Slashdot Mirror


Growing Public Unrest Leads China To Admit To 'Cancer Villages'

eldavojohn writes "A new report from China's environment ministry has resulted in long-overdue self-realizations as well as possible explanations for 'cancer villages.' The term refers to villages (anywhere from 247 to 400 known of them) that have increased cancer rates due to pollution from nearby factories and industry. The report revealed that many harmful chemicals that are prohibited and banned in developed nations are still found in China's water and air. Prior research has shown a direct correlation between industrialization/mining and levels of poisonous heavy metals in water. As a result, an air pollution app has grown in popularity and you can see the pollution from space. China has also released a twelve-year plan for environmental protection."

174 comments

  1. Typo Last Sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    China has also released a twelve-year plan for environmental protection.

    Should read:

    China has also released their twelfth five-year plan for environmental protection.

    My apologies!

    1. Re:Typo Last Sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't matter, we who lived behind the Iron Curtain know exactly how much useful X-year plans are, for any value of X.

    2. Re:Typo Last Sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't matter, we who lived behind the Iron Curtain know exactly how much useful X-year plans are, for any value of X.

      The fact that you still chose to live behind the iron curtain speaks of your apparent realization that it ain't any better here in the west.

  2. Cancer cities, next? by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    after my wife returned from China, and told me about the red air, it seems like a possibility now.

    1. Re:Cancer cities, next? by Synerg1y · · Score: 2

      In other news, according to the Chinese government, the red air is just propaganda highlighting China's communistic heritage.

    2. Re:Cancer cities, next? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Was she speaking metaphorically?

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    3. Re:Cancer cities, next? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Come out to the Inland Empire and you'll see that, no, she was not speaking metaphorically.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:Cancer cities, next? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      after my wife returned from China, and told me about the red air, it seems like a possibility now.

      In another forum someone posted some photos of air and water pollution. It's no surprise (or shouldn't be to anyone) about the water pollution in the lake behind the Three Gorges Dam, which means effectively the who river downstream suffers the same ills. Skyrocketing rates of esophageal cancer in China have made me eliminate any further purchase of food which has been grown or processed in China. As goes the air and water, so goes the crop.

      The price of their economic growth has been explored by a few BBC specials, even if your factory has permits there's a good possibility they were obtained with the help of a bribe. Time to look inward to clean up their mess.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:Cancer cities, next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, Red is a good luck color! Breath in the good luck! You can even taste it!

    6. Re:Cancer cities, next? by bbelt16ag · · Score: 1

      how do you eliminate food from china?

      --
      NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
    7. Re:Cancer cities, next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      how do you eliminate food from china?

      See Tainted Chinese Honey May Be on U.S. Store Shelves

      From the article:

      Chinese honey might contain lead or chloramphenicol. It might contain fillers with the honey, or it might contain just sweeteners with no honey at all.

      Some Chinese honey goes to Los Angeles through an Indian exporter called Little Bee Honey. So if you want to eliminate food from China, apparently one step is to not eat Little Bee Honey.

  3. Industrial revolution standard procedure by Gabrill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've maintained for years that China, Mexico, and similar countries going though industrial booms are simply in early stages of industrial revolution. Next we shall see environmental, wage, and health reforms, as these countries realize the need for sustainable management of their labor base.

    --
    Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    1. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by DFurno2003 · · Score: 4, Funny

      When can we begin shipping our politicians their way?

    2. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Issue is that just because start of the road is the same for them, assuming that they will end up at the same goal is quite strange. East Asian countries have a very different culture, with very different approach to even most basic of things. Expecting them to end up at the same goal is rather ignorant to say the least.

    3. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      Didn't you read Gabrill's post? They are trying to cut DOWN on pollutants.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Synerg1y · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ya, but it seems, the states & Europe got the best of the globe's tolerance for pollution, I don't think we can expect the same weather if every single country in the world goes through an "industrial revolution" adding to the accumulating pollution.

    5. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Then they'll just have to find some third world country to offload their pollution to. Maybe the government of North Korea could be convinced to let them open factories there in exchange for whatever riches the Chinese can dump on the Kim family.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    6. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I spent a few weeks in China with an anthropologist friend. We'd go to National Parks and preserves and such, only to find that someone had built a roller coaster or slide or some other tourist attraction in them. My friend explained that the Chinese culture doesn't have a particular appreciation for nature in its raw state; that rather than seeing "pristineness" as a virtue in itself, the Chinese kind of see it as a null state, such that a pristine area can always be improved by adding something to it.

      Then again, other than freaks like Thoreau, most Americans weren't out hugging trees at the beginning of our Industrial Revolution either. We were busy chopping them down to build places to live out of them. (And anybody who knows the history of Niagara Falls can understand the idea of "cancer villages" quite easily...)

    7. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      as these countries realize the need for sustainable management of their labor base.

      Seems to me that it was realized a long time ago. Then people realized that they could setup the system to reward shortsightedness, and could cash out before the consequences of their actions happened. Witness most of the financial industry. China seems to have already skipped over the step of making happy, productive workers and went right to the "bleed it dry immediately" model.

    8. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Japan went through the pollution problem, as well. And they solved it in a typical Japanese way, as seen in "Godzilla vs. The Smog Monster": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godzilla_vs._Hedorah

      Well, maybe a schlocky Chinese movie might at least increase awareness of the problem . . . like, "The Drunken Shaolin Master vs. Cancer" . . . ?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    9. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then again, other than freaks like Thoreau, most Americans weren't out hugging trees at the beginning of our Industrial Revolution either.

      Bingo. This idea that "asian culture" is so different from "western culture" is just intellectually lazy. Sure there are differences, but fundamentally people are people, they all want the same stuff - food, air, water, sex, sleep, security, health, family, respect, creativity, etc.

      The sort of reforms we saw that came in on the western industrial revolution aren't culturally specific, they are human-specific. The implementations will surely vary along with the timelines, but the end result will be the same because if it does not get to a similar point of satisifying universal human needs, it will collapse because the humans won't tolerate it indefinitely.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    10. Re: Industrial revolution standard procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Chinese kind of see it as a null state, such that a pristine area can always be improved by adding something to it.

      Well, they got their wish. They've added pollution and cancer to that null, pristine state.

    11. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've maintained for years that China, Mexico, and similar countries going though industrial booms are simply in early stages of industrial revolution. Next we shall see environmental, wage, and health reforms, as these countries realize the need for sustainable management of their labor base.

      Actually, they are in the LATE stages of the industrial revolution (as any casual use of Google Earth would reveal). They are entering that state where increased disposable income and increased levels of education cause individual citizens making purchasing choices that drive the economy in a direction of more open-ness, more freedom, and more environmental responsibility. These people enter government and start working toward taking care of the environment.

      Progress is slow, but this is exactly the predicted pattern that has been seen all over the world as prosperity and education increase, people start taking better care of their environment, investments, and themselves. Much of the west went thru this in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. You rarely hear of smog alerts in the US any more. They used to be common and long lasting in the past. You actually see clear skylines over most cities these days. Hell, even the Hudson river is recovering.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    12. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've maintained for years that China, Mexico, and similar countries going though industrial booms are simply in early stages of industrial revolution. Next we shall see environmental, wage, and health reforms, as these countries realize the need for sustainable management of their labor base.

      By that time the USA will have reverted to early Industrial revolution society and be ready to allow our corporate masters to pollute our land, air and water...again.

    13. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Jeeeb · · Score: 3, Informative

      Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong are all East Asian nations (or special administrative areas) which are to varying degrees culturally similar to China and provide good examples of this. South Korea and Taiwan are particularly dramatic examples of moving from autocratic to democratic government. Although it is not in East Asia, you could also add Singapore and Malaysia to this list. Singapore interestingly still has an autocratic government, while (less developed) Malaysia is in a kind of transitional phase towards proper democracy. They all have cleaned up their environment a lot as citizen awareness and sensitivity towards environmental problems has increased.

    14. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2

      I'm from Utah.

      I was quite shocked to see amusement park rides at State Parks in some states East of Mississippi.

      I grew up thinking that State Parks were semi-sacred natural places like National Parks. And that's in conservative, consumptive-model-of-natural-resourse-management, Utah.

    15. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      I've maintained for years that China, Mexico, and similar countries going though industrial booms are simply in early stages of industrial revolution. Next we shall see environmental, wage, and health reforms, as these countries realize the need for sustainable management of their labor base.

      Slight difference between how Europe when through its industrial revolution - most of what was in the air came from coal burning. Bad, but nothing like substances which modern manufacturing pumps out into air and water.

      The US had its adventures with air and water pollution, sometimes in the name of Victory or progress, but finally coming to grips with it in the 1960s (Pogo sez: We have met the enemy and he is us.) EPA cleanup is still going on, with billions spent to clean up after defunct factories and such.

      China was too smarth, though. Believed too strongly in its destiny. Overlooked completely the damage the government was allowing to happen in the name of progress, more interested in pinning that 10 Yuan to the Dollar. Birds are home to roost and they look ugly.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    16. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      I'm from Utah.

      I was quite shocked to see amusement park rides at State Parks in some states East of Mississippi.

      I grew up thinking that State Parks were semi-sacred natural places like National Parks. And that's in conservative, consumptive-model-of-natural-resourse-management, Utah.

      That reads like you are alluding to Dollywood, a greater blight in the midst of the Smoky Mountains one will never find.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    17. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When can we begin shipping our politicians their way?

      Didn't you read Gabrill's post? They are trying to cut DOWN on pollutants.

      DFurno2003 did not specify the politicians ARRIVE in the underdeveloped countries. half-way accross the Pacific is ON THE WAY to China.

    18. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true - Dollywood is well-kept and clean. Maybe you should visit.

      Pigeon Forge is another story.

    19. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Let me give you a couple of examples of cultural difference between China and Western Europe.

      So what? Look, I don't even know how much of what you wrote is pure stereotyping or something more accurate. But it does not matter in the context of this discussion. None of those 'examples' are relevant to the discussion, at best they show a slightly different balancing of basic human needs from one culture to another. But in no way do they even suggest that any of those needs are negated in certain cultures.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    20. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      They are relevant in the simple point that their very basic values, such as "who is more valuable, daughter or mother" are vastly different.

      How can you possibly expect the same end result based on same starting point and stark differences in even basic values assigned to very core things of our existences, our family members?

    21. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US & Europe also had to invent the technology needed to progress past the industrial revolution. It's reasonable for later nations to skip some of the heavy polluting intermediates and move directly to a modern society.

    22. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      They are relevant in the simple point that their very basic values, such as "who is more valuable, daughter or mother" are vastly different.

      So what? Really, you are claiming something is self-evident and I don't see it. I see a minor difference in the valuation of family members, but it is still the valuing of family.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    23. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The thing is that it isn't that expensive in the west. The problem is the rich insisting that they have a right to get richer at an increasing rate. If the wealth was spread out a bit better, everyone could have a not bad job and the rich would still be quite rich.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    24. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Let me give you a few more then, at which point you will perhaps stop being obtuse.

      1. Chinese value saving money for future and living frugally. US residents value borrowing money to reach higher level of life.
      This alone should clue you in to the massive difference of potential outcomes of any financial scenario, to the point of having polar opposite outcome.

      2. Chinese do not value individual life but they value groups, clans and family ties. US residents value individuality to a far greater degree.
      This causes massive difference in ability to perform large scale mass production projects (infamous "would take me 9 months to hire people to do the project in US and took me 3 days to hire the same people in China" apple moment). It also causes significantly diminished ability to work R&D in both short and long term (look at military development, which still cannot even copy old russian jet engines, much less develop functional ones on their own).

      Point is, they have their own strengths and weaknesses based on their cultural approach that are VASTLY different from ours. To assume that these aren't important for the outcome of long-term development is like saying that Asians had as much chance of becoming the colonisers as Europeans did. Yet we know very well that nature of China caused it to both have one continuous civilization for thousands of years, but that civilization was incapable of evolving as fast as Mediterranean (and eventually European) civilizations did.

    25. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Clsid · · Score: 1

      This idea that "asian culture" is so different from "western culture" is just intellectually lazy.

      Live in China for 6 months and then we'll see if it is just a theory. Sure some things are similar, but some of the differences are so vast that it's like you are in a planet that evolved on its own.

      With the Chinese, I'm pretty sure that they will find the bare minimum of acceptable environmental policies, and then dismiss the rest of the complaints.

      And take it from somebody living in Shanghai at the moment. A woman was run over by a taxi driver because nobody respects the traffic lights for people on foot. Do you think the cars stopped when they saw her motionless body on the street? They just started to drive around it. So we have extreme different perceptions of the value of human life.

    26. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      1. Chinese value saving money for future and living frugally. US residents value borrowing money to reach higher level of life.

      You seem ignorant to the fact that this over-borrowing in US culture is new in the last 35 years or so. Certainly was not the case during tthe industrial revolution. And I still don't see what that has to do with legislative fixes to problems brought on by the industrial revolution.

      2. Chinese do not value individual life but they value groups, clans and family ties. US residents value individuality to a far greater degree.

      So what does that have to do with laws like cleaning up the environment, food quality laws, and labor laws like safe working conditions?

      Let me give you a few more then, at which point you will perhaps stop being obtuse.

      No, I am afraid it is you who is being obtuse. You are so convinced of the correctness of your argument, that you can't make your argument in a convincing fashion.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    27. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      And take it from somebody living in Shanghai at the moment. A woman was run over by a taxi driver because nobody respects the traffic lights for people on foot. Do you think the cars stopped when they saw her motionless body on the street? They just started to drive around it.

      Do you understand that that sort of callusness was not uncommon in the US during the industrial revolution? Don't make the mistake of assuming that being on different places on a developmental timeline means that they are headed in a different direction.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    28. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Raenex · · Score: 1

      And take it from somebody living in Shanghai at the moment. A woman was run over by a taxi driver because nobody respects the traffic lights for people on foot. Do you think the cars stopped when they saw her motionless body on the street? They just started to drive around it. So we have extreme different perceptions of the value of human life.

      I saw the same kind of story in the US news at some point in the past year. The greater the concentration of people, the less the average person cares about another average person. Just another face/body in the crowd.

    29. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by riverat1 · · Score: 1
    30. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      1. Not "overborrowing" but "borrowing". In general. Chinese SAVE money. They do not spend it until they have some saved for a bad day, a bad month, even a bad year. And then they won't spend until they have earned enough to purchase the product without any debt involved. It's a huge problem for China because they cannot get local consumption going because of this culture to amounts anywhere close to that of the West.

      2. These laws are not seen as important even when they are enacted. Locals simply do not care for them. They'll mob the local bureaucracy when they start to suffer because of lack of enforcement, central government will appease the masses with "but we have these laws in place, it's the evil local bureaucracy that is to blame" purge like it has done for thousands of years now, and everything will continue as it was. It's the way of the land. It's something that those who first outsourced to China without taking this part of culture into consideration hit like a wall. This hasn't changed in millenia. This will not change any time soon.

      Perhaps you are correct in that I'm too convinced in my own correctness to be able to convince someone who is of diametrically opposite opinion. That said you need not be convinced by me. All you need to do is pick up any decent book (there's a good number of them) that talk about cultural issues when it comes to US-China and EU-China trade. This difference is well documented, well known and essentially all corporations now employ ethnic Chinese with deep understanding of both relevant cultures to perform trade as to avoid these pitfalls.

    31. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      By that time we'll see right-wing histerical about the Chinese ruining their economy with wussy labour and environmental regulations. Where are the poor bastards going to outsource to, to maximise their already hugely bloated profits? Mars?

    32. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      1. Not "overborrowing" but "borrowing". In general. Chinese SAVE money.

      Still not applicable to the topic at hand.

      2. These laws are not seen as important even when they are enacted. Locals simply do not care for them.

      Ah, now at least you have a relevant point. I disagree though. I'd say that sort of problem goes away as the general population becomes more educated. When everybody is a starving, illiterate peasant then there isn't much ability to take a larger view. Fortunately, most of the people affected are no longer starving and education has become exceptionally important in China over the last decade+. Even if it is more of a technical nature than most western educations it is still a huge step forward in the average citizen's ability to comprehend cause and effect and their place in the larger world. I don't expect change to happen over night (it didn't happen overnight in the west either), at a minimum the majority of the last generation still has to die off or otherwise get out of the way.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    33. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      And this is where I will stop answering because I finally understand our problem. To you, "education" doesn't means people who are educated to do tasks, such as engineers, teachers and so on. It means being indoctrinated to think the way you do.

      Because there are numerically more educated (as in high education) people in China now then in any other country in the world.

    34. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      To you, "education" doesn't means people who are educated to do tasks, such as engineers, teachers and so on. It means being indoctrinated to think the way you do.

      Really? That is such baloney. Total cop-out. Education means an increase in knowledge and skills and that universally means more than just technical school.

      Because there are numerically more educated (as in high education) people in China now then in any other country in the world.

      And yet as a proportion of the population, they are still quite small and quite new. You don't get political change until you get at least a sizable minority interested in change. Come back in 2 generations and you will be eating crow, and I don't mean chicken feet.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    35. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Not just reasonable, it needs to be mandatory, but w/o intervention, societies progress on a straight line meaning more pollution than ever as Asia & most of the southern hemisphere have a greater land mass.

    36. Re:Industrial revolution standard procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....most Americans weren't out hugging trees at the beginning of our Industrial Revolution either.

      Yep, I hug my tree almost every day.

  4. Lest we become hypocrites... by Anachragnome · · Score: 4, Interesting
    1. Re:Lest we become hypocrites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lest we become hypocrites...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory

      Okay, sure, we've had disasters happening there since... oh... the 50s? The 60s? That's what I could glean from that article.

      Despite all the time available to know this, however, China didn't bother learning from our mistakes? It's not like the Santa Susana Field Laboratory incidents just happened last week or so, nor that China's industrial factories stretch back to the 20s or so.

    2. Re:Lest we become hypocrites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm more concerned about where something like this might have happened in this century.

      I'm sure we can find something if we try hard enough, but let's not play the stupid slashdot game of, "see news about something awful somewhere, then try as hard as we can to draw parallels to the US."

    3. Re:Lest we become hypocrites... by Gabrill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem isn't mismanagement. It's lack of management. Industrial oversight is not intuitive to new industrial booms, because the short term profit will always outweigh the long term unseen consequences until they come to light.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    4. Re:Lest we become hypocrites... by poity · · Score: 1

      There can't be hypocrisy unless those commenting or criticizing the Chinese government were directly involved in the US government's cover-up back in the 50s and 60s. Unless we go down the path where we regard every Briton who comments on African genocide as hypocrites, every Ghanan who comments on slavery as hypocrites, every Ukrainian who comments on Fukushima as hypocrites.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    5. Re:Lest we become hypocrites... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Where's the hypocrisy? I'm not seeing it. Can you explain it, other than posting Wikipedia? How does a single place correlate to 400 villages? Please explain it like I'm a 5 year old.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:Lest we become hypocrites... by poity · · Score: 2

      I realize you're trying to be tolerant of a different country, but being accommodating to corruption and lack of management is not the moral kind of tolerance. China has been booming for over 30 years, and people have an expectation for a certain quality of life, yet instead of supporting them we see excuses. Imagine Slashdot Europeans reading about inferior labor protections in the US and waiving it off, or even telling other Europeans they should not say anything about the US because of their own countries' prior lackluster history in labor protection. Utterly unfathomable, but this is what we see when the topic is about China.

      Industrial oversight is not intuitive as you say, but that's only because modern industrial oversight is NOT based on intuition -- it's based on past knowledge on well-documented cases and sound practices grounded in very basic science. One does not need intuition to have proper oversight, one needs only to heed operational standards that are publicly available. This is why Chinese protesters are out there protesting: knowledge that is KNOWN is not heeded.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    7. Re:Lest we become hypocrites... by sdguero · · Score: 1

      I grew up a few miles from there in the 80s. It was awesome hearing/feeling the rocket engine tests. I don't think there has been any correlation between higher cancer rates and the communities around that facility, so I'm not sure what that has to do with the story. Progress requires some sacrifice. If we aren't wiling to sacrifice anything we will never progress. The trick is finding the right balance and personally I feel we have swayed too far into the unwilling to sacrifice territory of the last few decades.

    8. Re:Lest we become hypocrites... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't mismanagement. It's lack of management.

      No, you're wrong. In China it's not the lack of management it's corruption. Corruption so rampant that if you have enough money, anything can happen, and as long as not too many people are killed even the central planners in Beijing will look the other way as long as everyone gets their cut and someone else can take the fall, and you continue to pump money in.

      People like to decry the corruption in the west here, it's got nothing on China. It's the way you do business there, or you won't do business.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    9. Re:Lest we become hypocrites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'm not calling you wrong, but *SOURCE* please!

    10. Re:Lest we become hypocrites... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      I don't think there has been any correlation between higher cancer rates and the communities around that facility

      #ScienceFail

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    11. Re:Lest we become hypocrites... by poity · · Score: 1

      https://www.google.com/search?q=%E8%85%90%E8%B4%A5%E5%AE%98%E5%91%98%7C%E8%85%90%E5%AE%98++inurl%3Aforum%7Cforums

      https://www.google.com/search?q=%E8%85%90%E8%B4%A5+inurl%3Aforum%7Cforums&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS490US490&oq=%E8%85%90%E8%B4%A5+inurl%3Aforum%7Cforums

      First is a search for two common ways of writing "corrupt official", limited to sites which have forums (filters out official news so you can actually see what people's opinions are). Second is a search for "corruption" also limited to forums. Delete the inurl:forum option for greater breadth. Use your preferred translation service.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    12. Re:Lest we become hypocrites... by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Industrial oversight is not intuitive to new industrial booms, because the short term profit will always outweigh the long term unseen consequences until they come to light.

      Unseen consequences? If this was still the 1800's and science was less advanced it would be excusable, but this is the 21st century and the effects of the industrial revolutions of the U.S. and Europe and the environmental problems they caused are known history now. Did China think that if they took a similar path they would magically be exempt from the same problems? No, they knew what would happen. The Party simply chose to ignore it to see how far they could raise themselves before they started killing off a large enough portion on their peasants that it became a political issue.

      They could have demonstrated a little smart growth by outlawing these chemicals and practices at the very birth of these industries so there were no bad habits to undo. But the government realizes that being environmentally conscious is economically less efficient.

    13. Re:Lest we become hypocrites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I don't know, is 2010 recent enough?

      Deepwater Horizon

      Seems like the west is not immune to learning impediments.

    14. Re:Lest we become hypocrites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #ScienceFail
             

      #ScienceFail

    15. Re:Lest we become hypocrites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      P.S.
      Oh, and the oil dispersant COREXIT applied into the spill after the fact, it unfortunately now appears to have some rather nasty side effects in the latest breaking news.

  5. Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry once China has to enact those bothersome environmental and safety laws that cut into profits the corporations will move on to the next 3rd world country.

    1. Re:Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry once China has to enact those bothersome environmental and safety laws that cut into profits the corporations will move on to the next 3rd world country to stock our shelves with the low prices we enjoy so much.

      FTFY.

    2. Re:Don't Worry by lgw · · Score: 2

      Don't worry once China has to enact those bothersome environmental and safety laws that cut into profits the corporations will move on to the next 3rd world country.

      Yes they will - and that's how progress happens! There are a finite number of places that haven't finished their industrial revolution yet, and this just speeds the process along. Eventually, the whole world will have made it to the good side of the industrial revolution, and that's not at all a bad thing.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Don't Worry by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The way things are going, we'll come full circle and once again N. America will be the place for industry since we won't have any environmental laws left.
      Here in Canada the Federal government is gutting all the environmental laws as quick as they can and they don't care at all that parts of Alberta are more polluted then China. America has very similar politicians who would love to get rid of all those pesky environmental regulations.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    4. Re:Don't Worry by lgw · · Score: 1

      The way things are going, we'll come full circle and once again N. America will be the place for industry

      Wake up, dryeo, it's later than you think. Chinese manufactring workers have been heading back to the farms because manufacturing is returning to America - for a decade or so now. Robots work cheaper than Chinese. No ecological catastrophe required.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  6. China will soon have a plan for clean-up... by swschrad · · Score: 5, Funny

    as soon as they hack the EPA.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:China will soon have a plan for clean-up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they do!

      And if their effort to use EPA's knowledge base is successful, perhaps they'll be able to share whatever it was that enabled their effort to overcome the politics of wealth vs. health that U.S. 'conservative' right-wingers trot out when they're supporting their donors, like the Koch bro.s, at the probable expense of the rest of us.

    2. Re:China will soon have a plan for clean-up... by letherial · · Score: 2

      Koch bro has only our interest at heart, they really care....they really do!

      really!

  7. Seen from space = BS by diodeus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You can see any surface feature "from space" including the licence plate on my car with the right equipment. I'm so sick of people throwing around this meaningless term.

    1. Re:Seen from space = BS by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't see clean air from space - it is clear. You can see heavily polluted air, though. The idea is that there are so many pollutants that the effect is visible on a large scale - you can see where it is heavier and where it is lighter (or completely not present, though I suspect little of China's populated area has truly clean air).

      --
      William George
    2. Re:Seen from space = BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can see any surface feature

      Pollution is not a surface feature. These were atmospheric.

    3. Re:Seen from space = BS by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      True, but I usually take the "from space" figure of speech to be visible from low earth orbit with 20/20 unassisted human vision. Yes I am aware that low earth orbit is a grey area, and not 100% entirely "outer space".

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    4. Re:Seen from space = BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh, you don't think we could colorize a properly captured image of the atmosphere to display "clean air?"

      On second thought, since we're polluting the entire atmospher, I guess you're probably correct.

    5. Re:Seen from space = BS by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You can see any surface feature "from space" including the licence plate on my car with the right equipment.

      Everyone but you knows that "from space" means that the equipment involved is the naked eye. (Presumably, through glass and inside a comfortable bubble of atmosphere.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Seen from space = BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't see clean air from space

      Yes you can, regardless of whether you're looking through the atmosphere from Earth's surface or orbit, the water vapor in the air makes it blue/green tinted. Pollutants just add colors. There's also atmospheric refraction, which makes air visible by distorting light (think desert mirages).

    7. Re:Seen from space = BS by lgw · · Score: 1

      You can't see clean air from space - it is clear.

      "Why is the sky blue?"

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Seen from space = BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it is blue. Against a limited depth, the air appears clear. When viewing into a infinite depth, the color shows.

      Pretty simple stuff.

    9. Re:Seen from space = BS by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I suspect little of China's populated area has truly clean air

      FWIW I was in Xian a few years back, and the air seemed fine (from human pollutants, the desert dust was thicker than anyone would like though). I don't think that's the industrial region of China.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  8. Low low Walmart prices by Tailhook · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We are feathering our environmental nest at home and stocking our shelves from unregulated hell holes.

    At some point this evacuation of our industrial base to China will emerge as a moral issue. It's already an employment issue for the working class and a fiscal issue for the nation, but neither of those seem to comfortable office people and the ruling class.

    Maybe the shame of all this will.

    Importing from regimes that do not have equivalent regulatory rigor is exploitation.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    1. Re:Low low Walmart prices by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      Sure it's exploitation. Given that there is no way to practice inter-nation commerce with a nation that does NOT have identical environmental, wage, and human rights policies, the only alternative is to seal our borders and live without the benefits of global economies. You know, things like foreign oil, electronics, rare minerals, and imported EVERYTHING.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    2. Re:Low low Walmart prices by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are many nations that are close enough. There's no need to seal our borders, just avoid the worst offenders, in particular the ones that have at some point introduced poison into the food supply.

    3. Re:Low low Walmart prices by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Given the natural resources of the United States, what makes you think we couldn't do it?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    4. Re:Low low Walmart prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or apply environmental and safety taxes on imports to make up for the costs of those regulatory services which are bypassed by outsourcing the manufacturing. Want to avoid those taxes? Make your foreign factories complient with the codes which are in place here.

    5. Re:Low low Walmart prices by sjames · · Score: 1

      That seems like a reasonable approach.

    6. Re:Low low Walmart prices by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      That's moronic. There's no way short of bypassing another country's sovereignty to inspect and enforce our laws on foreign based businesses. It's impossible to inspect them from afar with any degree of assurance. WMD's in Iraq, for example.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    7. Re:Low low Walmart prices by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      Oh, we could. And the world would pass us by, much like 1900's Japan.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    8. Re:Low low Walmart prices by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is. It's called a contractual agreement. That is, they agree to the inspection voluntarily as a condition of doing business with the U.S. corporation.

      They are, of course, free to refuse but then the contract is void and they lose their customer.

      Meanwhile, the U.S. based customer chooses to insist on those contract terms because they don't want to pay the extra import fees for bypassing environmental regulations.

    9. Re:Low low Walmart prices by Jens+Egon · · Score: 1

      Can you please name a country that has not at some point introduced poison into the food supply?

    10. Re:Low low Walmart prices by sjames · · Score: 1

      Knowingly? Most of them.

    11. Re:Low low Walmart prices by Jens+Egon · · Score: 1

      Should I take that to mean that most countries have had incidents where somebody knowingly introduced poison in the food supply?

      Or do you mean that China, as such, knowingly poisoned it's own people. (cite please)

      Or are you trying to say that there are countries where something like this has never happened? In that case, please, name one!

      I'll make it easier and let you name a country where nobody poisoned the food supply in this century. Should be easy, shouldn't it?

    12. Re:Low low Walmart prices by sjames · · Score: 1

      Or do you mean that China, as such, knowingly poisoned it's own people. (cite please)

      Perhaps you've heard of melamine or ethylene glycol? Both were put in foodstuffs (even baby formula) deliberately to cut costs.

    13. Re:Low low Walmart prices by Jens+Egon · · Score: 1

      But China is also like anywhere else in so many other ways ...

    14. Re:Low low Walmart prices by sjames · · Score: 1

      What other country has exported deliberately poison food lately?

    15. Re:Low low Walmart prices by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      No need for that. Unlike Japan, we have *all* the natural and human resources needed to keep creating the highest technological society in the world. Japan has no natural resources to speak of, and in isolation, is only suited to 15th century technology.

      So I ask again, why mess with foreign trade when we don't need to? Other than, of course, using up the by-products of the oil industry in bunker oil.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. 12 year plan leaked! by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

    It says "In twelve years there will be no environment left to protect. So carry on"

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:12 year plan leaked! by guttentag · · Score: 1

      12 years sounds about right. Buy N Large estimated 5 years to clean up the whole planet with an army of underpaid worker drones. Remember, "Today is the 700th anniversary of our five-year cruise. Ask for your free Septuacentennial Cupcake in a Cup!" So the underestimated it by a bit, but that was a whole planet. Twelve years should be enough time for China to clean up one country with an army of underpaid worker drones.

  11. World War Z by root_brewski · · Score: 1

    IIRC, in the novel, the zombie outbreak began in a village in China. Looks like it may be time to head for the hills!

    1. Re:World War Z by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC that is a fictional book written by a bat shit crazy dude.

  12. Still waiting.. by Daetrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where's the explanation on how the free market is going to fix this problem without the need for burdensome regulation? Anyone? Anyone?

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:Still waiting.. by chrylis · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because I just can't resist feeding trolls, a free market is dependent on property rights. In a free market, those whose air, water, or land was polluted could take the polluters to court, and in fact government protection of polluters has been a consistent feature in wide-scale environmental problems.

    2. Re:Still waiting.. by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Probably China couldn't be called a free market. However, the traditional free market response to this issue has been upholding the property rights of those who are being polluted via courts or voluntary agreement, making air pollution too expensive compared to the alternatives. No free market advocate believes polluters should not be held accountable for their actions, that's what lawsuits are for.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    3. Re:Still waiting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and in fact government protection of polluters has been a consistent feature in wide-scale environmental problems.

      So what you're saying is that if there wasn't any government, the small guys would be able to stop the big guys from shitting all over their air, water or land? Because without something like the already pathetic EPA, I just don't see that happening and think you're full of shit. Also, it's one of those things that just can't magically be undone after your little free market experiment falls flat on its face.

    4. Re:Still waiting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, just buy big enough swath of land not to pollute your neighbour's property?.. Who will take me to court if I reduce a county worth of land I own to Mordor-like state?

    5. Re:Still waiting.. by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, what makes you qualify me as a troll? Is it because i indicated i hold an opinion that disagrees with yours? Or is it because i stated my opinion in the form of a joke, rather than using highfalutin phraseology like "I believe situations like this support my hypothesis that a central government body with regulatory power over corporations is necessary for the continued well-being of the general populace, and furthermore... [etc, etc]"?

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    6. Re:Still waiting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because your phrasing assumed that nobody disagreeing with you on this issue has a legitimate viewpoint. That tends to sound trollish.

    7. Re:Still waiting.. by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      What happens when the offender is a homeless bum? And the plaintiff is a not-for-profit daycare for crack mothers who are trying to get on their feet, which now has to close down? Then the crack mothers go prostituting, leaving their kids in another junkies hands to pass on all wisdom... then what? Is that the free market? One big cascade of failure you spend your life hoping it doesn't affect you? I don't want it then.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    8. Re:Still waiting.. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      No, government needs to do its job -- stopping people from wrecking what they don't own. The confusion is with you, not the libertarian concept.

      Ironically, a fine use for democracy is determining how much pollution is fine. Too much, degrades life. Too much regulation, also degrades life by lagging development. During the industrial revolution, lifespans skyrocketted even as London choked with smoke.

      Someone demanding a slowdown would have killed more than they would have saved.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    9. Re:Still waiting.. by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Ahhhh... so what you're saying is that fences have holes. It's even possible for a thief to steal a fence post, approach the house, smash the windows, knock me on the head and steal all my stuff.

      Therefore, fences are evil and we should not build them. The logic is impeccable, and I don't know why I didn't see it before

      (yes, that was sarcasm)

      Aside from that, court means lawyers. Lawyers mean money, which poor people don't have. The poor can organize--if they aren't too tired from slaving in the rich man's fields just to survive. Their pool of money is no match for the rich man's pool which comes from their labor!

      In other words, any appeal to civil court as the remedy is objectively pro oligarch. Aside from that, how do you put a price on the extinction of salmon that once sustained a town? There would have been, say, 1000 people sustained by the fishery indefinitely. Justice implies finding some other way to sustain the population indefinitely. Lots of luck getting such a ruling from any court, or with the shell corporation that did the polluting actually having any money on the balance sheet or even existing.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    10. Re:Still waiting.. by Applekid · · Score: 1

      and in fact government protection of polluters has been a consistent feature in wide-scale environmental problems.

      So what you're saying is that if there wasn't any government, the small guys would be able to stop the big guys from shitting all over their air, water or land? Because without something like the already pathetic EPA, I just don't see that happening and think you're full of shit. Also, it's one of those things that just can't magically be undone after your little free market experiment falls flat on its face.

      Can you not tell the difference between criticism of government protection of polluters and criticism of the existence of government?

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    11. Re:Still waiting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In a free market, those whose air, water, or land was polluted could take the polluters to court

      HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHA.

      You mean to tell me you believe that the little guy, in any country, can actually go against the big corporation (and their swags of money) and actually win something in court?

      isn't the courts a form of regulation anyway? i.e. they are upholding an existing law (property rights) or regulation (accepted/allowed levels of pollution)

      The free market, my friend, would consider this an 'external cost' and not factor it into their pricing. In other words, they would not price themselves out of the picture (market) by selling their product at the correct price had they factor in the cost of a) cleaning up after themselves b) using more sustainable (less polluting) practices.

      No, they will continue to pollute until told otherwise (regulation) and only then adjust their product / practices to the bear minimum standard.

    12. Re:Still waiting.. by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      Actually, what my phrasing assumed was that supporters of free market systems are quick to jump in with comments on stories showing the fallacies of governments and/or regulations, but tend to remain quiet until prompted on stories showing fallacies of corporations harming the average person, so i figured i'd get the ball rolling. Perhaps your interpretation of the phrasing was different, but that's another matter.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    13. Re:Still waiting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could wreck land that I own with no readily provable immediate harm to others, but with nicely noticeable long-term effects.

      Who's gonna stop me from cutting down the forest I own? Whose responsibility is it to prove long-term effects on my neighbor's fields, which will be open to winds now that forest wall's gone, and whose responsibility is it to maintain that forest?

    14. Re:Still waiting.. by chrylis · · Score: 1

      The citation you quoted described how, contrary to the usual narrative, the Cuyahoga had been improving for several years before the passage of the Clean Water Act and how efforts by individuals to stop pollution had been preempted by state and federal permitting agencies. The one you didn't quote gave a number of examples of what you "just don't see [...] happening", including the very successful Angler's Co-operative Association, a fishing club in England that had a highly successful record of stopping pollution through fishing-rights lawsuits.

    15. Re:Still waiting.. by chrylis · · Score: 1

      I interpreted your phrasing as snide rather than joking. As a reply to this comment itself, an honest supporter of free markets will note that the very existence of corporations is a government intervention in the market.

      The case of pollution is an excellent example of the utilitarian rationale behind a market economy, which mostly boils down to the agency problem: The EPA (meaning, of course, the individuals employed there) doesn't have much direct incentive to prevent pollution, and people are always more vigilant about their own interests than about the interests of those whom they're supposedly working for. By preventing individuals from immediately seeking court orders stopping pollution, the government-will-handle-it system tends to let known pollution drag on for months or years, and finally to leave the directly harmed with little or no compensation.

    16. Re:Still waiting.. by chrylis · · Score: 1

      This reply is so full of evidence-free Marxist cant that I'm not going to fisk it, but (a) I already provided a number of examples where "the poor" prevailed over "the rich" in such cases, and (b) the discussion isn't between private legal action and perfection, it's between private legal action and action taken at the discretion of a government agency who has no skin in the game and who is predictably coopted by your oligarchs.

    17. Re:Still waiting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, just buy big enough swath of land not to pollute your neighbour's property and [reduce it] to Mordor-like state?

      Yup, then cover it with dirt and sod. Optionally build homes, schools or a playground on top. If there's a barrier to prevent ground water contamination and controlled outgassing, then it really isn't immediately bad. It would only be bad when those measures eventually fail somehow - aside from not helping property value.

      There's a big open quarry near where I live, which is being filled in with garbage. Another county nearby is a sod covered landfill mound, circled by houses.

      P.S. If you've heard the horror movie cliche about haunted houses built on ancient indian burial grounds, then you might appreciate a high school built on an insane asylum, complete with the old graveyard in the front. I'm not making this up, it's where I went to high school: Anoka - Halloween capital of the world, coincidentally. There were freakin' ghosts everywhere! (some of them were probably goths)

    18. Re:Still waiting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not how you feed a troll....

      Free market works, cause I bought a Samsung, not a Chinese-polluting iPhone.

      That's how you feed a troll.

    19. Re:Still waiting.. by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      So who do the people in the big cities in China sue over the air pollution? All of the hundreds or thousands of companies and all of the millions of people who are collectively responsible for the problem? Do you really think that's a viable solution?

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    20. Re:Still waiting.. by vux984 · · Score: 2

      In a free market, those whose air, water, or land was polluted could take the polluters to court

      The victims would have to establish that they have been harmed. And we all know how easy it is to prove that the cancer you got was because of the pollution from a particular factory, and not the other factory down the road owned by someone else, or perhaps something else entirely.

      Good luck individually suing a city full of factories because collectively you think they caused your cancer.

      And that's assuming a remotely fair fight. It won't be. Because collectively they have more money to hire more and better lawyers then you do.

      And that's not even considering that you are out of work, sick, and have expensive health bills to cover... what with the cancer and all.

    21. Re:Still waiting.. by istartedi · · Score: 1

      How about comparing the 19th century US vs. the modern era? In the 19th century there was virtually no regulation; but anybody could sue. It was about as close to your Libertarian utopia as we are going to get. Kids worked in factories and got their arms hacked off, never mind what got dumped in streams.

      Such a comparison is anything but "evidence-free Marxist cant" and I resent being classed with Marxists. A moderate Progressive stance with the framework of the Constitution is what made this country great. I consider the operation of checks against FDR (while Eurasia raged with Fascism and Communism) to be one of our greatest achievements. This is also why I'm equally upset by the notion that one cannot be both moderate and passionate; but that's another battle for another thread...

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    22. Re:Still waiting.. by sjames · · Score: 1

      So where do the people who suffer from the pollution go to get the necessary expertise to determine who did the polluting and how harmful it is? What function acts as the equalizer between the deep pockets and the turned out pockets?

    23. Re:Still waiting.. by sjames · · Score: 1

      What of people who own no property yet still breath the polluted air? Does libertarianism accept the existence of the commons?

    24. Re:Still waiting.. by chrylis · · Score: 1

      You picked a conveniently large and heterogeneous sample, but let's say you intended to discuss industrial centers toward the end of the century.

      My reply is that once again you're comparing situations you don't like to an unrealistic ideal; in this case, a society with modern technology to that in the 1880s. The fair comparison is to the other options in the 1880s, and while reducing options to a scalar value is subjective in the extreme, perhaps the closest we can get is to observe that for all of the downsides of industrial work at the time, people were pouring out of the countrysides into the cities. Of course it wasn't perfect, but the workers' choices indicate that on the whole, industrial work was better than the alternatives.

      And checks against FDR? Let me know when you can explain the legitimacy of Wickard v. Filburn with a straight face.

    25. Re:Still waiting.. by chrylis · · Score: 1

      Mu. Your question is nonsensical because China doesn't pretend to be a free market or to respect property rights. Furthermore, even if it were to fully embrace both tomorrow, blaming the existing situation on the new market system would be about as reasonable as the widespread to credit/blame the president for gasoline prices the day after inauguration.

    26. Re:Still waiting.. by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      So you're saying the free market can't fix the current situation there, it could only prevented it from happening in the first place?

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    27. Re:Still waiting.. by istartedi · · Score: 1

      OK, brief review of Wiki article on the SCOTUS case you cite -- abuse of the Commerce Clause. Now you too are engaging in a "perfect vs. good" kind of argument. I was thinking of FDR's attempt to pack the court, and the striking down of, IIRC, the National Recovery Act and perhaps some other New Deal programs.

      Perfection? No; but we didn't end up with One Party, FDR as the chairman, a cult of personality, a packed court, etc.

      Here is the end of the matter for me:

      We're arguing about the social sciences, and social science is an oxymoron. We can't measure Libertarianism, Fascism, Communism, or any other ism in units. We can't measure outcome in any sane unit. Any attempt to formulate measures of stance or outcome (e.g, Gini index, happiness scale, life expectancy, press freedom scale) introduces its own inherent bias.

      So. Neither one of us will ever be able to point to a study that says, "See, this country ran 4.352 quatloos of regulation and got 6.5 squikulons of frambulation per deltry. That proves my point".

      Maybe some day; but not here, not now. There's no science. None.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    28. Re:Still waiting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No free market advocate believes polluters should not be held accountable for their actions, that's what lawsuits are for.

      So which company are you going to sue? Is there such a thing as a reverse class action lawsuit where you sue all of them at once to force (force? what force?) them all into discovery simultaneously so they can't all just point fingers and claim its not their fault it must be everyone else polluting?

    29. Re:Still waiting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, government needs to do its job -- stopping people from wrecking what they don't own. The confusion is with you, not the libertarian concept.

      Ironically, a fine use for democracy is determining how much pollution is fine. Too much, degrades life. Too much regulation, also degrades life by lagging development. During the industrial revolution, lifespans skyrocketted even as London choked with smoke.

      Someone demanding a slowdown would have killed more than they would have saved.

      If you take the position that people own the air on their property, and have the right to prohibit other people from dumping gases into the open air that get on that property, then anyone owning property has the right to prevent any combustion.

      If you say, "the owner failed to secure your property against unwanted gases, their bad," then a corollary is I have the right to release nerve gas on my property next door to the 10 million dollar factory.

      What most libertarians say is, " the guy owning the factory can pollute, and you can't release nerve gas, because in the first you are taking someone's property rights away to help the overall good." Then they say, "Taxing someone to pay for medical care for a condition made more likely by pollution is a violation the the taxed person's property rights."

      The conclusion you have to draw is that the government can allow people to be killed for the overall good, and prevent people from exercising any self defense rights against polluters, but taxing people to prevent pay to death is a step too far. I do not follow this logic.

    30. Re:Still waiting.. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      One of the fallacies you have is that if (A) cannot do (C) and (C) is desirable, then (B) must be better than (A)

      Notice how there isnt any evidence about (B) at all.

      So there you sit, trying to vilify the free market, without actually having anything of value to say.

      You know who else acts like this? Religious people.
      -

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    31. Re:Still waiting.. by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      Go back and read the conversation again. I'll provide a brief, paraphrased recap. Please inform me if any of my paraphrasings are unfair.

      Me: How can the free market fix this problem in China without resorting to regulation?
      chrylis: They can sue the people causing the pollution.
      Me: How can they sue the people polluting the air in China? There are too many of them.
      chrylis: Well they can't sue in China because it's not a free market, and even if it became a free market you couldn't blame the free market for the preexisting problem.
      Me: So you seem to be implying that the free market can't actually fix the situation as it is now, it could only have stopped it from happening in the first place?

      So yes, there is a fallacy here, but to me it seems to be the fallacy of someone suggesting a solution to the question of how to fix the problem in China, and then saying (or at least implying) shortly thereafter that it can't actually fix the problem in China.

      All _i_ am saying is that if (A) cannot do (C), and (C) is desirable, then (A) is not the right solution to get (C).

      If you'd like to get into the evidence in favor of (B) i'd be happy to do that, but that wasn't the topic of discussion.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    32. Re:Still waiting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you take the position that people own the air on their property, and have the right to prohibit other people from dumping gases into the open air that get on that property, then anyone owning property has the right to prevent any combustion.

      The problem is your premise makes no sense so of course the conclusion also makes no sense. Can you point me towards libertarian literature that advocates this? I think you will find a diverse set of views amongst libertarians on this issue which all agree in that there is no perfect solution but it can't get much worse than the current system.

    33. Re:Still waiting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations are literally products of, ie something sold by, governments that give groups of people access to a special legal system. So that's a false dichotomy.

    34. Re:Still waiting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you won't be able to prove which factory gave you cancer... because you don't know. How do you know it was any of those factories and not something that would have happened anyway? Why would you expect to win a lawsuit on that basis?

    35. Re:Still waiting.. by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Such a cute idea, 100,000 of us suing the coal plant upwind from us for the damage to our health from their emissions. Much more efficient for everyone to band together and just bring one suit. Like say we do with government? Yes, government has protected polluters but that's something that can be changed.

    36. Re:Still waiting.. by chrylis · · Score: 1

      If you're talking about steps to fix this specific situation in China, where there haven't ever been clear property rights and reasonably-fair courts, then you're absolutely right that a free market can't handle the problem, any more than you can let AT&T build a nationwide network on the back of a government-mandated monopoly and then pretend that "deregulation" means a level playing field for competition. I was responding to what I understood to be a question about handling pollution in general; mea culpa if I misunderstood your scope.

    37. Re:Still waiting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it becomes important to them they will buy stuff from the companies that don't pollute. Apple is currently trying to get the image that they don't do anything wrong like this and hope that people who think it is important and think Apple is doing a good job at it will buy from them.

      When price is more important than the pollution, price will win out. At one point people bought certain cars because they DIDN'T have seat belts, now people seek out the cars with the most airbags because that is now important to them. Government regulation didn't make people want more airbags in their car, the attitude changed.

      Just because it is important to YOU doesn't mean it is important to others. Hows that for the free market? I know, its not right because YOU don't agree with it and you think they should be forced to live they way YOU demand even if they don't agree with you, after all they are obviously too stupid to think on their own and need you to be their dictator.

    38. Re:Still waiting.. by Darby · · Score: 1


      Where's the explanation on how the free market is going to fix this problem without the need for burdensome regulation? Anyone? Anyone?

      It's impossible for there to be one since *by definition* only regulation can *regulate* a market allowing it to flow freely.
      A free market and an unregulated market are completely different things.

      That they are the same is the big lie that the Repugnicunt/Libertardarian/Teabagging Koch suckers have sold to the useful idiots.

    39. Re:Still waiting.. by Darby · · Score: 1

      an honest supporter of free markets will note that the very existence of corporations is a government intervention in the market.

      An *honest* supporter of free markets will note that free markets are hypothetical abstractions which can never exist in this reality and can only be approximated with government regulation. This goes all the way back to Adam Smith although you have to read rather than cherry pick in order to understand that...you know, like being honest about it.

    40. Re:Still waiting.. by vux984 · · Score: 1

      o you won't be able to prove which factory gave you cancer... because you don't know. How do you know it was any of those factories and not something that would have happened anyway? Why would you expect to win a lawsuit on that basis?

      Precisely. You don't. And you won't win the lawsuit. Which means that the factories polluting your land would be able to do so with impunity. That was my entire point.

  13. Translated: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Expect your next iPhone/Nexus/Lumia to be more expensive (and probably without visible effect on Chinese worker's quality of life).

    Or may be corps will start looking for next 3rd world hole where fat cats will be glad to welcome new products into not-really-regulated factory lines.

  14. It Also Does Directly Affect the US by eldavojohn · · Score: 1

    We are feathering our environmental nest at home and stocking our shelves from unregulated hell holes.

    Submitter here, this link was removed from my submission. To be fair it was a link heavy submission so it was probably smart. Obviously we're on the same planet as China and when this negatively affects the planet it also affects us.

    So you already have an interest in not purchasing materials from heavily polluting companies. The problem is that the "free market" as it exists (yeah, I know it's not truly a free market) does not give a single fuck about the environment. We don't even have a way of rating products by their pollution and even if we did, China would just bribe that all away locally. Really all you can do is observe and report so more people become informed.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:It Also Does Directly Affect the US by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 2

      ...which also doesn't work. I think people just aren't designed to grasp a community as big as the one we have. When you live in a village, you see the consequences of your actions, so you avoid shitting in the pond. Today, we have no idea where our shit comes from and who's dying in the manufacturing process. It's not just that there's no available time in our lives to inspect what we buy (both because we buy too much crap and because our time is limited and information simply isn't readily available). We don't even follow politics anymore, because everything is too big and bureaucratic. We can dismiss everything because we live very abstracted lives, so lots of people do it.

  15. Bejing, Moscow and Mexico City by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put out more pollution in a day than the entire U.S. does in 6 months.

    But go ahead and pay extra for that Prius and plaster your house with solar panels.

    Its a drop in the bucket compared to what the 2nd world is cranking out.

    1. Re:Bejing, Moscow and Mexico City by EmperorArthur · · Score: 1

      Reminder, energy independence and renewables are different than anti-pollution.

      I'll go out and drive my electric car charged from solar panels because it gives me more (energy) freedom. Furthermore, while some forms of pollution are global, others are not. Even with all the green tech available, factories still produce byproducts. NIMBY and EPA requirements mean some goods will always* be manufactured in 3rd world** countries.

      The EPA, as worthless as they are/seem to be, is responsible for New York no looking like Mexico City or Beijing. Do you really think most people drive cars with ridiculously expensive emissions control technology because they want to?

      * The bulk of them will, for the foreseeable future.
      ** any country where there is little to no industry regulation.

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
    2. Re:Bejing, Moscow and Mexico City by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But every time we have a Super Storm Sandy followed by record low snowfall people scream climate change.

      So you can crow all you want about energy freedom but that energy will need to be put into massive dykes, breakwaters and causways.

      Meanwhile you need to spend the money you save on repairing and weather proofing your community all the while shipping the toxic waste from your Prius batteries and dead solar panels back to China for disposal.

    3. Re:Bejing, Moscow and Mexico City by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dead solar panels? I would like to see the numbers on that. Anyways, they are just tempered glass, aluminum, and some wafers. Compared to what you throw away, I doubt it is ever 0.0001% of the amount of garbage over their 40-50 year lifespan.

      Prius batteries is a little tougher, but there are ways to recycle a lot of the chemical parts in batteries. More research and processes will need to be developed to recycle the chemicals in batteries instead of mining more.

  16. Lost all my hair after living in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I spent a year living in China. At 30 years old, the month after I left all the hair on the top of my head turned grey and fell out. It eventuelly grew back. Most likly explanation was heavy metal poisoning. It happened in one of the largest cities in China, Nanjing.

    1. Re:Lost all my hair after living in China by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      I notice you said the *month* after you left. Are you by chance a werewolf?

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  17. Just one of many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Silicon Valley. Not sure if this is the same as the Mountain View site, where problems with the soil and groundwater are ongoing.

    See also, Willits, in Mendocino County where toxins were dumped in a stream that flows to the watershed to the north. There's a cancer cluster there too; with the company trying to blame it on residents tendency to smoke, drink, do drugs, etc.

    California in general has a lots of sites due to mining activities extending from gold rush times well into the late 20th century.

    Yeah, you'd think the Chinese would have learned from looking at what happened to us. So much for the idea that only Americans are short-sighted and/or ignorant.

  18. Nope. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Bring enough of the developed world in with its standards and you bypass this nasty and unnecessary part of "industrialization" - especially if it uses the displaced to help enforce it.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  19. They chose their path in 1989 - despotism by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    You overlooked their attempt on June 4, 1989, which resulted in the Tiananmen Massacre. People were disappeared and history revised to disappear any memory of the conscious choice of the country to choose individual freedom - instead of just being content with letting multinationals keep their workers occupied while giving the people a few economic distractions.

    A few trinkets wont change the general lack of freedom that the People's Republic of China maintains. The country's face will have to be ripped clean off with a change to a more Western-friendly government that grants freedom to people of all levels of prosperity and status- much like Taiwan and British Hong Kong before each got invaded by pro-mainland sentiment.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:They chose their path in 1989 - despotism by icebike · · Score: 2

      No I did not overlook Tiananmen, which happened 23 years ago, the same year as the Exxon Valdez disaster, and the US invasion of Panama.

      This is not a political issue, it is an economic issue.

      My point is that it is simply ridiculous to state that China is just now entering the industrial revolution, when the truth is that China is in the later stages of that revolution, and is quietly entering a social revolution, which is being allowed to happen by the (nominally) communist government.

      Contrary to your assertion, I don't expect any violent upheaval in China, nor do I expect progress toward greater freedom and environmental responsibility to slow. China has never known democracy as we understand it in the west. Yet for the average Chinese citizen these are the Good Old Times. They have never had it so good in their long history. They have always lived in a feudal serfdom. It will take perhaps 50 years but they will eventually get to current western standards.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:They chose their path in 1989 - despotism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The June 4th riots were people protesting against moving away from communist rule.

      It's the complete opposite of general public opinion.

    3. Re:They chose their path in 1989 - despotism by sethstorm · · Score: 1

      The US didnt make a point of shoving the Valdez incident down the memory hole nor was the invasion of Panama(which unlike Hong Kong is with the British, is relatively friendly with the US). However, not only did China disappear people and memories of the incident, they made sure that the job would be done by getting their equivalent of "country bumpkins" to fight the military in the city.

      They still live in a feudal serfdom - where the nobility consists of multinationals seeking cheap[er] labor and the Party apparatus. Getting "dealt with" there (read: disappeared) takes a lot less effort in the People's Republic of China than it does in the United States (much less the First World) - you dont have to commit an actual crime, but just be in the wrong family at the wrong time when doing something.

      Unless someone is of the urbanized part exposed to the world, nothing has really changed. In addition, that government will continue to keep it that way through the hukou system. With that, someone out in the countryside is not likely to see much if any of the benefits through such enforced isolation.

      They had the choice in 1989 to be a country that just manages slave labor in a way that multinationals like, or that they could be a country that allowed greater choice for the non-nobility. Unfortunately they have chosen the former, being content with the fear of saying the wrong word, getting the wrong academic test score, or being in the wrong family.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  20. Look here first. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before worrying about China, Google "Cancer Cluster" and check out this country.
    From Clyde, OH to St.Louis, MO, we have plenty!!

  21. This only proves... by Sentrion · · Score: 1

    ...that Chinese are just as delicate as Californians. Here in Texas we have oil running through our veins, we breathe ozone recreationally, and we consider lead and mercury "performance enhancing substances". It's just one reason why we can still buy all sorts of products known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, brain injury, and all sorts of ailments that we aren't concerned about much here.

    1. Re:This only proves... by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

      I hear only steers and queers come from Texas! And I don't think you're no steer

  22. The USA has this today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lookup Calvert City, KY and Paducah, KY sometime.

  23. Re: Japan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They all have cleaned up their environment a lot as citizen awareness and sensitivity towards environmental problems has increased.

    One thing about Japan: while much of it is developed in the typically ugly Cement Deco way, it's all surprisingly clean and tidy.

    You very really see graffiti anywhere other than the occasional underpass. There are few alleys filled with burned sofas and old shopping carts, and you practically never see abandoned cars lining streets. Even litter is scarce in the vast majority of places.

    I assume it's a result of 120 million people in a place the size of Colorado understanding what will happen to it and their quality of life if they don't keep things in good order.

  24. How will the Free Market fix this? Easy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People will get sick and die and no longer be able to work, or people will rebel and the price will go up, exports go down, and the problem will be solved due to manufacturing dropping off.

    Free Market cultists always seem to forget that people are expendable in their rape-and-ignore-the-consequences stratagems.

    Smart regulation is the way humans make sure we don't devolve into stupid jungle beasts.

    All problems with regulatory practices start and end with corruption. Corruption can be fought when populations are equipped with sufficient knowledge. This is why education is the mess it is today. The elite don't like smart masses; it threatens their psychopathic choke hold on reality.

  25. Always interesting by The+Shootist · · Score: 0

    To see what a totalitarian dictatorship will do (hint: Is this the future of the West?).

  26. ObZappa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just fifty miles, fifty miles down the San Ber'dino freeway
    They got some dark green air and you can choke all day

    -- Frank Zappa (RIP & thx)

  27. This is really good news... by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    Because nothing can take China down as effective as what's taken America down.

    American skyrocketing medical costs over more than two decades have helped crush the economy here. This happening in China in a single decade could very well be a national disaster there of unprecedented proportions historically anywhere.

  28. Young leaving Villages leaving the old behind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much of this increase can be firmly linked to pollution and how much is linked to changing demography of villages and towns, that grow older as their young leave for industrial cities.

    Older people get cancer at a much higher rate than the young. Also, there's a 10 to 30 years gap between carcinogen exposure and cancer, China's industrialisation may be too recient to explain the alleged increased cancer incidence. However, industralisation and population movement is synchronous.

  29. China moving forward by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

    China can admit to this yet Canada cannot. There is at least one such village here and yet Canada criticizes China regarding the environment and human rights.

    --
    Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.