heavy metals pollute the soil in China

A news story today:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304626304579507...

China Details Vast Extent of Soil Pollution

About a Fifth of Nation's Arable Land Is Contaminated With Heavy Metals

"The extent of China's soil pollution, long guarded as a state secret, was laid out in an official report that confirmed deep-seated fears about contaminated farmland and the viability of the country's food supply.

Nearly one-fifth of the country's arable land is polluted, officials said in the report, shedding unexpected light on the scale of the problem—a legacy of China's three decades of breakneck economic growth and industrial expansion.

The most common inorganic pollutants found in China's soil were the heavy metals cadmium, nickel and arsenic, according to Thursday's report. Cadmium and arsenic, both known to cause chronic health problems, are byproducts of mining."

The lesson we should all learn: we need government regulation to protect the environment: the soil that our crops grow in, the water that we fish, the air that we breathe. It's time for the United States to tighten regulations that were loosened when the Halliburton Loophole was put into law, that exempts the gas industry from regulation by the Safe Drinking Water Act. Failure to do that will mean more cadmium-laced rice in Hunan, more MCHM in Charleston drinking water, more trihalomethanes in the Monongahela, more oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2014/04/grim-ph...

Views: 2584

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Booger on April 22, 2014 at 9:49am

tree farmer - i do not disagree with you.......you have a legit complaint and it sounds like the regulatory agency is not enforcing the regulations.

but when this poster gets on a shaleoil site, he is basically comparing heavy metal mining polution in China (who is not known for regulation) - to the shale drilling industry in the USA......and concluding the need for more regulation................and then on top of that, he posts a picture of pelicans covered in oil which has nothing to do with either shale drilling or Chinese mining polution.

so to Marks point - this is blatent fear mongering.........i truly believe this type of thing only hurts the efforts of folks like you who actually have legitimate arguments.

Permalink Reply by Mike Fulper on April 22, 2014 at 10:33am

ahhhhhhh... yes..

Govt regulation..... just like the BLM....

AK 47'S and Cowboys with six shooters.. stopped that Govt regulation..

:)

No worry with the oil/gas industry... the EPA IS ON ITS WAY OUT...!

and the Feds have no real control over IN STATE OIL DRILLING...

Thank goodness...

LETS PUT ALL THIS ENVIROMENTAL POLLUTION CRAP IN PERSPECTIVE

From 1945 to 1955 the Govt.... covered the ENTIRE US.. with Nuclear radiation

We are still paying the price in cancer related deaths etc....

Im not the least worried about a little oil spill here and there....

Tho there is a REAL problem with Pesticides IN THE WATER...

Again.. govt regulations... ALLOW IT.....duhhhhh

For all the bleeding heart liberal tree huggers.. get over it..... the OIL/GAS

industry is not gonna be stopped... They control the US economy....

Oh and by the way.. someone tell me where all the Dinosours went  ??

I wanted one for breakfast the other day and couldn't find any.....

all stuck in ROCKS....?

I think the people COMPLAINING on this site.. aren't getting enough $  :)

and in case no one NOTICED... all day.. every day... TONS OF POLLUTION

falls out of the sky from JETS   !!!

Bann the Jets... go back to Gas and propellers  :)

Ok everyone . .go for it.. tell me where im wrong....:)

Permalink Reply by MJ on April 22, 2014 at 12:54pm

Sounds to me like you are living in the past man.  These good folks are merely trying to keep the environment "green" and "sustainable".  I am still waiting for them to renounce everything made from fossil fuels and their byproducts.  We would be living like cavemen (and women) without hydrocarbons.  These people focus on something and blow it out of proportion.  Can you imagine the toxins leaching into our streams and rivers just from tossed cigarette butts alone?  I would love to hear some folks tell you where you are wrong!  I don't see it - but then again - I am probably "living in the past". 

Permalink Reply by Summer Johnston on April 22, 2014 at 1:51pm

 Is there some problem with "trying to keep the environment 'green' and 'sustainable'?" Perhaps you could explain the downside to that, 'cause I just don't get it.  

These people focus on something and blow it out of proportion. 

Environmentalism can be carried too far, as  can the fanaticism of those against it. It's all about balance.

 

Can you imagine the toxins leaching into our streams and rivers just from tossed cigarette butts alone?

Thanks for bringing up discarded cigarette butts. They're disgusting. If people have cigarette butts, they should keep them in their car and discard them on their own property, as well as any beer cans or pop bottles, particularly glass bottles that have shredded my tractor tires in the past. If you have trash in your car, keep it there and not along my road.

 

Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on April 22, 2014 at 3:55pm

There is no such thing as sustainable; it's a myth. In fact it is just a code word for anti fossil fuel.

Permalink Reply by Summer Johnston on April 23, 2014 at 3:09am

 In fact it is just a code word for anti fossil fuel.

Oh my gosh, another one who drags out the CODE word. It's all code. It's just so sad, really, that people stoop to that level to carry on discourse.

 

The extreme environmentalists complain that shale development pollutes the land, water and air. Yet there is no proof of this.

 

Where'd THAT tangent come from? Just because a few of us want companies to be environmentally responsible now we're "extreme" environmentalists. Is it that you can't read or your simply cannot comprehend? Or do you have an agenda of your own?

Let's cut to the chase. these environmental whakos cannot be honest and admit their true agenda. This is all about the promotion of alternative energy, and as long as fossil fuel (NG and oil) is inexpensive no alternative is economically viable.

 

Look, since your comprehension skills seem to be limited, let me give you an example. IF Ohio was in a severe drought to the point that California has been in,  water was being rationed and farmland had big cracks in it and crops were dying in the fields and gardens drying up, would you  attempt to conserve water use? Would you stop limit washing your car and would you catch rainwater and would you use grey water to water a garden? Would you hope your well doesn't run dry? Would you eliminate unnecessary water use to ensure your cattle, pigs, horses, and your family, has water to drink, cook, bathe?

If you'd demonstrate some common sense and take some conservation steps, congratulations, you're now an "environmental whacko."

And if you didn't take those measures, well....

Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on April 23, 2014 at 3:21am

There is no proof that the majority of companies involved in shale development are not environmentally responsible. To imply, suggest or claim such is nothing more than fear mongering. Never said you or anyone here was an environmental whacko, those are your words and your assumption.

On the other hand you and others here promote the fallacy that anyone who supports shale development is not also interested in responsible, environmentally safe development.

How is water conservation related to this discussion?

BTW, the water shortage in CA was caused by Congressional fiat not a drought.

The common sense position here is to work with oil and gas companies to develop shale resources responsibly. The irresponsible position lacking commonsense is fear mongering in order to cause public apprehension about shale development.

Permalink Reply by MJ on April 23, 2014 at 4:31am

My point (maybe not so well delivered) was to bring to ones attention that there are far more things around us causing pollution and detriment to our planet than the O/G industry.  One of the biggest contaminators is individuals themselves.  Small potatos individually, but with enormous impact collectively.  And as Mark pointed out, because some of us may support shale development, it does not we do not want responsible development with minimal impact on the environment.

Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on April 23, 2014 at 4:40am

MJ,

Your point is well taken. Those that oppose shale development look past the main sources of pollution in our country. The main polluters are the generation of electricity and automobiles.

In fact shale development has helped reduce carbon and other toxic emissions to levels from 20 years ago. All due to increased use of natural gas from increased supplies due to shale development and hydraulic fracturing.

The anti shale folks "talk the talk" but won't "walk the walk". In other words they are all talk no action. Otherwise they would stop using electricity and cars.

Permalink Reply by Summer Johnston on April 23, 2014 at 5:35am

 And as Mark pointed out, because some of us may support shale development, it does not MEAN we do not want responsible development with minimal impact on the environment.

Hope you don't mind I injected the word "mean" into you statement; otherwise, it doesn't read right, at least to me.

Why is it then, that the rest of us who--ALSO--actually want responsible development with minimal impact on the environment are construed to be "environmental whackos"? No one who's posted on this thread--excluding the OP--has called for anything other than responsibility by the gascos to do their best to avoid mishaps. And don't you think there's some slim possibility that we ARE conscious of other types of pollution and that it COULD impact behavior? You don't know me. You don't know how much stuff I cart up to the recycling bins.

 

 

 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on April 23, 2014 at 5:49am

Summer,

So we agree; there should be environmentally responsible development of shale resources.

I contend that we now have that. I do not believe this should be a static condition. Instead, all stakeholders, in particular operators, should continue to work towards further limiting the environmental impact of shale development. I also believe this process is in place with the public and ODNR, EPA remaining vigilant.

Permalink Reply by MJ on April 23, 2014 at 5:52am

Thanks for correcting my response.  My intent was not meant to offend by any means, and was certainly not an attempt to judge (you don't know me).  I think we all want the best for the environment.  Just bringing forward the fact that while we should be concerned with how shale gas is extracted, we should also acknowledge the multitude of other things around us that harm .

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service