Reply With Quote
I find the water shortages in Arizona funny, too. Reminds me of the Sam Kinison skit...
Skip to 4:55
Try that when thinking about water shortages.
4. San Antonio, Texas
Major Water Supply: various ground water sources
Population (U.S. rank): 1,373,668 (7th)
Population Growth Rate: 20% since 2000
Average annual rainfall: 30.24 in.
Bexar County, Texas, where San Antonio is located, possesses the highest rating given by the Natural Resources Defense Council with regards to water sustainability. This means that the area is at extremely high risk for water demand exceeding supply by 2050 if no major systematic changes are made. As most surface water from lakes and rivers in Texas have already been claimed by varying districts across Texas, most counties are now looking at groundwater to meet future demand. San Antonio has attempted to secure water from a number of Texas groundwater conservation districts. Due to legal obstacles,this has proven to be difficult. Today, many experts, including members of the Texas Water Development Board, recommend undertaking a major project to ensure future sustainability, such as a desalination plant on the Gulf Coast.
Read more: The Ten Biggest American Cities That Are Running Out Of Water - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2010/10/29/the-...#ixzz13xZD2VxP
=========
What to do?
I find the water shortages in Arizona funny, too. Reminds me of the Sam Kinison skit...
Skip to 4:55
Try that when thinking about water shortages.
Last edited by DarkReign; 10-31-2010 at 01:12 PM.
The southwest from SA to the Pacific, all the cities are at risk.
Running out of oil and water, across the planet. I'm holding my breath until the plutocracy leads us to solutions to the problems of unsustainable lifestyles.
the solution is at hand. depopulation is the main goal for radical progressives.
"Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries”.
Dr. Henry Kissinger
"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
“A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Ted Turner, in an interview with Audubon magazine
“There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it….”
“Our program in El Salvador didn’t work. The infrastructure was not there to support it. There were just too goddamned many people…. To really reduce population, quickly, you have to pull all the males into the fighting and you have to kill significant numbers of fertile age females….” The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa, or through disease like the Black Death….
Thomas Ferguson, State Department Office of Population Affairs
Already taken care of in SA with the fluoridation.
The southwest, hmmm.
Im having a hard time finding that on my map...
Lemme see...
The southwest you say? Is that the Midla ude Desert climate or is it the Semiarid Steppe climate?
Shucks Im just not good at these things, you know? Where Im from you cant walk in one direction for more than two miles before youre going to need a raft or hope someone built a bridge.
You can dig with your hands to water in some places near the coasts, its crazy!
Flouridation is all about the coercive expression of govt influence over a mindless flock of general public who cant think for themselves, and who dont have time to research the issue. And the longer the leash, the longer the dog will stray. Needless to say the leash for govt broke a long time ago.
For the record, and following our prior thread:
Does fluoride kill? No.
Does fluoride present excessive risk to vulnerable populations? Does Fluoride dosing happen at a level that is harmful for infants? Diabetics? Folks with kidney/liver problems? Yes yes yes and yes.
Is it cons utional? No.
Does it result in fluorosis for some segment of kids? Yes.
Is it worth spending tax dollars for? No.
Is it part of some plan to depopulate? No.
Is it a cost effective mechanism to prevent pollution hot spots and reduce operating costs for domestic aluminum and fertilizer corps? Yes
Is it ethical? NO.
Step off me, Chump. You already knew the score.
do you understand the difference between CLIMATE and WEATHER? Answer: no.The southwest, hmmm.
Im having a hard time finding that on my map...
Lemme see...
The southwest you say? Is that the Midla ude Desert climate or is it the Semiarid Steppe climate?
Shucks Im just not good at these things, you know? Where Im from you cant walk in one direction for more than two miles before youre going to need a raft or hope someone built a bridge.
You can dig with your hands to water in some places near the coasts, its crazy!
Another reason illegals need to be shipped out. They're drinking our water!!
Instead of your progressive authoritarian wetdream of $10 gas and forced water rations, I'd much rather just wait until we actually have to fight over resources and then watch you all come at us bros.
From San Antonio to SoCol coast the avg rainfall classifies that entire region as semi-desert or desert. 33"/year for SA down to 8"-11"for Phoenix and San Diego.
SoCal exists on water imported from NoCal and the badly depleted Colorado river, which is nothing but useless brine by the time it enters Mexico.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-01-2010 at 06:34 AM.
And SAWS reacts to the serious threat to SA water supply:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/saw...wFullArticle=y
Do I understand the difference between areas of the world with ample water supplies and those without? Yes.
It appears you don't because that has no relevance here.
So SA has ample water?
SA has ample water for the time being - the problem has nothing to do with its climate and everything to do with its exploding population and aquifer.
It actually has to do with the Federally mandated pumping limit of 628 on the aquifer. There's still plenty of water below that to get by between even the worst recharge cycles but the comal springs would quit flowing like they did in the 50's.
I'm not talking about why we have restrictions. I'm talking about the long term prospects for San Antonio's water. But yes, you're right that the whole reason there are water restrictions is to protect those little creatures in the springs.
Ninja please. You never even made anything but the most half-assed attempts to substantiate the hard scientific claims. The only thing you proved is that you can do self-congratulatory back-slapping like nobody's business.Flouridation is all about the coercive expression of govt influence over a mindless flock of general public who cant think for themselves, and who dont have time to research the issue. And the longer the leash, the longer the dog will stray. Needless to say the leash for govt broke a long time ago.
For the record, and following our prior thread:
Does fluoride kill? No.
Does fluoride present excessive risk to vulnerable populations? Does Fluoride dosing happen at a level that is harmful for infants? Diabetics? Folks with kidney/liver problems? Yes yes yes and yes.
Is it cons utional? No.
Does it result in fluorosis for some segment of kids? Yes.
Is it worth spending tax dollars for? No.
Is it part of some plan to depopulate? No.
Is it a cost effective mechanism to prevent pollution hot spots and reduce operating costs for domestic aluminum and fertilizer corps? Yes
Is it ethical? NO.
Step off me, Chump. You already knew the score.
Try not to break yer arm, kid, sheesh.
lol Parker2112 can't take a joke either.
... and before you go trying to "prove" something with one study, you have to remember the most important aspect of scientific publishing: reproducibility.
If the evidence for negative effects is as clear as you posit, it should not be hard at all to produce a few good peer-reviewed studies.
Given that people who think like you do have had DECADES to produce something more than a small handful of things, the fact that you have yet to definitively nail down your more extra-ordinary claims speaks volumes.
More like its always a good time to spread tha word...
More like it's always a good time to throw a tantrum.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
