Pollution, Your Views?

[Darth Wong]

So it can be about the pollution of the atmosphere, but that can be also the sound (including infrasound and ultrasound), the pollution of water, the radioactive pollution, and many other pollutions that we don't think (radiowaves or cellular waves)

Let's not lump dissimilar phenomena together, mmkay? Sound and radio frequency "pollution" is non-persistent, ie- it does not leave any residue in the environment. That's completely different from physical waste products being pumped into our air and water.

[ZoliveR]

Elephants and whales can be influenced by sounds, in different frequencies... I'm sure that having a mass move of the elephants by thousands in the whole africa is not a thing to ignore...

[Outofmymindyo]

Increase the gas price in the US to fund research for alternative fuels.

Thank you $2/gallon is already expensive enough for those of us who can't really afford the only car we have to drive anyway. It's not exactly the majority of the population that gets to choose what kind of car they get to drive, as most of us are falling behind on bills every month anyway, so raising gas prices would just sink us and cause further problems.

[Pit]

Petrol is at least $5.40 per US gallon over here. We get on fine, and my parents aren't rolling in it right now.

[Darth Wong]

Elephants and whales can be influenced by sounds, in different frequencies... I'm sure that having a mass move of the elephants by thousands in the whole africa is not a thing to ignore...

Almost all "noise pollution" is around human settlements, which naturally drive animals away anyway. As I said, you can't compare noise pollution and chemical pollution. Chemicals get into the ground, the air, and the water, and kill or injure animal and plant life. Noise pollution is generally just annoying. And radiofrequency "pollution" is undetectable unless you happen to have an electronic device designed to listen for it.

[Magnotta]

Elephants and whales can be influenced by sounds, in different frequencies... I'm sure that having a mass move of the elephants by thousands in the whole africa is not a thing to ignore...

Almost all "noise pollution" is around human settlements, which naturally drive animals away anyway. As I said, you can't compare noise pollution and chemical pollution. Chemicals get into the ground, the air, and the water, and kill or injure animal and plant life. Noise pollution is generally just annoying. And radiofrequency "pollution" is undetectable unless you happen to have an electronic device designed to listen for it.

Sonar in the ocean is actually having a far more harmfull effect on dolphins, whales, and other marine life than just being annoying. It instead interfers with the creatures own way of navigating in the water, as well as a few issues on their ability to find food. I can;t really remember the exact details at the current moment, as this was from an article a little while back(say 2-3 months) but either way, "noise pollution" in an aquatic sense does have more effects than simple annoyance.


While not nesasarily pollution, whats sad up in Canada is the cutting down of the Red Hill Creek forest simply to make an expressway so people can shave a bit of time off their rout to work.

[Darth Wong]

Sonar in the ocean is actually having a far more harmfull effect on dolphins, whales, and other marine life than just being annoying. It instead interfers with the creatures own way of navigating in the water, as well as a few issues on their ability to find food. I can;t really remember the exact details at the current moment, as this was from an article a little while back(say 2-3 months) but either way, "noise pollution" in an aquatic sense does have more effects than simple annoyance.

Nevertheless, it is still not the same as the kind of pollution that leaves residue in the environment. I don't have to argue that it has no effect at all in order to show that its consequences are relatively insignificant compared to other forms of pollution (leaving aside radiofrequency "pollution", which is an even sillier inclusion since it is not even detectable without the right equipment).

While not nesasarily pollution, whats sad up in Canada is the cutting down of the Red Hill Creek forest simply to make an expressway so people can shave a bit of time off their rout to work.

Actually, speeding up highway travel is a very good thing for the environment, because it means less time spent idling your engine and pumping garbage into the air.

[Sobel Dave]

There r different types of pollution like water pollution, noise pollution, air pollution, soil pollution, etc. ]

I think there shud be one more term for pollution i.e population pollution

[Erikina]

Actually, speeding up highway travel is a very good thing for the environment, because it means less time spent idling your engine and pumping garbage into the air.

Speeding up the highways would be a bad idea, at least if you are looking at it from the environmental side. I assume you understand traveling at low speeds is very inefficient, but so is traveling at high speeds (from proportionally increased air resistance).

I believe the optimum speed from most vehicals is around 70km/h, so putting a 80km/h speed limit would help the environment - but what would help more is building giant overpasses on every single intersection, with a dedicated bike/bus lane

[divad123]

I think there shud be one more term for pollution i.e population pollution

There is more than one term for pollution. Your example of 'population pollution' is currently in use. It is more specific than the one umbrella of 'pollution'

[smithy_dll]

still it is widely accepted that the topic author meant environmental waste pollution,

[Erikina]

but what would help more is building giant overpasses on every single intersection, with a dedicated bike/bus lane

I was joking about that, as the effects on the environment would be disasterous.

But making sure cars are up to scratch in mechanical tests would greatly be of benefit.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, speeding up highway travel is a very good thing for the environment, because it means less time spent idling your engine and pumping garbage into the air.

Speeding up the highways would be a bad idea, at least if you are looking at it from the environmental side. I assume you understand traveling at low speeds is very inefficient, but so is traveling at high speeds (from proportionally increased air resistance).

Actually, I was talking about speeding up traffic by reducing bottlenecks and thus eliminating traffic jams which lead to cars sitting there and idling their pollutants into the atmosphere, not increasing the speed limit.

I believe the optimum speed from most vehicals is around 70km/h, so putting a 80km/h speed limit would help the environment - but what would help more is building giant overpasses on every single intersection, with a dedicated bike/bus lane

I wouldn't want to be a guy riding a bicycle in the dedicated bike/bus lane with a bus bearing down on me 8O

[smithy_dll]

you have to also weigh up the energy wasted due to a system being unsafe, then times it by 1,000,000
Of course that is still no excuse to own an SUV

[Erikina]

Actually, I was talking about speeding up traffic by reducing bottlenecks and thus eliminating traffic jams which lead to cars sitting there and idling their pollutants into the atmosphere, not increasing the speed limit.

My bad - I misunderstood you

I wouldn't want to be a guy riding a bicycle in the dedicated bike/bus lane with a bus bearing down on me 8O

You'd think that, but I prefer a bus over a car anyday - generaly cars are better but sometimes you get real assholes on the road - I've even got death threats for being able to go faster than the gridlocked cars, and the guys seemed quite serious.