Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday September 19 2016, @09:12AM   Printer-friendly

The Colonial Pipeline spill has caused 6 states (Tennessee, Virginia, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, and North Carolina) to declare a state of emergency. Gasoline (petrol) prices on the east coast are likely to spike. Yet, most puzzling is how this vast emergency and its likely effect on cost of living has gone unnoticed by mainstream media outlets. The pipeline is owned by Koch Industries: is this why the media is silent?

[Are there any Soylentils in the affected area who can corroborate this story? Have you heard of the spill, seen long gas lines, or any price gouging? -Ed.]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 19 2016, @11:37AM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday September 19 2016, @11:37AM (#403676) Journal

    That's why the goal of personal energy independence is so appealing. Pipelines will keep failing because the companies that built them skip maintenance to boost profits. Terrorist attacks will keep happening because the stuff conveyed in the pipelines comes from their countries through various shenanigans. Extreme weather events will keep knocking out infrastructure, because the burning of the stuff in the pipelines has trapped too much of the sun's energy in the atmosphere.

    There is also the destruction by design of companies raising rates, governments taxing to death what you buy, etc., etc.

    Put solar panels on your roof, drive an electric vehicle charged by them, and sever your tie to the grid. Pipeline failures and government taxes for energy will never bother you again. For extra points, set up an aquaponics system in the basement and you'll even have the protein and veg you need when Bayer-Monsanto puts franken genes in store-bought food.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=2, Underrated=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by stretch611 on Monday September 19 2016, @11:57AM

    by stretch611 (6199) on Monday September 19 2016, @11:57AM (#403681)

    ...when Bayer-Monsanto puts franken genes in store-bought food.

    What do you mean when???

    Its already happening. Monsanto makes roundup ready crops... which are genetically modified to be resistant to roundup (and made sterile to force farmers to buy seeds every year instead of saving seeds from the crop to plant the next year.) http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html [mit.edu]Roundup ready crops have been around for 20 years now.

    Also a year ago farm workers started suing Monsanto alleging that http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-monsanto-lawsuits-idUSKCN0S92H720151015 [reuters.com]roundup causes cancer.

    So it seems that the franken genes are already in all our food... and to top it off, our food is covered in carcinogens. No wonder why all of congress wass bought off to overrule Vermonts GMO labelling law.

    --
    Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 19 2016, @01:38PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday September 19 2016, @01:38PM (#403744) Journal

      That is true, but it has been possible to buy organic produce to evade GMOs. But then this story [treehugger.com] was published over the weekend. Does anyone really think that Big Ag-produced "organic" produce will really be unmodified? The only to be sure is to grow your own.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 1) by TheSouthernDandy on Monday September 19 2016, @05:34PM

      by TheSouthernDandy (6059) on Monday September 19 2016, @05:34PM (#403862)

      our food is covered in carcinogens

      Possibly, but not from most organophosphates. The charge on phosphate groups tends to make them water soluble, and unable to intercalate between DNA bases, where they would cause mutagenesis.

      One of many documents here (http://www.nj.gov/dep/enforcement/pcp/bpc/wps/ops.pdf) mentions that this class of compounds is not generally considered carcinogenic, and the EPA is only considering two (parathion and phosmet) as possible ones.

      That's not to say you can't tack a phosphonate group onto some huge planar organic compound that is a carcinogen, and make an organophosphate carcinogen, but what's the point? It's lousy in both roles (water insoluble AND probably less carcinogenic).

      Sadly, it's this kind of argument ("it's alleged, so it must have some truth because CONSPIRACY!") that gives me pause on voting Green. Then again, I've no doubt about the evil that corporations are willing to do for a quick buck, and some checks (however ill founded scientifically) would do the world good.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @05:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @05:47PM (#403866)

        Roundup (which OP mentioned) is not an organophosphate.

        There are tests showing that Roundup's declared active ingredient glyphosate is safe but the thing is Roundup isn't just glyphosate it has other ingredients.

        And the combination can be a lot more toxic than glyphosate alone: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/ [scientificamerican.com]
        https://theintercept.com/2016/05/17/new-evidence-about-the-dangers-of-monsantos-roundup/ [theintercept.com]
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955666/ [nih.gov]

        As for organophosphates if you're unlucky they might give you neurological problems (not so much cancer): https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080328070136.htm [sciencedaily.com]

        In short, cancer is not the only problem with pesticides and other poisons: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/parkinsons-disease-and-pesticides-whats-the-connection/ [scientificamerican.com]

        • (Score: 1) by TheSouthernDandy on Thursday September 29 2016, @03:33PM

          by TheSouthernDandy (6059) on Thursday September 29 2016, @03:33PM (#407956)

          Quite right, my typo--glyphosate is an organophosphonate (extra "-on-", I got it right latter in the comment :} ).

      • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday September 20 2016, @01:48AM

        by dry (223) on Tuesday September 20 2016, @01:48AM (#404071) Journal

        Organophosphates, which were developed to kill people quick by interfering with the nervous system, aren't the problem. The common household ones such as Malathion are broken down by liver enzymes pretty quick in most people and on farms the stronger ones also break down fairly quick, which is why they replaced the Organochlorides, of which DDT was the most harmless.
        The parent was talking about glyphosate, a herbicide that is considered quite safe. The problem as the sibling AC said is the surfactants, emulsifiers and such, which are totally unregulated and not talked about as they're not the active ingredient.

        • (Score: 1) by TheSouthernDandy on Thursday September 29 2016, @03:49PM

          by TheSouthernDandy (6059) on Thursday September 29 2016, @03:49PM (#407965)

          The problem as the sibling AC said is the surfactants, emulsifiers and such

          That could be, I wasn't responding to the sibling. Although, we'd have to know how much of these compounds make it into the ingested plant parts, are removed in processing, and their persistence in the environment, to know whether they are problems as carcinogens. Carcinogenic chemicals that don't actually make it into an organism may not be such a problem. A gas-powered mower may put out more carcinogenic aromatics in one's immediate environment via incomplete combustion than they're exposed to via agriculture, but we don't think too much about it because the exhaust gets diluted quickly, and it's unrealistic to demand everyone use electric or manual mowers.

          I agree that it would be better to use safe chemicals when available and realistic to do so, but I also hold that digging into the issues presents more nuance than is presented here, and that risk is quantitative--it must be balanced against the alternatives (agriculture without those chemicals, or with alternatives).

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @12:21PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @12:21PM (#403691)

    > Pipeline failures and government taxes for energy will never bother you again.

    Nice idea to be resilient for your transportation needs (could also be accomplished by a bicycle with a basket, in many areas), but far from resilient in general. This will become apparent if the pipeline failure is diesel fuel and trucks stop running in your area. Watch how quickly the store shelves empty out.

    In general this thing we call "civilization" is a pretty thin veneer which takes a lot of infrastructure to maintain.

    One example, a friend worked at a local oil refinery which also included a number of huge storage tanks. The amount of finished fuels in the tank farm went from nearly full to nearly empty at least once a week, there was very little buffer. (have forgotten exact details, the time scale might be every day or two?)

    Nevil Shute wrote about the rapid decline in services and rapid increase in gouging in the London area, during the early days of bombing in WWII, "What Happened to the Corbetts" (available through Gutenberg in some countries). At that time, England was fairly resilient with many small family farms able to absorb some of the people that left London and other cities.

  • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Monday September 19 2016, @03:58PM

    by fritsd (4586) on Monday September 19 2016, @03:58PM (#403815) Journal

    I believe (though I believe more crazy things) that the resilience you mention is one of the two components of the European Union's "secret blueprint plan".

    I believe that the Common Agricultural Policy [wikipedia.org], which means that every EU citizen pays an arm and a leg to heavily subsidize farming all over the place, is a secret "safety buffer" for the secret plan component called "no more famine".

    If you think about it, 15 years before that immensely expensive C.A.P. plan, people in Amsterdam walked 100 km to buy potatoes, or they ate cats and tulip bulbs. As Bertold Brecht [wikiquote.org] put it,

    "Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral."

    It is a very anti-capitalistic idea: food production is not for the economy, food production is for living.

    Maybe I shouldn't use the word "secret" but "esoteric", because the information is hidden in plain view: it's just so boring and basic that normal people never think about it. Food comes from a supermarket in the city, right? :-)

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 19 2016, @04:32PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday September 19 2016, @04:32PM (#403828) Journal

      It is a very anti-capitalistic idea: food production is not for the economy, food production is for living.

      Maybe I shouldn't use the word "secret" but "esoteric", because the information is hidden in plain view: it's just so boring and basic that normal people never think about it. Food comes from a supermarket in the city, right? :-)

      Running a big farm to grow crops for sale is very hard work. Growing enough vegetables and keeping chickens for your own consumption is quite manageable, assuming you live at least in the suburbs or have plot of land 1/4 acre or larger. It doesn't take a university degree or a $1K Learning Annex course. Put seeds in dirt, then water them. For extra credit, add fertilizer, and weed once in a while. Anyone can do it, and in most of the world, they do. People who have never seen the inside of a school are perfectly capable of growing their own food.

      The produce tastes better that way and is better for you than the tasteless objects they sell at Walmart. And for a convenience food, nothing beats walking out to your yard to pick ripe tomatoes off the vine, peppers off the plant, and basil from the herb patch to make your pasta sauce--no driving, hunting for parking spots, pushing shopping carts, waiting in line, fiddling with coupons, and ferrying back to the house involved.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @06:07PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @06:07PM (#403876)

        Growing enough vegetables and keeping chickens for your own consumption is quite manageable, assuming you live at least in the suburbs or have plot of land 1/4 acre or larger.

        Big assumptions there.

        There are advantages to people living in cities. Even from an ecological and environmental impact perspective ( http://www.citylab.com/work/2012/04/why-bigger-cities-are-greener/863/ [citylab.com] http://spectrum.ieee.org/podcast/energy/environment/want-to-save-the-environment-build-more-cities [ieee.org] ). It's not the cities themselves are that wonderful for wildlife or the environment, it's more of keeping most of us and our shit in one spot. Imagine the millions of people living in cities spread out with 1/4 acre each. How much land left for other land animals? How much land for other _wild_ land animals? And how much more damage we'd cause to the world?

        There's about 3.5 billion acres of arable land. That's about double the 1/4 acre per person figure you mention. That's great eh, or not? Of course land suitable for agricultural is more than just arable land but it should give you a better idea of the size of the problem.

        There is no such thing as sustainable growth on a finite world and we are not far from its limits. If we want to keep billions of humans around we may not have that much room for mistakes.