I don't know whether this has been discussed much, but how can USMS support "going green," promoting and/or being supportive of being environmentally responsible for clean water to swim in as well as to drink?
Open Water swims, of course, are the perfect venues to remind us all to keep our waters clean for swimming. The Boston swim focuses on this; do other Open Water swims promote cleaner water? What do they do?
Can pool Masters swimmers, clubs, LMSCs promote being "greener"? Encouraging people to take shorter showers is one way. What are other ways?
I think it is a fine idea and good opportunity for USMS to promote this particular aspect of the environment. By the way, all the Great Lakes are down several inches, except for Lake Superior (where, at the moment, we don't have Open Water swims...but who knows, in the future???).
Jennifer Parks, Michigan Masters
There is one other factor that the marketplace doesn't take into account - affluence.
I do enjoy your reasonable and thoughtful tone. I disagree with the above statement. I believe the US Market is almost overly concerned with affluence. You really think there is a difference between a pair of Seven jeans for $200 versus a pair of Levi's for $35? Sure, but not six times as much. A service company will charge more in some zip codes versus others. Why does the exact same diamond cost twice as much at Tiffany's as it does at Fred's Diamond Express? It's all about affluence.
We have strayed far from swimming, my apologies.
In our city we have alleys. I frequently walk our dog in the alleys so I get to see what people discard. The city provides us with rollaway trash bins (50-60 gallons or so). We (a family of three) rarely fill it up to one-third full unless we have some big project around the house that generates a lot of waste. Some families in our neighborhood (nobody has more than three or four kids) fill up two of these big bins every single week. Many families have one bin that is full or overflowing every single week as well. We sacrifice (pay more than the cost of disposing of our modest amount of garbage). Others probably pay much less than the true cost to dispose of their garbage.
Thought you might be interested in the system in our town. We have a Pay As You Throw (PAYT) system. You pay by the barrel (by affixing a pre-paid tag to your can). You can throw out as many barrels as you want, as long as you pay for them. The price is somewhere around $5 per standard trash can. Recycling is free.
If you throw them in your garbage can I suppose. We get special fluorescent disposal containers at work..they can be disposed of correctly. The benefits outweigh the drawbacks, similar to nuclear power in that respect.
I live less than 3 miles from Three Mile Island. The view from here is slightly different on that issue.
-LBJ
and i grew up about 5 miles away from TMI, on the other side of the river from LBJ. as in, from my parents' backyard, i can see the cooling towers...
i'd have to agree with LBJ that the view is different for people like us...
Probably the easiest green thing to do when it gets cold wear a sweater in the house, don't turn up the heat.
Or move to Mexico, wear shorts and don't turn on the a/c!!! :drink:
Skip
The Three Mile Island accident happened 28.5 years ago. Not a single nuclear accident since in the US. More people have died in coal mine accidents to feed our coal fired power plants in the past year than died in the TMI incident. Using TMI as an excuse to oppose nuclear is like using the Pinto as a reason to not drive a car.
i think most people's problem with TMI is not necessarily nuclear power, but the fact that southcentral PA is getting all the problems of the past and any potential problems of the future, without getting any of the benefit of said nuclear power.
i.e. what most people don't know is that nearly all of the electricity generated at TMI is destined for Philly and NJ.
how would you feel if you had a nuclear reactor in your backyard and didn't get any of the "environmentally friendly" electricity from it???
I may be wrong on this, but TMI (while a failure to produce power in one reactor) was a success. The shut down systems worked and no radiation leaked out. :confused:
Unlike Chernobyl where the safety system failed.:bolt:
Please correct me if I am wrong, I wasn't old enough to remember the day it happened. Its called the "Worst Civilian Nuclear Accident in the US" because its the only one (Wiki). If this is true, than the US record is perfect.
if you believe the government reports... most of which were funded in part by some entity in the nuclear power industry... i know i'm biased, but that seems like a bit of a conflict of interest to me. not to mention that the ruined, unused reactor is just sitting there. which opens up the possibilities for who knows what kind of problems in the future.
as for the comparison to Chernobyl, the two plants were of totally different designs, and i don't think the design at TMI would have allowed for an actual explosion like Chernobyl. also, the actual circumstances between the 2 are different- at TMI, the accident occurred during normal operational conditions. at Chernobyl, they were actually experimenting on the safety systems...
Another benefit to nuclear reactors is the ability to make weapons from the byproduct.
Good point, wish I had thought of that. We need the nukes to keep Iran at bay so I can have all the oil I need to power my Tahoe (I have one also). We should also threaten Canada, they have a lot of oil I'd like to get my hands on. Oh, and Chavez as well, he is bothersome, we need a regime change there.
Probably the easiest green thing to do when it gets cold wear a sweater in the house, don't turn up the heat.
or buy a programmable thermostat so you can turn the heat down at night and during the day when you're at work.
