So, yes, we’re going to get a benefit from hardness that’s

So, yes, we’re going to get a benefit from hardness that’s AZD5363 chemical structure released anthropogenically. It’s still a benefit. I – I see no reason to ignore it.

A great answer and it really gets to the heart of the matter. Avoiding pollution (defined as adverse effects from SOPCs to resident biota) to protect the ecosystem is the goal. If increased hardness as a result of anthropogenic activities is protective, then pollution is not occurring. Pollution protection is occurring. Hopefully the contention of “pollution to pollute” will not gain traction. If it does there will be unnecessary adverse economic and social consequences. There will also likely be adverse environmental consequences. If ETMFs based on ambient conditions are no longer allowed yet industrial developments proceed, some form of water treatment will be required. Water treatment has its own environmental consequences including: energy requirements; habitat loss with infrastructure development; production of greenhouse gases; and, the need to dispose of treatment by-products (e.g., concentrated brine produced by reverse osmosis). There is nothing we humans do that does not have consequences. There are cases where no management actions are better than management actions that not only have no environmental benefits but have adverse environmental

consequences. The concept of “polluting to pollute” is unfortunately an excellent example of the statement made by the cartoon character Pogo, created by cartoonist Walt Kelly (1913–1973), on Earth Day 1971: “We have met the enemy and he is us”. If we are to protect our environment, and ourselves, from pollution, aminophylline we need to proceed based on good JAK inhibitor science, not on contentions that defy both good science and common sense. In this case the “pollution” is in fact, prevention, and needs to be recognized as such. “
“When my mentor and friend (Sir) Charles Maurice Yonge FRS (1899–1986) died, his papers were sent to me by his widow, Phyllis, for disbursement, which I undertook. Since nobody

else wanted them, I kept some of the reprints of his more obscure writings (he initially wanted to be a journalist) and amongst them was an article written for Discovery magazine ( Yonge, 1947) entitled ‘Man’s influence on marine life’. He was clearly expressing concern, even some 65 years ago, about the parlous state of our seas. In the article, Maurice described stories of how many marine mammals had been brought close to extinction by whalers and sealers. The story and consequences of whaling are well known. His examples of sealing, however, included the walrus (Odobenus rosmarus), which, following wholesale slaughter, such as that of 900 individuals in one day near Spitsbergen in 1852, and of an annual import of 12,000 tusks into San Francisco alone between 1870 and 1880, resulted in the species’ near extinction. The same occurred with the elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), which around Antarctica was hunted to near-extinction in the mid-1800’s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>