Cleaning up the Most Toxic Pollution in the World

Hugh Pickens writes "Blacksmith Institute has published their list of the most polluted sites in the world compiled by comparing the toxicity of the contamination, the likelihood of it getting into humans and the number of people affected. For example, ninety-nine percent of the children living in and around the poly-metallic smelter at La Oroya in Peru, owned by the Missouri-based Doe Run Corporation, have blood lead levels that exceed acceptable limits. Scientific American says that despite the massive pollution, it would be relatively cheap and easy to clean up the most dangerous hazards. For $15,000, the radioactive contaminated soil from the Mayak plutonium facility on the shore of the Techa River in the Russian town of Muslyomova could be dug up, saving an estimated 350 lives. 'For about $200, the cost of a refrigerator, we are able to save someone's life,' says Richard Fuller, founder of Blacksmith."

Comments

You're kidding me

[Anonymous Coward]

L.A. wasn't on there?

Re:You're kidding me

[jcr]

No, that's just one of the most polluted places in the United States.

-jcr

Re:You're kidding me

[Anonymous Coward]

LA pales in comparison to the Aral Sea. The omission of the most polluted area in the world makes me question the validity of the rest of this report.

Re:You're kidding me

[seriesrover]

LA isn't exactly paradise on earth but if you think its bad for pollution you really need to see other other parts of the world.

Re:You're kidding me

[perrygeo]

Exactly! I have a number of acquaintances from South America who all describe LA as "nice" and "clean". Compared to most of the world where severe pollution is largely unregulated, the US is pristine.

Re:You're kidding me

[Fulcrum of Evil]

LA is also in a geological formation that accumulates smoke - before there was a city there, the valley was smokey. I'm sure that some of the entries on the list in TFA are from a bit north, though - Silicon vally has a big pile of superfund sites.

Polluted Sites?

[chromozone]

I didn't see MySpace on the list

Re: Polluted Sites?

[chuckymonkey]

Contaminated isn't the word for Myspace. More like blight on the face of humanity that seeps glittery pus over open wounds reeking of rotten meat and cheese. Also it is painful to look at.

Re: Polluted Sites?

[dgun]

Contaminated isn't the word for Myspace. More like blight on the face of humanity that seeps glittery pus over open wounds reeking of rotten meat and cheese. Also it is painful to look at.

I'm so putting that on my blogz, lolz.

Re: Polluted Sites?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Slashdot's duplicated stories?

Re: Polluted Sites?

[MadnessASAP]

I'm so putting that on my blogz, lolz. Leave now and never return. Unless you were joking, my sarcasm meter is in for repairs

Re: Polluted Sites?

[MrNaz]

I'm putting it on my MySpace page!

Re: Polluted Sites?

[The Master Control P]

Along these lines, we must never forget Penny Arcade's description of 4chan/b/. To paraphrase: "/b/ isn't the bottom of the internet barrel; It's more like if the bottom of the Internet barrel had it's own barrel, and the bottom of *that* barrel leaked out into a set of festering, pustulent ooze. That ooze would be /b/."

Re: Polluted Sites?

[mforbes]

Funny, I was thinking the flame wars on here would qualify...

Re: Polluted Sites?

[Captain Splendid]

The PA cartoon you describe was about AICN talkbacks, not 4chan.

Re: Polluted Sites?

[kb0hae]

I don't see Rush Limbaugh on the list! He should be #1 on the cleanup list!

Rush Limbaugh...toxic byproduct of the First Amendment.

Hey, where's Anniston Alabama?

[dgun]

Incomplete list without Toxic Town and our world class PCB contamination.

Re:Hey, where's Anniston Alabama?

[Anonymous Coward]

Incomplete list without Toxic Town and our world class PCB contamination.

Monsanto would be the guilty party there and they are trying to gain control of our food supply. Plenty more info out there, including old Slashdot articles with info on the evil moves of Monsanto. If Slashdotters do some research on this they will even discover that the government has helped Monsanto with numerous coverups and power plays. Do we really want to trust Monsanto with our food supply?

WTB!!

[Berenger]

Please tell me more about this $200 fridge.

Re:WTB!!

[Anonymous Coward]

As a poor college student who was looking to save money on a fridge (And further more, by buying kegs of beer, instead of cases!) for a kegerator, check your local thrift stores, Habitat for Humanity Restores, or used appliance stores. If money is your factor, you can't beat it. Fridges from $50 to $100. If you have trouble finding them, check out your local Home Depot or Lowes, and ask them what they do with their used fridges.

Re:WTB!!

[datapharmer]

It has two wire shelves that are not adjustable. There is no light when you open the door. It doesn't get particularly cold and there is no ice-maker, but if you fill the ice tray it might actually freeze if you turn it to coldest and keep it closed for 24 hours. The door has no built in shelving, and it has a place on the handle where you can put a lock. It is 4.1 Cubic Feet and commonly found in hotel rooms with little itsy bitsy alice-in-wonderland size bottles of things to drink in it that will quadruple your hotel bill in one night.

Now you know.

Re:WTB!!

[clarkkent09]

Here: http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&q=refrigerator&&price1=&price2=200

Re:WTB!!

[Anonymous Coward]

For a kegerator I went with a chest freezer instead. With a $25-35 temperature control do-hickey you can maintain the temperature wherever you want it.

Borders.

[sumdumass]

I need a map with country border on it. I couldn't find any in the US or Canada. But Europe, I couldn't tell which country was which or if it is old soviet union countries.

Actually, I'm kind of wondering why there isn't any marks in the US. Are we supposed to be the polluters of the world? Is there a mistake that the US is clean enough not to be on the list?

Re:Borders.

[kuzakdo]

Just click the "MAP" button at the top MAP/Image. If is is too small, then click on the "View Larger Map" link.

Re:Borders.

[clarkkent09]

I need a map with country border on it

I hear you can obtain one of those at your local bookstore. Some other options are things called "atlases" and "globes".

Re:Borders.

[Anonymous Coward]

Along with manufacturing (due to higher labor costs), U.S. businesses have also outsourced their dangerous and high pollution (due to EPA and OSHA). So in a way "U.S." (although technically global, and you may toss in European and Japanese) companies may be polluting as bad as ever. Just not so much on U.S., (western european, or Japanese) soil.

Basically "first worlders" have finally developed a strong NIMBYism learned from past mistakes, and are now getting around to cleaning up the mess at home. Unfortunately they're also all to eager to pass on the buck to make a buck. So no effort is made to effectively educate the up-and-comers about how expensive things like DDT, Minimata, dioxin, Pacific Gas & Electric, etc. become when it's finally time to fix things. Ironically, rapidly developing nations could really fall on their faces with such messes. Even if labor is damn cheap, any semblance of productivity could fall into the shithole if eveyone's to damn sick to work. Although folks with lost jobs in more advanced nations might have a "serves them right" thought or two about it, remember we all share the same atmosphere and water. Nobody gets away scott free from the environmental stupidity and short-sightedness.

I think there could be more effort to actually run cleaner rather than as the lowest common denominator if there was some kind of import penalty levied on products created by heavily polluting operations. (An EPA/OSHA fine of sorts not limited to one nation's territory.) The trick would be to get the all of the advanced nations to agree on such a thing. Unfortunately, what's compounding the difficulty in cleanup is the "leadership" in corporate pockets.

Re:Borders.

[mh1997]

I need a map with country border on it

I hear you can obtain one of those at your local bookstore. Some other options are things called "atlases" and "globes".

I personally have such as heard such as a reliable source saying that she believes many US Americans don't have maps, and such as Asia, and such as think of the children. So a comment such as yours is wrong.

Re:Borders.

[kc-guy]

"(An EPA/OSHA fine of sorts not limited to one nation's territory.) The trick would be to get the all of the advanced nations to agree on such a thing."

This method would be easily sidestepped by creating a third company to develop the needed resources. It could be a majority owned, "publicly traded" company, and possibly even be a shared interest between companies (i.e. Cingular.) It's business as usual, with no direct responsibility.

There could even be three or four of these corporations running the same game for a single company, allowing any future PR issues to be addressed much like the way US companies have sidestepped responsibility in the recent safety issues in China i.e. It's not us, it's our suppliers...so we've stopped using X company, and switched to Y," even though the companies are in fact identical.

Outsourcing

[Bios_Hakr]

Every time I see a company go overseas to do this kind of thing, it breaks my heart.

We should ensure that any company that does work overseas, does it to US or higher standards. The includes Nike paying US minimum wages and Exxon following US pollution guidelines.

Re:Outsourcing

[Breakfast Pants]

Yep, because when Nike doesn't go in somewhere to charge $.50 an hour to make shoes, alternative jobs will magically spring up that pay the people $7.25. What's more likely is the competition from Nike would have driven up the cost above what they could get without Nike.

Re:Outsourcing

[Trouvist]

It's called NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).

Re:Outsourcing

[timeOday]

Yep, because when Nike doesn't go in somewhere to charge $.50 an hour to make shoes, alternative jobs will magically spring up that pay the people $7.25

Actually I don't see why Nike couldn't afford to pay the people who make Nike shoes US minimum wage. It's not like they pass the savings along to their customers, that's for sure.

Re:Outsourcing

[Score Whore]

Because the shoes have to get from there to here. If the labor cost is the same then Nike won't go there because the shipping cost would make it more expensive to do the work in those countries. So now you're in the situation where there is no job at all. I guess the question is, would they rather get paid $0.50 or $0.00?

Not an expert on Nike or defending their actions, but come on, put a little thought into this will you?

Re:Outsourcing

[datapharmer]

No offense, but where is your data?

Multinationals use international trade regulations to their advantage. By aligning with lending groups like the IMF, multinationals use national debt recovery to force laws through that require full employment and cuts to social welfare systems so that taxes can be levied and surplus budgets can be made to repay international debt. The result: the poor are forced into indentured servitude because they can no longer get social services and those that had higher wages and supported the poor through their taxes end up with reduced pay because the employer is "forced" to employ more people with the same amount of money (which is the actual multinational goal). Since they have more work for the same investment in labor they have a higher output and greater profit margin as a result. This is widespread and systematic and replaces American jobs with foreign servitude, and the trend goes all the way to the top of management - labor goes overseas and the management eventually does too.

Sources:
The IMF rulings and restructuring agreements in Argentina (IMF 1999-2001)
"Crisis Leads to Salary Plunge" (Siam Future / The Nation)

Re:Outsourcing

[CodeBuster]

They would never pay that wage to locals in any case. If they were somehow forced to pay that level of wage then they would probably prefer to hire Americans and other western educated peoples instead. This is the same reason why unions *always* support minimum wages and high labor standards and it is not out of the goodness of their hearts or their concern for foreign workers (although they would like you to think so). No, they know that if employers are forced to pay a high minimum wage for workers then the employers will prefered the skilled or union labor over the labor of lesser educated or untrained workers in foreign countries. The minimum wage laws hurt all workers who are not in the unions and new workers (i.e. workers who are just starting out) and foreign workers in second and third world countries especially. If you required Nike to pay $7.25 per hour then not only would you pay more for shoes, but the people in those foreign countries would all lose their jobs and I don't think that they would thank you for that ($7.25 per hour mandatory minimum wage is meaningless if nobody will actually hire you for that amount). I really wish that Liberals would pick up and read their economics textbooks before making such silly assertions and suggestions concerning wages, prices, globalization, etc. Are there problems? Yes, but offering solutions which every econ 101 student knows to be flawed doesn't really help either.

Re:Outsourcing

[CodeBuster]

Multinationals use international trade regulations to their advantage.

They play the game according to the rules that the governments of the world set. If you dont like the rules then blame some of those governments for allowing themselves to be duped. In the case of those governments that are totalitarian the people are going to screwed in any case so what is the difference? There are some countries that we the United States won't do business with after all for that reason, although certain European nations are not so particular (especially when they think that nobody is watching).

By aligning with lending groups like the IMF, multinationals use national debt recovery to force laws through that require full employment and cuts to social welfare systems so that taxes can be levied and surplus budgets can be made to repay international debt.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. If those countries choose to borrow from the IMF and or its member nations and by extension us (they are essentially borrowing from European and American taxpayers) then is it unreasonable for us their creditors to insist upon the adoption or abandonment of certain policies which caused the borrows to be in a position where a loan was needed in the first place?

The result: the poor are forced into indentured servitude because they can no longer get social services and those that had higher wages and supported the poor through their taxes end up with reduced pay because the employer is "forced" to employ more people with the same amount of money (which is the actual multinational goal).

That doesn't make any sense. For example, suppose that the high wage earner "paid" for social services for three other people who were unemployed through taxes. How is it any different for him if he is paid less, but pays less tax, and thos three unemployed people now work along side him. The money is redistributed either way but the end result of the distribution in everyone's pocket would be roughly the same. As for the social services, the government probably could not afford to provide those services in the first place, that is why they went seeking the IMF loan to avoid an economic meltdown (you cannot consume what you do not have after all, no matter how much paper money you print).

Since they have more work for the same investment in labor they have a higher output and greater profit margin as a result. This is widespread and systematic and replaces American jobs with foreign servitude, and the trend goes all the way to the top of management - labor goes overseas and the management eventually does too.

Please re-read the chapter on trade in you economics textbook, trade is a good thing, it alows all of us to produce and consume more then we could have otherwise without the trade. Do you want everyone to share equally in their misery or do you want to distribute wealth? Protectionism gives you the former while trade delivers the later.

Why is it that Liberals are always so against the IMF and the World Bank? These organizations exist to help end poverty and provide emergency loans to governments so that economic chaos doesn't result in a general breakdown of civilized society with wars, violence, mass migrations, looting, etc. The world would be a much more "interesting" place (in the ancient Chinese curse sort of way, "may you live in interesting times") without the IMF, World Bank, and indeed the United States. Be careful what you wish for.

Re:Outsourcing

[KillerBob]

I really wish that Liberals would pick up and read their economics textbooks before making such silly assertions and suggestions concerning wages, prices, globalization, etc. Are there problems? Yes, but offering solutions which every econ 101 student knows to be flawed doesn't really help either.

I'll thank you not to attribute that to liberalism. I'm very much a liberal, thank you, but I know what you're talking about.

When you start offering higher rates of pay, it becomes less economical. In some industries, particularly service industries such as call center, raising the rate of pay to be in line with what their counterparts would make in Canada or the US isn't as big a hit. It's still cheaper to build a call center in India (and I think Africa will be the next India in that respect. Fine by me, they speak better English in Africa). It's still cheaper to power a call center in India. You don't have to worry about heating bills in that country. Bottom line is that even if people in that country are getting the same rate of pay as we are over here, it's still cheaper to actually *run* the place.**

But when you start dealing with goods, and anything that actually needs to be shipped, the total cost of operation needs to be less than it would be to manufacture things over here. So they get lower rate of pay in order to make it economical.

** this example doesn't take into account attrition rates, both among employees and among customers. It's worth noting, for example, that the attrition rate for Dell's call center in Hyderabad is 100%. That is to say that 100% of their employees leave within a year. That affects the total cost of running the place. Right now, it's cost-effective to run the place. As wage rates rise in that country, it's going to be less and less cost-effective, and they will reach a point where they may as well just shift everything back to North America again. Or where they move everything to Africa or some other region where people are not currently being paid what they're worth.

Re:Outsourcing

[Short Circuit]

Actually I don't see why Nike couldn't afford to pay the people who make Nike shoes US minimum wage. It's not like they pass the savings along to their customers, that's for sure. You say that as though profit wasn't the purpose (and chief motivation) of business.

Re:Outsourcing

[drsquare]

We should ensure that any company that does work overseas, does it to US or higher standards. The includes Nike paying US minimum wages and Exxon following US pollution guidelines.

And conversely, when an American company does business in Europe, they have to pay their American workers European minimum wages, and give them European holidays, benefits etc. So if Microsoft want to sell Windows in France, Microsoft workers can't work more than 35 hours a week, with six weeks holidays a year. Otherwise they'd just be taking advantage of poor wages and conditions in America.

Re:Outsourcing

[superdude72]

I really wish that Liberals would pick up and read their economics textbooks before making such silly assertions and suggestions concerning wages, prices, globalization, etc. Are there problems? Yes, but offering solutions which every econ 101 student knows to be flawed doesn't really help either.

And I really wish that Conservatives would take some of the economics classes that come *after* Econ 101. There is no reason we should not set some minimal standards for wages, environment, worker protection, etc,, in our trade agreements. If China wants to sell to the USA then it has to offer something other than slave wages and a willingness to wreck the environment beyond what anyone in a democratic country would tolerate. We don't have to eliminate all of China's competetive advantage, but let's set some standards below which no one is allowed to sink. For starters, how about some real regulation of industry so they don't ship toys with lead paint on them?

During the Cold War, many people bought into this propaganda that Capitalism == Goodness and Light and any interference with the market == Stalinism. But now we're seeing how that really isn't the case.

Re:Outsourcing

[E 99]

Every time I see a company go overseas to do this kind of thing, it breaks my heart.

We should ensure that any company that does work overseas, does it to US or higher standards. The includes Nike paying US minimum wages and Exxon following US pollution guidelines.

So you'd have the U.S. government performing environmental inspections in foreign countries? I don't think these countries are going to take kindly to that. It would require military conflict in a lot of cases. The world doesn't belong to the US. Each country has its own independent responsibility to protect its people and its environment.

The idea of Nike paying US minimum wage in China... I'm speechless. It would just mean Nike would go out of business and a Chinese company would take its place, and we would import shoes from them.

Re:Outsourcing

[dbIII]

Every time I see a company go overseas to do this kind of thing, it breaks my heart.

Seeing US Management arrive in a country with less regulation is like seeing Scandinavians in a bottle shop. Some can not believe what they can get away with so they have to try a bit of everything until the locals have a few stern words. Actual slavery in Micronesia would come close to the top of the abuses, but Bhopal was the worst in my opinion. Can't you guys give them an education or cut off their cocaine supply or something? I like Americans but there are utter barbarians that get exported as managers - perhaps you are getting rid of your worst that way?

Re:Outsourcing

[CodeBuster]

There is no reason we should not set some minimal standards for wages, environment, worker protection, etc,, in our trade agreements.

How about less goods and services from China? I would bet that most Americans, when asked if they prefer higher prices at Walmart in exchange for better wages, worker protection, and environmental protections in China would probably tell you they want lower prices and more American jobs (workers in China be damned as far as they are concerned).

If China wants to sell to the USA then it has to offer something other than slave wages and a willingness to wreck the environment beyond what anyone in a democratic country would tolerate.

Says who? China is a sovereign country and they will run their afairs how they choose. You will never win with "forcing" China to comply. Did you know that companies that have tried to "enforce" standards end up with wiley Chinese factory managers keeping multiple sets of books (one "real" set and one "fake" set for the foreign inspectors), coach workers on how to respond to inspector questions, and generally do whatever it takes to get around such restrictions?

So now what? When one sovereign country tells another one to "shove it" (i.e. negotiations have failed or broken down) then there are really only two basic options: (1) Trade / economic sanctions (i.e. I am taking my ball and going home) OR (2) War (i.e. do what we want or we will kick your butt)

We don't have to eliminate all of China's competetive advantage, but let's set some standards below which no one is allowed to sink.

And what if the Chinese say, "No" to your standards?

For starters, how about some real regulation of industry so they don't ship toys with lead paint on them?

There is no need to "regulate" it per se so long imported products are inspected for safety and the information is passed on to consumers, the market will take care of the problem itself. Would you as a parent allow your child to touch any of those toys on the recal list with a ten foot pole? I think not and so those companies either clean up their act or go out of business. Companies pay attention when sales drop from millions of dollars to zero in the space of a day.

During the Cold War, many people bought into this propaganda that Capitalism == Goodness and Light and any interference with the market == Stalinism. But now we're seeing how that really isn't the case.

The reason people bought into this "propaganda" is because it is mostly correct (not the Stalinism part mind you) in that markets work and governments don't. The market and the government both have roles to play, but generally speaking interference in the marketplace is counterproductive although it is *sometimes* required to maintain competition (i.e. private players and rent seekers are always looking for ways to "corner" markets and sometimes the government has to nip cheating in the bud before the consequences damage the markets).

Re:Outsourcing

[Bartab]

Good idea! That way it won't be Nike, the Beaverton OR company that builds plants in third world countries, it will be Nike, the Isle of Mann company instead.

Good show!

Re:Outsourcing

[Jafafa Hots]

"Yep, because when Nike doesn't go in somewhere to charge $.50 an hour to make shoes, alternative jobs will magically spring up that pay the people $7.25. What's more likely is the competition from Nike would have driven up the cost above what they could get without Nike."

21st-century-right-winger to 10th-century-plantation-owner translation: "Our darkies are happy, just look at them dancing! Anyway, if it weren't for me, they'd starve. They can't take care of themselves." We did away with slavery, we did away with child labor, indentured servitude, unsafe workplaces, 80 hour work weeks, etc. All of these moves were infringements on the capitalists' freedom to exploit people to the fullest... so they found other places where they still could.

Re:Outsourcing

[kmac06]

Very good points, what I would have posted if I weren't too lazy :)

Re:Outsourcing

[superdude72]

How about less goods and services from China?

You mean like the iPhone? What is it, now, $399? Do you know how much it will cost consumers if manufacturing moves to Mexico? $399. The only difference is less profit for Apple. Which I can live with if that's what it takes to ensure that our trading partners aren't running sweatshops.

And what if the Chinese say, "No" to your standards?

Then we negotiate, and we don't give in until we reach something better than the status quo. Why not? What have we got to lose except a massive trade deficit? We've survived several decades of trade sanctions against Iran, and they have *oil*, which is something we actually need quite a bit more than we need yet another source of cheap labor. They really, really need us to buy their stuff, but they're mostly still too poor to buy anything from us in return. This deal only really benefits a small number of wealthy capitalists. The average American won't lose 2 seconds of sleep if Phil Knight pockets 5 percent less on each pair of Nikes because he had to move his factory to Mexico. We still have some leverage, in other words, Your all-or-nothing fatalism about the inevitability of absolutely unrestricted international trade is comical.

Re:Outsourcing

[datapharmer]

They play the game according to the rules that the governments of the world set. If you dont like the rules then blame some of those governments for allowing themselves to be duped.

The problem is those in power keep changing the rules, and I have no problem blaming those governments who are allowed to be duped; often the people do too. Apparently the people of Argentina did. Although the government signed them up, the people revolted. They knew a scam when they saw one. Unfortunately not all countries educate their citizens about politics and economics.

If those countries choose to borrow from the IMF and or its member nations and by extension us then is it unreasonable for us their creditors to insist upon the adoption or abandonment of certain policies which caused the borrows to be in a position where a loan was needed in the first place?

There is a difference between "choose" and coerced. Basically these countries were told to fix their economy or no more trade. If China did to us what we have done to many developing nations we would be worse than Russia after the Soviet collapse. The only reason they don't is it would hurt their economy as well. Super powers have a different standing because of their exceptional production and consumption. Developing nations are easier to replace.

(they are essentially borrowing from European and American taxpayers)

No, they aren't. They are borrowing from private bankers that live in those countries. Those bankers have a racket. They also have money bet on a bunch of multinational corporations. The U.S. tax payers don't have any money to lend - it is all going to pay the interest on the national debt!

suppose that the high wage earner "paid" for social services for three other people who were unemployed through taxes. How is it any different for him if he is paid less, but pays less tax

The problem is that they aren't paying less tax. They are just making less. The extra money goes to repaying the debt. So less services, more work, less pay. For instance: Ethiopia was forced to sell "excess" grains while their people starved. The grain was then sold back to them at an inflated rate from the "free market" to feed the starving masses. The higher rate meant they needed more loans to buy it back. Not only could they not afford to buy it, but some of it was purchased on the market and never even got back. Net result - dead people that could have been fed by domestically grown food.

(you cannot consume what you do not have after all, no matter how much paper money you print).

No? Then how exactly are we keeping our lights on in the U.S.? I live in the county. My taxes went up 400% but we are still facing a deficit. The State is running a deficit. The Federal government has a deficit in the Trillions. How come other countries get called on it in the millions but we can run negative in deficit at all levels of government without repercussions?

Please re-read the chapter on trade in you economics textbook, trade is a good thing, it alows all of us to produce and consume more then we could have otherwise without the trade. Do you want everyone to share equally in their misery or do you want to distribute wealth? Protectionism gives you the former while trade delivers the later.

Crass consumption is idiotic. It isn't a matter of "misery for the masses" or "distribution" it is an issue of how much can I steal before the peasants rise up. I'm no communist, but the fact is the rich are after power not subsistence. There can be enough to go around while those willing to work harder are still allowed to enjoy luxury.

Why is it that Liberals are always so against the IMF and the World Bank?

Couldn't tell you, go ask someone that identifies as "liberal".

Re:Outsourcing

[datapharmer]

Sounds fair to me. You want access to the market you follow the rules of that market's culture. Don't like it, do business elsewhere and we will either ignore your product or make it domestically instead. it is called protectionism, and despite it having a bad rap it is done everywhere to dome extent.

Re:Outsourcing

[Anonymous Coward]

Teh EU already does this, by forbidding the import of any goods which are not made to EU environmental standards. This is the driving force behind China's clean-up of its industrial practices. Whilst I generally dislike the EU, this is one of the few really good laws that they do have (the reverse-engineering law and the data protection regulations are my other two favourites).

Re:Outsourcing

[marcello_dl]

>> Multinationals use international trade regulations to their advantage.

>They play the game according to the rules that the governments of the world set.

So essentially you agree with parent, since governments of the world mostly behave as big capital lapdogs. Witness the battle for patentable software in the EU. If governments were expression of the people, RIAA allegations that piracy causes the damage equivalent to the price of the CD would get laughed out of court. And so on.

> He who pays the piper calls the tune.

It's like being the stockholder. Every unpleasant thing happening to the big company is done "Because the stockholder wants the money for his investment back". But when did they ask me if I wanted to finance wars to get more money from my investment? I'd think something like that would at least require a signature or at least checking a small square somewhere in the contract for buying the shares?

>...The money is redistributed either way but the end result of the distribution in everyone's pocket would be roughly the same.

Then the reasons for passing full employment laws become even more mysterious, to me at least.

>...trade is a good thing

I think nobody is against trade all in itself.

Trade was common even in those enlightened times where trying to pull stunts like fractional reserve banking would have meant jail or death. Only then, money was "just" the most practical way to store and exchange wealth. So don't tie Trade or, for example, technological advancements to the current financial system ruling the world.

Of course you can correlate the amount of trade to the features of the current financial system. Which is still an assumption but a reasonable one.

But it is also a neutral fact, per se. Unless you correlate e.g. the GDP or national expenditure to happiness. But then I might say that production, time spent working, amount of goods bought indicate a negative thing if working does not cause an increment your knowledge and your self esteem as a human, if spending is done to imitate models, to appear superior than your peers, instead of getting something that increases your capabilities.

If I buy a flashy new cellphone with 64 voices and without a melody composer, and buy ringtones, I make the economic indicators grow. If i keep the old a piezoelectric single voice phone with composer, I cause recession. All in a microscopic scale of course. But I'm happier with the latter, I'm more powerful with the latter.

Re:Outsourcing

[mh1997]

They would never pay that wage to locals in any case. If they were somehow forced to pay that level of wage then they would probably prefer to hire Americans and other western educated peoples instead. This is the same reason why unions *always* support minimum wages and high labor standards and it is not out of the goodness of their hearts or their concern for foreign workers (although they would like you to think so).

Thats what the unions want you to believe, however, unions support minimum wage laws for 1 reason. Many union contracts are tied to the minimum wage. When minimum wage goes up, the union workers get a raise even though they are making much more than minimum wage.

Re:Outsourcing

[Iloinen Lohikrme]

Just few notices...

There is a difference between "choose" and coerced. Basically these countries were told to fix their economy or no more trade. If China did to us what we have done to many developing nations we would be worse than Russia after the Soviet collapse. The only reason they don't is it would hurt their economy as well. Super powers have a different standing because of their exceptional production and consumption. Developing nations are easier to replace.

Argentina and other countries who have run into trouble are not coerced by threating to cut trade to them. If a country doesn't pay it's debts or won't start to fix the problems of its economy as guided by the IMF and World Bank, they just won't get loans before they change their policies. That's not coercing, that's reasonable policy.

It should also be noted that Argentina wasn't first country in financial trouble. In example in the beginning of 90s Finland was hit by a deep depression in which GDP dropped 13% and unemployment rose from 3,5% to 18%. At the time Finland was very near bankruptcy and in the baddest days of the depression, leading politicians warned the people that if big changes were not made, then there would be no change but to give the country into guidance of IMF and World Bank. Those warnings eventually worked, changes were made, and after few years Finland emerged from the depression. In the case of Argentina, it seems that the leading politicians didn't do their job and citizens continued living in an illusion.

No, they aren't. They are borrowing from private bankers that live in those countries. Those bankers have a racket. They also have money bet on a bunch of multinational corporations. The U.S. tax payers don't have any money to lend - it is all going to pay the interest on the national debt!

Actually both IMF and World Bank get money from their member countries, meaning basically that money comes directly from government budget or from coffers of central bank, that in any case means that the money comes eventually from private citizens. It should also be noted the US debt isn't that big a deal, the US public debt was 64,7% of GDP, which is not bad as in example Eurozone has 70,5% and whole European Union has 63,2%. Some countries like Belgia and Greece have their dept over 100% of GDP. So US situation is not that bad.

No? Then how exactly are we keeping our lights on in the U.S.? I live in the county. My taxes went up 400% but we are still facing a deficit. The State is running a deficit. The Federal government has a deficit in the Trillions. How come other countries get called on it in the millions but we can run negative in deficit at all levels of government without repercussions?

Well the short answer is that you have the worlds most powerful army that acts as the world police. The neat part of being world police is that commodities like oil is priced and public debt in US dollars, and as you own the printing presses to press more dollars, having public or trade deficit doesn't matter so much as you can just print more dollars. Also as the rest of the world uses US dollar to trade, the inflation that comes from printing more money is outsourced to the rest of the world.

As long as US dollar has its current status, the US can keep going on without big problems. However if European countries get their act together and decide to form a comparable force, meaning centralizing foreign and trace policies to Brussels and building an unified Euroarmy that can sent carrier groups to different parts of world to protect peace and democracy, then the status of US dollar could change. That unfortunately and fortunately won't probably happen in my life time as it seems that European countries really aren't that interested on building imperiums again, which is definitely a good thing. Of course the Chinese maybe willing to build an imperium but then again before 2030 or in late case 2050, they just won't have the economic muscle to challenge US dominance.

Re:Outsourcing

[BakaHoushi]

Not the parent, but...

Yes. Profit is the first, and only, goal of business.

And that is why I believe profit-above-all-else mentalities must be destroyed. See, I have no problems with a company that wants to make money. I'm a college student, but I also work part time at a grocery store as a janitor. Why do I work as a janitor? Because I make money doing it. I make exactly $8.50 an hour (and with about 20 hours per week and factoring out taxes) I make about $150 a week. I would not clean toilets and wipe up spills like that if I was not being paid.

However, suppose someone offered to pay me double my rate. I'd love it. Except... to earn it, I need to use a cleaning chemical that will make 1/100 of the customers in the store very sick (For the sake of argument, let's pretend its untraceable, so lawsuits don't get involved). Now I'm not too sure. I'm there to make money, but at the expense of the health of others?

Basically, I, as a human being, want more. This is natural and instinctual. However, I also feel that it is wrong to help myself at the expense of others. I want to further myself, but have qualms with dragging others behind.

Corporations lack this failsafe of greed. "Sir, if we paid each worker 25 cents a week, we'd make $12billion by the end of the fiscal year in pure profit." "What if we paid them minimum US wage?" "Well, we'd make $11billion." "...Screw the workers, I want that extra billion!"

As I said, there's nothing wrong with one wanting to be paid what they are worth. Profit is okey-dokey by me. But when you try to squeeze every last dollar you can out, the costs in damages you can cause to a workforce, an environment, or a country far exceed what little extra you gain. Thus "profit by any means necessary" is foolish and immoral.

Re:Outsourcing

[maxume]

As long as there isn't any force involved, the situations aren't even comparable. Do you have proof that Nike is forcing people to work in their factories?

Re:Outsourcing

[shalla]

How about less goods and services from China? I would bet that most Americans, when asked if they prefer higher prices at Walmart in exchange for better wages, worker protection, and environmental protections in China would probably tell you they want lower prices and more American jobs (workers in China be damned as far as they are concerned).

Er, should I be the one to point out that those lower prices are because the jobs aren't American? You can either have lower prices because we're taking advantage of people around the world and polluting them and paying them less than a living wage, or you can have higher prices because we're paying Americans to do something, and that involves certain levels of environmental control and a living wage.

You don't get both, unless you mean those $5.50 part-time WalMart jobs selling all the Chinese-made goods. The little American flags with their Made in China stamps always make me particularly sad.

Not that your average consumer has the time, energy, and money to change their buying habits enough to make a difference. It's almost impossible to buy only things made in the US anymore. Even cereal--lots of times the dried fruit in it comes from China. (Doesn't that make you feel secure?)

Re:Outsourcing

[Attila Dimedici]

Every time I see a company go overseas to do this kind of thing, it breaks my heart.

We should ensure that any company that does work overseas, does it to US or higher standards. The includes Nike paying US minimum wages and Exxon following US pollution guidelines.
If such a law was passed it would result in one of three things. 1. Nike (or other US company) would follow said law, foreign competitor, not bound by such a law, would put them out of business by selling better product for less. 2. Nike (and other US companies) would relocate out of the US and no longer be bound by said law. 3. Nike (and other US companies) would create foreign based companies that would do the manufacturing for them and not be bound by US law. (Actually, I think this is actually already, at least mostly, true). Oh yeah, there would be at least one other result, the cost of everything would go up. BTW, as a general rule, when American (and probably European, although I have never seen any information on that)companies open facilities in third world countries, they generally pay significantly better, with significantly better working conditions, than comparable jobs in that country.

Re:Outsourcing

[darkmeridian]

You make a good point that alternative employment is lacking in these foreign countries, and that's why I've always been critical to anti-globalization activists. But there should be no competition on who is most willing to get maimed for a buck.

There has to be some basic standards of humanity we have to afford the rest of the world. If we're saving money by sending work abroad by decreasing the safety standards, or by polluting more and costing lives that way, then we're basically buying human lives. In other words, the limbs that are lost because we want to save a dime on our Mattel toys actually become fungible goods on the market place. I have a problem with that, as it implies their lives are less valuable than ours.

We need to set comprehensive standards across the world about a basic level of human rights based on safety and not economics. Instead of saying we need to pay workers at least ten dollars an hour, we need to say that we need to not dump heavy metals into their water supplies at dangerous levels. And this should be non-mandatory. Even if the workers happily would take the higher pay along with the pollution, that's not an option we should give them because we don't give that choice to our workers. Otherwise, there is going to be a race to the bottom as world workers compete on who is most willing to die to make a buck.

Fair competition should not be on this level.

Re:Outsourcing

[Bluesman]

"You mean like the iPhone? What is it, now, $399? Do you know how much it will cost consumers if manufacturing moves to Mexico? $399."

And you're basing this assertion on what, exactly?

I'll tell you what, it's significantly cheaper and easier to ship things from Mexico than it is from China. The reason that the iPhone is manufactured in China is because even given the shipping cost and hassle, it's still cheaper for Apple.

If manufacturing moved to Mexico, do you know what another price of the iPhone could be? $0, because it wouldn't exist. Just as if Apple had to manufacture it here in the U.S., a modest increase in manufacturing costs might make it unprofitable to even produce the iPhone in the first place.

That's what nobody seems to take into account when discussing trade policy -- restrictions on trade don't just raise prices across the board, they also ensure that some of the things that would have happened (production and sale of the iPhone) don't happen at all.

Whether or not you think the cost to society of these things not happening is worth the trade restrictions is a case-by-case matter of debate, and certainly not black and white, no matter what level of economics course you've taken.

Re:Outsourcing

[FooAtWFU]

Er, should I be the one to point out that those lower prices are because the jobs aren't American? You can either have lower prices because we're taking advantage of people around the world and polluting them and paying them less than a living wage, or you can have higher prices because we're paying Americans to do something, and that involves certain levels of environmental control and a living wage.
A "living wage" is a lot, lot lower overseas than it is here. This is because Americans want all sorts of expensive niceties, like fancy cars and iPods and microwave dinners and college educations and cushy retirements and nice houses. What's more, they want all of those things in America, where things are a lot more expensive than they are overseas. And there are huge opportunity costs for employing Americans. If you go into shoe manufacturing, you're not going into medicine and biotech or pharmaceuticals or software engineering or business or any number of fields which are much, much more interesting and profitable (for yourself and for Humanity). If an Asian guy goes into shoe manufacturing, he is probably not giving up a career in biotech.

As for pollution... the most sure-fire way to get the Chinese et cetera to care about pollution is for them to become a rich country. Rich countries care about that sort of thing. It's one of those luxuries we can afford.

Re:Outsourcing

[Bluesman]

"What have we got to lose except a massive trade deficit?"

The Chinese hold a significant amount of U.S. currency as a backing reserve for their own. They could announce that they are selling off all U.S. currency reserves, which would sink the value of the dollar almost overnight.

This would send the U.S. into a severe inflation-based depression that would make the deflation-based on in the thirties look like a mild recession, since the Fed is seemingly only capable of inflating the currency even more in a vain attempt to fix economic crises.

This would hit us at the time of a record setting downturn in the real-estate market which has not quite hit the bottom yet, and also with record setting government debt as far as the eye can see that could no longer be paid for by printing more money, forcing many people who depend on social security and medicare to, well, just die.

This would easily cause mass civil unrest, starvation, and rioting as the younger people who are left lose their homes and jobs and can no longer afford to pay for luxuries like heat and food.

So, yeah, other than that, we've got nothing to lose.

But it's ok, we're counting on the Chinese government not to do that because they'd also experience a recession and starvation, and history tells us that concern for the public welfare is always first and foremost when the Chinese government makes decisions.

Re:Outsourcing

[rhizome]

We should ensure that any company that does work overseas, does it to US or higher standards. The includes Nike paying US minimum wages and Exxon following US pollution guidelines.

Great idea, let's start with the Geneva Conventions.

Re:Outsourcing

[Bluesman]

"And that is why I believe profit-above-all-else mentalities must be destroyed."

I agree, but you can't legislate morality. It really depends on the individual to make the decision to do the right thing.

U.S. society has become increasingly legalistic, to the point where a good number of people see nothing immoral about their actions provided they're not illegal. There are two answers to that -- we either need to make the laws better, or people need to start to realize the moral implications of their actions.

The problem I think a lot of people have is that they believe that with just the right set of rules, everyone will act properly. I don't think that's ever the case, I think people will do what they want to regardless. If that weren't true, there wouldn't be crime.

"Corporations lack this failsafe of greed."

This is simply not true, unless you are talking about forced labor. The Chinese worker still has a choice -- he can keep subsistence farming, or he can make $0.25 a day, which is wealth beyond his wildest dreams, such that he'd nearly kill to get and keep that job.

It sounds crazy to you, but that's because you're used to prices and wages as they are in the developed world. If you were offered $1,000,000 a day to work in a factory run by aliens from Planet X, and you were happy to take it, how would you feel about someone else from Planet X who wanted to shut the factory down unless the owners were forced to pay you $2,000,000 a day, which you know would end up in you getting fired and the factory moving back to Planet X instead?

Re:Outsourcing

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still cheaper to build a call center in India (and I think Africa will be the next India in that respect. Fine by me, they speak better English in Africa). It's still cheaper to power a call center in India.

That's because labor is cheap in India/Africa, which makes constructing the building inexpensive, makes producing the materials inexpensive, and makes transporting those materials internally inexpensive. If you did manage to force all outsourced jobs in India to meet US minimum wage, that condition would not last. Remember, to earn US minimum wage in the top 10% of Indian wages, somewhere equivalent to a cardiac surgeon in the US. One individual earning such a wage in India can easily support his entire extended family, dramatically reducing the incentive for those people to take a low paid ($10/week) construction job. A US company that goes into India and pays US wages does so at the risk of destroying the local, if not regional, Indian economy.

Re:Outsourcing

[Watson Ladd]

We have one atmosphere, one hydrosphere. Smog in LA has been found to come from burning forests in Southeast Asia. Chernobyl spewed radioactivity over Finland, hundreds of kilometers away. Flame retardants have been found in Antarctic penguins. If China wants to fill up their corner of the earth with toxic waste that waste will travel and end up everywhere. And the free market doesn't care about the needs of those with no money. In the words of Brecht: ''And there are some who are in darkness, and the others are in light. And you see the ones in brightness, and those in darkness drop from sight.'' Read Dickens or Sinclair to see how true this is.

Re:Outsourcing

[CodeBuster]

So essentially you agree with parent, since governments of the world mostly behave as big capital lapdogs.

The difference is that he blames the corporations for intelligent play while I blame the governments for the bad policies which allow the exploitation in the first place. This is why it is important to educate our children in economics so that they, and by extension their governments, will have the ability to make better economic policy and financial judgments at both the personal (i.e. not taking out a home mortgage with bad terms and then begging the government to bail them out) and national level (i.e. no more spending on socialist and populist programs that do not produce economic growth and fuel inflation and foreign debt).

It's like being the stockholder. Every unpleasant thing happening to the big company is done "Because the stockholder wants the money for his investment back". But when did they ask me if I wanted to finance wars to get more money from my investment? I'd think something like that would at least require a signature or at least checking a small square somewhere in the contract for buying the shares?

Do you actually own any shares (directly, not through mutual funds) in a publicly traded company? If you don't like the policies of the board, for whatever reason, then there are number of different things that you, the shareholder, can do. First, withhold your votes for reelection of board members with whom you disagree (assuming that you hold voting class shares). Second, lobby for provisions on the proxy ballots that would change corporate policies to prohibit the undesirable corporate behavior so that the voting shareholders (possibly including yourself) can vote on them. Finally, show up at the company meeting and talk in person with the executives and the board members (a lot of shareholders don't actually show up to most shareholder meetings so you may find a receptive audience even if your relative holding in the company is small).

As for your points on trade, whose fault is it if the government does not provide law and order or doesn't spend its tax and trade revenue in the ways that the people of the nations want? People tend to want to kill trade instead of blaming their government for the mistakes that it is making with regard to trade.

Re:Outsourcing

[Fulcrum of Evil]

How about less goods and services from China?

That would be one effect, yes.

China is a sovereign country and they will run their afairs how they choose. You will never win with "forcing" China to comply.

And we are a sovereign nation, too - nobody is forcing us to buy from them. We are adding a proviso to the trade agreement and China is free to take it or leave it. I think they'll take it.

There is no need to "regulate" it per se so long imported products are inspected for safety and the information is passed on to consumers, the market will take care of the problem itself.

No, people that get burned will have bad publicity, while the public will fail utterly to generalize and demand higher standards because that's what they don't do. It won't force anyone to start demanding increased standards, but the USA as a whole demanding it will probably work. China wants to save face, so this is a good time for it.

markets work and governments don't.

This is true, although I'll caution that markets work at providing goods cheaply. They don't necessarily provide good goods.

Re:Outsourcing

[Fulcrum of Evil]

If an Asian guy goes into shoe manufacturing, he is probably not giving up a career in biotech.

Maybe if he's in Taiwan. Not so much in Tokyo.

Re:Outsourcing

[Fulcrum of Evil]

My understanding was that Bhopal happened becaused the Indians insisted on local talent to run the place, but didn't hire competent people.

Re:Outsourcing

[hobo sapiens]

I don't think this post was a troll. In fact it makes a parallel that is there to make: the American slave owners and modern industrialists have some things in common, not the least of which is the total willingness to make a buck at the expense of their fellow man. Even if sweatshops, etc aren't quite like American slavery, it's still a situation where the rich are exploiting those who can be exploited.

Can't exploit people here on American soil? Fine, we'll go somewhere else. Case in point, from TFA: "Currently owned by the Missouri-based Doe Run Corporation, the plant has been largely responsible for the dangerously high lead levels found in children's blood. "
I live in Missouri, have family in SE Missouri. There are still some streams, to this day, that are unfishable due the rampant lead mining that once took place at the hands of companies like Doe Run. The name Doe Run is vilified in SE Missouri. AFAIK, Doe Run doesn't do any mining in the US, though they do operate here.

From TFA, speaking about China: "Rapid development and unequivocal faith in industry has led to the development of hundreds of unregulated coal mines, steel factories and refineries"
Have the Chinese learned nothing from industrial revolution era USA? Faith in industry? Who in their right mind would put faith in an entity whose sole purpose is to maximize profits? This is why corporations NEED regulation. Guaranteed, almost any polluted site in the world could have been prevented if the government had actually stood up and did what a government is supposed to do: take care of its people.

Re:Outsourcing

[dbIII]

Interesting copout - a suggestion that the management is not competent enough to select staff from those available is no excuse. If you can't find competant people in a country that size you really are not looking very hard, plus there is always the option of Indian expats in the USA if you want to find people with US qualifications and experience.

The tendancy of paticularly incompetant managers that suddenly find themselves in a low wage country to see if they can squeeze it furthur again is more likely - you can't pay third world labourer wages to technical staff for very long before they thank you for the experience and move on.

Re:Outsourcing

[Fulcrum of Evil]

No, more a suggestion that the local politicos stocked key positions with people that they owed favors too rather than selecting for competence. Also, at the time, there wasn't much of a high tech worker base - a billion people won't help you of half or more are illiterate and 80% haven't been to college.

Re:Outsourcing

[dbIII]

Managers are paid to manage. If they cannot get staff because they can not deal with the corrupt outside agencies effectly then they should not have those jobs. Other companies cope under far more extreme conditions - consider the oil companies working in Nigeria now.

As for the statement about the shortage of suitable canditates at the time, I know a few Indian engineers over 50 and I don't live in India. Anybody on this forum that studied engineering has probably had an Indian lecturer no matter where in the world they are - there are a lot of very skilled expats.

Re:Outsourcing

[FooAtWFU]

Yes. Point.

Re:Outsourcing

[shilly]

'There is no need to "regulate" [industry] per se so long imported products are inspected for safety and the information is passed on to consumers, the market will take care of the problem itself. Would you as a parent allow your child to touch any of those toys on the recal list with a ten foot pole? I think not and so those companies either clean up their act or go out of business. Companies pay attention when sales drop from millions of dollars to zero in the space of a day.'

Do you not see the contradiction in your statement? If safety inspections were enough to guarantee adequate quality of products, there would have been no need for a toy recall. Markets work on the basis of adequate, *timely* information. If you don't know in advance that the toy has got lead in it, then you can't choose not to buy it on that basis. The toy manufacturer may suffer loss of future sales, but that hasn't prevented the lead getting in the paint and potentially causing neurological damage in the first place, it's only lessened the likelihood of future problems.

Re:Outsourcing

[Frantactical Fruke]

I bet if I were to describe Americans like you do, I'd be called anti-American and many rather ruder terms - or does that only apply to us foreigners?

Western countries do already prescribe various intrusive measures to any company wishing to provide us with components. ISO quality certification is a huge pile of paper describing in minute detail the hoops a company needs to jump through to be even considered a qualified supplier to most companies in Europe and America. Adding a few working condition clauses to be checked during regular quality process audits would not be a big deal.

This would give local muck-raking journalists some teeth, as their revelations about sweatshop conditions could no longer be shrugged off. Working conditions are already a selling point for sneakers for many consumers. They are not nearly as callous as you make out. Or what would I know about American consumers. They definitely are not over here in Europe - and we are a bigger market and pay in better currency than you do. ;)

Re:Outsourcing

[khallow]

Another alternative is to reduce or eliminate ISO quality certification. That would create more jobs, lower the threshhold for starting a business, and generate other economic benefits in Europe.

Re:Outsourcing

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to pay US minimum wage in poor countries where the cost of living is 1/10, 1/100, or 1/1000 of what it is in a typical US city?

Re:Outsourcing

[Frantactical Fruke]

...put lead paint into the mouths of our children, make industrial installations kill workers, airplanes fall out of the sky, poison our rivers and reduce companies to give subcontracting contracts only to companies with known track records to avoid buying substandard components from non-accountable foreign suppliers. Yeah, been there, done that, which is why the ISO quality standards were developed. It's a horribly bureaucratic solution, but how else do you ensure you're not buying useless crap or that you get one good shipment and then useless crap in the next one?

There are plenty of non-ISO certified companies who will gladly sell you crap at half the price, if you want to end up like Mattel.

Re:Outsourcing

[khallow]

It's a horribly bureaucratic solution, but how else do you ensure you're not buying useless crap or that you get one good shipment and then useless crap in the next one?

You test the products and the components. That's something you have to do anyway. ISO certification doesn't keep you from getting useless crap from your supply chain.

HAHA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the western hemisphere?

Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

"For $15,000, the radioactive contaminated soil from the Mayak plutonium facility on the shore of the Techa River in the Russian town of Muslyomova could be dug up, saving an estimated 350 lives."

Yeah but then that would mean that the executive in charge of the Mayak plutonium facility would have to forgo snorting Columbia's finest off the asses of a trio of high-priced hookers at his 15,000-square foot mansion in the Hamptons. I mean, he's got a maid, a butler, a chauffeur, a wife, 1.5 kids, two mistresses, and of course those hookers and his dealer to support! Haven't you heard of treacle-down economics? He won't be able to afford somebody to do *that* to him every other Thursday unless a few mud people glow in the dark. They're probably happier now that they can see at night--I mean have they invented fire yet? Fucking hippie.

Like India

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Russians in small towns probably don't HAVE $200

Huh?

[VonSkippy]

Don't these places have their own overbearing governments to take care of this? I'm full up worrying about whether my kids will keep their shoes off the furniture and the toxic dump my neighbor calls "his garage".

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't these places have their own overbearing governments to take care of this?

Probably, but we wise Americans are better equipped to determine policy than those local governments. Really, the rest of the world needs us, like a toddler needs his mommy, to help them see the consequences of their actions and the way they're hurting their own people.

The last time we seriously tried to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world, World War II happened. You don't really want that, do you? Now simmer down and let the politicians run things.

Dollar value of a human life

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies do accounting to determine the value of everything, including the cost of lawsuits due to deaths caused by their products. Maybe the companies determined that, to them, a human life costs less than $200 dollars. This is not a joke. This really happens.

Re:Dollar value of a human life

[gryllotalpa]

So if it's cheap to clean up the mess, the big money-makers might tell us that doomsday is off for the meantime that they could make more mess.

certain weeds can fix this

[wizardforce]

certain weeds of the Astragalus and Stanleya Genus can clean up areas high in selenium and plants that have high levels of glutathione can help mop up cadmium and other toxic metals. the Astragalus especially can take up oxyanions of the chromium group [molybdenum and tungsten, likely chromium as well] not only that but bacteria like deinococcus radiodurans can withstand high radiation levels can interestingly they bind metals to certain chemical groups, specifically sulfur and selenium compounds. they can also reduce metal ions common to toxic waste sites and in effect lock them up as mineral deposits so that they are not leaching into water supplies. If the metals are not mobile, they are not nearly as poisonous or dangerous as they are leaching into the local water supplies.

Re:certain weeds can fix this

[chuckymonkey]

That's a very interesting post, the only question that I have is how viral are these plants? If they were to be introduced into an ecosystem what kind of impact would they have after they served their intended purpose?

Re:certain weeds can fix this

[Tomfrh]

the only question that I have is how viral are these plants?

Not at all, they're plants.

Re:certain weeds can fix this

[wizardforce]

they have a relatively long germination time and require animals to take the seeds through the digestive tract, it's called scarification which involves weakening the seed coat enough for germination to take place. the acids in animal's stomachs do the work and the plants themselves are not very "viral" we have ways of killing them and they already exist in many fields. the only thing about them is that you need to keep cattle and other livestock away from them otherwise the high levels of selenium the plants take up kills the animals, although it is a toxic waste dump so I don;t suppose there will be much in the way of livestock in the area.

Re:certain weeds can fix this

[chuckymonkey]

Thank you, that was what I was interested in knowing. Unlike the poster above who contributes nothing, not even humor to the discussion.

Re:certain weeds can fix this

[poopdeville]

I laughed. On the other hand, your complaint really did add nothing.

Re:certain weeds can fix this

[chuckymonkey]

Actually it did in a way. First I ackowledged that I learned something and also provided a polite closure to the discussion for the parent as well as letting the parent know that I valued his information.

Re:certain weeds can fix this

[datapharmer]

what do you do with the plants once they are full of selenium? This has always been a problem for me. I know cattail can breakdown roadway chems, but that was the problem. Then they found some fungi can actually break down waste. What do these plants do - just trap the selenium or actually turn it into something else?

Re:certain weeds can fix this

[datapharmer]

oops.. I meant cattail can absorb but not breakdown roadway chems which meant that when they died the problem was there again.

Re:certain weeds can fix this

[wizardforce]

the plants convert selenium oxyanions like selenite and selenate into much less toxic compounds. mainly selenocysteine and dimethyl selenide, both are far far less toxic and in the case of selenocysteine have been shown to prevent certain cancers. so basically not only can you deal with selenium you can also turn it into something that can help save lives. here in the western united states we have a problem with there being far too much selenium in the soil while the east has far too little. these plants can farvest selenium from the west and be used to fertillize the east with the selenium needed for healthy growth. selenium is an essential micronutrient that is sorely lacking in the east.

Mental Pollution is Borderless

[Nymz]

Actually, I'm kind of wondering why there isn't any marks in the US. Are we supposed to be the polluters of the world? Is there a mistake that the US is clean enough not to be on the list?

Actually, the USA is in many of the top 10 spots, funding and working toward cleaning them up, with help from the UK and Japan. But you're right, the media propaganda often shows America is the worst with all their CarbonDioxide and DihydrogenMonoxide while 7 of the top 10 real polluters are Soviet/Russia and China.

To find out if the Slashdot crowd honestly cares about the enviroment, or are simply hypocritcal AlGore elitists, just watch how this thread gets moderated.

Re:Mental Pollution is Borderless

[Adambomb]

But, c'mon guy. He's so serial.

Re:Mental Pollution is Borderless

[clarkkent09]

while 7 of the top 10 real polluters are Soviet/Russia and China.

I am not nitpicking when I point out that those are 7 out of 10 most polluted cities/areas, not the biggest polluters. Not the same thing.

If you bother to check the actual data USA consistently comes up in top 5 biggest polluters both per capita and overall. China and (not Soviet anymore) Russia are right up there as well to be sure, but ranting about media propaganda and hypocritcal AlGore elitists doesn't reveal anything about the actual problem, only about your political preferences (and perhaps what radio stations you listen to).

Re:Mental Pollution is Borderless

[Anonymous Coward]

" only about your political preferences (and perhaps what radio stations you listen to).
"

And so does about you as well.

Re:Mental Pollution is Borderless

[TapeCutter]

It works like the "war on terror", the US makes a mess overseas so it doesn't have to clean up at home. /ducks

Seriously though, it IS about consumption and the methods used to sustain and grow it. The US consumes ~50% of the worlds resources with only ~5% of the population, China and India are busy posioning themselves to stock the shelves of the western world just as Detroit did in the 50's only on a much larger scale.

"To find out if the Slashdot crowd honestly cares about the enviroment, or are simply hypocritcal AlGore elitists, just watch how this thread gets moderated."

Well atm you have +4 interesting and the number of posts on any environmental issue shows a lot of slashdotteres "care" about the issue one way or another. Personally I think I have "cared" about the environment since my parents raised me that way nearly five decades ago. I have no idea if I am an "Al Gore elitist" but I can tell you how the climate, bird and animal species have changed in my small corner of Australia over the last 40yrs.

Gore's documentry is just that, a documentry, it's a "slide show" for laymen that spells out what the IPCC reports say, Al Gore is simply demonstrating his personal and political support for the findings in the reports (ie: they are not "his ideas"). Gore was initially skeptical of AGW but was persuaded by (amoung others) Hansen to change his mind. Regardless of what else Gore has done I would have thought an influential politician with the ability to be skeptical of his own ideas and interested enough to take the time and effort needed to understand the science behind a complex subject would be regarded as a GoodThing(TM), particularly on a "nerd" site.

None of this means that governments of the developing world can shirk their responsibilty or that Al Gore doesn't (ironically) create a shitload of CO2 with his "personal presentations" of the movie to the likes of Bush, Murdoch, Howard, Blair, Putin, et-al. Economic infrastrature has outgrown single nations (eg: oil/gas pipelines, telecomms, food production, ect), what is missing is a coherent science based plan "to preserve the commons" on a scale bigger than any single nation. However as soon as one mentions "global plan" it's "OMG Stalin" rather than "hmmm, the plan to remove lead from car emmisions seems to be working".

Re:Mental Pollution is Borderless

[superpulpsicle]

I know this will sound overly American. And I also expect some modd downs. But is not how much of a mess you make....... but how well you cleanup. I think we do make a ****** mess, but we are far more capable of cleaning up after ourselves than anyone else. Whether we clean it up on someone else's soil is a different political matter.

Re:Mental Pollution is Borderless

[khallow]

People are still repeating this canard? The scam is that people are counting carbon dioxide as a pollutant even though it's far less harmful for the environment than the junk that these other countries dump into the environment. Once you ignore (or weigh carbon dioxide appropriately by the actual harm it causes, which incidentally has much the same effect as ignoring it), the US no longer comes up in the top five pollutors per capita. And I doubt that the US pollutes as much as China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, or Russia. So no top five place in overall pollution either.

Re:Mental Pollution is Borderless

[khallow]

Heh, and water too. Just read the original post. A lot of developed world pollution is water with a trace of undesireable chemicals in it.

Re:Mental Pollution is Borderless

[shilly]

I can't decide if you're being disingenuous or are just dumb.

1) C02 is a pollutant that causes an entirely different type of problem from heavy metals etc. The problem is different and has a longer timespan from cause to effect and is, of course, much more serious than other types of pollution. Go have the argument about whether climate change exists somewhere else.
2) Large chunks of developing world pollution and other environmental degradation, not to mention child and adult serfdom and slavery, exists because local companies are providing or finishing goods for US consumers at the lowest possible price. That's true in China (eg toys, computers, clothes), India (eg diamonds), Indonesia (eg palm oil), and Nigeria (eg oil).

Re:Mental Pollution is Borderless

[rtb61]

I think you completely underestimate the cost of clean up. That is the real problem, corporations walk away with enormous profits after actively corrupting elected officials so that they can pollute to the greedy little hearts content and poison whole families, profits at the cost of other peoples health and lives.

Clean up cost can be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, removing polluted soil and ground water is far, far more difficult and expensive than stated, you have to find a safe place to dump the contaminated material, and you have to safely transport it there and then there is the sheer volume of contaminated material. Of course not to forget, as you seem to have, there is curing the people, if possible, from the harm the pollution has caused, the huge costs involved in that.

Corporate executives that profit by these actions should be tried for the crimes they have committed, murder, manslaughter and aggravated assault. Confiscation of assets and life time imprisonment for crimes against humanity (chemical warfare), for some reason when it is done to generate profits and not to conduct war, it becomes, somehow, corruptly acceptable in the eyes of mass media, politicians and of course lobbyists but of course everything is acceptable to a lobbyist as long as there is profit in it for them.

Re:Mental Pollution is Borderless

[TapeCutter]

"...we are far more capable of cleaning up after ourselves than anyone else. Whether we clean it up on someone else's soil is a different political matter."

That's why we need strong international treaties so that "western companies" using "western technology" for "western consumption" doesn't mean abandoning our so called "values" just because the country is politically weak and/or corrupt does not mean we have the right to disreard the health, lives and livelyhoods of an "ignorant peasant" population "over there somewhere".

Capitialisim is a GoodThing(TM) but some corporates and their political hand-puppets are simply running a sophisticated and ruthless protection racket. "Informed democracy" may be the best answer but since 9/11 I haven't seen much of that anywhere, and I have no idea what the stone age tribes in west papua would view "freedom via democracy" but they are in for a rude awakening over the next 10-20yrs as their massive and largely unexplored jungle vanishes before their eyes.

"I know this will sound overly American."

The US is the largest economy in the west so to some extent is used as a scapegoat, google for "shell nigeria" and you will find similar "crimes against humanity". IMHO: Bush & congress have taken an overly cosy relationship between bussiness and politics and turned it into an incestous one, not as bad as Putin perhaps but still people in glass houses and all that...

Re:Mental Pollution is Borderless

[khallow]

I am neither disingenuous or dumb, just making a point that you need perspective to discuss pollution. As to your two points:

1. Many things will persist in the environment longer than CO2 (which last I saw has an effective half life on the order of a few decades): heavy metals, some radioactive isotopes, CFCs, some chemicals like DDT or PCBs. And of course, we ignore that huge amounts of CO2 have to be generated in order to cause the modest amount of change that has occured.

2. Doesn't matter. The pollution source is in these countries not in the developed world. Also, from the point of view of enforcement, it makes more sense to regulate the source rather than try to determine (espectially in the presence of deception all the way up to the government level) the pollution load generated by a product or service. Finally, this point is irrelevant to our discussion because pollution isn't sorted by final destination.

As I see it, my point still stands. Sorting polluters by mass is a highly deceptive practice. It involves making equivalent low harm pollutants like CO2 or low contaminant water in the Developed World with the more significant pollution sources elsewhere (raw sewage, high concentrations of heavy metals, etc).

Re:Mental Pollution is Borderless

[Larry_The_Canary]

Even though the polution is occurring in different parts of the world doesn't mean we can wash our hands of it. Although none of the locations listed in TFA are in our backyard the #1 and #5 spots in the list are caused by a US based company (Doe Run). So although the polution is occuring elsewhere it has its roots in the developed world. Also as the GP states, much of this polution is a result of modern world consumption and demand for the lowest price no matter what. So blaming the countries where the polution is occuring is a 'highly deceptive practice'.

Ah, the w-*cough*onders of Free Tr-*cough*ade

[sethstorm]

Now why do we keep on wanting to sell ourselves out to these places again? Oh, wait- it's to escape regulation.

handy email addresses

[Anonymous Coward]

contact@doerun.com, eley@doerun.com, vbelaunde@doerun.com.pe, aalcantara@doerun.com.pe, lmagdits@doerun.com, jcarter@doerun.com, dbailey@doerun.com, amiller@doerun.com, doerunperu@doerun.com.pe, moisesp@doerun.com.pe, acalixto@doerun.com, rroscoe@doerun.com, lohampton@doerun.com, tsanders@doerun.com, lmarucheau@doerun.com, dpatterson@doerun.com, wwold@doerun.com, tyankse@doerun.com, dtaylor@doerun.com, myoung@doerun.com, mineralseducation@doerun.com, ggonzales@doerun.com.pe, choyos@doerun.com.pe, jmarcas@doerun.com.pe, avila@doerun.com.pe, eley@doerun.com.pe, barrh@doerun.com, barrh@doerun.com.pe

Re:handy email addresses

[Ryyuajnin]

Interesting. Thank you! =)

Re:handy email addresses

[jackharrer]

Now they will have their inboxes full of SPAM. Internet pollution anybody?

Comparisons?

[eagle52997]

Putting out a site like this is all well and good - but it only focuses on the developing world. How does it compare with other polluted sites in the US and Europe for instance? Hanford? Savannah River? Eastern Germany?

And how when Russia was a superpower does it suddenly become downgraded to developing world?

Re:Comparisons?

[seriesrover]

I read that it was the most polluted sites in the world, not the developing world. But yes it was an article from a that focuses on "solutions for developing countries". I do agree I'd like to see some numbers that compare it against other nations.

Oil Sands

[flyingfsck]

Bah, the worst pollution is the oil sands in Northern Alberta - billions of tons of polluted sand - now being meticulously washed clean by the big oil companies. The oily gunk so removed is then distributed for disposal in millions of privately owned mobile incinerators, leaving behind nice clean sand for future (post global warming) children to play in and build sand castles on the pristine arctic beaches...

Refrigerator for $200?

[SamP2]

WHERE?!?!?

Russian village huge human nuclear experiment

[AHuxley]

Yes it does get much worse.
Not just toxic sites, but you must stay so the gov can study you!
From birth to death, generation after generation.

Small clip about the people around Mayak, a 1950's nuclear fuel reprocessing plant on the River Techa, Russia.
It "leaked". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR1wo5s3Ua4

Re:Russian village huge human nuclear experiment

[dgun]

In Soviet Russia, the Borat Yakovs you.

What?

Quoting "The Nation"?! LOL!!

[mi]

"The Nation" are further to the left than the wall... Quoting them is not "data".

Argentina's problems came entirely from major mismanagement and rejection of the free market principles. The privatized their state-owned enterprises, which was the right thing to do. But then the state spent the proceeds from privatization on propping up the local currency... Voters loved the short-term gains (something stock-holders are frequently accused of preferring, BTw), and when the money ran out, the government began borrowing.

"Multi-nationals" aren't to blame.

The value of litigation.

[mosb1000]

Many of the "companies" you are citing are or were principally owned by government organizations, and are/were immune from litigation. In the cases where they weren't, they were situated in countries where the law does not provide any kind of protection or possible recourse for the poor.

For all you people who complain about litigation, this is why we have it. If your actions adversely affect others, they can seek financial compensation and punitive damages. This has the effect of correcting negative eternalitys if and when they are discovered, and giving people good reason to be careful in determining all the effects of their actions.

Re:The value of litigation.

[kongit]

You also have to consider that for every death and lawsuit if the company makes X dollars from the product sold and has to pay Y for the lawsuit. if the product's manufacturing cost (parts, labor, etc) is less the X-Y then they have made a profit. So if a company makes 10 million dollars from a product for every lawsuit, the average lawsuit is 5 million dollars, but the cost to manufacture enough of the product to make 10 million dollars is only 2 million then the company walks away with 3 million dollars. The risk assessment of this situation is surely looked into for products or manufacturing techniques that can cause litigious deaths.

Re:The value of litigation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of the "companies" you are citing are or were principally owned by government organizations, and are/were immune from litigation. In the cases where they weren't, they were situated in countries where the law does not provide any kind of protection or possible recourse for the poor. If anything, your claim simply strengthens the parent. If these companies/organizations are immune to lawsuits entirely then the cost of such lawsuits will be $0, which is substantially less than $200.

Re:The value of litigation.

[Anonymous Coward]

man, fight club was a great movie!

Re:The value of litigation.

[Ravenscall]

Fight Club? Try the Ford Pinto Memo.

Re:The value of litigation.

[khallow]

But if the cost of making the item is 9 million, then they walk away with a -4 million profit. A 400% markup on a good or service (before lawsuits) is vastly unrealistic.

Not Included?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does Bhopal, India not make the list? The Union Carbide/Dow Chemical disaster still hasn't been cleaned up. There's estimated to be thousands of tons of toxic waste sitting in the middle of the city. We're a sick, sad world that things like this happen.

Dioxin, sure, but DDT? No.

[Kadin2048]

I agree with the rest of your post, but you shouldn't just blithely toss in "DDT" with your list of toxins. There's nothing particularly wrong with DDT, used correctly, particularly in malaria-prone areas. In fact it was/is one of our best weapons against malaria-carrying mosquitoes. That the developed world has choked off supplies of DDT to the developing world, without providing much in the way of a replacement (ironically, many of the replacements for DDT are much more toxic than DDT is) is a travesty.

DDT was a casualty of Western gluttony and reactionism. We took something that worked well and sprayed it absolutely everywhere, far in excess of any defensible use, until it created a problem. Then, when we realized it was a problem, we went totally arse over teakettle: banned the stuff completely and pressured other countries to do the same, rather than realizing that it was the irresponsible use that was really to blame, and that there were parts of the world where any rational cost/benefit analysis still called for it.

Re:Dioxin, sure, but DDT? No.

[timmarhy]

exactly right. people are dying a painful death right now, because a bunch of middle class guilt trippers are concerned birds might be born with thinner egg shells.

Re:Dioxin, sure, but DDT? No.

[kcelery]

I think pesticide that does not decompose as DDT is not a good idea. In around the 60s, there was once a virgin forest in northern China, the trees were infected with some bugs. Some guys brought in 6-6-6 to spray the area by plane. The bug issue was then under control. 30 years later, farmers deforest some of the area and grow crops because it is supposed to be a pristine virgin land. Crops sent to Japan were rejected because of pesticide overdose. Those farmers sworn that they have never used pesticide on those farm land. Then some one skeptic went to investigate and found the pesticide were remained by the spray 30 years ago.

I know people have to use chemicals to control insects. The ones that does not disintegrate is not a good idea.

Re:Dioxin, sure, but DDT? No.

[Goaway]

Then, when we realized it was a problem, we went totally arse over teakettle: banned the stuff completely and pressured other countries to do the same, rather than realizing that it was the irresponsible use that was really to blame, and that there were parts of the world where any rational cost/benefit analysis still called for it. No, not quite. You're falling for FUD spread by chemical companies.

Re:Dioxin, sure, but DDT? No.

[Goaway]

No. You are falling for anti-environmentalist FUD spread by chemical companies.

http://timlambert.org/2005/10/crime-of-the-century/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/05/this_week_in_the_unending_war.php

And so on.

Re:Dioxin, sure, but DDT? No.

[DavidTC]

That the developed world has choked off supplies of DDT to the developing world, without providing much in the way of a replacement (ironically, many of the replacements for DDT are much more toxic than DDT is) is a travesty.

What the fuck are you talking about? DDT is being used right now to fight malaria, and most of the current problem is that mosquitoes that have been heavily sprayed (Aka, the ones carrying malaria) have developed a resistance to DDT, dumbass. And it happened exactly why everyone thought it would, and why DDT was banned in the first place: It hangs around in the environment. Not just messing with other animals, but resulting in immune insects.

Yes, the US doesn't manufacture it at all, but plenty of other places do. And it's hard to see how a larger supply of DDT would help anything, or would have helped anything at any point.

And there are plenty of replacements for DDT, some of which work much better at the moment, and many of which are less toxic. The problem is trying to build one with a built-in expiration date so that it doesn't cause the same problems and immunity as DDT.

But no pesticide will ever be the solution to malaria. The solution to malaria is to buy enough anti-malaria drugs to given them to entire areas at risk at once for long enough to kill the malaria, area by area, until the entire world has been covered. It sounds expensive, but wouldn't cost that much in the long run.

Re:Dioxin, sure, but DDT? No.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a tree hugger, and God will judge you when your time is up.

Re:Dioxin, sure, but DDT? No.

[Markspark]

yeah.. despite the fact that not even concentrated sulfuric acid breaks down the very stable DDT molecule.. (and thereby accumulates through the biomass) and before you think i dont know what i'm talking about let me tell you about myself.. i'm in my fifth year of Chemical Engineering, and yeah, we have mandatory sustainability courses, where the DDT/PCB ofcourse was discussed.

I believe almost everything is pollution

[djfuq]

Has anyone ever looked around at the items we acquire to consume, or to entertain ourselves, or to provide modern comfort, or to travel, or generally walked outside and wondered where all of this crap came from? It's not exactly natural and it did take some polluting to create most everything man has made. Humans are pollution, yes I am polluter.

One question

[Digital Vomit]

'For about $200, the cost of a refrigerator, we are able to save someone's life,' says Richard Fuller, founder of Blacksmith."

Just how big of a fridge are we talking about?...

Are you a moron?

[Anonymous Coward]

First off 3 questions:
1) How much would those workers get paid if Nike didn't hire them?
2) How much would the shoes cost if Nike paid the workers US wages?
and
3) If Nikes' workers get paid so little, why do the shoes cost so much?

Until you can answer me those question, STFU!!!

Moron, until you have a world government (and the UN lets you what type of world government that would be, thugtocracy) you can't have a global minimum wage.

If you increase a US companies costs without increasing the foreign company's costs, you put the US company at an unfair disadvantage. The US company then sells less, hires less, resulting in more US unemployment.

Plus if your idiotic "I know nothing about economics" law was passed, the first thing every company would do is move out of the US. No more corporate US taxes (which are among the highest in the developed world). And somehow, I get the feeling you love taxes. You are probably a big fan of taxing companies. Bad bad companies, creating jobs for people, spending money on research and development, cure diseases, bad bad companies.

Re:Are you a moron?

[Echnin]

I think I can answer number 3: because Nike makes a shitload of money on them?

I'm currently studying in Beijing, and you can get a pair of fake Nikes (I can't notice a change in quality; often the "fakes" are made at the same factories as the "real" ones, even) for 40-50 yuan (about $6). And it's not just transport fees that make them expensive in other countries either, because they're already being transported over half the country to Beijing from places like Guangzhou.

No. 2 is difficult to answer, as the workers' wages probably consist of 1-2% of the final price of a $150 shoe, so labor, which is now practically free, would be like an entirely new cost. I also think the $0.50 mentioned earlier is a bit optimistic; in the south where the factories are I think a more likely wage is about 2 yuan an hour, which would be about a quarter. In Beijing I think 5 yuan (66 cents) is about what people make an hour. How do they live on this, you ask? Prices aren't *that* cheap here. Well, they live like shit. They eat shit. Food isn't for enjoyment - it's something consumed in order to stay alive. They share a public toilet with 3000 other people. They sleep 6 hours a night and work 18 hours to be able to live. What if they don't put up with it? Well, they steal. Or they die. Or they steal and get executed. Not easy being born in China.

Summary

[mrjb]

More toxic pollution in poor/developing countries. Right there where it is an issue to spending the money to prevent it.

Seems a bit like a feel-good list to me though, given the (surprisingly low) impact. A few hundred thousand people? That's not a lot compared to the impact of pollution by greenhouse-gases, mostly by industrial nations.
</treehugginghippy>

So why dont we do it then? We can by..

[JackMeyhoff]

.. setting up donation sites on the internet that even people donate 1 dollar each, then we can get a crew together and get it done. Power of the people no? Im very sure we can raise MORE THAN ENOUGH.

Re:Come again?

[Plutonite]

Troll, eh. How you doing Bill? How's the wife?

Really

[Fuzzums]

"For $15,000, the radioactive contaminated soil from the Mayak plutonium facility on the shore of the Techa River in the Russian town of Muslyomova could be dug up..."

Then the pollution must be really small, because for $15,000, how much soil can you dig up, clean/store in a bunker, pay people to do it.

I wonder. 1 m3? 2?

Re:Really

[jamesh]

for $15,000, how much soil can you dig up

100 guys with shovels and wheelbarrows working for 500 hours at $2/hour = $10000. The same sort of thinking could probably 'dispose' of the dirt for the remaining $5000.

Re:Really

[Fuzzums]

For the other $5000 you probably could find a small river to wash the dirt in, I think ;)

Firefox helps

[gigantu']

After downloading the Blacksmith Institute report on the Top Ten worst polluted places, Firefox presented a "Clean Up" button in the Downloads window. Not sure if it helps the cause ...

No, it is not

[WindBourne]

It is to increase short-term profits. I have been working towards doing manufacturing in the USA and it has been suggested more than once that it should be moved to China. And EVERYBODY says to go their because it is cheaper. It is never to escape regulations. Why is it cheaper? Because China cuts corners on manufacturing and has their yuan fixed to the dollar( via basket, but still fixed). The ppl that I talked to wanted me to lower the weight of the item that I was looking to build. In particular, thin material. When I pointed out that it would not last as long and would be low quality, they pointed out that it simply means that much sooner before another sale. Regulations were never mentioned.

Re:Cry me a river over 350 Russians

[21mhz]

Since the time you're referring to, Russia is supposed to have made a swing back to a hydrocarbon-rich power with a booming economy.
I wonder how much does a Tu-95 long-range patrol cost?

Questioning the value of lives...

[xerxesVII]

(Going conservative here)
6,500,000,000
versus 350
Not even one percent.

Get to two digits and call me back.

I may sound cold. I won't even pretend to claim to be uncomfortable with it.

On a planet that is not getting any less full of this species, I simply cannot be bothered to pay attention to numbers so small.

Re:Questioning the value of lives...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool.....so you won't be needing any medical care then.

I mean, c'mon... 6,500,000,000 vs 1 , it's a no brainer, isn't it?

Can I have your stereo ?

Re:Questioning the value of lives...

[xerxesVII]

If you can find me, you come get it.

Re:Cry me a river over 350 Russians

[Eudial]

too bad, we failed to crush them completely.

You completely missed the part in the book that dealt with how it's stupid to mess with the guy with the thousands upon thousands of nukes aimed in your direction.

I smell something...

[Arimus]

Right: $15,000 doesn't buy much in the way of soil removal... and when you've removed the soil what do they plan to do with for the longer term? Dump it somewhere else? ('ere govn'r fancy buying some top soil, guaranteed to make your plants grow greener than ever before?)

So just what are these clowns on about?

Re:I smell something...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, consider this:

The annual average income in Russia is about $7,000 USD. So for about 2.1 man-years of labor (either direct labor, or money earned and paid for equipment and/or services), 350 lives could be saved.

What the Scientific American is trying to tell us is that that 350 people won't lift a finger to save their own lives. Perhaps I'm missing something, but their site is down, so I can't read the article.

Obviously, that's BS. There's something more in play here. For one, the 350 lives saved is essentially bogus. It's no doubt partially due the oft-misunderstood method of estimating the effect of radiation exposure as an increased chance of developing cancer. That's an estimate, it's added onto all the other factors in developing cancer, and it's a delayed effect, making it hard to tell how accurate the method is.

Regardless, it's got to realistically be much more expensive than $15000. Even if those responsible for the pollution aren't willing to pay to clean it up, if it's as bad as SciAm implies it is, the people harmed by it would. Or is the pollution a big secret that we on Slashdot know about, but somehow the people who live there don't?

More sources for similar info?

[Wilson_6500]

Slightly off-topic: I'm interested in reading more about these sorts of sites, including engineering disasters like the Bhopal-Union Carbide release. I remember reading a book about this disaster and others when I was younger--it included a few bridge collapses as well as a few descriptions of Superfund sites like Hanford. It was, for some reason, completely fascinating. Accidents like the criticality accidents in the Soviet Union (I forget the name of the reactors--Mayak?) are fine as well. Wikipedia appears to have a bunch of links, but I'd like to have some paper sources as well, in order to get hopefully more complete information.

Does anyone know about any books or have any web sites that talk about these sort of things, or have any sources for similar information? I'd really appreciate some help.

Americans responsible for Chernobyl?

[Nymz]

It works like the "war on terror", the US makes a mess overseas so it doesn't have to clean up at home.

Are you seriously going to tell me you didn't read the article? That Chernobyl was due to greedy Americans consuming so much energy? That any of the coal, metal, or chemical manufacturing plants were equally unsafe and intentionally destructive to the enviroment because America made them do it?

I personally look at facts and reality, and then I come to a conclusion. You appear to conclude that America is responsible for everything, and then twist any reality or new fact to fit.

Re:Americans responsible for Chernobyl?

[XdevXnull]

"You appear to conclude that America is responsible for everything"

That would be a valid line of reasoning, except that usually it's safe to assume that America *is* respinsible.

Re:Americans responsible for Chernobyl?

[Anonymous Coward]

How nice of you to remove the humour by omitting the last word. Tell me, is that the same kind of fact checking you always perform, cutting things out when it doesn't suit you?

Yep, mental pollution is borderless.

Re:Americans responsible for Chernobyl?

[khallow]

Clearly, you didn't /duck fast enough. Besides he didn't quote the rest of your post either. What's up with that? /sarcasm.

Re:Americans responsible for Chernobyl?

[TapeCutter]

"I personally look at facts and reality, and then I come to a conclusion. You appear to conclude that America is responsible for everything, and then twist any reality or new fact to fit."

Did you miss the "/ducks" tag or are you just a parinoid patriot?

I'm an Aussie and by all acounts we are just as wastefull and just as arrogant as the US, the only difference is we have less people and therefore get less column inches in any media disscussion.

The whole point of my post was to point out that the current state of affairs is a GLOBAL problem, that the US and Australian GOVERNMENTS go out of their way to shirk their responsiblity is a side issue.

Re:Americans responsible for Chernobyl?

[jon287]

Hmmmm... America made me do it.

This has potential!

A tale of woe and danger

[WheelDweller]

A friend's boyfriend was a bigtime toxic waste guy. I can't believe his life.

They had a job (I don't recall knowing where) where a group of four people were paid $4,000 AN HOUR to clean it up. The door to some kind of concrete bunker was dubious; they tunnelled instead underneath to get a good look inside with a periscope.

When they got to see it, they saw the craziest sight; the waste had turned the concrete to 'jello'. Think of it; something that can take one of the most useful and simple building compounds, a structural member of any storage facility, and reduce it to similarly-toxic psuedo-puddle. They thought the girl was going to live, missing only hair and the ability to have children, but like the men who died in an explosion, and another who got exposed, she died, too.

Can you imagine having a job where you *know* the candidates will die a horrible death, without a war or other up-front kind of activity?

The better question is, if a by-product you're making can 'melt' or otherwise destroy concrete, making it impossible to store, how can you continue to make it? ...the candidate for the only allowable "world law" I can think of...but still barely worth a world law. (As if the UN could be trusted to shine one's shoes...)

There's crazy stuff hiding under there; it's our Christian role to care for the Earth- woe to us because we don't. I'm no tree-hugger by a long shot, but in this we're failing our job. I suspect a great deal of it is Cold-War-Era efforts to produce whatever necessary to attenuate our mutual fears.

Re:A tale of woe and danger

[Anonymous Coward]

What has Christianity got to do with anything?

It's our *human* role to care for the Earth.

Re:A tale of woe and danger

[khallow]

When they got to see it, they saw the craziest sight; the waste had turned the concrete to 'jello'. Think of it; something that can take one of the most useful and simple building compounds, a structural member of any storage facility, and reduce it to similarly-toxic psuedo-puddle.

Well don't store it in concrete then. This sounds like they were storing something like hydrofluoric acid which requires special handling and storage procedures. Something like the situation you describe had to be the result of someone deliberately abandoning some extremely dangerous chemicals and isn't what usually happens to these chemicals. Keep in mind that even the worst chemicals can be neutralized and converted into a more harmless form. But someone has to make the effort.

Re:A tale of woe and danger

[gsslay]

Can you imagine having a job where you *know* the candidates will die a horrible death I'm not sure if I can imagine anything you're describing, as you appear to have left 50% of the story out. Who are these people dying? What explosion? What candidates?

it's our Christian role to care for the Earth So the rest of us don't? The scary thing about some Christians is that they think that the process of royally screwing things up will hasten the coming of "the end-times", which is a good thing. So don't go counting on a person's religion to stop them messing up the living conditions on planet Earth. You'd hope that plain old selfish self interest would be enough.

Re:A tale of woe and danger

[WheelDweller]

I had to leave out parts, partly because this was second hand information, partly because it's probably not widely known. I don't know what kind of explosion, and the candidates were four hearty individuals that thought $4,000 a hour was a bargain; it wasn't.

As to the Christian viewpoint, I was reinforcing the fact that we're called to not do things exactly like this; not because of some tree-hugging fringe group, but our original edict. Secular folks go either way, but as Christians, we're supposed to know better.

And yeah, I know, "All religions are alike" and "more wars have been cause by religion than anything else" and all the other lies, but if you want to follow this further, drop me a line at Brian@Fahrlander.net.

Of course the workers are free to choose...

[Poingggg]

...between starving to death or working too many hours under bad circumstances for a too-little-to-live-from-but-just-too-much-to-die salary. Free choice all over!

Re:Of course the workers are free to choose...

[apt142]

Wait, are we talking about China, or America's minimum wage?

Re:Of course the workers are free to choose...

[Poingggg]

China in the first place, but if what I think to know about your U.S. minimum wages is true (I'm a European), it might as well be both, sadly enough. But America still has some kind of a welfare/social security system, and China has, as far as I know not.

Biggest problem is that the Big Corporations are playing workers worldwide out against each other: "You don't want to work harder for less money? What a pity, I know somewhere where lots of people will be glad to do it for even less..."

Re:Of course the workers are free to choose...

[Breakfast Pants]

So you are saying Nike saved them from starving to death. Exactly my point.

Re:Of course the workers are free to choose...

[Poingggg]

Almost in the same way as giving a blowjob to a guy holding a gun pointed at your head saves you from being shot, yes.

And here is where all the money for it is....

[3seas]

What the Wolrd Wants

Now what sort of argument would terrorist come up with, so to promote a following and motivate some to self destruct in performing acts of terrorism, that would be effective against genuine efforts to improve the livings conditions the six billion + people of the world, including them?

Know anyone who wants to stop a good them for themselves?

Re:And here is where all the money for it is....

[khallow]

Hmmm, if the world "wants" it, then world should just buy it. It's not that much money even for a hard-hit third world dive. I don't see the money for eliminating corruption from government and give all people everywhere the same basic property and legal rights. I guess you can't spend enough to do that.

Selective reporting...again

[prisoner-of-enigma]

I decided to go through the list to compare the number of "potentially affected people." Here's the list (in descending order):

        * Chernobyl, Ukraine - 5,500,000 (initial)
        * Linfen, China - 3,000,000
        * Sukinda, India - 2,600,000
        * Dzerzhinsk, Russia - 300,000
        * Sumgayit, Azerbaijan - 275,000
        * Kabwe, Zambia - 255,000
        * Tianying, China - 140,000
        * Norilsk, Russia - 134,000
        * Vapi, India - 71,000
        * La Oroya, Peru - 35,000

So, for the one example cited in the /. header, the poster chooses to pick the one site affecting the least people, then goes out of its way to point out it's run by an American corporation. Why not choose to castigate the Chinese government for its massive neglect of the environment? Or the Indian conglomerates? No, we have to pick the American one because it it fits the evil-rich-Americans-causing-everyone-else-harm motif. So, I guess it's PC to leave the Chinese and Indians alone -- even though they're causing orders of magnitude more harm -- just so long as we find an American organization to smear in the teaser.

Re:Selective reporting...again

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, I've noticed a trend with Zonk submissions. There's always some little tidbit of troll thrown into the mix to grab your attention. It's really not becoming of a news site. Or wait, I guess it depends on what type of news site slashdot wishes to be.

Re:Old Ike

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to page down 12x to get past this pablum of puke. Normally, the "Read the rest of this comment" appears sooner (maybe 3x page downs at most).

It's not my job as moderator (browsing at -1) to tire out my fingers on the page down key. I would like to, umm, you know, read some real slashdot content. Please fix the message length threshold. Fix it stat!

Cost estimates are a little off

[kseise]

For $15,000, the radioactive contaminated soil from the Mayak plutonium facility on the shore of the Techa River in the Russian town of Muslyomova could be dug up

Then what? I work for one of the largest environmental engineering firms in the world (plug http://www.earthtech.com/, and I work on these sites on an almost daily basis. (I am an environmental scientist, but a hobbyist geek). Sure, $15,000 might cover the workers and machines to pull the dirt out of the ground, but where can you safely dispose of the soil? How can you transport it safely through populated areas. What else is involved? Worker protection, community protection, disposal site selection, soil erosion and runoff control, stream encroachmetn and wetlands permits, demolition to get to the soil, additional sampling to fully delineate the extent of contamination, finding the responsible party to actually pay for it etc... It is NOT as simple as just digging up dirt. You are probably off by one or two zeros. There are simple ways of eliminating the threat. Put a secured fence around it, cap it with concrete, etc. They are temporary fixes, but they would significantly reduce exposure. But again, what is the price of a concrete cap 2 feet thick across the site? It is not cheap.

Re:Cost estimates are a little off

[qdaku]

Oh how I wish I had mod points.

I'm mostly a geotechnical engineer but I dabble in the odd subsurface contamination project (mainly on the design side, not the remediation sign). It's a shame your post is only modded 1.

$15k to dig up soil? Ha. Not a chance.

Re:Cost estimates are a little off

[El_Oscuro]

I wish I had mod points too. Several years ago my ground floor condo was flooded by a backup of the main sewer line. Total destruction of the interior of the unit. The cleanup involved people in HAZMAT suits and negative air pressure machines to avoid contamination of the surrounding area, and cost $22,000. Somehow, I don't think sewage cleanup in a 2 bedroom condo is more expensive than plutonium removal. Maybe they forgot about 3 or 4 decimal points in the cost estimate.

They still got Chernobyl wrong

[BlueParrot]

Have a look at the page for Chernobyl. The same old... Pictures of children with diseases that are not related to radiation. A huge focus on Uranium and Plutonium, despite these metals being far less of a concern than the fission products and minor actinides. They mention deaths from Thyroid cancer, which is caused by Iodine-131 (half-life of 8 days). Somehow I suspect that not much of this will be left more than 30 years latter... Then there is this lovely quote:

Skin lesions, respiratory ailments, infertility and birth defects were the norm for years following the accident.

Really? I don't think the word "norm" means what they think it means...

I'm not trying to say the Chernobyl accident wasn't a very bad accident or that the area isn't heavily polluted. It just gets a bit tiresome to see the same mistakes over and over again. For a list which focuses on the polluted status of various regions you would have expected to see he studies that have been done on how birds have been hard hit by the contamination, instead you get pictures of mentally handicapped children being abandoned, which is of course more a consequence of the failure to provide care for them than it is a result of the accident.

There are problems in the Chernobyl area, but this article fails quite badly at describing them.

Re:They still got Chernobyl wrong

[pimpimpim]

That website is actually made in the same type as GP opposes to. No raw data, but instead showing lots of Down Syndrom kids. Whereas the WHO report shows that of all things, the occurence of Down syndrom in kids hasn't changed significantly after Chernobyl. Also, it is very hard to get reliable statistics, where statistics is needed the most. Environmental lobby groups are likely to play the effects up, pro-nuclear power groups are likely to play them down, local governments would either like to show that they are not some poor place to have empathy with, or show that they need more funding to help with their healthcare. Anything can happen inbetween actual statistics and the statistics that are published in reports.

Re:They still got Chernobyl wrong

[ivan256]

Makes you wonder about the other 9....

Doublecheck your math

[AlexPetros111]

That's $100000. Nevermind what they're even going to do with all that dirt...

Re:Doublecheck your math

[jamesh]

Leave me alone. I'm a programmer not an accountant :p

DDT over the top

[dachshund]

Then, when we realized it was a problem, we went totally arse over teakettle: banned the stuff completely and pressured other countries to do the same, rather than realizing that it was the irresponsible use that was really to blame, and that there were parts of the world where any rational cost/benefit analysis still called for it.

DDT is not banned in most of the developing world; it can be obtained, and rather cheaply. Nobody has cut off supplies. What has actually happened is that--- due to massive overuse for agricultural spraying--- many species of Malaria-carrying mosquito have developed immunity. Simultaneously, other more effective pesticides have dropped in price to the point where DDT is just one of many tools in the arsenal (and an ineffective one in most cases). To counter the notion that DDT has been banned everywhere, it's informative to note that a number of countries still use some quantity of DDT in their anti-malaria programs, but these efforts have only limited success and only in certain regions where DDT immunity has not been fully established.

The argument "for" DDT is mostly political, and carried along by people who aren't familiar with the facts. Some people are tempted by the notion that DDT is some kind of panacea for Malaria, but that evil environmentalist hippies are using their awesome power to prevent it. Of course, there's usually very little evidence supporting the latter notion, but it's tempting to believe because it sounds like a "free lunch" solution to a hard problem (one that happens to reinforce some folks' pre-conceived political notions). Unfortunately, the idea founders on, well, just about every basic fact of the story--- including the very important one that many of the nations that would ostensibly be "saved" by DDT use have chosen not to use it because it doesn't work anymore.

http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/05/who_put_out_the_contract_on_ra.php#more

Re:DDT over the top

[torkus]

Yeah, but show me a single chemical that's as effective and long lasting at killing the friggin termites that have been munching on my house in years past!

I wish i could still get my hands on some DDT - one treatment would keep my house safe for 10-20 years easily. Much better than the 2-5 year chemicals they use now with those retarded 'bait' traps.

WTB DDT

Re:DDT over the top

[wish bot]

Effective house design and proper use of materials in termite areas can prevent termite attack. Chemicals are not required.

Re:DDT over the top

[torkus]

Ah so?

That advice is useless for anything other than new construction. Not only that, but it's incredibly difficult to design a NORMAL house with NORMAL building materials to be termite-proof. You realize they can get through something basically the size of a pinhole? They can and will eat sheetrock. They fit through small cracks in a cement foundation. They will build tunnels up the walls of a raised foundation to reach wood. You need a perfectly sealed house with no exterior wood. I suppose i could build a medevil castle. Oh, and they fly.

Re:DDT over the top

[cduffy]

I wish i could still get my hands on some DDT - one treatment would keep my house safe for 10-20 years easily. Much better than the 2-5 year chemicals they use now with those retarded 'bait' traps.

I just had my house treated inside the last few months, and the fellow doing the inspection (who had obviously been in the business for quite some time) was saying that almost every chemical they use for pest control has been weakened over the last few decades, with the exception of Termidor -- which is, thus far, having its tested effective lifespan (already over 10 years) increased year-by-year as the early test samples continue to prove effective.

Re:Cry me a river over 350 Russians

[Anonymous Coward]

...whereas the American poor's plight is the sole responsibility of the individual and, maybe, their parents.

That is very interesting, how is it possible that everyone can be rich? Who will do the work? Really, please enlighten us, I would be elated to see a capitalist system that did not require the bulk of the population to be poor to function.

Also, is the system you propose sustainable? What will you call it? Utopianism?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Wait, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

What girl? What men? What explosion?

Re:Cry me a river over 350 Russians

[wikinerd]

is it possible that everyone can be rich? Who will do the work?

You don't need to be poor in order to work. Money and income is not the only motivation for work. Read Maslow. You can volunteer out of interest for the community even if you are rich.

Re:Cry me a river over 350 Russians

[mi]

Since the time you're referring to, Russia is supposed to have made a swing back to a hydrocarbon-rich power with a booming economy.

They have — even if the oil and gas are the only drivers of the boom. That's my point — they (Russian government) are rich, but they wouldn't spend the $15K on cleaning up a particularly messy site.

I wonder how much does a Tu-95 long-range patrol cost?

Well, it can not possibly cost less $1000, because that, roughly, is the price of airfare between their bases and wherever they are flying to. In reality, it costs much more, of course, because of all the between-flight maintenance, etc. There have already been more than 15 such flights for sure...

Poor is relative.

[HornWumpus]

The American poor would be in the wealthiest 10% in most socialist workers paradises.

In most of the world you can be ether poor or fat. In America we spend billions on health care for obese 'poor' people.

Put another way. Everybody in America is already rich by African standards. Yet the capitalism keeps chugging along.

Re:Poor is relative.

[semanticsearch]

Yes, poor is relative. This is why the United States and consumer nations export pollution. All these third world countries which are disaster zones depend on exports to the largest consumer nations. Our computers are responsible for some of the most toxic pollution.

The map would be more interesting if it linked what countries and companies were responsible for the sites.
Maybe your house would even show up.

Has anyone actually been to any of these sites

[p.gogarty]

I wondered have any other slashdot readers had the misfortune of actually going to any of these places?

I myself live and work in Azerbaijan and have driven through Sumgayit. It's a horrific industrial wasteland. We spent 30+ minutes driving at highway speed through abandoned factory complexes. Our driver even pointed out the chlorine processing plant, and inforrmed us that if you walk on the ground around the plant puddles of mercury form in the holes left by your boot prints.

Paranoid Patriot

[Nymz]

Did you miss the "/ducks" tag or are you just a parinoid patriot?

The post was long and convoluted, and no one would benefit from a point-by-point breakdown of it. So I choose the greatest point, which was that you clearly hadn't read the article, and suggested that one should base their conclusions upon facts and reality, and not the other way around.

I see that you still haven't read the artcle, but are content to continue proclaiming your innate knowledge of Americas magical guilt, so tell me again, who's paranoid.

Re:Paranoid Patriot

[TapeCutter]

woosh!

Top Ten Only. Sorry Mr Eleven

[Prysorra]

Perhaps this should tell you more about the state of the world than the veracity of a report.

Save a life for $200

[RationalRoot]

How much does it cost to save a child from malnutrition in some of the poorer countries in Africa ?

I imagine $200 would go a long way.

Seems to me - in the greater scale of things, the life of a person in a far away country ain't worth $200 to the world at large.

Now if you have a Cause....

Then the world will spend money.

Living *IN* the smelter???

[Anonymous Coward]

"...ninety-nine percent of the children living in and around the poly-metallic smelter..."

Well there's your problem right there. Don't live in the smelter. Likewise, living in an oven will cause you issue with burns, etc.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

$200/life eh?

[jonadab]

> For about $200, the cost of a refrigerator, we are able to save someone's life

For that matter, people in rural sub-saharan Africa every day die for want of less than $200 worth of medical care, prevention, or treatment (or in some cases even food). Various groups (humanitarian aid groups, religious groups, NGOs, ...) have been working on this problem for decades, but they can't really scratch the surface of the problem, due to its scope.

It sounds nice to say, "for only $200 we can save a person's life", but it really isn't that straightforward.

Carbon dioxide vs everything else.

[iamlucky13]

I am not nitpicking when I point out that those are 7 out of 10 most polluted cities/areas, not the biggest polluters. Not the same thing.

But neither amd I nitpicking when I point out that there is a big difference between emission of CO2 and the release of stuff more commonly listed as pollutants such as lead, mercury, arsenic, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides, ozone, carbon monoxide and particulates. Not the same thing.

The US, Canada, and Europe have spent much of the last 100 years learning how to clean up those messes when we've made them and how to avoid making them in the first place. China and many other nations have been on a path of relearning all our old lessons on their own.

CO2 is not typically listed as a pollutant because it's very hard to create conditions where it will produce measurable harm. Physiologically, we're not even remotely close to dangerous atmospheric levels. It also doesn't form localized contaminations because it's a gas, and it doesn't bio-accumulate.

Before anybody responds with a global warming comment, note that the cause-and-effect is much different between dying in a hypothetical global warming-induced hurricane or from heat stroke because it's 2/3 of a degree warmer than it was 100 years ago, and dying of carbon dioxide poisoning.