Gotta keep the lemmings under control, can't let them have any fun, right?

I agree DKJ...my first thought was why don't they just make using these fertilizers illegal now that they know they are killing people, and will continue to kill them for decades to come, even if they stop using them now. There are other ways to fertilize crops. Where is the common sense? Where is the leadership?

Pragmatic-3918582, only when your soil is full of @!$%#.

The soil in most farming areas is saturated with nitrates and the run-off goes on to contaminate the streams, rivers, and, of course, the groundwater. We currently have more animal manure than we know what to do with. Nitrates are essential for plant growth but based on current soil levels, we could cut back an order of magnitude and STILL have nitrogen in excess. I thought they were going to talk about the developmental, reproductive, and neurological damage caused by atrazine and other herbicides or how much alachlor you'll find in your drinking water but I guess those drinking water contaminates will have to wait for another article. We need to completely rethink how we do industrial agriculture.

While I'm ranting, it is monumentally stupid that the American Cancer Society raises money to help find a cure for cancer yet we annually dump millions of gallons of KNOWN carcinogens (e.g. benzene) into the environment. I guess eliminating the source of cancer isn't as sexy as giving you a pill to get rid of it once you have it. Don't let a dumb politician convince you that regulating these substances (some of which are banned in Europe--like Atrazine--where they make it) will only result in losing jobs. It isn't true.

Yep, ease of use and profits over health, nothing new sadly. The argument of having better easier crop yields over not causing suffering and not killing people is absurd and disgusting. Organic fertilizers are far safer. Many other countries ban inorganic fertilizers for a reason, they don't want to kill their people, how kind of them! This article doesn't touch on another side effect of this awful system, agricultural runoff making it's way into the ocean, causing an explosion of algae, causing dead zones in once fertile fishing areas. So those who argue it yields more food lack big picture thinking, cause it actually decreases overall food supply.

Manure has been used for centuries as a fertilizer. The nitrates in fertilizer are mined. Instead of 'better living through chemistry' and padding the pockets of Monsanto and other big AG biz, perhaps it would be wiser to use natural fertilizers that don't add to the pollution. Manure can be composted and there is enough of it around to use as fertilizer. Interesting how everyone looks for 'renewable energy' and constantly overlooks the vast quantities of methane produced on a massive scale. There are dairy farmers who use the manure to produce electricity and fertilize their fields.

DKJ-4,

Great points. Obviously, the government is not interested in protecting our property rights. That's all that's necessary- just enforce already existing laws and protect our property rights. But that's not in the government's interest; they prefer to take bribes from lobbies.

High nitrate levels in drinking water are known to cause thyroid cancer, skin rashes, hair loss, birth defects and “blue baby syndrome,”...The agricultural industry, however, has maintained that it is not solely responsible because nitrates come from many sources.

In our never ending quest to improve on God's work, we have instead managed to screw-up everything; and I mean everything.

It's only when people start keeling over that the need for regulation becomes clear. Contamination has been a problem forever for both surface and groundwater, for air, and for soil, not just in California, but across the country. Meantime, we see exemptions to regulations being issued so we can have cheap energy. Fracking is exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act among others.

Then you feel a bit comfortable because you get those lists of chemicals from your water purveyor, unless you have your own water source. You see that chemical limits are almost always within acceptable ranges. What you don't see, is what they DON'T test for. You won't find it, if you aren't looking for it. Is that because what you don't know won't hurt you?

It wasn't until BP's oil well blew in the Gulf of Mexico that we saw a pollution problem there. Well, the nasty little secret is that it's been a toxic dump for agricultural and industrial pollution for decades.

Of course, eliminating pollution requires regulation and adds costs to our bills. The last thing we want to do is pay for our health. Nah, it's easier to pretend there's no problem, elect idiots who don't care about anything but getting re-elected, and of course we must see to it the Megabuck Monstrocorp continues to make huge profits.

Dkj

Isn't this the new Republican Mantra, No Regulations, gut the EPA??? Sick isn't it. Welcome to the new Republican world.

Every person should know that deregulating the EPA will only bring more problems like this. What we need to do is just making it more efficient. People should not ELIMINATE an agency that regulates clean water and air. It should make it efficient. And I do not mean to privatize it, please.

"It's got electrolytes, it's what plants crave."

"what are electrolytes?"

"they are what plants crave."

Every person should know that deregulating the EPA will only bring more problems like this.

Yes. Because they've done such a good job so far.

Agriculture chemical interests are one of the biggest lobbyists in Washington. When will people address the core issue that lies beneath so many of the problems with our country--from toxins to insurance costs, from education to Wall Street?

The problem is always the same monster raising its ugly head. Congress will never do what is right for our country until lobbying is stopped. STOP THE BRIBERY NOW.

Any person in government known to take a bribe, and any person caught offering a bribe in any form whatsoever--including so much as a bag of cookies--should get 20 years without parole.

This entire misfortune is a result of Regan's Mega-Farm Idea..

Lets refer back to small farming who the jack-asses should of been supporting way back when.

I am shocked. I thought this one cover-up would never be released. It is the number one health hazard we face, not CO2, not Frosted Flakes, not drugs. There are hundreds of dissolved chemicals in water that cannot be removed by conventional filtration. It is not possible. Cartridge filters can only filter down to 1 micron. Dissolved chemicals are in the nanometer range. When you use filters like Brita, the water may look clean, but it is still full of dissolved chemicals. That is a fact.

Lusitania,

Ammonium nitrate has been the main fertilizer used on farms long before Reagan, long before Kennedy.

We can't regulate or ban fertilizer even if we know for a fact that it causes cancer at 100%, that would be regulation and big government strangling the free market. just like obama making passing laws to increase car mileage for our own good. who does he think he is by passing laws that could help us in the long run while keeping large companies from creating jobs making those gas guzzlers, what an idiot.

And, it can make a really powerful explosive, as Tim McVeigh proved. So with a commendable history like that, why would anyone want to ban it? If you can't poison 'em fast enough, blow 'em up real good quick.

FDA allows nitrate in meat up to 500 ppm. Current limit for nitrate in drinking water is actually 10 ppm. In most states natural groundwater has less than 0.2 ppm nitrate. I would be concerned if my water had more than 5 ppm of nitrate. Filtering water through ion exchange resin cartridges and reverse osmosis are the only practical systems for removing nitrate from home drinking water.

Here's the deal as I see it....water is becoming the new oil. The smart monies are buying our water and privatizing it and at some time in the not too distant future we are going to be paying dearly for a commodity that we pretty much take for granted now. Not only that but it wouldn't surprise me in the least that the very companies poisoning us are linked to the ones buying up the rights. Call me a tree hugger...I don't care, our environment is NOT a renewable resource and we need to protect it! Oh, and the article didn't mention how golf courses are a huge polluter.

Monarch’s parent company, SouthWest Water Co., has applied to TCEQ to merge all of its smaller utilities into one consolidated company. SouthWest merged with J.P. MorganAsset Management and Water Asset Management LLC in September 2010 and is now a private, investor-owned utility with systems in Texas, Alabama, California, Colorado, Georgia, Mississippi and Oklahoma.
*********************************************************************************************

Until recently, water privatization was an almost exclusively Third World issue. In the late 1990s the World Bank infamously required scores of impoverished countries—most notably Bolivia—to privatize their water supplies as a condition of desperately needed economic assistance. The hope was that markets would eliminate corruption and big multinationals would invest the resources needed to bring more water to more people. By 2000, Bolivian citizens had taken to the streets in a string of violent protests. Bechtel—the multinational corporation that had leased their pipes and plants—had more than doubled water rates, leaving tens of thousands of Bolivians who couldn’t pay without any water whatsoever. The company said price hikes were needed to repair and expand the dilapidated infrastructure. Critics insisted they served only to maintain unrealistic profit margins. Either way, the rioters sent the companies packing; by 2001, the public utility had resumed control.

These days, global water barons have set their sights on a more appealing target: countries with dwindling water supplies and aging infrastructure, but better economies than Bolivia’s. “These are the countries that can afford to pay,” says Olson. “They’ve got huge infrastructure needs, shrinking water reserves, and money.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/10/08/the-race-to-buy-up-the-world-s-water.html

*********************************************************************************

Here's a story about T. Boone Pickens, Texas and water:

http://lubbockonline.com/local-news/2011-06-23/canadian-river-authority-buys-pickens-water-rights

. Ok then I don't understand why marijauna is still federally illegal, probably just to keep the price up on the black market.

Because the one percenters and the government make huge bucks from it. Also other products from hemp would push other products out of the market.

Golf courses use a high amount of fertilizer and their solution is to catch the runoff and use it to water the grass again. It would make sense for the farms to catch their water runoff and recycle it back to the crops. It would probably save them lots of money in the long haul.

Having worked in the environmental industry, mostly with groundwater, this isnt really surprising in the least. However, I suspect there were other compounds other than the nitrates (which were only twice the drinking limit), in the groundwater that casued this woman's problems. Given it was an old military base, I'm willing to bet chlorinated solvents were also in the water supply.

On the topic of nitrate impacts to groundwater, there are engineered controls you can put in place (specific filter units, reverse osmosis) to treat your tap water once it enters your house. The feasibility of treating these entire aquifers is non-existent. Southern California will also continue to see decreased rainfall due to climate change over the next several decades and this will not help their aquifers for several reasons.

On the topic of industry and lobbyist groups, I couldnt agree more with most of you. The GOP has been a talking head for chemical and agricultural industry for years. But hey, what do you expect when you're getting hundreds of millions of years to decry any TALK of these topics and pull the old "you're costing us jobs" rabbit out of the hat. Hell, they protested banning DDT when it was blatantly obvious it was destroying our ecosystem (see California Condor) and health of the public. I'll never forget watching Glenn Beck on TV blame the EPA for "the deaths of millions of poor Africans" because DDT was banned. All he has to do is take a look at Vietnam where we dumped millions of gallons of Agent Orange and see how that's working out.

Logical Positivist hit the nail on the head; they know what's causing cancer, but they make more money by selling treatments for cancer than preventing it. Sad.

Now let me get this straight. The farmers wanted cheap effective fertilizer and they buy it. They are happy with it. Now that it's making them sick its the manufacturers fault? It's the states fault? Sorry I don't buy that one at all.

While I agree that the state has to get involved in cleaning it up, the farmers need to pay their share of it as well. Also the farmers need to find an alternative fertilizer that will not kill them. That alone will hurt the manufacturer of the other product in not buying their products. People continually put chemicals into our foods and then complain when it makes them sick. WHO forced them to use those chemicals?

People need to take responsibility for their actions. If you know that a product is unsafe, but you use it anyway, whose fault is that?

“This isn’t a new problem,” she said. “We’ve known it for decades, but we’ve failed to do anything about it.”

the farmers need to pay their share of it as well.

Janine-1645002 - What about the consumer? Don't they bear any responsibility?

Big water and big agriculture must be held accountable! We need regulators that regulate the regulators that regulate the regulators. If we do that, then things beautifully, fairly, and profitably!

umm..Kornfed, what do you mean? If you're being sarcastic, do you have a real answer, or just to keep on with the status quo for no reason other than change might be hard.

What is new?

It is always profits over people which includes over-all human health in the short and long run. This is what happens when power is concentrated in big Agra business and little things like the "Clean Water Act" and other measures to ensure pubic health are not enforced or ignored with impunity.

The consumers fault? Hahahaha someone posted this...the imprimatur of the androids and dregs the minds completely stunted no cognitive awareness even lacking in basic morality, their inhumanity is overwhelming.

Lets see now: don't drink the water, don't eat certain foods, watch out for the air you breath, the panels of death are alive and well in the health industry and now threats of a Theocracy in America and this is baseline. I forgot to mention world population in terms of over-population but it seems self-immolation (setting ones self on fire) is well on the way here, a self correction measure. The holy hucksters are at it again telling you what to think, how to act and ready to enforce their religulous dogma on you.

Some prop here posted "we have always used a household purification system so what is the problem? Should we tell this poster? Nah, lol...see what I mean? All you have to do is use bottle water and cheap home water purifier and all is great hahaha what a dolt...well elect him or her to high national office, these are the kind of nullity's (the empty set) we need in public office....oh we all ready have them in place...okay.

PS: I see a post urging us to hire regulators to regulate the regulators that regulate the regulators...okay I get it and I suppose you mean in the financial sector, big oil, big Agra, big Pharma, the health for profit but that would be upsetting the status quo. Now a Theocracy the icing on the cake and the end of modern civilization as we have come to know it...a nice thought.

Pulling nitrate-saturated water out of the ground and applying it to crops at the right time to ensure more complete nitrate uptake.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but if it's so bad that we don't want it in our water, why the hell do we want it in our veggies?

The majority of water used from any source is for washing, cleaning, and showering. Reverse Osmosis systems can remove the contamination from drinking, cooking, and other consumed water. RO systems are not that expensive, especially considering the consequences of not having one. As with so many of the human created problems, it is already too late to solve it without going through a fair amount of trouble and expense. Bite the bullet, do it, and quit whining about what you have done to yourselves.

See, the free market handles it....when the people are dead, no one will make any more....

regulations are a necessity..... and higher profits are not

Reverse osmosis is not the solution for polluted water. It is rather inefficient and does not remove all contaminants. The only answer to this problem is distilled water. That just ain't gonna happen - too expensive, energy intensive, but safe.

A reasonable solution is to get the right-wing out of our political world, because that political world touches every facet of our lives - notably our health. The only way to keep the right-wing crazies out of politics is to purge the Republican Party and the only way that is going to happen is to vote them out of office. Only then, will true Republicans clean up their act.

For those who whine that this is being politicized - get a grip. Of course it is. The Republican Party has used the political process to kill regulations that profit Big Money while they kill citizens.

Vote G.O.P. - Suicide by Republican

“Our problem is going to be your problem,” she said. “It’s everyone’s problem. There are solutions, but we need the people in charge of our communities to do something about it.”

wrong way to make a point in my opinion. yes it is everyones problem, and it is bad. going to be food shortages at home in will be in our lifetime. within 10, maybe 15 years. Could be next year, who knows, but there is an ever growing population, and it, unlike we do to natures children, have no law for population control. breed baby breed to keep that government machine running has been the motto. if you cant afford to raise good smart kids, they drop an abortion clinic off on your corner, because your kid will either kill himself, or someone else to remove him from the population, and add more reason for us to pay more taxes. In the end however, we cull our own herds, and the reason? WARS. not like Iraq, Chechnia, or however its spelled. world wars. We however have become so politically mindwashed,( i feel the "F" word in place of wash more appropiate) we dont look at the real crap going on for what it is, other than someone elses fault. someone elses problem. this is indeed yes everyones problem, however rather finding the right solutions, its continue the problem, let technology fix it for now, cause playing "kick the can" makes and saves us all money. this is BS, and a governmental solution to stick it to us.

who pays for the farmers when they have costs more than profits they were to have made for the year? Taxpayers. so they pass off a fee for farmers, who can claim it as part of the buisness costs, and figure into a margin of profit to be reimbursed by taxpayers. ok, fine, we need food, they have to grow it, but then, even if those costs are re-eimbursed in some form as they will be, guess who pays more at the regester? add in ax? theres a few pennies more.

so if you cant afford food, where do you go, and who pays for it? ya... so instead of fixing things, just 1 thing, we added in a bunch of other crap. who wins? "hint: begins with G".

A well known problem for those on farms. Nitrates are a huge problem with rain run off. Look at how it increases the occurrence of red tide in the Gulf of Mexico. Our farm does not utilize chemical fertilizers anymore. Pig, cow and chicken waste can be a healthy alternative and we use them on our farm. Since the focus is now quality of drinking water we also need to worry about fracking. Nitrates pollute from above and fracking simply injects all sorts of carcinogenic and other pollutants straight into the vein.

For the central valley this all started about 150 years ago when they diverted water or darned Tulare lake/

This lake had a surface are of 6,000 sq miles. The lake bottom was used for farming. It produced and still produces a very large portion of the this countries food. Just for an example Tulare county does 5 billion in ag goods a year and its population is 650K. There are 750K dairy cattle in this county and about another 500 thousand undocumented workers.

The nitrate problem that we now have started over 75 years ago. It takes that long to reach the water supply. over fertilizing along with over watering has caused the problem. Don't expect it to stop any time soon

You can not drink distilled water everytime. It lacks the minerals needed by the body. Distillation removes those minerals.

i didn't necessarily want to republican bash, but many of these anti-republican comments were collapsed because as much as we would like to think we have freedoms in this country, people automatically shut down when reason pops up that is against what they believe. Look at the facts republicans (im independent) i thnk every side is corrupt but if you look at the facts, These are the policies that fundamental republicans have been fighting for the last 50 or so years...

1. Against almost every EPA initiative to preserve natural wildlife and resources. It is true that they tend to present legislature that is from a "conservational" approach which sometimes does entail the obliteration of animals and natural resources in the area.

2. The teaching and sometimes exclusive teaching of abstinence only programs. Do i even need to discuss how absolutely ridiculous not to mention harmful this approach is?

3. Every time and issue of civil liberties is brought up such as gay rights, womens rights including the right to choose, general liberties stolen by the patriot act, republicans push to have these rights revoked and spend millions in funding these bills and initiatives that would limit these rights. reapple roe vs. wade, prop8 , the patriot act (eye roll).

4. Separation of church and state? that is a joke within the republican party. the biggest supporters of the party are christian fundamentalist who are rapidly contributing to how @!$%#ty this country is becoming. Christian ideals are constantly being forced on EVERYONE else including people that don't choose to follow their religion. Keep your beliefs to yourself and focus on what is fair for everyone in the US.

5. The Iraq war, a complete joke, iv said since the beginning and i was in 11th grade! The terrible reaction to the atrocities made situations and continue to make them worse then before. Yay we killed a dictator (saddam) what about allll the other ones that pose a threat? o wait it was for oil and resources. What about that super shady chaney?

the point is, to me, our system is broken. it doesn't matter what side of the isle your on. having said that, republicans also need to take the stick out and realize their party is a bunch of @!$%#s too and quit shunning dissent. Dissent brings revolutions which is what this country desperately needs.

Sorry guys, but the simple truth is, thanks to McDonalds (fast food in general) and Wal-Mart (mass production of consumables for the lowest price), Americans have developed a terrible attitude towards food that won't let this vicious cycle stop. They feel offended at the thought that yes, maybe food should comprise more than 12% if their spending. We're used to dollar menus and $1.29/lbs chicken breast.

The majority of these problems could be solved by scaling back animal protein in our diets (using meat as a flavor enhancer, rather than the main part of the meal) and buying produce from local, organic farmers. Our consumption of animal products to produce is just too far off balance.

Sadly, I live right on the edge of the CA valley, which is the reason I have to stick to only drinking filtered water. If you get a chance to drive through these areas, it's simply miles and miles of fields and farms, producing 365 days a year, never letting the soil rest, and densely packing in as much produce per acre as possible. They are able to do this through the magic of Monsanto and other big chemical companies, but everyone needs to be aware where their food is really coming from and what really goes into it.

If everyone who reads this can do themselves a favor - buy a tomato from your local Wal-Mart, the best looking one you can find. Now go to your local farmers market or natural foods store. Find an organic tomato, the most locally grown you can find. Go home, cut open both tomatoes. First thing you'll see is the Wal-Mart tomato is pale, almost white, when you cut into it.

Slice each tomato, put on a piece of bread with a little salt, some olive oil, a bit of basil and some fresh mozzarella, compare the two. I think you'll get my point after that.

" utilities and citizens in the two regions will pay $20 million to $36 million per year for water treatment and alternative supplies for the next 20 years or more. "Do you think that any illegals are gonna help with the tab?NO!!!Pay some damn taxes and then we might listen to your gripes about the problems that need to be fixed!I am so tired of ILLEGAL, NON-TAXPAYING immigrants wanting their little world to be perfect at the expense of the state and government that they put nothing into and just leech off of.California is one of the worst states in a financial crisis and yet they still condone and turn their back to the root problem of their financial woes.Call me cold blooded but i have no sympathy for the ILLEGAL CRIMINALS!Go buy bottled water with your foodstamps.Why not?Are you afraid you might have to pay a tax on it with money that ISNT yours!

Rusty, I don't call you cold-blooded. I call you an ignorant idiot.

Being someone who lives here, let me explain to you how illegal immigrant field workers are paid.

They're paid as "Contractors", and given a set price per box/carton of produce that they collect. For those of them that sprint as fast as they can, they can earn up to $10.00 an hour. For the majority of them, moving at an average pace (no lunch or breaks, though) they earn around $5-6/hour. This money is paid to them at the end of the week, and medicare, social security, federal and state income taxes are all taken out of their checks.

These illegals actually pay into a system that they cannot benefit from. Illegals cannot get social security or medicare benefits without proper documentation. All the money they pay into it, they will never see again.

This system is propped up by illegal immigrant workforce being paid next to slave wages by owners looking for the biggest profit.

Regarding your comments about how these people, doing a hellacious, back-breaking work, for under minimum wage, paying your taxes and propping up your failing system, should just suffer cancer and die from the poisonous chemicals being dumped into the system (which would include me, since my water comes from the valley), I reply simply ... f@# you.

This is one example of how dumbing down education affects society. In this case, the example is the dumbing down of geography education. No one is taught what a watershed is. A watershed is the drainage pattern of any stream. Smaller watersheds are automatically parts of larger watersheds, drainage patterns of rivers. So like any area, the Salinas valley has many water features. But many ultimately drain into the Salinas River; or into the Pacific Ocean. Hence: ". . . our problem is going to be your problem." Quit doubting that.

As for the privatization of water resources, that could be prevented with desalinization plants, yet the belief in the U.S. is that these facilities are cost-prohibitive. Yet desalinization plants have been in use in other parts of the world for decades, without 'breaking banks'.

Manure could easily be dealt with by dumping it in the desert, which the central valley is close enough to, to make that feasible. Dumping nuclear waste or trash in the desert may not turn out to be a good idea, but dumping manure could even be helpful in that ecology.

Last, many filters may not function at the micrometer level. But, from what I understand, the Kagan brand from Japan will.

I seem to remember a couple years back that there was serious research being done at Universities in Iowa, Illinois, Missouri (big farming states and big livestock states as well) into converting, specifically pig manure, into usable fuel for vehicles. What happened to that with all the scream for green and renewable energy? As I understand it, the research was delivering very promising results. Recycling water to re use on fields already rich with nitrogen sounds like a winner plan in the face of the predictors of drought in the California farmlands. The one thing that we need to remember, before you all jump on the band wagon and scream about greedy Americans and fast food culture and how we all should go back to living in mud huts eating plants and locusts, is that the United States provides a massive percentage of world food supplies. Excuse me, where do nations come when there is some sort of crisis or disaster and foodstuffs are needed???? If we need to develop better filtration for drinking water, then I guess that would be a wonderful area to devote money and support to, as we are the world's bread basket, not only feeding our own citizenry with what our farms produce. Farmers work on an extremely tight margin, not ever being sure of profit. Weather conditions and world market pricing can literally wipe out a year or more worth of work in a day. We are also demanding of our farmland producing greater yields in lesser acreage as somebody decided that we need row upon row of housing, taking the place of fertile farmland (and now with the housing bust - much of it sits vacant and unused.) Somebody else mentioned generating methane and using it as a fuel source, which would also be a productive use of research and development dollars. Regulating everything serves to strangle the creativity that might resolve the problem....Everyone wants to see profit from their labor, but if you create rules upon rules, and collect fees (which are a form of regressive taxes), then nobody has any reason or incentive to come up with solutions.....just pay the fine and go about your business. I don't think that government wants things to change, but rather continue on in the same vein so that they can continue to impose fines, assess regulatory fees-more money to the government coffers....Finally, somebody else mentioned that the fertilizers most guilty in creation of this problem are banned in Europe, but are manufactured there and sold to us in the United States (NAFTA)-as usual, the US gets the poop end of the stick (pun intended)

Dkj

Isn't this the new Republican Mantra, No Regulations, gut the EPA??? Sick isn't it. Welcome to the new Republican world.

You do realize that the EPA allowed this stuff to be legal to begin with, right?

It will be the market that outlaws it by way of outrage.

Harm and fraud is SEVERELY punished in a free market and corporate personhood doesn't exist in a free market (as it is a function of the state that grants it/makes it up). In a free market personal assets of the manufacturer would be subject to seizure, not just the companies "limited liability".

Sheople trust government way too much. They totally ignore that it's the government who gives these things the thumbs up. Just like the birth control "Yaz" that killed so many girls. You can't ignore that the EPA is responsible for passing through whoever bribes them enough, or is their cronie in a given administrattion (RepubliBlood or DemoCrip).

Gabriel:

Do some research on this. Yes, you can drink distilled water. The leaching is a myth. Water is not supposed to be a source of nutrients. Get your vegetables, fruits, carbs, proteins, and the like and you will get all the nutrients you need.

Water is not supposed to be a source of nutrients.

That's why you can not survive on water alone.

there is nothing wrong with drinking distilled water all the time.

Apparently, human males suffer a disproportionately high incidence of reproductive problems, from congenital defects and undescended testes to cancer and impotency.

"Next year marks the 20th anniversary of the WHO conference where a Danish scientist first alerted the world to the fact that Western men are suffering an infertility crisis. Professor Niels Skakkebaek of the University of Copenhagen presented data indicating sperm counts had fallen by about a half over the past 50 years. Sperm counts in the 1940s were typically well above 100m sperm cells per millilitre, but Professor Skakkebaek found they have dropped to an average of about 60m per ml. Other studies found that between 15 and 20 per cent of young men now find themselves with sperm counts of less than 20m per ml, which is technically defined as abnormal.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/out-for-the-count-why-levels-of-sperm-in-men-are-falling-1954149.html

Living in a toxic world. Ain't it great?

Yes, a reverse osmosis purifier does remove many contaminants including nitrates. Somewhat expensive but you pay for what you need. Read up on it.

Anybody who thinks fertilizers are cheap and overused knows nothing about farming.

This is old news. I grew up on a farm in the 70's and 80's and for a time we could not drink the well water. The creeks that flowed through town were filled with green during the rainy season and gunked with sludge on the edges during the dry. It smelt of chemicals and fertilizer. Had a charcoal purification system for most household water and bottled the rest from my grandparents house. Did this for at least 15 years. Many farmers did it. What is the point of this article?

@Glen - the point of this article is it's a disgrace and something needs doing about it. High nitrate levels appear to have affected your intelligence levels, point one for getting rid of the stuff.

@krik

"Something needs doing about it." That something might be figuring out how to feed 2.6 million people in the Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley without using nitrate fertilizers. Got any ideas other than hand-wringing and "Woe is us"?

Obviously you don't have any.

@ Denver:

Two words: POPULATION CONTROL

It's not just for the Chinese anymore.

@Mymom -- True, but I'm not running around waving my hands in the air and saying "Something needs to be done."

@Dogma -- Good answer. The next question is, who gets to decide who breeds and who doesn't?

Dogma - How are we going to practice population control when we can't/won't even control our borders?

@Crying shame and Denver Bill 2

You're both right. Forget I said anything and just keep dying of cancer.

Population control wont be simple but it's the only real solution. You might consider a lottery for selecting who gets to have a baby. You might consider shooting border crossers.

You want answers on how to have population control? Stop whining about how hard that will be and FIGURE IT OUT!! It's not like there is a mandate on your life and that of your loved ones or anything...

nothing wrong with my brain, Krik. It just appears I have first hand experience with his and you do not.

Anyone who has dealt with this issue and discussed it...years ago and dozens if not hundreds of times over and over...realises that the article is old news.

There are only three solutions to the problem, none of them which you will like Krik...

1) Population control.

2) Make it illegal to export food, which will cut down on the volume of land under cultivation which will influence #1

3) Eat organic and raise your own food...which is not feasible for 95% of the population, unless you can afford it and let the rest starve.

Technology isn't the answer because if the population continues to grow, the point is moot. If you do not leave land el' natural...then you are going to have water quality issues. Even putting in a house, a driveway, or a road degrades the watershed quality. But I assume you live in some sort of house or building.

@Dogma

I was agreeing with you. "Population control" .... good answer. "Lotteries" ... good answer. "Figure it out" .... not a good answer. How do you propose to get the American lawmakers, who have already passed laws that pay welfare recipients who have more children, to pass laws limiting the number of children the general public can have?

"Figure it out" is the best answer if you have "a problem". If American lawmakers aren't doing their job then fire them. Fire them. Fire them. If we don't start firing "law makers" who are in bed with the corporations then the corporations will eventually be the ruling class and we the serfs...and we're almost there now.

Today law makers and corporations work as a team to hide the truth about the toxins and pollutants that are being spread around the countrysides with a butter knife. Break up the team by voting out the criminals and putting them in jail. Put criminal CEO's in jail. Hell, those two actions would be sea changes of monumental proportions right there. It's up to the people to change the way the gov't operates and it wont be easy and it wont be fun but the alternative is a cast society of healthy and wealthy vs unhealthy and poor.

And, like this article, I'm not even going to talk about what is happening to our animals and plants. They don't even have the benefit Britas or voting for that matter...Can you imagine the world if animals and plants could vote?

Seriously? Lotteries? What about education, continued funding to Planned Parenthood, less subsidization of at least some things that are bad for us, better planned communities and farms, etc.?

I look at this as another attempt to stop farming here in the U.S. so we are dependant for all of our food sources from Mexico and China (countries that hate us) where there are NO safety regulations. Why isn't the government banning the use of this stuff instead of taxing it?! Plastic bags bad for the environment? Let's tax them instead of banning them. Gawd, we elect idiots!

Kryss. Yes, a lottery. What's wrong with a lottery other than it takes away the "freedom" of having babies until your ovaries fall out? BTW, I completely agree with your ideas but that may not be enough. Are we not already educating and funding planned parenthood??

I had a friend say the idea of a lottery was "medieval" and that the Earth could support 18 billion people. My response was, can you imagine the pillaging of the Earth's resources at that level of occupation? Who in their right mind would ever want to live with that population level? We have too many people already. So, at what point do we start to control the birth rate? When the air, water and other most basic natural resources are ruined?

The human race is in a really bad position and tough decisions are required. If we don't have the stones to make the tough decisions we and all of our children will be very very sorry.

Difficult to set up population control policies when the government calculates its tax base on increasing birth rates and religions prohibit the use of contraceptives. It is a big pyramid scheme. The base must always be increasing in order for the creme to float.

We belong to the Earth and not the other way around. We must rethink capitalism, entitlements, property, natural resources, representative government, etc, if we are to continue with a habitable environment. Greed can no longer be the standard.

Dogma--The level/quality of education and critical thinking skills in this country are far from even adequate, in my opinion. Sadly, peoples' education here is better than a lot of developing (or even other developed) countries.

According to the World Bank:

"A global approach, encompassing not only contraception but also better access to education, is needed to bring down the fertility rate in countries where it is still too high and puts the lives of women at risk, said Sadia Chowdhury, senior reproductive and child health specialist at the World Bank.

'Girls' and women's education is just as important in reducing birth rates as supplying contraception,' said Chowdhury, who is also a pediatrician.

'Women's education provides life-saving knowledge, builds job skills that allow her to join the workforce and marry later in life, gives her the power to say how many children she wants and when.

'And these are enduring qualities she will hand down to her daughters as well,' said Chowdhury, co-author of a World Bank report on contraception and unintended pregnancies in Africa, eastern Europe and central Asia."

It would seem to me it would be wise to deal with that here and abroad as much as we can (as well as the other things I've listed) before dealing with lotteries. And there are many other policy aspects I didn't list.

I really agree with the thought that 18 billion people would probably make the quality of life miserable. But I also agree with the "Medieval" statement your friend made! And not wanting a lottery doesn't mean you want to have unlimited children.

The way I see it, government would see itself as the arbiter of who should and should not have children, just as it is in China, and India and other overpopulated nations on earth.....that being said, having children would then become a function of whether or not you support the regime and are going to raise children to support the regime......And interesting facts for all of you out there advocating that we exercise population control....World trends show that in industrialized, modern nations, the birth rates have fallen off to the point that we are not replacing those who pass. We have a crisis in American whereby there are not going to be enough young working people to support all those in retirement (or have you forgotten those arguments from other posts) The vast increase in population density has alot to do with illegal immigration. Culturally, many illegals are very rural in their view and see children as a working asset to help support and care for a family. Educated, professional people are deferring having children until later and later, and as a direct result are having fewer and fewer children. If an unskilled illegal can find work, they will often marry at 18 or 19 and begin having family immediately-a potential of 30 years of reproduction in that family. Education keeps most young people engaged in school and training until at lest their mid 20's, so there is already a 5-6 year difference in the number of fertile years. But statistics are showing a median age for marriage to be more than 25 years old, and the educated with careers do not usually rush into having children, wishing to be established in their career and have a home first. I had occassion to sit next to an illegal alien while waiting in a hospital emergency room where he was waiting for his wife to give birth to their 7th child.....(he had the other six with him in the waiting room) He told me that Americans must hate children, because they don't have them.....I found it a very interesting perspective on Americans. In several European nations, the entire political balance has shifted because some groups hold the principles of large family, many children, and they rapidly outnumber other groups in the general population, thereby giving them a majority control. Germany and Britain have both experienced this phenomena, and France tries to pay citizens to have children with the promise of 3 years of paid maternity leave for new mothers.

A government as the arbiter of who can and cannot have children, seriously? I suppose then the government worker must first agree not to have children themselves.

I figured it out, Dogma. Tax breaks for two children, only. Anymore, there would be a "child tax", to pay for the extra government resources, such as schooling. Women on welfare, who are perfectly able to work, can either go to school and work in a child care center, where other welfare mothers work, also go to school, and be on birth control, or they can have their kids taken away and be booted onto the streets. We need the population needs to go down by a billion, or so.

Easier to get one dollar from a billion believers or tax payers than a billion dollars from one. Governments and corporations do not want anything to do with reducing birth rates. Competition between 7 billion people brings down the price of labor and increases the tax base. This is how pyramids work. On level ground (sequentially) you have people competing with one another, never getting ahead, all the while the profit goes up the slope in parallel fashion. Those on top of the cream face no competition and incredible wealth as a result. Once again, economic slavery. Capitalism is the largest Ponzi scheme ever devised by mankind all the while our laws make it illegal for the common man to practice it. It has to be illegal otherwise the top will encounter competition and the house of cards comes tumbling down. Those on top will deny, those in the middle will do nothing out of fear of ejection from the club, and those on the bottom are simply no shows because they are to busy looking for food.

@Glen - Unfortunately I do have first hand experience. I live in Jersey, UK (small island, 9 x 5 miles, 100,000 population, large farming industry and heavily corrupted government) where our nitrate levels are 10x the recommended EU limits in our drinking water, it's at the point where our tap water just doesn't taste right and leaves an aftertaste. Water should never leave an aftertaste.

Population control is the best idea, especially here, where we don't have any room to grow, it's not America where you can just move to a different county or state and we're experiencing increases in population because of an influx of Polish and Portuguese immigrants.

At the end of the day, something needs doing. It isn't my job to come up with the ideas on how to run my country so why isn't "something" an acceptable answer? At the end of the day, just because it isn't my area of expertise means that we do nothing? You grew up on a farm so you should have seen the damage's it did to your community, as I've seen on my small island and the problem is only getting worse

What's scary is how much truth there is to that statement. It seems the only questions now are how quickly is this going to turn into an emergency situation and who is going to be controlling the fresh water supplies?

Indeed, just wait to will have a few more billion souls to compete with too...

Been a fear for me for over 10 years.

I read a book about Water Wars. How it will become a reality and already has on some level. I am not a fan of the EPA, but since we have them then I would think they should make clean water their number one concern. Once we run out of water, it is game over.

When I joined the Navy over 50 years ago this was a problem, the population of the country then was 160,000,000+/- today it is 300,000,000 and increasing that is only one part of this problem. The article admits that the accumulation of nitrates in the filter zone of earth is and will continue to be a problem if we stopped using nitrate fertilizer entirely. A second part of the problem.

Politically the Republicans want to ignore the fact that there is any problem at all, and creating regulations that will take centuries to start to work are Unconstitutional.

The answer will be obvious when we either have contaminated all our fresh water or we will have passed the point we can feed the citizens of our nation. We need only to look at the rest of the planet to see the eventual results, of our own avarice.

Personally, I have a well and a reverse osmosis purifier which is not needed at this time. But, you do know that oceans, seas, etc can be desalienated? There are desalienation facilities in production all over the world...google it. This "fear" stuff is an over reaction.

Quick quote from wiki:

While desalinating 1,000 US gallons (3,800 l; 830 imp gal) of water can cost as much as $3, the same amount of bottled water costs $7,945.^[30]

The congress hasn't voted on a war since WWII. There hasn't been a war since WWII. Since 1947 the National Security Act has allowed the executive branch to initiate any 'police action', 'conflict', blah blah whatever the word of the week is, for 'national security' reasons. It's unconstitutional of course but the judiciary allowed it to stand. Congress supposedly has control by funding such 'conflicts' or not but that's BS also. It's Presidents who call for war now, while making sure to not call it a war, and then go to the congress afterwards and tell them to give them the money.

Mean while we continue to pollute the planet with all sorts of crap. We send our military to get killed in far lands and not worry about the cost of lives in a stupid Illegal war And we are killing people in our own country with chemicals to grow food that's crap anyhow. Go figure.

a little info. for those of you that didn't know, nitrate is the main ingredient in miracle grow.

Farming practices of today are different then 50 yrs ago. Now we have regulations, soil testing, soil erosion practices. Believe it or not, us farmers do care about the land and our livestock it is our #1 priority along with trying to feed an evergrowing population. almost all farmers use manure as fertilizer ( as been done for hundreds of years)

If any of you have any ideas about better farming practices, I encourage you to go into the field of AG Science and help the farming industry.

Have a nice day,

Europeans been farming their land hard for 1,500 yrs. Still healthy. US Been farming hard for 150 to 200 years on the midwest. Midwest topsoil used to be 6 ft deep in places, would grow 8 ft perfect corn in no time. Soil is only inches now in some places. Most of it is at the bottom of the Gulf now having been eroded by lousy farming practices. Now the farmers are heavily dependent on Chemicals to get a decent crop. Fence to fence planting in the US. Hedgerows in Europe. Saw farms edged with trees in Korea. The idea is when the wind blows and the rains comes the that moves to the hedges and trees get caught and drops back down instead of being lost. Water erosion washes it into the Ohio/Mississippi systems and down she goes. The chemicals are killing your children. I know a mother of a seven year old girl who is now starting puberty. A problem becoming more common. All those homones and chemicals from the AG companies in the diet now. Of course the root cause is overpopulation. Can't keep the population growth like it is without consequences.

I could possibly go for the population control move, but I feel that the limit should be at two children, only, and not at one child. Of course, this may mean that divorced couples may have up to four children. This should not go completely without stating.

As for shooting border crossers, this is obviously a remark made in jest. But instead, it is an ignorant remark. Because Mexico will be having the same problems based on chemicals, not just the current sanitation problem, their solution too, is to clean up. If they gained a good water supply, and could solve both problems, people would not immigrate out of desparation. The main point overall is to keep the Pacific Ocean clean.

Tap water is tested daily for coliform bacteria of which nitrates are a component Tap water is also tested for chemicals that are not likely to even be present in that locality.

This is why personal wells are specifically pointed out in this article. No such testing is required of individual homeowners who get their water supply from a private well. Only the water that is the last point of contact with raw foods stuff, is required to be tested, like Dairy Farms.

This is old news. I grew up on a farm in the 70's and 80's and for a time we could not drink the well water. The creeks that flowed through town were filled with green during the rainy season and gunked with sludge on the edges during the dry. It smelt of chemicals and fertilizer. Had a charcoal and membrane purification system for most household water and bottled the rest from my grandparents house. Did this for at least 15 years. Many farmers did it. What is the point of this article?

Yes clean water is going to be a scarce commodity...especially in the US after we drill everywhere for natural gas and pump fracturing polymers and petro based binders beneath existing water tables.

We have two problems, either one of which must be solved: We have too many people on earth using too much food and too much energy per person. And that goes for exporting energy as well..it does not matter where the people are. 1) Either decrease the number of people or 2) decrease the standard of living for each of them. The second part is going to happen anyway automatically unless 1) changes so I guess we have half the problem in the bag.

No Public Water system is "FORCED" to put Flouride in any water system. I was the licensed municipal operator for a water system, and the State Health Dept. wanted us to put flouride in the water due to complaints by dentists aware that we did not do this. I refused, they threatened, I refused, and it is still not injected into that water to the best of my knowledge.

If dentists want this treatment then let them take the responsibility, not the municipality. The same thing applied to water softening, we put it to an informal vote sent in water bills, and this measure was defeated by 2/3 of the responses. And we did get a tremendous response of more than 80% of water users.

Traditional water filters like brita won't help you with nitrates. You need a reverse osmosis polyimede filter or anion exchange resin to get nitrates out.

Blake - I wish it were that easy. I have been a hydrogeologist for decades and if you think bottled water is actually better then tap water you are mistaken! Tap water is actually tested more often and also has more stringent regulations then bottled water. Often times bottled water may have a nice picture of a secluded natural spring source, however, that bottle of water may actually be filled from a well that is also used for tap water, but with less stringent contaminant regulations!

Thought about installing an RO system, untill I discovered that it typically wastes far more water than it produced. ie it takes (depending on the system) 2 to 4 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of processed water. Since my main concern was lead I simply went with a pitcher system that advertised lead removal.

You are a fool to buy bottled water.

american,

That's what nice about ion exchange resins. There is no wasted water. Activated charcoal does a moderate job at removing lead, so long as it is a solid block. The granular charcoal does a so-so job at lead because there are a lot of spaces around the grains. Cation exchange resins will remove virtually all of the lead, if that is your concern, and RO systems will do it just fine too. It should be noted that none of these technologies are good for water contaminated with bacteria. The best thing for that is good old boiling.

jtcruiser,

Right you are. Some bottled water is just bottled tap water, such as Aquafina.

That's funny considering I live near NYC and study after study has found that there are less contaminates in NYC tap water than there is in bottled water.

MikeDP,

As a microbiologist, I did a totally unofficial study on our office spring water and our office tap water. In the spring water I got over 10,000 cfu/mL of bacteria. The legal limit is 500 cfu/mL. Our tap water was 40 cfu/mL. I can't drink the office spring water anymore.

American, RO systems have improved in the water they waste. But the water that a RO system can be collected and used as backwash if you are concerned of the waste. Like all things that make life safer, it's at a cost.

@Blake-3637601

"Or... Don't be an idiot and drink from a tap anywhere."

Ever notice that "Evian" spelled backwards is "Naive"? Just saying.

And I bet you think Arsenic in the water means more vitamins.

Arsenic is a potent poison, not a cancer risk with no strong correlation to cancer.

Pragmatic-3918582, you are full of crap. You just don't know what you are talking about. Read http://todayhealth.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/09/10626512-5-great-reasons-to-kick-your-soda-habit

Sounds like Pragmatic is being paid to pull a spin on the facts.

Might as well claim y'all are being paid to spin the facts for some juice company or some organic fertilizer company. Oh wait, that doesn't fit the narrative of the big evil companies paying people to come to forums and argue with people. Oh wait, that doesn't make any sense. Jesus, people. I can't be a paid shill for the pharmaceutical companies, the fertilizer industry, cola companies, food processors, farmers, Monsanto, and everything else I've been accused of being a paid shill for.

Maybe, just maybe, I'm a scientist with no skin in the game and an opinion on matters of fact. Oh wait, I forgot: Facts don't matter to people anymore. They'd just rather argue endlessly about the same old BS and never solve any problems.

AB,

I don't care what California says is the permissible limit. It's not based on science. It's politics. Yes, there are very good reasons to kick a cola habit. It's stupid empty calories you don't need. It causes cavilities. Cancer risk is far outweighed by the risk of diabetes. The compound in California mentioned: 4-methylimidazole is found in cooked food as a result of Maillard reactions. These are the same reactions that cause caramel to form, which is where caramel color comes from.

The NIH found that 4-methylimidazole causes cancer in rats when they are fed hundreds of milligrams. This has been known since 2003, confirmed in 2005. I read both papers. Did you? They're free online if you look for them. Each soda contains up to 200 micrograms. That means you need to ingest a thousand-fold more 4-methylimidazole to be able to cause cancer. So don't tell me I'm full of crap and have no idea what I'm talking about.

Returning to the subject at hand: California doesn't have a lot of credibility in slapping cancer warning labels on things. Read up on Proposition 65. The warning label and sign is applied to gas stations, apartments, restaurants, drug stores, banks, construction sites, new cars, etc. Warnings are mailed to residents when they use natural gas or there will be sand blasting in their area. The warning label is virtually meaningless because it is applied to everything that could cause possible harm in any amount, even amounts that are impossible. And many companies will put the warning sign up simply to cover their liability. How useful is such a warning sign? That's why I don't believe anything that California says when it comes to cancer.

The water alone would be toxic at that volume, Pragmatic, which gives you an idea just how much sense some of these studies make.

The studies themselves are sound. The compound is used as a precursor to some pharmaceuticals and if they don't purify it out there can be consequences. The problem with the CA Prop 65 warning label is: it's impossible to get levels as high as were used in these studies just eating food and drinking soda.

So let that be a warning then: If you find a bottle labeled "4-methylimidazole" it is a bad idea to stick a spoon in it and eat it like ice cream. Additionally, you probably shouldn't be drinking 156 gallons of any liquid every day.

Pragmatic,

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization (WHO). Its major goal is to identify causes of cancer. Based on the data available, IARC classifies arsenic and arsenic compounds as "carcinogenic to humans". IARC notes that this evaluation applies to the group of chemicals as a whole and not necessarily to all the individual chemicals in the group.

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) is formed from parts of several different US government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In its most recent Report on Carcinogens, the NTP has classified inorganic arsenic compounds as "known to be a human carcinogen".

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), an electronic database that contains information on human health effects from exposure to various substances in the environment. The EPA classifies inorganic arsenic as a "human carcinogen".

American Cancer Society--Arsenic is known to cause cancer.

Pragmatic-3918582, you didn't think that the amount adds up to cumulatively dangerous levels over a number of years? How naive do you think are we? Would you hypothetically be fine with feeding your child the 1-soda dose of that chemical every day if I gave you $2 every time for it? I didn't think so. What is your agenda here?

Kryss,

The carcinogenicy of arsenic is well substantiated by the scientific literature. It is also a poison that kills pretty much everything that is a plant or animal. Contrasted with nitrates in what we know in the scientific literature, there really isn't a good consensus yet.

AB-1981,

Pragmatic-3918582, you didn't think that the amount adds up to cumulatively dangerous levels over a number of years?

No, I don't think that. I read the NTP toxicity report online, written by people smarter than I am. 4-methylimidazole is eliminated from the body by the kidneys. It isn't like mercury.

How naive do you think are we?

I assume no naiveté. You don't have to take my word for it. Everything is available free online if you research it.

Would you hypothetically be fine with feeding your child the 1-soda dose of that chemical every day if I gave you $2 every time for it? I didn't think so.

See, you're not reading what I write. My child does get a 1-soda dose of 4-methylimidazole and then some every day. Because I cook the food I give her. This chemical is naturally produced by cooking food. But if you want to give me $2 a day every day, please do. Can I get an additional $2 for eating it myself?

What is your agenda here?

I'm making the point that the state of California is not a good authority on what levels of things cause cancer and based on that I am treating the information presented in the article with skepticism. I have a lot of knowledge in the subject. You may disagree with my assessment and opinions, but when you say I don't know what I'm talking about and I'm full of crap, I'm going to take it personally and push back. Make sense?

Pragmatic,

I apologize on my last post--I completely misread your post about arsenic.

However, I do have some questions about your response to this article. The first is, what evidence do you have that shows that nitrates may or may not cause cancer and other health ills? How much evidence would you prefer before something that is not necessary and can have its production methods changed (soda) receives a label that indicates it may cause cancer?

Kryss,

It's no problem.

The first is, what evidence do you have that shows that nitrates may or may not cause cancer and other health ills?

Well I did a quick literature search and there are a few studies linking nitrates to cancer and a few studies that find no link to cancer. If I do the same research for arsenic, there is a clear and overwhelming consensus. I didn't get deep into details such as dosing because, frankly, I don't have the time to read 20 journal articles digging out the nitty gritty details.

How much evidence would you prefer before something that is not necessary and can have its production methods changed (soda) receives a label that indicates it may cause cancer?

The example in soda is something I would classify as a bit over the top. It isn't possible for me to drink 156 gallons of soda every day to increase my cancer risk. The warning label isn't really indicative of a risk posed to me. Like all things, it should be examined as a cost/benefit. If there is no cost to remove it with no product quality impact, then there is no reason not to. It's hard to argue a substantial benefit to its removal when it is found the same small quantities in cooked foods and naturally brewed beverages such as beer. If there is a cost to remove it and it is hard to prove any benefit to its removal, it doesn't make sense to.

The overall point I was making concerns California's Prop 65 labeling of cancer causing things. When the state of California says something causes cancer, I have to raise a skeptical eyebrow. California informs of risk without assessing the magnitude of risk. Weapons grade uranium would carry the same cancer warning as cola.

He's not hiring interns right now. He's trying to find out where all his advertisers are hiding.

@Contraro - can't tell if trolling or if you cushioned too many falls with your face

Krick,

Think sarcasm!

Reading articles like this one and reading peoples commits can stress one out.

We have found so many things that are carcinogenic. It wasn't that long ago that asbestos was for the safety it provided from fire deaths, but yet the product itself was cancer producing. Every single day, you hear about some law office initiating class action suits because somebody became deathly ill, or contracted cancer from use of one of the 'wonder medications' for arthritis, acne, depression. We have all been exposed to air contaminants, and even things in the foods themselve, preservatives and colorants, some of which are not longer in use. It is very hard to pinpoint exactly where a cancer comes from, because the variables are so many. Some contaminants can build up in the tissues of the body and lie dormant for decades when something else acts like a match to a fuse and a cancer or other illness results. I have even read research that suggests that every single human being carries the potential for cancer in their bodies, and that every human being, at some point in time experiences a cancer, but that often, a healthy individual will never know it as such. The cancer is able to take hold and flourish when the body is worn down, out of balance, poorly rested and poorly nourished. Our health crisis in the modern world is cancer, where in the middle ages it was bacterial infection (at the time a huge percentage of people died from infections.) If we eliminate a medical problem, it opens the door to others in that if people are no longer suffering mortality because of germs, we then see other things that affect the health of the body and affect longevity.

only 5% of farms are corporate. Please, keep in mind that they don't represent us family run farms:)

What % of a soda is water?

People can get reverse osmosis systems and such to clean what we drink or even for their livestock and pets, but wildlife drinking out of runoff-fed rivers or from springs fed by groundwater don't have that option.

This shouldn't be a political issue, just one acknowledging that our activities have impacts, that if we want to stop passing on the costs of our practices today on to our children and the planet as a whole into the future, we need to stop burying our heads in the sand and look closely at the true costs of our activities to plan for long-term sustainability of resources.

Yeah, some of the comments about banning nitrogen cracked me up. None of those posts offer up any suggestions on what to do with the livestock waste that is produced by the farm raising of meat.

Richard: thank you for pointing out how long it takes the water table and also, how nitrogen is one of the three core elements. the farming community is up for suggestions, farming practices are better today than 50 yrs ago. we do care about the land, we want to pass our farms down to our children.

Southern Il Farmer: Is refreshing to see real dialogue rather than folks instantly jumping on one side or the other then throwing rocks at the other side, more interested in winning the arguement than getting at the truth. Or in this case, demonizing someone, such as farmers, who work their tails off trying to earn an honest living keeping everyone fed.

With farming practices, as I understand it, for many, many years farmers simpy did not know the stuff was leaching into the water table, and the science and technology wasn't exact enough to be able to apply just enough to get the benefits w/o applying excess that would leach. Now, though, GPS along w/satellite imagery can work hand in hand, so fertilizer can be much more accurately applied.

In the end, I personally believe the core problem is that there are just too many people. No matter how careful we are w/the environment, we are going to have an impact. We can consume less and leave a smaller footprint, but we will still consume and need space/resources. I think the only real solution is to figure out a way to stop increasing our numbers and get to a sustainable level. If we do that, our overall quality of life increases, we stop destroying it for our kids

I have commented this way before, folks have jumped in and inferred I was condoning killing off others or something of the sort. Not even. I don't think many people have stepped back and realized that if we didn't have any kids for 50 years, in one hundred there would be no humans on the planet. If we had an average of one child for every man/woman couple, or .5 per person, in that 100 years our population would be less than half. I myself would love to live in that kind of world, where the medical advances we have made make our lives much more healthy and comfortable, our technology makes it so we can produce much more efficiently with less effort. We as people then have to work much less to enjoy our leisure much more.

Richard Lambert Great ethos, but the brainwashing of " Greed is Good" will not allow that, so time for some " reverse Brainwashing?

Eagle, this could be a jumping off point for a whole 'nother topic, with lots of socio-political points, stuff that could be a lot more contentious than the tone at the moment, may not be appropriate to hijack the topic of the article. Start w/a little capitalism and the corporate state, throw in a little marxism and Toquesville style democracy, add critical shortages of food and other resources and stir well..... will hit that topic on another day.

WILL say that am not a fan of "brainwashing" anyone... two wrongs don't make a right, and don't really believe that is a matter of brainwashing, just a hegemonic situation w/a capitalistic culture, where a highly efficient tool for growth works too well with too few controls. Few devils out there, just folks going along with the system because they don't know of any better alternatives. "Reverse Brainwashing" implies control or even a revolutionary orientation, I think there may be a better way.

The biggest fly in the ointment is that too many folks are miles away from thinking through and working toward logical and rational solutions, many are stuck of some political orientation or as bad, are too busy living a Jerry Springer lifestyle.

ok " Brainwashing " might be a term that you do not like " so I will drop it, lets say that from Birth any individual is " indoctrinated " by the Ideas of the clan and the peers, that one has, when one is Born, in general we have " biological and genetic traits " that in most while they seem " selfish " are in general for the good of the group, but as we grow, we are " indoctrinated " to be what some wants us to be, so like it or not we are a " product " of the times, and this " times " thinking is not looked upon kindly.

Hey "LEROY" Yes, those of us that pay the bills want a job lest we become the bums of society.