0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
By "harmful", do you mean "unnatural"? Do you mean therefore that all natural things are not harmful?Please could you put some meat onto your post? It needs feeding. But only with bio-eco-organic food, of course.Oh, and make your post into a question eg: "Should we all encourage the use of ....?" if only to appease the wrath of the mods.
First part - it depends. Second part - it depends. I'm just trying to find out what the point of the thread is, and what is meant. I want to understand the poster's association between natural and environmentally friendly. When it is read, it appears to be mutally inclusive, whereas I don't see it that way. In the second part, I've no idea of what is meant by harmful. Harmful to whom or what? All I'm doing is asking questions in an effort to understand what is supposed to be discussed (if anything). At the moment it's just a statement that to me appears unclear because it is too broad.
What does "natural" have to do with it?
"When is it time to use harmful products? (assuming harmful means: Damaging to people and the environment in the long and short term)"And at home and other places...One that instantly springs to mind are various cancer treatments which are harmful to people. They are very aggressive and not at all pleasant to the "user". And it's probably time to rush people to the hospital in order to treat them, in some sort of vehicle. And also to use expensive electronic equipment to monitor these people and to keep them alive, that through the development and building of the machines created a great deal of CO2 and uses a lot of plastic that probably won't be recycled, etc etc. But maybe these aren't the kind of products that the poster had in mind. I don't know. It seems to me though, that if you look at the complete cycle of virtually any product from its cradle to grave, they will illicit some sort of "harm" to someone somewhere, and therefore, I don't think that you can just say "Let's stop using harmful products". What's a non-harmful product? (Semi-rhetorical)
biggest environmental disaster? quite emotional - and silly. Suggest you think as a scientist and not allow yourself to be manipulated be the enviro lobby. If there were such a scientific concept - the development/evolution of photosynthesis and it's subsequent oxygen "pollution" would probably be the "biggest."
(...)Unless you define what is "environment friendly" and what is "natural" then you are not going to get far trying to answer my first question which was "what does natural have to do with it?"(...)
I guess, "unnatural" COULD be something that has been created by a species that no living organism can digest or break down without technology and is therefor destined to stay in the environment for a really long time until it is taken care of with technology. Is "unnatural" a linear process rather than a cycle?
I think part of this problem is that people have, historically, not thought of themselves as part of the environment. For practically the whole of humanity's existence we have thrown "away" stuff we didn't want without realising that there is no "away". That's why the CO2 from fossil fuels and the lead in petrol or whatever have come back to haunt us.The sooner we realise that we are part of the environment the better.(...)If we were not part of the environment we couldn't harm it- we do, so we must be.Since we are part of it, we ought to look after it.
Since nothing that I can think of meets your criteria for unnatural, your definition seems as pointless as the one I gave (and I did it for effect). I may be mistaken, what man made object would survive geological subduction? Most wouldn't do well in a decent forrest fire.
As I see it the problem that needs to be solved is why bother to ask if something is natural (by whatever definition) when we should be worried about the effect it has rather than it's origin.(...)The question of what is or isn't natural doesn't seem to matter much and blaming "unnatural" stuff (whatever that might mean) is a distraction we don't need.
Dioxins (more specifically chlorinated dibenzodioxins) were created in forrest fires long before man came along. They are exactly the sort of natural thing you might worry about.We may need to worry about dioxins in our environment even though they are natural.As I said, the origin isn't the issue; the effect is. Sunlight is natural, does that mean we don't have to worry about it causing skin cancer?What you ought to do is (so far as I can tell) to look at the risk from all these things (and many more of course) and also the benfit that they produce.Then do a risk benefit analysis and seee what the outcome of that analysis is. The origin simply doesn't come into it.
Karsten I agree with you in that we need 'objective' supervising and longterm testing, especcially when it comes to genetic and nanno innovations. There is a long way to go before anyone can say that they know what our genes f ex. really do. To lift forward just one gene and say that 'this gene is responsible for this' is something we seem to do often those days, and then we patent it and try it out:) but my guess is that there is a lot interconnections between genes we don't know a thing about, just as an example. and the same goes for nanno materials, at least as far as they are new combinations to nature and biological material (us:). What facility can today guarantee that they don't have any 'spill' when it comes to that size of material. The more advanced we get in our manipulations, the better our control needs to be it seems to me.
Lets get back to the original question."We all should encourage the use of natural and environment friendly objects at our homes and other places. Letís stop using products that are harmful and work towards a greener and healthier environment."
In that context it doesn't matter if the "product" is natural or not. We generally ought to avoid the use of asbestos and of DDT, but we need to consider the lives saved by fireproofing and malaria control.What doesn't matter is that asbestos comes out of a hole in the ground and DDT comes out of a chemical factory.
We all should encourage the use of natural and environment friendly objects at our homes and other places. Letís stop using products that are harmful and work towards a greener and healthier environment.
Grow up, children.
Karsten - my comment to "bored" whatever meant that no scientist would ask such a childish question - re is man the greaest environmental disaster.