Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ten 'most polluted places' named
09-14-2007, 09:36 PM,
#1
Ten 'most polluted places' named
A list of the world's most polluted places has been published by a US-based independent environmental group.

The Blacksmith Institute's top 10 towns and cities included sites in ex-Soviet republics, Russia, China and India. Peru and Zambia were also listed.

The report said an estimated 12 million people were affected by the severe pollution, which was mainly caused by chemical, metal and mining industries.

Chronic illness and premature deaths were listed as possible side-effects.

The annual review, which debuted in 2006, is listed alphabetically, and the sites are unranked "given the wide range of location sizes, populations and pollution dynamics".

Among the new sites listed in 2007 were Tianying in China, where potentially 140,000 people were at risk from lead poisoning from a massive lead production base there.

The report also said that in the Indian town of Sukinda there were 12 mines operating without environmental controls, leaching dangerous chemicals into water supplies.

Sumgayit in Azerbaijan was also included in the report, which said the former Soviet industrial base was polluting the area with industrial chemicals and heavy metals.

According to the report, cancer rates in Sumgayit were as much as 51% higher than the national average and that genetic mutations and birth defects were commonplace.

The Blacksmith Institute's director, Richard Fuller, said: "The fact of the matter is that children are sick and dying in these polluted places, and it's not rocket science to fix them.

"This year, there has been more focus on pollution in the media, but there has been little action in terms of new funding or programmes. We all need to step up to the plate and get moving," he said.

----------

Worst Polluted:
Quote:Sumgayit, Azerbaijan; Potentially 275,000 affected
Linfen, China; Potentially 3m affected
Tianying, China; Potentially 140,000 affected
Sukinda, India; Potentially 2.6m affected
Vapi, India; Potentially 71,000 affected
La Oroya, Peru; Potentially 35,000 affected
Dzerzhinsk, Russia; Potentially 300,000 affected
Norilsk, Russia; Potentially 134,000 affected
Chernobyl, Ukraine; Potentially 5.5m affected
Kabwe, Zambia; Potentially 255,000 affected

Source: BBC News

I smell bullshit....


WHAT ABOUT IRAQ YOU FUCKING BASTARDS? DEPLETED URANIUM GOING TO KILL MILLIONS YOU FUCKING EVIL CUNTS - THOUSANDS OF DEFORMED KIDS ALREADY YOU SHIT BAGS. STICK THAT IN YOUR FUCKING "INDEPENDENT" STATISTICS
Reply
09-15-2007, 12:35 AM,
#2
Ten 'most polluted places' named
I'll update you all if I recieve a reply:

Quote:---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX <xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sep 14, 2007 06:31 PM
Subject: The World's Top 10 most polluted places
To: info@blacksmithinstitute.org

The World's Top 10 most polluted places: http://www.blacksmithinstitute.org/ten.php

Dear Sirs,

I am very interested as to why you did not include Iraq in your list of The World's Top 10 Polluted Places. Due to the first Gulf War in 1990 and the ongoing conflict in Iraq there is extremely heavy pollution caused by Depleted Uranium from the United States weapons.

I can provide sources if you like, but I am sure your in-house experts know where to look to see the huge effect this toxic waste is having on families, in particular newborn children. Apparently polluted areas will remain so for millions of years.

I am interested in why you didn't include Iraq, or perhaps if Iraq will be included in a later date?


Yours faithfully


XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx
Reply
09-15-2007, 01:41 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-15-2007, 01:47 AM by humbug.)
#3
Ten 'most polluted places' named
you'll just get the same snotty answer any "scientist" will give you. here the wikipology:

Radiological hazards

Depleted uranium is not a significant health hazard unless it is taken into the body. External exposure to radiation from depleted uranium is generally not a major concern because the alpha particle emitted by its isotopes travel only a few centimeters in air or can be stopped by a sheet of paper. Also, the uranium-235 that remains in depleted uranium emits only a small amount of low-energy gamma radiation. According to the World Health Organization, a radiation dose from it would be about 60% of that from purified natural uranium with the same mass. Approximately 90 µg (micrograms) of natural uranium, on average, exist in the human body as a result of normal intakes of water, food and air. The majority of this is found in the skeleton, with the rest in various organs and tissues.

The radiological dangers of pure depleted uranium are relatively low, lower (60%) than those of naturally-occurring uranium due to the removal of the more radioactive isotopes, as well as due to its long half-life (4.46 billion years). Depleted uranium differs from natural uranium in its isotopic composition, but its biochemistry is for the most part the same. For further details see Actinides in the environment.


edit: blablablabla....travel only a few centimeters in air or can be stopped by a sheet of paper is the argument I usually get.

the problem: once you've stopped it with a sheet of paper, you have to stop it again until it is finally done emitting which may prove quite difficult. add the fact that these buggers are lying around all over the place
Reply
09-15-2007, 06:52 AM,
#4
Ten 'most polluted places' named
Good read, great point
Reply
09-15-2007, 12:14 PM,
#5
Ten 'most polluted places' named
Its even worse. Thinking about afganistan or even earlier the war is europe (kosovo/serbia/jugoslavia). Half europe is already polluted with depleted urianium from winds. So basicly the usa is killing millions of europeans and allies with the shit they use as ammunition in those wars.
Reply
09-15-2007, 12:19 PM,
#6
Ten 'most polluted places' named
Quote:Depleted uranium is not a significant health hazard unless it is taken into the body.

...unless it is taken into the body... Humans do breath do they? At least I think they do... maybe those "scientists" dont need to breath...
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Earthquakes in various places.... Umbrellaman 0 1,357 01-09-2011, 05:51 AM
Last Post: Umbrellaman
  NASA Scientist James Hansen Places Foot in Mouth on Global Warming waxzy 0 873 08-14-2007, 03:38 PM
Last Post: waxzy

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)