what they seem to be; nor are they otherwise.
[lankavatara Sutra]

467

Uncle

I’m sure you are NOT advocating that we sit and wait for natural disasters to fix the problem. :slight_smile:

Things are not what they seem to be; nor are they otherwise.
[lankavatara Sutra]

468

more technology=more pollution?

I am under the impression that many new technologies are aimed at reducing pollution. Or was that just an Urban Legend. I think I’ll wander on over to snopes and have a look see.

469

Simulpost, sorry John.

Nope, I’m not advocating that. I’m just trying to understand how massive death counts contribute to overpopulation.

By the way, just what is YOUR solution? I haven’t seen you post that yet, just a bunch of C&P’s from the fear mongers.

And please don’t take this question as meaning I have acknowledged a problem to even exist.

470

I just had a thought. I figured the Sierra Club was only interested in this reverse-osmosis sewage treatment plant because it would have sent its water into a closed aquifer. But what if the Sierra Club is actually opposed to ALL water relclaimation technologies, closed aquifer or not? Wouldn’t getting rid of water reclamation mean MORE water shortages?

471

tracer

Congratulations! :slight_smile: Sorry, that was hanging over the plate.

Sierra Club’s position is that aquifers are to stay pristine.

Things are not what they seem to be; nor are they otherwise.
[lankavatara Sutra]

472

In order to transcend your illusions, orient your beliefs along the line of greatest entropy.

473

John John wrote:

What do they suggest we do about all that wild animal excrement that inevitably makes its way down into the aquifer?

474

I’m finding this question hard to believe. Tracer, wild animal dung is good for the soil, vegitation, and does not percolate down to the aquifer.

Now, tracer, go to your room and read a basic fertilizer primer.

Things are not what they seem to be; nor are they otherwise.
[lankavatara Sutra]

475

If I peed on the ground above an underground aquifer, and the aquifer wasn’t buried too deep, a little of it could work its way down there.

And if not, I can always pee farther upstream, where the water is still running above ground.

476

What I meant was, water that’s tapped for municipal drinking needs has usually had a whole bunch of naturally-occurring crap dumped in it. It runs over muddy riverbeds. Wild animals occasionally pee and poop in it. Fish swim in it – and fish have no compunction against peeing and pooping directly into the water. Sure, natural filter processes take most of this junk out of our drinking water, but not all of it.

Almost all of the contaminants in sewage are human excrement. By filtering sewage through reverse-osmosis, we can make water that not only tastes like tap water, but is chemically indistinguishable from it. It seems hypocritical to oppose the addition of this former-sewage potable water to our water supply, when we have no compuction whatsoever against drinking chemically identical water that fish have peed in simply because this other water comes from “natural” sources.

It’s like opposing saccharin because it causes cancer in rats, without opposing naturally-produced ethanol, even though ethanol has been shown to cause more cancer in rats than saccharin does.

The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.

477

After you finish the book on fertilizer please get one on aquifers.

Your pee, or animal pee, will have been cleansed by soil and sediment filtration and will not pollute an aquifer, since they are usually hundreds or thousands of feet below the earth. Aquifers are prestine.

The truth is generally seen, rarely heard. Gracian.

478

Okay, I didn’t understand that aquifer water originates as groundwater, which is basically rainwater filtered through the ground as it seeps down to the water-table level.

But then, if water that filtered through hundreds of feet of dirt is pristine, and dirt is little more than dried-out organic matter (including a little bit of very old animal dung), then why wouldn’t we consider reverse-osmosis filtered sewer water to be equally pristine? Particularly if we can’t detect any difference between their contaminant levels?

479

Tracer, don’t feel bad about not knowing about aquifers. You know now and that’s what counts.

Aquifers are prestine, natural,rain water that has percolated down through the soil over the eons. Once an aquifer has been polluted it can never be made right again. I cannot give you an informed answer on why it cannot be done other than the basics. Simply said, nature has purified it and man should not pollute.

Respect nature.

The truth is generally seen, rarely heard. Gracian.

480

BTW, trace, thanks for reading up on aquifers. See why it is so important that they stay unsullied?

The truth is generally seen, rarely heard. Gracian.