Source: Page 35 of White Noise Keywords: "detection," "measuring," "equipment"

From: iaotb@inet.uni-c.dk (Torsten Brinch) Subject: Re: The global ennvironment crisis is a media beat-up Date: 8 Sept 1995 Newsgroups: sci.environment

Kjeld Flarup Christensen (flarup@login.dknet.dk) wrote: >Anyway is there a global environmental crisis? >Actually it seems that the environment has never been better: >1. The soil has never been able to provide better for humans as today, hence > the increased number of individuals. Huh? So the increasing number of individuals on the globe is a function of the soil's ability to provide? Therefore, as the number of individuals has actually increased, the 'soil part' of the environment must be in better shape than ever? Amazing. >2. The quality of the drinkingwater has increased the last 100 years. Ever wondered why? Or do you have any idea if this quality has changed gradually, maybe even linearly. Could the quality of the drinking water maybe even have gone up exponentially lately? What efforts have been needed to accomplish the improvement? By the way - which quality did you have in mind? And is there anything to add, regarding the rest of our fresh-water ressources? You know, fresh water comes and it goes. >3. Prises of food is falling. Prices on everything is falling. If there > were a crisis, then prices would rise. The Inverse Consumer Price Index, an indicator of environmental health? ;-) Now I see, why free market economy is so good for us. As long as the free competition can keep the prices falling, there can't be an environmental crisis. And the environment even becomes better and better as the prices go down. And if the prices should go up eventually (or somewhere), it is just a social crisis, not an environmental one. And certainly not a global crisis. >Also consider this when you want to find the real beat-up >4. Has the polution increased or decreased, since governments started > to employ people to remove the polution. Could you explain a little more? What do *you* think? Logically (all other things being equal), pollution should decrease if more people are employed to remove it. > >5. Measuring equipment is today extreemly sensitive, ever causing > new problem to appear, although they may have existed for ages, > and in reality is solving them selves. Strange way to put things. I think, you are just trying to be evasively vague. But look, the decrease in detection limit of measuring equipment has not caused new problems with contaminants to appear. It is the other way around. And problems, that in reality have solved themselves for ages (thereby not being real problems), may change to bigger problems, which are no longer able to solve themselves. What specific problems did you have in mind? As in analytical equipment, there are detection limits in people's minds, that limit their perception of environmental problems. These limits have changed globally too. But brands differ a lot. >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > Kjeld Flarup Christensen | Fremskridtspartiets Ungdom > Political Vice Chairman | The Progress Party Youth, Denmark Kind regards, Torsten, Brinch -- ;'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''; ; Torsten Brinch If you understand nothing but chemistry, ; ; iaotb@inet.uni-c.dk you do not really understand chemistry. ; ; 6640, Ferup, Denmark G.C. Lichtenberg (1742-1799) ; :,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;

Back to 2004 Archive, "The Usenet Project" - Back to Starve.Org Main Page - Contact - Starve Archive