"Hound Dog" wrote in message
...


In any case where in the U.S.A. do we have a significant lack of potable
water?


You may want to revise your definition to include "water you'd really rather
not drink", rather than just "undrinkable". Example: Lake Ontario has
contamination warnings for virtually all the fish species living in it. But,
the same lake is the source of drinking water for quite a few cities in NY
and Ontario. Scientists like to say that it's OK to drink it because we're
not bathed in it constantly like the fish. But, what's the result of
drinking it for 30-40 years? Nobody knows.

"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message
...
The message
from "Doug Kanter" contains these words:


Giselle, in case you haven't noticed, there's still an enormous
contingent
of people who believe pesticides are probably safe, and that all the
hubbub
is for nothing. For these people, a bucket of cold water over the head
is
just the thing.

So, why did you snark when a non-pesticide organic method of
dispersing the ants without killing them or wasting the compost heap,
was eagerly received by the OP?

Janet




That's a good question. I was expressing disbelief at how close she came to
getting in the car and buying something hideous.

"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message
...
The message
from "Doug Kanter" contains these words:


Giselle, in case you haven't noticed, there's still an enormous
contingent
of people who believe pesticides are probably safe, and that all the
hubbub
is for nothing. For these people, a bucket of cold water over the head
is
just the thing.

So, why did you snark when a non-pesticide organic method of
dispersing the ants without killing them or wasting the compost heap,
was eagerly received by the OP?

Janet




snark???? :-)

"Warren" wrote in message
news:7Xthd.351889$D%.304693@attbi_s51...
Hound Dog wrote:
Seems strange that we are poisoning our lands and waters so terribly, but
yet life expectancy keeps extending every year.

"Life expectancy" is the average age that a group of people under the same
conditions will live. In other words, no access to potable water would be
factored into the "life expectancy" of the people who have no access to
potable water. The life expectancy for those folks is not going up.

You, of course, have a source where your hypothesis can be proven!?

In any case where in the U.S.A. do we have a significant lack of potable
water?


Life expectancy is not going up for the wildlife exposed to polluted
water, either. In many cases, life expectancy has significantly been
reduced to the point of species extinction.

The main cause for the extension of wild animals is the encroachment of
civilization which reduces the habitat of the wildlife.


But if you don't think polluted water is harmful to someone's health, or
if you think that pollution simply doesn't exist, then you are a
delusional idiot. I'd like to invite you to move someplace where the tap
water has been polluted by run-off, and we'll sit by and see how it
affects your life expectancy.

I have no intent, nor do I know of anyone with the intent of moving to a
locale such as you espouse.

As a matter of fact, I am not even aware of anywhere in North America where
such conditions exist, do you?

Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Black & Decker Landscaping Tools & Parts:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker

You heard me.

If you don't, we're gonna get Puffy after you!!!!

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 11:48:43 -0800, "Hound Dog"
wrote:

As a matter of fact, I am not even aware of anywhere in North America where
such conditions exist, do you?


Interesting, reality is predicated on your level of awareness. How can
you be so politically enlightened an so in the dark about pollution?
Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets. To plant a pine, one need only own a shovel.
-- Aldo Leopold

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 11:48:43 -0800, "Hound Dog"
wrote:

As a matter of fact, I am not even aware of anywhere in North America where
such conditions exist, do you?


By David Nakamura
Washington Post Staff Writer
March 12, 2004; Page B01

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has overstated the purity of
the nation's drinking water in four recent years, potentially leaving
millions of people at risk, according to a new report.

From 1999 through 2002, the EPA announced that it met its goal that 91
percent of U.S. residents have access to safe tap water. But the data
the EPA used to make those conclusions were "flawed and incomplete"
because states did not report all violations to the federal agency,
stated a report released this week by Kwai Chan, the EPA's assistant
inspector general.

Despite that, the EPA trumpeted the inaccurate rates to the media,
giving a false impression to the public, Chan said. The EPA's
documents show that some agency officials believe that in 2002, only
about 81 percent of the jurisdictions monitored had safe drinking
water, far lower than the official agency estimate of 94 percent for
that year. The lower number would put roughly 30 million additional
people at potential risk.

Benjamin H. Grumbles, the EPA's acting assistant administrator for the
office of water, acknowledged in a letter responding to the inspector
general's report that the agency's records are incomplete. He said the
EPA has been working hard to improve compliance in reporting from the
states and has made some strides but still has a long way to go.

Grumbles wrote that the EPA was not trying to mislead or lie to the
public with its reports but is simply "using the data that is
available to us through the national reporting system."

Chan's report, based on an independent analysis that the inspector
general's office began in June, was not prompted by the lead
contamination of drinking water in the District. However, Chan's
findings are important for the District because the city is one of two
jurisdictions -- Wyoming is the other -- that reports water problems
directly to the EPA. In all other areas, state governments have
primacy in overseeing local water agencies, and the EPA oversees the
states.

The EPA's oversight of the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority's handling
of the District's lead contamination problems has been criticized by
some local and federal leaders, who said the federal agency should
have demanded that WASA provide more information to the public after
the contamination was discovered two years ago.

A coalition of environmental groups met with high-level EPA officials
yesterday and harshly criticized WASA, according to Damu Smith, the
meeting's chairman and executive director of the District-based
National Black Environmental Justice Network. The coalition demanded
that the EPA determine whether low-income communities have experienced
worse lead contamination than other neighborhoods, he said.

"Our main message was that EPA has to take leadership in this
situation," Smith said. "The mayor and the city council don't have the
authority to force WASA to do what it needs to do. It's EPA that has
the power to do that."

Tom Voltaggio, EPA's deputy regional administrator, said that the
meeting was "excellent" and that more meetings will follow. "We want
to work with them and get their sense of where they think the best
place to put our time and energy is," he said.

WASA officials announced yesterday that they intend to release today
the results of hundreds of water tests conducted last month. The
agency also said it has retested two D.C. homes where water showed the
highest lead levels and found that the lead receded significantly
after the taps were flushed for 10 minutes.

A house on Evarts Street NE in the Bloomingdale neighborhood had lead
levels as high as 48,000 parts per billion, well above the federal
limit of 15 parts per billion. A house on Monroe Street NW had a level
of 24,000 parts per billion. Retests recently showed that the Evarts
house had a level of 6.7 parts per billion and the Monroe house 5.5
parts per billion after the taps were flushed, WASA officials said.

WASA Deputy General Manager Michael Marcotte said the high readings at
those houses probably were caused by partial lead service line
replacements done by WASA at both houses last year. When lead lines
are cut, the leaching of lead often increases because a protective
coating of lime on the pipes can become dislodged, officials have
said.

The EPA bases its statements about the quality of drinking water
across the country on data collected by states from their utilities,
which test for about 100 contaminants and pollutants, including lead,
arsenic, industrial chemicals and fecal matter.

The EPA inspector general's report states that the agency has a
verification program in which it reviewed 71 water systems where safe
drinking water violations were found. But of those, 17 had never been
reported by the states to the EPA's safe drinking water information
system, which is used to make the agency's official estimate of
jurisdictions with safe water. With 54,000 water systems nationwide,
it is difficult to determine just how many unreported violations take
place each year, the inspector general's report said.

Cynthia Dougherty, head of the EPA's safe drinking water program, said
the EPA does not know "what the right number is. The only number we
can use is what the states report. We have not figured out yet a good
way to come up with a different number."

Erik Olson, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an
environmental group, believes that the EPA's regulatory system is
"broken."

Federal authorities, he said, "don't even know the basic information
about public water systems."

The lead contamination in D.C. tap water, Olson continued, is only "a
very small part of the problem. There's a much more profound, serious
problem they're trying to paper over."

EPA officials said they are implementing more training for state
officials, simplified reporting formats and reduced complexity of
federal rules. But Paul Schwartz, national policy coordinator for
Clean Water Action, another environmental group, said the EPA is "not
really getting in there and aggressively [monitoring] these states.
The EPA has to take a far more proactive oversight role."




Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets. To plant a pine, one need only own a shovel.
-- Aldo Leopold

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:26:50 -0800, "Hound Dog"
wrote:

Well no, I have not heard of a "rectal cranial inversions"


To bad, then you weren't aware of the hope in having yours
reversed....

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently released
information stating that no matter where we live in the U.S., there is
likely to be some toxic substance in our groundwater. Indeed, the
agency estimates that one in five Americans, supplied by one-quarter
of the nation's drinking water systems, consume tap water that
violates EPA safety standards under the Clean Water Act. Even some of
the substances that are added to our drinking water to protect us,
such as chlorine, can form toxic compounds—such as trihalomethanes, or
THMs—and have been linked to certain cancers. The EPA has established
enforceable standards for more than 100 contaminants. However,
credible studies have identified more than 2,110 contaminants in the
nation's water supplies

Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets. To plant a pine, one need only own a shovel.
-- Aldo Leopold

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 19:51:56 GMT, "Cereus-validus."
wrote:

You heard me.

If you don't, we're gonna get Puffy after you!!!!



Or suffer a fate worse than death.....4 more years of Bush

Acts of creation are ordinarily reserved for gods and poets. To plant a pine, one need only own a shovel.
-- Aldo Leopold

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 9:09:28 -0500, Donna deMedicis wrote
WILL the cold kill the little rat *******s? IF I simply
leave it there until April, will the little biting things be
dead?

Nah. Presumably it's imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta). They slow
down in the winter but pretty much nothing non-nuclear kills them
reliably. They may abandon the aboveground part when it's really cold,
but will move back in on any day that warms the pile. I assume that
their northern limit is determined by cold, but it has to be serious
ground-penetrating cold to stop them, not when South Carolina calls
cold.

I have my doubts that drowning them is likely to help, but I'll be
interested to hear if it does. There's information about them at

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...d%20Fire%20Ant

This page describes the ants' response to flooding:

If the ants sense a change in water levels in their nests, they will come
together and form a huge ball that is able to float on the water, with the
workers on the outside and the queen inside. Once the ball hits a tree or
other stationary object, the ants swarm onto it and wait for the water
levels to recede.

I would also say that due to their small bodies, ants seem to be able
to survive being underwater for a long time -- probably they can absorb
considerable amounts of oxygen even from water.

I have noticed that fire ants like it warm. Most of the nests I see are
in full sun. Almost none in shady areas. So if you keep the compost
pile cool, perhaps they won't be as likely to invade. Of course this
will also slow down the compost.

If I'm forced to poison them (and we're talking non-native ants here,
so natural management isn't always feasible), I'll use something with
bait and very small amounts of readily degradable insecticide. At least
the insecticides today are far less toxic than what was available 30
years ago. But at the same time, Amdro is not approved for food crops,
and my understanding is that it never will be -- could not pass the
required tests.

I read a few years ago about tests on the feasibility of introducing a
wasp that preys on the fire ant in its native environment. This sounds
awful, but it fact it's a wasp that's much smaller than the ant. The
web page mentioned above also discusses proposed biological methods of
control. At least the lesson has been learned that introducing new
organisms to control previous introductions can make a bad situation
worse, so these aren't going to be seen for a long time.

Edward

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Hound Dog" wrote in message
...

Where did you get your degree in science? The same place you got your
delusion of grandeur?

YOU would not understand anything I wrote anyway.

Like it or not, we're not talking about junk science here. It's old news.
PCBs & dioxin are nasty compounds that don't belong in our drinking water.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/pcbhealth.html

Too late, though:
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/d...healthadv.html


The problem with pollution, is it's a classic example of the tragedy of the
commons. If i were to dump a bottle of motor oil in the an unpolluted
river, the pollution impact to the entire river would be minimal.
On the otherhand if somehow, we could take all the fresh water in the world,
divide it equally by number of people on earth, and made it so that anything
you did, affected only your personal allotment of water, people would behave
far differently.

I once took an economics class, one section we studied environmental
economics. The focus of environmental economics is, an attempt to answer the
question "how clean, is clean enough?" At what point do you face diminishing
returns that cleaning up the pollution is no longer cost effective to clean
it up, compared to the quality of life improvement.

Snooze

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 18:37:33 -0500, Snooze wrote
The problem with pollution, is it's a classic example of the tragedy of the
commons.

Garrett Hardin's 1968 article is itself one of the important 20th
century classics. It applies to issues it specifically mentions (such
as population growth and pollution) and to many others as well. I've
often recommended it as the best essay ever written on spam. Full text
is available at

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../162/3859/1243

Edward