SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Sulla
A recent study paints a sobering picture about the state of our oceans.
According to the paper, published last month in Environmental Science and Technology, rivers deposit up to 4 million metric tonnes of plastic into the sea -- and about 95 per cent of that comes from just 10 waterways.
Previous studies suggested about 67 per cent of plastic in the oceans came from 20 rivers. For this study, researchers out of the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research and the Weihenstephan-Triesdorf University of Applied Science used a larger data set to reach their findings, sampling from 79 sites along 57 rivers around the world.
Eight of the 10 rivers are in Asia. [...]
- Yangtze River, Yellow Sea, Asia
- Indus River, Arabian Sea, Asia
- Yellow River (Huang He), Yellow Sea, Asia
- Hai River, Yellow Sea, Asia
- Nile, Mediterranean Sea, Africa
- Meghna/Bramaputra/Ganges, Bay of Bengal, Asia
- Pearl River (Zhujiang), South China Sea, Asia
- Amur River (Heilong Jiang), Sea of Okhotsk, Asia
- Niger River, Gulf of Guinea, Africa
- Mekong River, South China Sea, Asia
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
A Recent Study Show 95% of Plastic in the Sea Comes From Just 10 Rivers
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 58 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You can't have your cake and let your neighbor eat it too.
-- Ayn Rand
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @12:44AM (4 children)
It does us no good for Trump properties to be unusual. They would be the only ones hiring purely Americans, they would become uncompetitive, and they would go out of business. The competition, with lots of non-American workers, would just fill the void. To fix the problem, he needs to get the law changed and/or do something with regulations. He'll have succeeded when his own resorts find it economically better to hire only Americans.
You don't understand what it means to be "racist". There are natural-born English-speaking American citizens of every race.
Some employers can legally discriminate. I work for one. We make stuff like missiles. Also this applies to acting, because otherwise you couldn't tell a white guy that he can't star as Martin Luther King.
The fact that most employers can't discriminate based on national origin is a tremendous security problem. Have you ever thought about how it is that international theft of trade secrets occurs? Our law is exactly backwards. We should prohibit all people with foreign associations from taking jobs that would provide access to things like network ports on a LAN with corporate secrets. We also need to prioritize jobs for the only people we have a duty to care for, which is our own population.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Saturday November 11 2017, @01:03AM (3 children)
And there are English-speaking foreign-born citizens. There are probably a lot of foreign born citizens who speak better English than you do.
But let's be realistic, since you already stated that you want English-speakers, asking for natural-born as an additional qualification means that you really don't want anyone with brown skin. You don't have to explicitly spell out your preferences for people to recognize that you are racist.
We are talking about cleaners here, for all practical purposes, they don't even need to speak English.
You might want to read this page, because it's not so simple:
https://www.clearancejobsblog.com/can-a-foreign-born-citizen-get-a-security-clearance/ [clearancejobsblog.com]
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @01:33AM (2 children)
Suppose there are several brown people who want the job. Nobody else has applied. All have the same ethnicity.
We have an illegal, an H1-B holder, a greencard holder, a naturalized citizen, and a natural-born citizen.
Why can I not rank them in that order, from worst (illegal) to best (natural-born citizen) and hire accordingly? This is 100% proper, aside needing to call ICE to deport the illegal. Americans go first.
BTW, you have proven yourself to be a racist. The fact that you think a brown person is foreign-born makes you a racist.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NewNic on Saturday November 11 2017, @02:06AM (1 child)
No, that's not legal in most circumstances. The fact that you keep denying this basic fact shows you are utterly clueless.
Yes, you can prioritize citizens over H1-Bs, I don't know the rules on green card holders, but prioritizing foreign-born vs. natural-born citizens is illegal in most cases.
Let me suggest that you read Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 11 2017, @03:04AM
I already (implicitly) agreed that distinguishing based on national origin is illegal. I'm asking why you think it is improper, because it isn't. We need to fix our law. Don't bother with the circular argument of "because it's law" because there are some fine laws in this world.
It's pretty simple: we need to take care of Americans first. Most other countries do this for their citizens.
I forgot at least one: For the naturalized citizens, prioritize those who have given up their old citizenship over those who retain it via dual-citizenship. (not that dual-citizenship should be legal) Maybe also prefer people who have served in the military.
If a law is unethical, should you follow it? Maybe. Maybe you should quietly find a way to do the right thing, choosing the most American person you can find. We have a duty to help our fellow Americans.