Toxic dilemma

I don't think there's a person born in this country that hasn't been exposed to some amount of toxic material. We all live with toxins every day, and have for our entire lives, the only question is how aware have you been of them? Our air is polluted, our water is contaminated, and our food is chocked full of hormones, antibiotics, additives, you name it. There's no questioning that we would live in a cleaner environment if we could, but since that's not an option for most of us, we'll have to deal with what we have.

Similar to the conservation of species and habitats, we should focus on the larger issues first, since they hold the greatest threats to our health and very lives. Focusing on bigger problems can be more easily done by funding and projects than can smaller issues, since larger populations can more likely donate greater amounts of money or time to the cause. If some black cloud descended over a major city, you can bet a large portion of those citizens would take efforts to spare the air, whereas one smoke-spewing industrial plant probably won't generate the same attention. Since I'm not an environmental scientist yet, I don't know what health issues in this state are truly of greater importance, but after the last couple weeks I could probably suggest our state waterways. If more people were made aware of this dilemma, and federal or state funding could be made available for it, I'm sure we could make a massive movement towards a cleaner state. Future companies in turn would also likely make adjustments to not pollute the water further lest they invoke negative publicity.

Of course I care about the pollution of my planet. I'm a believer that starting today no more businesses need to be created that pollute as bad as their predecessors . We have the means to start building a cleaner society, we should do it, and start cleaning up while we're at it. As far as cleaning up mining waste goes, I think there should be a compromise between private land owners and the government. When someone purchases property, whether it be a car, a house, or a patch of land, they take responsibility for it. The same goes for when you discover hazardous material in your backyard, but since I sympathize that this mess was not likely the fault of the new landowner, why not provide some sort of government grant to cover half the cost of cleaning the waste up? It's still the landowners responsibility to have it done, but now the entire effort doesn't fall solely on their shoulders. I think this would help out everyone in the long run, most of all those living near the site!

Of course cleaning up is all well and good, but what are you going to do with the mess? This is where I'm left torn. I hate the idea of burying a problem, but some toxins just can't be cleaned up with our current knowledge or technology. I suppose you could just dig a REALLY deep hole, like in Yucca Mountain, and drop it off there, but the thought makes me cringe, and eventually you run out of space. Other countries have devised different methods of garbage disposal, like Singapore's practice of building off-shore cement island land-fills that serve as building platforms for future cities. Perhaps, since I'm short on answers for this country, we could look overseas to see how others handle the issue?

And when it comes to the question, "How toxic is toxic?", I suppose we can only gauge what science tells us. Laboratory studies or case studies of polluted environments compared to clean environments are probably the best bet for determining levels of toxicity. If higher ppm of "substance A" are found in "lake B" compared to "lake C", and the citizens of the polluted area contract "mutant power X", I would imagine it a safe bet something needs to be done. Again, I'm not a scientist, yet, but I am an optimist, and I can hope to see something done in my lifetime to ensure my descendents will live in a cleaner world than I do.