Sewage dumping in rivers.

[zozo]

Watch this if you haven't yet...

Thank You for Smoking (2005) - IMDb

Thank You for Smoking: Directed by Jason Reitman. With Joan Lunden, Eric Haberman, Aaron Eckhart, Mary Jo Smith. Satirical comedy follows the machinations of Big Tobacco's chief spokesman, Nick Naylor, who spins on behalf of cigarettes while trying to remain a role model for his 12-year old son.

www.imdb.com

 

[Wookii]

That's indeed the best politically correct answer... We present you an XXXL shop and you may choose where to go.

Same as with the food industry, nobody is forcing you to eat the good tasting greasy crap we hold in front of your nose.
Thus being healthy is your own choice and the food industry washes its hands in innocence...

I don't think its just the politically correct answer, I think it is the only real answer. All supply is driven by demand, period - if the demand is there, and there is sufficient profit available, then ultimately supply will follow. If something occurs to negatively affect the demand, the supply will vanish also - but it has to affect the demand of the individual directly.

We buy the greasy crap because its cheaper than the healthy alternatives, and eat it because it tastes better than the healthy alternatives. It comes back to the point I was making above, we are inherently driven to consume more and better - in this example more quantity, and better taste, and we ignore the costs to our health and to society because those 'costs' don't personally affect us immediately and directly. By the time we develop the cancers and heart disease the consumption has already long since happened, though at that point we likely cease the consumption because the direct impact of the 'costs' to us as individuals become too large and significant (i.e. poor health or imminent death).

Had the greasy crap caused cancerous lumps to appear on swallowing the last mouthful we'd likely never buy it again, and the demand would vanish as would the supply.

Obviously I'm consciously dodging the moral point you are making on the responsibility of those providing the 'supply', or those who might be able to legislate against them, but ultimately each individual has to be responsible for their own demand and the consumption in the fulfilment of that demand.

 

[zozo]

I don't think its just the politically correct answer, I think it is the only real answer.

Yes and No... 🙂 The industry and if they fail to do this the government needs to take action and responsibility...

I can give a simple example named "Margarine" look up it's history i bet very few people know about its true origin.

In a nutshell, it's a French invention from the Napoleonic war era... Because of the war, there was a major food supply shortage for the military. Back in those days bread, butter and milk were somewhat essential... But there was little and even less butter available. Napoleon asked a Chemist if he could come up with a solution. And this guy hustled a bit of all kind of cheap readily available waste product greasy stuff, water, emulsifiers and colour agents together and found a way to make it look like and taste somewhat like butter. And so be it, Margarine was born. And the army had a full belly feeling again. After the war, it was discarded and the recipe ended up in the archives not to be seen anymore.

If you ever come to France, hop into a shop and ask for Margarine. You will not find it and everybody you ask about it will lift their nose and give you the advice that you should not eat this nasty crap...

But there happened to be a few smart Dutch guys that found out about this recipe and smelled a profit and they bought the patent. Went back home and started producing Margarine... This crap became known as Poor men's Planta butter and it was advertised as Very healthy vegetable origin butter for not 1 penny too much. It literally was everywhere, in every magazine and newspaper, on the television day in day out... "Why does what the Bakker makes tastes so good? It can only be Margarine."

Nobody knew what it only knows it is allegedly from vegetable and it's cheap and it looks like butter... And what do you do? In good faith, you buy it and eat it... The producers started putting in all kinds of crap to keep up with the demand. Till the 1960's they did put some emulsifiers in it that proofed to be a tad bad. 4 people died, 1000nds got sick with fever and skin rash etc. 100ds of people ended up in the hospital before finally was determined it was the Margarine.

Sorry! Better next time... Not even a slap on the wrist... It was forgotten again not long after...

You know who this was and what happened to them? They still are selling it today all over Darn Healthy as is and for not 1 Penny too much, except still not in France.

It all started with Mr Lever and the Margarine Union buying the patent... One day having enough of competing each other they decided it's best to cooperate and founded Unilever.

This is nowadays one of the worlds biggest multinationals in the food industry and affiliated. Healthy Margarine made it all happen. So powerfull and darn filthy rich you won't believe it... They could buy countries if they not done this already.

Unfortunately, I can not find an international article about their unfortunate Planta (Margarine) Affair... Guess why that is?
They rather don't want the whole world to know...

Yes, people have a demand, but no responsibility about how food is made and what is in it. And it could be me, I've never noticed a label on a package saying "This is Unhealthy - Eat at own risk!"

Your statement about that only real answer makes everybody stupid and Unilever very smart... And with that, I disagree sincerely. There is a big difference in smart and being totally unscrupulous... And that's what they actually really are but don't want us to know.

 

[John q]

Unfortunately, I can not find an international article about their unfortunate Planta (Margarine) Affair...

Luckily I can 😃

The Planta Disease: how product reformulation went terribly wrong

In August 1960, multinational food company Unilever introduced a reformulated version of its margarine Planta to the Netherlands. On pack, a red label bore the word “renewed” and consumers were pro…

robgraywriter-wordpress-com.cdn.ampproject.org

And if you're really bored.

The Planta food scare

This article considers the Planta food scare that gripped the Netherlands in 1960. A new synthetic emulsifier had been added to a brand of margarine—called “Planta”—and a large number of people became seriously ill. The article uses the food scare as

www.academia.edu

 

[zozo]

Luckily I can 😃

The Planta Disease: how product reformulation went terribly wrong

In August 1960, multinational food company Unilever introduced a reformulated version of its margarine Planta to the Netherlands. On pack, a red label bore the word “renewed” and consumers were pro…

robgraywriter-wordpress-com.cdn.ampproject.org

And if you're really bored.

The Planta food scare

This article considers the Planta food scare that gripped the Netherlands in 1960. A new synthetic emulsifier had been added to a brand of margarine—called “Planta”—and a large number of people became seriously ill. The article uses the food scare as

www.academia.edu

Nice find, didn't know it was out there as a disease... It's more like poisoning...

Pretty recently published also...

Undeterred, Bosman dug deeper. Under Dutch law, there is a closed period of 50 years for files relating to public figures. Reports held under lock and key for decades are made available after half a century under freedom of information rules.

Good, it's out there now... 🙂 But something like this "Law" should ring a bell also... One could wonder who has the money and power to create such a law and for what? That such a law even exists is already criminal... What they deserve is being chased out in pitch and feathers. Instead, pay a few million, duck for the mud flying around for a while and we make it go away and you get protected for half a century. Go figure...

 

[Wookii]

Yes and No... 🙂 The industry and if they fail to do this the government needs to take action and responsibility...

I can give a simple example named "Margarine" look up it's history i bet very few people know about its true origin.

In a nutshell, it's a French invention from the Napoleonic war era... Because of the war, there was a major food supply shortage for the military. Back in those days bread, butter and milk were somewhat essential... But there was little and even less butter available. Napoleon asked a Chemist if he could come up with a solution. And this guy hustled a bit of all kind of cheap readily available waste product greasy stuff, water, emulsifiers and colour agents together and found a way to make it look like and taste somewhat like butter. And so be it, Margarine was born. And the army had a full belly feeling again. After the war, it was discarded and the recipe ended up in the archives not to be seen anymore.

If you ever come to France, hop into a shop and ask for Margarine. You will not find it and everybody you ask about it will lift their nose and give you the advice that you should not eat this nasty crap...

But there happened to be a few smart Dutch guys that found out about this recipe and smelled a profit and they bought the patent. Went back home and started producing Margarine... This crap became known as Poor men's Planta butter and it was advertised as Very healthy vegetable origin butter for not 1 penny too much. It literally was everywhere, in every magazine and newspaper, on the television day in day out... "Why does what the Bakker makes tastes so good? It can only be Margarine."

Nobody knew what it only knows it is allegedly from vegetable and it's cheap and it looks like butter... And what do you do? In good faith, you buy it and eat it... The producers started putting in all kinds of crap to keep up with the demand. Till the 1960's they did put some emulsifiers in it that proofed to be a tad bad. 4 people died, 1000nds got sick with fever and skin rash etc. 100ds of people ended up in the hospital before finally was determined it was the Margarine.

Sorry! Better next time... Not even a slap on the wrist... It was forgotten again not long after...

You know who this was and what happened to them? They still are selling it today all over Darn Healthy as is and for not 1 Penny too much, except still not in France.

It all started with Mr Lever and the Margarine Union buying the patent... One day having enough of competing each other they decided it's best to cooperate and founded Unilever.

This is nowadays one of the worlds biggest multinationals in the food industry and affiliated. Healthy Margarine made it all happen. So powerfull and darn filthy rich you won't believe it... They could buy countries if they not done this already.

Unfortunately, I can not find an international article about their unfortunate Planta (Margarine) Affair... Guess why that is?
They rather don't want the whole world to know...

Yes, people have a demand, but no responsibility about how food is made and what is in it. And it could be me, I've never noticed a label on a package saying "This is Unhealthy - Eat at own risk!"

Your statement about that only real answer makes everybody stupid and Unilever very smart... And with that, I disagree sincerely. There is a big difference in smart and being totally unscrupulous... And that's what they actually really are but don't want us to know.

I don't want to get into to much of a bum fight on specifics, as I was talking in very general terms, but just to mention that margarine is widely available and extensively used in France. One of the leading brands is indeed Planta Finn made by Unilever:


I obviously don't disagree in situations where sufficient information isn't available to the individual, or indeed where individuals are outright lied to about product, then correct objective decisions aren't possible - and in your example where deaths and illness occurred then the suppliers should definitely be held to account. I don't think anyone would argue any differently.

Yet, your example supports precisely what I was saying. We have access to this historic information on margarine. Even if the specific story of the deaths you refer to isn't widely known, the inclusion of trans fatty acids in margarine have been widely covered in the media, and most all consumers will know that margarine (or indeed butter) is not a healthy product to consume, on some conscious level. But still it sells by the tonne on a daily basis. Why? Because its cheaper than non-margarine alternatives (generally), and I guess some people prefer the taste (though personally I think its awful stuff). The product exists because people, individuals, generate demand for it - even in light of the information that exists about the product, and that is because these wider 'costs' to the individuals health, and to society, aren't immediately obvious nor felt at the point of purchase and consumption. That doesn't necessarily make consumers of margarine stupid and Unilever smart - though it could certainly be interpreted that way - but there can be no denying that the consumers of the product are making a conscious decision driven by their own demand to consume more.

Perhaps products should have more warnings on them - certainly most products in the UK have to show a list of their contents - and there is now traffic light system on foods with red to indicate high salt, fat or sugar content - but as has been proven with smoking, even having pictures of a rotting lung or cancer victim on the packet does little to affect demand, simply because the 'cost' (health, social), isn't instantly felt by the individual consumer of cigarettes at their point of consumption.

They (we) all buy these things because of our inbuilt innate desire to consume more resources - it's why we buy a cheaper items of lower quality or with known risks, so we can consume more of something else instead, be that 'more' food on the family shop, or the 'more' being the family foreign holiday being saved for, or 'more' being the next fish tank.

It is also why we go to the supermarket rather than 5 local grocery shops because it is cheaper, and doing so allows us to consume more resources - we save money on the shop to spend on other consumption, and because it takes us two hours instead of all day, we have more time (the ultimate commodity) to consume even more things.

 

[zozo]

extensively used in France. One of the leading brands is indeed Planta Finn

I'll be darned even the French fell for it? Unbelievable... How disappointing!!.. We are seriously doomed... 😱

I always like to look at both sides of the coin... Regarding smoking and other so-called legal drugs-related products making people addicted. Also has a history of hush the truth and sell... And now all that is addicted is to blame that a picture of a rotting long doesn't have enough impact. And the producers are yet so powerful keeping up with the demand that all we can try to do to stop them is turning cigarette packages into a silly quartets game.

The first guy ever caught smoking in Europe was some innocent Portuguese sailor, he got dragged before the Bishop to show it to him... The bishop said he is possessed by the devil burn him at the stakes. A decade or so later and high placed admiral or something Jean Nicotte I believe (Hence Nicotine) was his name and he gave it alleged medical properties and BAM! even the Bishop was caught smoking after that... They burned the wrong fellow!... But indeed it always easier to burn innocents...

 

[LondonDragon]

just bumped into this today:

Just 3% of world’s ecosystems remain intact, study suggests

Pristine areas in the Amazon and Siberia may expand with animal reintroductions, scientists say

www.theguardian.com

 

[Guest]

Nice article. Essentially, it's about rewilding. It's really only possible in large tracts of land that are relatively uninhabitated by humans. So these remote areas only populated by indigenous peoples would be ideal.

There have been experiments in Scotland with reintroduction of keystone species like the Eurasian beaver, which has greatly improved the health and functioning of river catchments. The reintroduction of Eurasian lynx to Scotland has been proposed as well. However for the most part, on a relatively heavily populated island, there is often huge resistance especially from land owners and livestock farmers.

I'm not sure there are any pristine habitats left. Regarding the Amazon Rainforest at least, recent research suggests it's far from a vast natural wilderness. More likely a vast garden, the product of over 8k yrs of indigenous agriculture. - The Amazon Rainforest Was Profoundly Changed by Ancient Humans.

These gardens were needed to feed populations of millions that inhabited huge cities, which have recently been discovered as a result of deforestation and using lidar or light detection and ranging to penetrate the dense rainforest - Myth of pristine Amazon rainforest busted as old cities reappear. These populations were wiped out by small pox carried by the Spanish conquistadors.

 

[PARAGUAY]

Theres a good example of the barriers we face in trying to reverse whats happening to the planet. Politicans and people in high places lobbying parliaments and goverments for finanancial commercial gain and its in the uk just now and l am just hoping some of those exPrime Ministers and ministers are forced to be scrutanised. This is going on all the time whether oil companys wanting to exploit the seas or mining companys trying to convince us through political favour theres good reason ramroad their way into a rain forest or a protected habits
The series Mad Men set in wealthy USA in the 50s and 60s is so true sadly to this. When the big tobbacco companys were reeling after scientists exposed the link between lung cancer and cigarettes the ad men set about a sucessful ad campaign. The Don Draper line " we only use the finest tobacco there is" was fiction but based on the truth

 

[not called Bob]

With the Netflix film a lot is old news and some data that's been redacted, 'Seaspiracy' fact check: An expert debunks the controversial Netflix doc is a interesting take on it. Having worked in Fisheries, its probably the most cruel method of getting meat going, none to the welfare rules of killing say a cow or sheep or the stocking limits.

If your business is Jo's waste water, it makes sense if your paying a dumping fine based not on volume but on event to not just dump the 1000 cubes of waste water, but hell divert a few 1m cubes and save all that hassle and cost, as that's the way the rules and laws have been written, so it's just using the loopholes. Not great for man or beast unless your a shareholder.

 

[Guest]

I think it's hard to explain how the system really works without sounding like a conspiracy nut. But democratically elected governments don't get a free ride to run the country according to political ideals even if they wanted to.

The lobbying power of major corporations and billionaires is huge, and unfortunately the revolving door of influence is a harsh political and economic reality, as is the military industrial complex; which incidentally isn't just a US thing.

The reality is that the politicians we elect don't really consider us muggles as their constituents but rather as disenfranchised consumers or passive beneficiaries of externally influenced policy. Their real constituents are the wealthy and powerful individuals and corporations that have the ability to consolidate their own political power base in return for special favours, and low regulation.

Unfortunately, the interest of constituents and consumers aren't very often aligned that well, and corporations etc will often benefit at the expense of the electorate, and the environment. It's unlikely anything will change significantly in our's, or even our grandchildren's lifetime despite tougher environmental legislation.

The cost and responsibility is just transferred to the consumer through higher prices and taxes. In the case of energy companies, for example, profits continue to rise at the expense of consumers, despite lower crude prices. As a result, increasing numbers of folk experience fuel poverty. The cynical response is to issue households with digital metres, it then becomes our fault for flagrant waste, racking up huge bills, and destroying the environment.

 

[Guest]

I'm in a contentious mood so whilst I'm on a role I thought I'd relate something that's connected to the above post but perhaps has more to do with the OP. I was asked recently what I thought of the WWF report - The World's Forgotten Fisheries. My response was that I approach anything the WWF et. al. have their sticky fingers on with a degree of educated scepticism.

So many of these multinational organisations exist to make money for their own sake and to promote agendas that aren't perhaps as altruistic, or make as much sense, as it might at first appear. Their modus operandi is ofen to try and shock folk in to parting with their hard earned cash by commissioning sensationalist reports like this one. It's a form of extortion through emotional blackmail, and in our current woke culture it's a very effective strategy.

The big problem is that very little of the money folk donate to these organisations is spent on tackling the root cause of the problem, most is spent on treating the symptoms and the rest on maintaining the organisation's operation. So they make very little difference in the end. I've been reading reports like this since I first became a research ecologist specialising in wetalnds over 25 years ago.

But to be fair conservation organisations are often forced to operate within a very narrow remit since they are limited by the political will of governments that are trying to balance all sorts of issues that contribute to a viable and growing economy. So obviously there is a conflict of interests there.

So often the government's answer is to greenlight projects that appear to be bottom up green initiatives but in reality know won't interfere with economic growth. In the spirit of democracy they are contrived to involve all stakeholders, including business and big corporations, not just conservation NGOs and altruistic members of the public. It doesn't take a genius to workout the various agendas will never align.

So, the stakeholders end up pulling in completely different directions, and surprise surprise, nothing meaningful is ever achieved. This suits government perfectly, it gives the impression it's working toward whatever global summit it was it signed up to, whilst knowing full well most stakeholders will place economic interests above conservation interests every time. Once again politicians dodge responsibility for the environment by handing it back to the public. It's a paradox of devolution...

For instance, the Catchment Based Approach is just one such "community led" initiative that clearly doesn't work and probably never will otherwise the WWF wouldn't feel the need to issue their report. In fact the entire conservation paradigm doesn't work and hasn't for many decades. I'm sure we'll be reading the same WWF report in another 25 years time. So even if it's accurate, which I doubt, nothing they do will make any difference at all in the long run.

 

[John q]

How do you follow on from those excellent posts by Tim? 👏.
I know copy and paste jobby.

NFU Cymru response to original panorama article.

NFU Cymru has written to the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to express its concerns after a Panorama investigation uncovered alleged illegal dumping of untreated sewage in Welsh rivers.

The Panorama ‘River pollution scandal’ aired on Monday 12th April and appeared to show untreated sewage being illegally discharged into protected rivers in England and Wales, including the River Usk.

NFU Cymru says the broadcast has caused ‘great concern’ among Welsh farmers, who just two weeks ago were severely burdened with ‘indiscriminate and punitive’ measures as part of Welsh Government’s new all-Wales NVZ regulations aimed at improving water quality in Wales.

The union is asking that Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) carry out a full investigation into the findings of the Panorama documentary, in order to assure farmers that ‘agriculture has not been held accountable for the pollution caused from other sources, particularly sewage treatment works’.

NFU Cymru President John Davies said: “NFU Cymru has long highlighted that there are a range of factors influencing water quality in Wales. The evidence is clear that a sole focus on agriculture through the introduction of regulatory measures to tackle agricultural pollution will not deliver Water Framework Directive objectives, yet we have observed a false and flawed narrative developing in recent years that frames agriculture as ‘the problem’ with respect to water quality issues in Wales.

NFU Cymru seeking confirmation on actions being taken by Welsh Government​

“In light of the evidence uncovered by the Panorama programme, NFU Cymru is seeking confirmation on what actions are being taken by government and the regulator to stop these illegal practices. We also ask what investigations are being undertaken to understand if and where else within Wales similar illegal practices are or have taken place.”

As part of its letter, the union has also urged that any potential contribution that discharges are making to phosphate levels in the River Usk is accurately accounted for.


I'm assuming this is to add weight to their current legal objection against certain parts of agricultural act.

Position statement: Water quality

NFU Cymru has received notification that the union’s application for permission to judicially review Welsh Government’s decision to introduce water quality regulations

www.nfu-cymru.org.uk

 

[sparkyweasel]

The big problem is that very little of the money folk donate to these organisations is spent on tackling the root cause of the problem,

If they did that, they would put themselves out of business.

 

[AverageWhiteBloke]

In a similar vein I happened to stumble across a study by Lancaster University one day while searching for aquarium related po4 things. It would appear that the environment is getting the s**t end of the stick regardless whether the water is going in one end or coming out the other. Because so much of our drinking water (approx 25%) gets wasted through leaking pipes and we load it with PO4 to prevent lead poisoning this PO4 inevitably makes its way into ecosystems causing eutrophication.

The farmers have been blamed for this for many years but now they can differentiate between the source of the PO4 it appears the water companies who monitor the farms also have a lot to answer to. <Link to it here>

 

[Guest]

If they did that, they would put themselves out of business.

I guess it depends on what exactly is considered a symptom vs a root cause? For me the root cause is unsustainable population growth and perhaps a flawed system of government, not so much a democracy as a corporatocracy.

 

[John q]

The farmers have been blamed for this for many years but now they can differentiate between the source of the PO4 it appears the water companies who monitor the farms also have a lot to answer to

I read the linked article and also the paper that the article refers to but couldn't quite work out what percentage of the PO4 loading entering waste treatment plants is attributed to inclusion in tap water. At the beginning of the paper it says its estimated at 6%, but then figures of 12~20% are mentioned.
Truth is the paper is probably above my pay scale but I did mange to work out the isotope they identified as being unique to tap water was δ¹⁸OPO4.

So I asked myself a question and wondered if they could identify this isotope in river water?
Another search and another paper suggests they can't reliably identify it due to the rivers microbial cycling rapidly removing any original source of δ¹⁸OPO4 values.

Above mentioned papers if anyone is remotely interested.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.5b01137

The oxygen isotopic composition of phosphate in river water and its potential sources in the Upper River Taw catchment, UK

The need to reduce both point and diffuse phosphorus pollution to aquatic ecosystems is widely recognised and in order to achieve this, identification…

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[Karmicnull]

I approach anything the WWF et. al. have their sticky fingers on with a degree of educated scepticism.

Which begs the question - if you do want to support a charity in this space, how do you judge which one is best to invest in? Whilst I want any donation I make to be as effective as possible, in the absence of any data beyond what a relatively surface web search reveals, I'd rather support something than nothing. I tend to think along the three axes of (1) are they taking the right approach? (2) is a decent proportion of each dollar donated actually making it to the coal face? and (3) is the org big enough to have a material effect? But without doing a ton of research, the info available to assess those criteria is sketchy at best.

 

[PARAGUAY]

My son when he lived at home gave to a few animal charities l think one was . He had moved on new girlfriend and all and when l said about he had letters donations not recieved and then phone calls he said he was dropping support for now but maybe later donating again. I was a bit taken back by the forcefulness of phonecalls which appeared to be out of private companys working for the charity in question.
So l do agree some have lost their way and how much donation actually gets to what we want it to get to?
It felt like make you feel guilty for not donating but only so many charitys you can help and an office full of paid canvassers ?