Many thanks, Julian. It meshes up with Geoff Deihl's May 24 piece on the subject of Data Center water consumption found on substack.com. He describes a large DC consuming "up to five million galloons of water per day, equivalent to the use of a town of 10-50K people".
It is all grim and absurd beyond words. We’re infinately dumb, poisoning ourselves and everything into extinction. We’re delusional and irrational to the extreme. It’s a result of our very DNA as well the path dependancy of our entire cultures and governing systems. The only way out is a hard reset, aka burning the system to the ground, incl. a lot of us too entrenched in our ways to accept the necessary change.
I've been attending primary care conferences for three decades & I've never seen evidence of a link between chemical pollution like endocrine disruptors & gender identity.
Regardless, I know many folks casually mention such a link as though it's well-established science - including radio host Alex Jones & HHS secretary RFK jr.
I might suggest you start with the Endocrine Society's online resources, that cite many papers evidencing a link. See Endocrine Topics in the r/h column. https://www.endocrine.org/topics/edc
Thanks for the endocrine topics link. I skimmed it & only found papers noting a connection between endocrine disruptors & the development of *external biological sex characteristics*, which as I'm sure you're aware (though many aren't) don't necessarily reflect gender identity. This is not intuitive to people outside the field of medicine. I don't want to hijack your valid concern over the growing pollution of our drinking water! Just wanted to point out that intuition & anecdotes can't substitute for science when it comes to making claims about the origins of gender dysphoria. The etiology is much more complex than "chemicals in the water."
As a rule, I'd agree. Scepticism in all things. But according to this paper there are at least 7552 peer-reviewed papers linking EDCs to 109 known diseases: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147651325009194, so if you really want to know, just follow the papertrail!
Anecdotal: in NZ we knew about 25 female trampers/bushwalkers. 12 chose to become lesbians, 4 of them leaving their husbands and children to do so. For years they had used DIMP (dimethyl phthalate) to keep away those pesky sandflies. Not one man went gay despite using the same repellent. It convinced me anyway and I threw away the DIMP. My wife was not happy then but we are still together 35 years later...
"To deliver clean water to the 2.2 billion people who presently lack it will cost the world around $1 trillion by 2030".
Yes, but three quick points: 1) Given the record to date, and the mounting deluge of other eco-issues and social issues, the likelihood that this money will be spend as targeted and the goal achieved is low and decreasing; 2) even if 'we' did rise successfully to the challenge of cleaning up piped water (I assume that's what the $1 trillion is for), we would still have the horrendous and growing problem of surface- and ground-water contamination from all the sources you list; 3) all of which means that when modern techno-industrial (MTI) societies begin to 'simplify' as they inevitably must from energy/resource scarcities, climate change/global heating, geopolitical conflict, etc., and public infrastructure (e.g., sewage treatment and intake water treatment) breaks down, most people will not have access to safe natural water supplies. Even today, one must be at the headwaters of a mountain stream to be reasonably sure that drinking 'wild' water is safe from bacterial, parasite and chemical contamination generated by MTI civilization.
Yes, indeed, William. This is why I regard water as the worst of the catastrophic threats facing humanity in the short term, and have written so many articles about it. The prospects for clean water are certainly receding and I share your concern that much of the earmarked money will be misspent. I misdoubt even the purity of mountain streams since reading that the snow on the peak of Mt Everest is too heavily contaminated (mainly with mercury) to meet normal drinking water safety guidelines. Woe to the climbers!
In Earth Detox I put forward the concept of the 'global chemical circulation', a river of anthropogenic toxins circling the planet endlessly in wind and water, ensuring that no person or lifeform is unaffected by our chemical footprint. I just wish science would pay as much attention to this matter as it does to climate, as it is 5 times larger and much more lethal in the short run.
Many thanks, Julian. It meshes up with Geoff Deihl's May 24 piece on the subject of Data Center water consumption found on substack.com. He describes a large DC consuming "up to five million galloons of water per day, equivalent to the use of a town of 10-50K people".
Fortunately, most countries are not afflicted by data centres!
Not yet...
Call me an apocaloptimist, but I think the AI bubble will pop before then...
Hi—
Can you please include a link to this post? I’ve searched for Geoff Deihl and nothing turns up.
Thanks!
Geoff posts on Substack under thr title "Sane Thoughts".
Thank you.
Very good elaboration of the quality of accessible water, Julian! We search now for the Holy Pail.. clean, potable water.
We gotta desal. And deliver it to the dried lands with their biospheres.
It is all grim and absurd beyond words. We’re infinately dumb, poisoning ourselves and everything into extinction. We’re delusional and irrational to the extreme. It’s a result of our very DNA as well the path dependancy of our entire cultures and governing systems. The only way out is a hard reset, aka burning the system to the ground, incl. a lot of us too entrenched in our ways to accept the necessary change.
Spot on! But…
things are hot enough already! Let’s agree to dismantle most of the rotten edifice without adding any more heat and pollution.
Spot on! But…
things are hot enough already! Let’s agree to dismantle most of the rotten edifice without adding any more heat and pollution.
I've been attending primary care conferences for three decades & I've never seen evidence of a link between chemical pollution like endocrine disruptors & gender identity.
Regardless, I know many folks casually mention such a link as though it's well-established science - including radio host Alex Jones & HHS secretary RFK jr.
I might suggest you start with the Endocrine Society's online resources, that cite many papers evidencing a link. See Endocrine Topics in the r/h column. https://www.endocrine.org/topics/edc
Foglight is right - if the link has not been conclusively established, why indulge in MAHA theorizing?
Thanks for the endocrine topics link. I skimmed it & only found papers noting a connection between endocrine disruptors & the development of *external biological sex characteristics*, which as I'm sure you're aware (though many aren't) don't necessarily reflect gender identity. This is not intuitive to people outside the field of medicine. I don't want to hijack your valid concern over the growing pollution of our drinking water! Just wanted to point out that intuition & anecdotes can't substitute for science when it comes to making claims about the origins of gender dysphoria. The etiology is much more complex than "chemicals in the water."
As a rule, I'd agree. Scepticism in all things. But according to this paper there are at least 7552 peer-reviewed papers linking EDCs to 109 known diseases: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147651325009194, so if you really want to know, just follow the papertrail!
Anecdotal: in NZ we knew about 25 female trampers/bushwalkers. 12 chose to become lesbians, 4 of them leaving their husbands and children to do so. For years they had used DIMP (dimethyl phthalate) to keep away those pesky sandflies. Not one man went gay despite using the same repellent. It convinced me anyway and I threw away the DIMP. My wife was not happy then but we are still together 35 years later...
Julian, you write:
"To deliver clean water to the 2.2 billion people who presently lack it will cost the world around $1 trillion by 2030".
Yes, but three quick points: 1) Given the record to date, and the mounting deluge of other eco-issues and social issues, the likelihood that this money will be spend as targeted and the goal achieved is low and decreasing; 2) even if 'we' did rise successfully to the challenge of cleaning up piped water (I assume that's what the $1 trillion is for), we would still have the horrendous and growing problem of surface- and ground-water contamination from all the sources you list; 3) all of which means that when modern techno-industrial (MTI) societies begin to 'simplify' as they inevitably must from energy/resource scarcities, climate change/global heating, geopolitical conflict, etc., and public infrastructure (e.g., sewage treatment and intake water treatment) breaks down, most people will not have access to safe natural water supplies. Even today, one must be at the headwaters of a mountain stream to be reasonably sure that drinking 'wild' water is safe from bacterial, parasite and chemical contamination generated by MTI civilization.
Yes, indeed, William. This is why I regard water as the worst of the catastrophic threats facing humanity in the short term, and have written so many articles about it. The prospects for clean water are certainly receding and I share your concern that much of the earmarked money will be misspent. I misdoubt even the purity of mountain streams since reading that the snow on the peak of Mt Everest is too heavily contaminated (mainly with mercury) to meet normal drinking water safety guidelines. Woe to the climbers!
In Earth Detox I put forward the concept of the 'global chemical circulation', a river of anthropogenic toxins circling the planet endlessly in wind and water, ensuring that no person or lifeform is unaffected by our chemical footprint. I just wish science would pay as much attention to this matter as it does to climate, as it is 5 times larger and much more lethal in the short run.