What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
121 Comments
- corevette, on 10/12/2007, -14/+51how can this article convince it is the most polluted city if there is only one picture??
why yes, i am very visual - hbweb500, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36@corevette
http://myhero.com/images/guest/g10484/hero15750/g10484_u13641_pollution_in_china.jpg
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=linfen+pollution&btnG=Search+Images - bIuebonics, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32by eliminate you mean move to china?
- Yonson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29I wish this was an April fools joke.
*sigh* - juventus1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29I wouldn't say it is the fault of technology, We now have the technology to produce power without any pollution, I would blame the policy makers in this world who do nothing but put profit first. Their greed and desire for material gain is whats turning this world into a *****-hole.
- connorcrehan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30I think we all know who they need...CAPTAIN PLANET!
- damonlab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Honorable mention goes out to Gary, Indiana.
- drakethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24The chinese are full of ***** on this one. Ya we in the US pollute more per capita but from the pictures I'm seeing it would appear that China is polluting more per square inch of ground. I've never seen a US city that looks like that. Even our worst don't compare to that level. So just because you pack 12 million people in Shanghai doesn't mean you can pollute the city with twice as much pollution as New York and then blame the Americans because we have more per capita.
Its smart politics for the Chinese to play that game but ultimately they will as the article said, shame themeselves even more. I mean if it isn't bad enough that there is a guy with the title of environmental minister in Linfen. I hope at least hes embarrased. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+32That's nothing.
You want pollution? Here's some pollution for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
The disaster area was 60 miles north of Kiev, 175 miles SE from Minsk, 200 miles SE from Bryansk: directly effecting the breadbasket of the Ukraine, Belarus and Russia with Cesium-137 and Strontium-90 fallout which has a half life of 30 years. Radiation from the accident was detected in Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Scandinavia, Canada and the Eastern United States.
The good news: half of it will be gone in 10 years. The bad news: 40 years from now, 25% of it will remain. 70 years from now 12.5% of it will remain. 100 years from now 6.25% will remain.
Cesium sits below Lithium, Sodium and Potassium on the periodic chart: biologically important trace minerals which can easily find their way into the food chain and people. Typically Cs-137 acts like Potassium and is distributed throughout the body with particular concentrations on the bones and muscles. As it is a gamma emitter, it sits there emitting ionizing radiation directly into the tissue.
Strontium sits right below Calcium on the periodic chart which it can mimic. It can easily be absorbed by plants and animals and end up in bone/marrow tissue where it causes wicked difficult to treat cancer.
The Soviet Union was very slow to disclose the disaster and only did so after being approached by the diplomats of numerous countries. Even after, they stalled, provided disinformation and actually lied about what had happened and the extent of the disaster.
Some of the local technocrats who were actually in charge of the reactor concocted a story accusing American CIA operatives of sabotaged the reactor. This was a laughable claim and the investigation that followed showed that the cause was a mixture of complacency, an ill conceived experiment and incompetence.
____________________________________________
Moral of the story: if you ***** up, you can always blame the US. Americans are good natured and won't take it personnel and will probably help you clean up the mess if you will let them. - quomen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18I hope it rains there.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15much better article, with more pictures
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://myhero.com/images/guest/g10484/hero15750/g10484_u13641_pollution_in_china.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.impactlab.com/modules.php%3Fname%3DNews%26file%3Dprint%26sid%3D8462&h=280&w=424&sz=24&hl=en&start=4&tbnid=1-LvNGGaCypRZM:&tbnh=83&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3DLinfen%2Bpollution%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den - Inputfunnyname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Amazing that we have done this to our great planet. And to think that even in this time where we really need to work together to fix the problems we have caused ourselves, we fight and search for more oil.
- stinkypyper, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18Let's all make a deal. The West will get it's carbon emissions down if China and India will get there baby emissions down.
- BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"STOP having so many g**damn babies. Idiots! "
and yet, people criticize China's one-child policy... I guess they just can't win either way - weister42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9In most cases, money beats moral.
- 13B1303, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@nullcodes
That is not CO2 that makes that area polluted...
Think particulate matter carcinogens and VOC emissions . These are all things that the EPA heavily regulates in the US.
I would like to see the stats on lung cancer and respiratory problems compared to America. Too bad you would never get accurate results in China. They probably don't even track that kind of thing or if they do we would hear "great news from the east! Cancer freeee!!!" - weister42, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10You shouldn't have babies.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8shawn:
The USA leads in carbon emissions ... not pollution. Carbon is not a pollutant. Your comment was malinformed. - Velirno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Looks like they need to turn up the draw distance around there.
- vfrex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@jamessavik
try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Karachay - Daiken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The real problem is overpopulation. The world is just unable to handle as many people as exist. Therefore we're gonna end up destroying the very environment that allows us to live. You'll notice the effects in countries with the densest populations, hence China and India. It's just a matter of time.
- weister42, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Not sure where you got "US have eliminated all industry" from, there are 3 different large paper mills within 10 miles of where I live in central Wisconsin and they all spew out rotten egg-smelling white smoke all day long. We can't do anything about it because they employ more than 8,000 people and our town depends on it. Also, have you drove through Milwaukee and Chicago's industrial section?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I still think Chernobyl wins as the most polluted city on Earth.
- itanshi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5i've been to tokyo and i've been to LA, tokyo is as clean as chicago. i could not breath in LA. There was almost no litter so it could be cleaner than chicago.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Nope, US "solved" the emission problem by digging down Kyoto. "
Kyoto protocol doesn't apply to China either.... your point? - undersky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7guys China is a developing country, heavy in industrial sector of economy, contrary to developed western countries that are heavy in R&D and service oriented sectors. This is a phase any economy has to go through. If you look at the european air post industrial revolution you will find the same thing. China is polluting badly, but the world tolerates them because they had also gone through the same path and been there. It's like food chain. Rich countries use clean economy because the dirty jobs can be done by poorer countries. Once poorer countries make their money to advance to the league of rich countries, other poorer countries will replace them and take the role of polluting. People in rich countries can't really pass judgment not only because they were there once, but also that they NEED the industrial output of these poorer countries so the rich countries can have clean environment.
/source: TIME magazine and CEIP Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Technically he's right - the fundamental problem is overpopulation.
However, that's not really a problem it is possible to do anything about; even China, which is a brutal dictatorship, failed to restrict people to have only one child per family. The only feasible solution is to _mitigate the effects_ of overpopulation. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5this is what happens when gov't "gets out of the way" of business.
privatize everything and you'll not just see soldiers getting BKR unchlorinated water; you'll see your kids playing in cesspools of ***** - ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Even if someone doesn't believe in man-made global warming, visible pollution is enough a reason to care about the environment.
It's just another proof that those people don't want to believe for their own convenience sake. - gincarnated, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Global Warming caused by humans? Blasphemy!
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Urusai....you have to use the... /sarcasm ... flag, 'cause some people just won't get it if you don't tell them it is sarcasm
LMAO Sorry.
It just seems so inconceivably silly! - captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@AdebisiTheGamer
>>"How do you mitigate the effects of a world population of 15 billion, when the world cannot even support the 10 billion we have now?"
Uh...we don't have 10 billion now. It's around 6.5 billion. - Rikka, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4wait, you guys know that "urusai" means shutup in japanese...right?
just so you know. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@orangysb
Don't ask the US to make a deal that will slit the throat of our economy just because maybe something bad will happen in the future. That economy keeps your butt in a comfy chair and typing on your computer about how nasty things are. The whole point of these treaties is to take money from the rich nations and give it to the poor nations, instead of poor nations investing in themselves and making something of their economies.
I for one don't expect any sitting president to sign a deal like that when there's exemptions given to countries that clearly pollute more than us. Chinese are good at lying ever think they're fudging the numbers to the UN on emissions?
I'm going into the carbon offset scam and promise to plant tries for 5k a pop. I think Al will hook me up since he's burning all my electricity plus 10 other houses. Anyone else want in on this deal? - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Vast tracts of eastern china are effectively poisoned wastelands - all rivers dead, all plantlife toxic. There are no areas in the west which can really compare.. Yet people make a living there.
And it'll get a lot worse before it gets better. - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"I wouldn't say it is the fault of technology, We now have the technology to produce power without any pollution, I would blame the policy makers in this world who do nothing but put profit first. Their greed and desire for material gain is whats turning this world into a *****-hole."
That is entirely correct. Idiots who blame technology are just talking in meaningless words. 'Technology' is not a person who can be held responsible or can make changes! It is an idea.
The leaders of government, letting their own greed get in the way of decent governing, and letting the greedy, sleazy corporate owners control them, is the problem. The PEOPLE who promote and allow Corporatism, as in Fascism, are ruining it all!
Cheney and others like that are behind it all, along with the big industrial (crime) families.
And don't forget the Queen, the Rockefellers, ---basically the same ones who run the world's monetary systems.
And especially, don't forget the ignorant masses, who wouldn't even come here and discuss this...so caught up as they are with frivolities and personal BS. - ynggrsshppr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Does not compute.
- teadrinker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It is only because bullets do not classify as pollution. Your life expectancy in Detroit is probably lower than it would be in most, but not all, places in China.
- ladyarcher85, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Thats progress for you
- Etobian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2and this is why bush didn't agree to ratify the kyoto protocols; considering the fact that china would be exempt from it because it would be considered a third worls country.
Um, Congress, not the President, ratifies treaties. And when Clinton was President, the Senate voted 95 to 0 against the treaty. Every Republican and every Democrat voted against it. In other words, NO-ONE voted for it, even those who like to blame Bush for this ultimate thumbs down which happened on Clinton's watch. - nullcodes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why is it that one of the most crowded countries in the world, Singapore is actually ENCOURAGING people to have more babies? That's right there is a underpopulation crisis in Singapore ..
Singapore has 6,208 people per squarte kilometer .. China has 137.
Now, Singapore has a huge advertising campaign going on right now telling people to have more babies, and they are also trying to encourage immigration: http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSSIN163320070326?pageNumber=1
Overpopulation is not a problem by default, having a deficient economy is the problem. If your economy produces enough energy/work the people will have everything it needs to have a decent quality of life for the citizens. When quality of life is high and people are educated (such as in singapore and japan) .. people tend to have less bnabies .. (which could lead to an negative population growth). - bluenash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2seriously, i'd be packing my bags.
- KMartSheriff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Chuck Norris is a pansy. Steve Irwin or Arnold Schwarzenegger could kick his ass.
- BOFH2, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11Don't worry someone will blame the US for this somehow.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2goffy59: to James: We are talking about pollution like smug/smog how ever its spelled.. i saw 2 people spell it these 2 ways. We aren't talking about a nuclear contamination.
____________________________
What's the difference? Both are noxious, unwanted chemicals that sicken or even kill people- only in different ways.
Smug is the pollution caused by rich, self-righteous yuppies that drive their SUVs to ecology rallies, complain and blame America for all the worlds problems while offering no solutions and exacerbating the problem. - ThisIsBob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If they had to do clean work and pay fair wages, prices at Walmart would soar. Do you want that to happen?
- mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@weister
given one more generation, the Chinese WON'T be having more babies...that's the point. Their land is toxic in ways that most of the US has never, ever seen. People are going to start getting sick.. China has so many they might really think thinning some out is worth it... but the kind of pollution they are spewing takes decades to clean up... the pollution is so bad it's killing farm land.. and what crops can be grown will probably kill the living people. In terms of sheer number of potential people to get sick the situation is far worse than Chernobyl. - Trixrox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wouldn't chernobyl be pretty polluted?
- chingy1788, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This is what happens when every other country in the world outsources manufacturing to less developed countries
No I don't hope it rains, chances are its acid rain... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3no, I am not claiming that at all.
what I am trying to say is that many people feel that the government is "the problem" when in actuality it is the only thing stopping corporations - in seeking to maximize profits for shareholders - from polluting and having human rights abuses, just like China.
of course it is a spectrum and gov't can also be corrupt -- but at least with gov't we have some shred of accountability while, for the most part, we have very little to none with corporations.
for example, can Halliburton be charged under US law now that it has moved its headquarters to Dubai?
and BTW why do a lot of people on these boards confuse actually liking and _participating_ in gov't and all is messy interactions and foibles with Communism? Are we now saying that if people vote and speak about politics that they should be locked up as a "red?"
that's the exact _opposite_ of what I believe in ... let's argue all the time and them come up with the best ideas that we can! -
Show 51 - 100 of 121 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
