<p>tho it doesnt relate to the topic....
" the rivers are polluted from human waste."</p>
<p>hahaha
the nile...the ganges...the hwang ho...polluted with human waste...you have got to be joking....they are the most beautiful rivers in the entire world...they are mighty....they arent mere drains to be clogged that can be clogged by S H I T</p>
<p>ok first of all your facts have no sources, making them warrantless arguments not facts. Understand what a "fact" is before you pretend like you are actually using them. </p>
<p>
[quote]
use logic....EVEN if u eat veggies sprayed with pesticides....it is much better than making the cows eat it first and then eating the cow....
THE BASIC RULE OF ECOLOGY SAYS THIS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>umm i am using logic, if you eat a pesticide that hasnt had a chance to be digested in a cows body, chances are its equally as bad for you if not worse than eating the cow. </p>
<p>What is the "basic rule of ecology" mr. scholar?</p>
<p>
[quote]
hahaha
the nile...the ganges...the hwang ho...polluted with human waste...you have got to be joking....they are the most beautiful rivers in the entire world...they are mighty....they arent mere drains to be clogged that can be clogged by S H I T
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow you have totally lost all credibility:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Overuse and misuse of land and water resources in river basins elsewhere has "seriously depleted and polluted" about 250 of the world's 500 rivers, the commission said.</p>
<p>Among the most troubled rivers mentioned in the report:</p>
<pre><code>*
* Egypt's Nile River: Only 10 percent of the Nile reaches the Mediterranean Sea and what does flow into the sea is polluted with agricultural, industrial and municipal waste.
* China's Yellow River: Agricultural areas are polluted and the river dried up more than half the year in 1997.
* Russia's Amu Darya and Syr Darya: The flow of these rivers into the Aral Sea in central Asia has been reduced by 75 percent for cotton irrigation. This has caused sea levels to recede 53 feet between 1962 and 1994.
The USA's Colorado River: Because it is used for irrigation of 3.7 million farm acres, little is left to protect the ecosystem downstream, which has now turned into salty, lifeless marshes.
[/quote]
</code></pre>
<p>mr. scholar...i like that</p>
<p>pesticides cannot digested by any animal.....they keep accumalating in the animal...</p>
<p>so if a cow keeps eating veggies coated with pesticides...it will have lots of toxins in its body...i already explained this....i think i will elucidate with an example:</p>
<p>plants-1ppm of toxins
cow-10ppm of toxins
humans-100ppm of of toxins</p>
<p>as opposed to</p>
<p>plants-1ppm of toxins
humans-10ppm of of toxins</p>
<p>which one will u prefer??? SIMPLE LOGIC.</p>
<p>on the ganges:</p>
<p>
[quote]
</p>
<p>Ganga
This is considered the holiest of all the great rivers of India. It has its source at the Gangotri glacier, where it flows from the cave Goumukh, as the Bhagirathi, which then joins the River Alaknanda as it flows towards Devaprayag. The largest tributary of the river is the Ghaghara, which flows from the northern Nepal region and joins it before Patna in Bihar. Another major tributary is the Yamuna originating in the Yamunotri glacier, and flows through Delhi and Agra. Others are the Gomti, Gandak, Son, Kosi, Chambal, Sarda, etc. The Ganga is the lifeline for more than 500 million people living along its banks. The water of the river Ganges is considered so sacred that people keep it in their homes for use in prayers on important occasions such as at the time of death.</p>
<p>Most cities along the river do not have sewage treatment plants and those that do have them can handle only part of the waste water. Millions of tonnes of untreated sewage are dumped daily into the river from the cities that lie along its banks. Bathing and washing also contribute to the pollution as most of the soap that is used is made from chemical substances. The river is also polluted by human and animal faeces. Industrial units that lie along the banks of the river discharge all the waste into the river and only a few of them have proper treatment facilities. </p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>human waste IS DIFFERENT FROM AGRICULTURAL WASTE...</p>
<p>BESIDES IT IS OFF TOPIC...U IDIOT...WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING WATER POLLUTION.</p>
<p>"The USA's Colorado River: Because it is used for irrigation of 3.7 million farm acres, little is left to protect the ecosystem downstream, which has now turned into salty, lifeless marshes. "</p>
<p>
[quote]
pesticides cannot digested by any animal.....they keep accumalating in the animal...</p>
<p>so if a cow keeps eating veggies coated with pesticides...it will have lots of toxins in its body...i already explained this....i think i will elucidate with an example:</p>
<p>plants-1ppm of toxins
cow-10ppm of toxins
humans-100ppm of of toxins</p>
<p>as opposed to</p>
<p>plants-1ppm of toxins
humans-10ppm of of toxins</p>
<p>which one will u prefer??? SIMPLE LOGIC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First, I would like to see a source. Second, if you eat enough vegetables with toxins on them it will be the equivalent to what you get from meat. </p>
<p>My great grandmother is 100 years old and she still eats meat, probably not the best stuff either.</p>
<p>
[quote]
human waste IS DIFFERENT FROM AGRICULTURAL WASTE...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>first, municipal waste includes human waste you "idiot". Second, the ganges river post points directly to human waste.</p>
<p>RYAN
i dont mean to be degrading...BUT DONT U STUDY BIOLOGY AT SCHOOL???
ASK YOUR TEACHER....SHE/HE WILL TELL U. IT IS SIMPLE ECOLOGY.</p>
<p>"accumalation of pollutants as u go up a food chain"</p>
<p>my great grandpa is 105 and he is vegetarian. :)</p>
<p>im not talking about the colorado, we are talking about the nile, ganges, and hwang ho remember???</p>
<p>
[quote]
RYAN
i dont mean to be degrading...BUT DONT U STUDY BIOLOGY AT SCHOOL???
ASK YOUR TEACHER....SHE/HE WILL TELL U. IT IS SIMPLE ECOLOGY.</p>
<p>"accumalation of pollutants as u go up a food chain"</p>
<p>my great grandpa is 105 and he is vegetarian.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I understand that, but it really is not as significant as you make it out to be. Pollutants acquired from free roaming cow meat are relatively minimal. </p>
<p>If you can send me an article that explains that humans die because of the vegetables that cows eat then i will stop my argument.</p>
<p>WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING WATER POLLUTION.
THE ORIGINAL POINT WAS:</p>
<p>Litres of water necessary to produce 1 kilo of wheat: 209
Litres of water necessary to produce 1 kilo of meat: 20,861
Amount of water used by the average meat-eater in America compared to the average
vegetarian: 16 times as much</p>
<p>Amount of land used to produce meat through intensive farming compared to the amount of
land necessary to produce vegetable food: 20 times as much</p>
<p>Number of years the worlds known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centred
diet: 13</p>
<p>Number of years the worlds known oil reserves would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260</p>
<p>I CANT HELP IF YOU MISINTERPRET ALL MY POSTS....YOU DEVIATED TO "human waste"</p>
<p>"I understand that, but it really is not as significant as you make it out to be. Pollutants acquired from free roaming cow meat are relatively minimal. </p>
<p>If you can send me an article that explains that humans die because of the vegetables that cows eat then i will stop my argument."</p>
<p>ok i will try to explain this lucidly...try and listen...dont be biased...ask questions when u feel like...ok...here goes</p>
<p>
[quote]
Amount of land used to produce meat through intensive farming compared to the amount of
land necessary to produce vegetable food: 20 times as much</p>
<p>Number of years the worlds known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centred
diet: 13</p>
<p>Number of years the worlds known oil reserves would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Alright, first of all its impossible for every human in the world to have a meat centered diet, there just isnt that much meat.</p>
<p>Secondly, I call Bull **** on these statistics and I demand a source. These have absolutely no warrants behind them.</p>
<p>Biological Magnification </p>
<p>Biological magnification is the tendency of pollutants to become concentrated in successive trophic levels. Often, this is to the detriment of the organisms in which these materials concentrate, since the pollutants are often toxic. </p>
<p>Biomagnification occurs when organisms at the bottom of the food chain concentrate the material above its concentration in the surrounding soil or water. Producers, as we saw earlier, take in inorganic nutrients from their surroundings. Since a lack of these nutrients can limit the growth of the producer, producers will go to great lengths to obtain the nutrients. They will spend considerable energy to pump them into their bodies. They will even take up more than they need immediately and store it, since they can't be "sure" of when the nutrient will be available again (of course, plants don't think about such things, but, as it turns out, those plants, which, for whatever reason, tended to concentrate inorganic nutrients have done better over the years). The problem comes up when a pollutant, such as DDT or mercury, is present in the environment. Chemically, these pollutants resemble essential inorganic nutrients and are brought into the producer's body and stored "by mistake". This is the first step in biomagnification; the pollutant is at a higher concentration inside the producer than it is in the environment. </p>
<p>The second stage of biomagnification occurs when the producer is eaten. Remember from our discussion of a pyramid of biomass that relatively little energy is available from one trophic level to the next. This means that a consumer (of any level) has to consume a lot of biomass from the lower trophic level. If that biomass contains the pollutant, the pollutant will be taken up in large quantities by the consumer. Pollutants that biomagnify have another characteristic. Not only are they taken up by the producers, but they are absorbed and stored in the bodies of the consumers. This often occurs with pollutants soluble in fat such as DDT or PCB's. These materials are digested from the producer and move into the fat of the consumer. If the consumer is caught and eaten, its fat is digested and the pollutant moves to the fat of the new consumer. In this way, the pollutant builds up in the fatty tissues of the consumers. Water-soluble pollutants usually cannot biomagnify in this way because they would dissolve in the bodily fluids of the consumer. Since every organism loses water to the environment, as the water is lost the pollutant would leave as well. Alas, fat simply does not leave the body. </p>
<p>The "best" example of biomagnification comes from DDT. This long-lived pesticide (insecticide) has improved human health in many countries by killing insects such as mosquitoes that spread disease. On the other hand, DDT is effective in part because it does not break down in the environment. It is picked up by organisms in the environment and incorporated into fat. Even here, it does no real damage in many organisms (including humans). In others, however, DDT is deadly or may have more insidious, long-term effects. In birds, for instance, DDT interferes with the deposition of calcium in the shells of the bird's eggs. The eggs laid are very soft and easily broken; birds so afflicted are rarely able to raise young and this causes a decline in their numbers. This was so apparent in the early 1960's that it led the scientist Rachel Carson to postulate a "silent spring" without the sound of bird calls. Her book "Silent Spring" led to the banning of DDT, the search for pesticides that would not biomagnify, and the birth of the "modern" environmental movement in the 1960's. Birds such as the bald eagle have made comebacks in response to the banning of DDT in the US. Ironically, many of the pesticides which replaced DDT are more dangerous to humans, and, without DDT, disease (primarily in the tropics) claims more human lives.</p>
<p>Ravin for the hundreth time I dont want your bull **** explination I want a source.</p>
<p>what do you think...i dont have time to make all this up...</p>
<p>here is the link for biological magnification:
<a href="http://www.marietta.edu/%7Ebiol/102/ecosystem.html#Biologicalmagnification6%5B/url%5D">http://www.marietta.edu/~biol/102/ecosystem.html#Biologicalmagnification6</a></p>
<p>for all the other facts that i used:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.petaindia.com/argumentposter.pdf....i%5B/url%5D">http://www.petaindia.com/argumentposter.pdf....i</a> doubt that it works...there is a similar one on petas main site....but i think this one is better...tho it is in an indian context</p>
<p>
[quote]
Birds such as the bald eagle have made comebacks in response to the banning of DDT in the US. Ironically, many of the pesticides which replaced DDT are more dangerous to humans, and, without DDT, disease (primarily in the tropics) claims more human lives.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This doesnt say anything about how eating animals claims human lives, it basically says that pesticides in the tropics are not effective against mosquitos....</p>