posted December 28, 2007 04:09 PM              

For some reason the words of the Ex-Cemex executive that I’d met on the bus stuck with me. “No, that’s a common misconception. Cement doesn’t dry”, he informed me, “it hydrates.”

It takes a second or two to wrap your head around a concept like that. In most of our experiences, when something goes from a wet semi-liquid to a dry solid, it’s because the water content has evaporated. This isn’t so with cement apparently. Cement, it seems, absorbs the water molecule to form a completely new compound that is dry, and hard. Wow..you learn something new every day.

It wasn’t until almost two weeks later that I was thinking about the natural process of water recycling. Water that doesn’t return to the large sun-heated surface of the oceans through gravity, does so through an evaporative process. Either way, it all returns to the sea. Then I remembered what the man had told me. “..it doesn’t dry. It hydrates.”

Which means that water is a part of the dried cement. It doesn’t go back into the atmosphere, it didn’t return through the ground. It’s lost. It’s gone. It’s part of the concrete/cement structures that surround us every day. That’s wild..but it’s also..sad. We’re surrounded by water that’s lost forever..and we see the reminders of it all around, more obviously displayed for us than trash in our streams. Heck, proudly displayed..

If someone destroys water, or pollutes it so that we can’t use it..aren’t we usually upset about that? A gum wrapper kills a few fish..a stretch of highway takes tons of water away from the Earth..forever as far as we know. I’m not sure what that means. Do we care about the loss of our water resources? Or does it all depend upon whether or not the water is sacrificed to mighty skyscrapers and traffic accommodating stretches of road instead of the industries that make beer, cleaning supplies and cosmetics?

Those waters with things added to them…can possibly be cleaned up. But water lost to cement absorption? Lost for good.

It certainly seemed like something worth thinking about. What do we believe in? (When discussing our ecological concerns..) What are we fighting for and what are our reasons for doing so?

Perhaps we should really begin discussing the foundations of the ecological ideology rather than the usual public rhetoric about endangered this and global warming that. What are we trying to accomplish as a whole..and what are the signs that we are succeeding? Do any of us know?

posted December 28, 2007 10:24 PM              

Our country is facing water issues..and you know that. Buuuut..we have an abundance of water yea..no need for me to go on. You just demonstrated the EXACT schizophrenia that I'm talking about.

We need to figure it out. Either there's a water crisis and a pollution problem or there isn't because we have tons of the stuff..enough to spare for concrete.

If there's a problem, then putting water in concrete is as bad as putting concrete in water. The difference is that polluted water has been (for the most part...yuk) able to be reclaimed, whereas water lost to cement cannot be. That's a pretty big downside.

I don't know myself. I kinda go with the "we have a lot of water thing." But then again we have a lot of humans too. And if all of them are taking non-saline water (apparently sea water makes for poor cement..beats me why. Maybe structural weakness where the salt deposits?) and adding it to cement and its gone forever... Isn't that kind of a strain on our drinking water supply too?

At least the discussion uz begun.

daf

P.S. I have no answers. I just get things going and toss in a coupla pennies here and there. (I do my best to make them look like about $2.95..cha)

P.P.S. I would like to point out that what I took from Linda's philosophy on argument / discussion / debate was that if you have to actively partake in MEANINGFUL discussion in order to get things done..then that's what you do...even if it gets ugly.

I've NEVER felt that she was the "pointless bickering back and forth" kind of person..not from her writing. It seems like she valued her energy and time too much for that.

posted December 28, 2007 11:13 PM            

The planet is covered in water. It's just not drinkable in it's current state.

We have a water crisis because of mismanagement (including pollution) of fresh water resources. Oh, and the fact that there are too many people in places where there shouldn't be (the desert...like Las Vegas and Phoenix). And that's to say nothing of the massive use of water by industry and agriculture.

What to do about it? Hmm, I guess humans could stop having babies...because it's only going to get worse, as far as the cement thing goes, with skyscrapers etc, cause as the population increases, it's a more efficient use of land to cram them all into hives rather than spread out over a large area (which in turn would still require more concrete, just in roads, to say nothing of the services). Reduced birthrate would also in turn lessen demand for food and services, thereby reducing the amount of water that is required for industry and agriculture.

So, as soon as someone can convince every nation that has a birthrate that results in net growth of the population to cut that back to zero growth...

We can of course reduce water consumption in various ways, but IMO that's just forestalling the inevitable...if population continues to increase, so will demand for water.

Then again, we could all wear body suits like the Fremen in Dune. But that's about as realistic as thinking we can solve the "problem" with conservation, IMHO.

posted December 28, 2007 11:53 PM              

What if, as Isis points out, there is a common solution to many of our problems?

(Granted, getting people to stop having babies is going to irritate the business sector. Remember, large populations mean cheap labor. Wanna bet they fight it if we tried? Hey..isn't the conservative, anti-abortion side...also the pro big business side? Ok..wrong thread for this. New thread please. I'll jump in.)

posted December 29, 2007 05:04 AM            

Democrats tend to support public schools while Republicans are more inclined to deny them funding. Yet schools themselves are often conservative places that promote authoritarianism, police state mentalities, guilty until proven innocent, zero tolerance, abstinence only faux sex ed, anti-ACLU, and turning out more that vote Republican than vote Democrat. So what gives? In THIS case, I think I've figured it out: it's not about the schools, it's about the UNIONS. The union gives to the Democrat Party, and are much less inclined to give to the Republican Party, so Democrats & Republican politicians reflect that. The schools themselves are irrelevant.

However, there's a lot I still don't get about conservatives and about liberals. For example, Republicans are typically pro-biz while Democrats are seemingly pro-union and pro-working class, yet who overode the Republicans to illegally give amnesty to illegal aliens? The Democrats (granted, Bush threw in with the Democrats). This decision is a blow to the unions, to things like minimum wage, and a boon to big biz. How would you define that?

And I used to respect liberals, even when they did something I disagreed with, because I believed their BS about wanting to protect people from unjust political persecution so that they wouldn't be afraid to speak out, and defend the guilty in order to defend the innocent. Yet while Steve Kubby faced death in large part because of his political activities, and other innocents suffered (like Maher Arer), liberals instead chose to defend Tookie and ignore the innocents. I see that pattern a lot and in other ways so that I just don't respect them and their BS reasons anymore (as always, exceptions exist, but as a general rule I don't trust them).

Similarly, talk of free speech comes quickly when it's someone from Iran, but it can get rude, even menacing, if it's someone seen as "right wing" (despite the reasons for disliking rightwingers should make them antipathic to Iranian authorities). And even South Park brilliantly demonstrated the double standard when their Cartoon Wars came under attack for showing disrespect to Islam but the part of defacing Christ was ignored. And on another message board, I saw liberals defending Muslims holding up signs defending Hitler in the name of tolerance, even DEATH THREATS (and threats of rape) aimed at me and others, but to speak ill of ANY Muslim (even one threatening to rape and kill us or praising Hitler) was to see "liberal tolerance" in attempts to censor us (unlike threats of rape & murder or praise of Hitler as long as it was by a Muslim)!

Oops, now some are thinking I'm a conservative. What else could I be? And that allows you, the one who decided I'm a conservative, to ignore the words above, because obviously, unlike yourself, I'm a brainwashed puppet, right? Sorry, I won't let you dismiss me that easily (at least not without making yourself look silly). So looking at the other side...

And then there are conservatives that talk about how commie Hillary Clinton is, not to mention soft on terrorists, war, etc--never mind that she voted for the USAPATRIOT Act and its reauthorization, voted for the Iraq War, advocated an invasion against the Taliban in the 90s, and has repeatedly joined with arch conservatives in going after things like video games (granted, most authoritarian communists in power would do the same thing...same thing as Hillary, same thing as many Republicans!)

Short and sweet, both sides can be "shizo."

Liberals are technically people who believe in individual liberty. Self-proclaimed liberals who vote Democrat and cheer on Air America radio simply aren't liberals. People who advocate the government "take care" of problems and interfere in everyone else's life for the "greater good" simply aren't liberal, they're authoritarian. Maybe they naively hope to cultivate a "benevolent authoritarianism" but it's still not liberalism. Yet many of these authoritarians that call for a Mommy State like to call themselves "liberals" when they're simply not.

Conservatives, OTOH, are supposed to be about maintaining the old social order and tradition. Yet what have we seen? More and more done on the "war on some drugs" that effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights (a tradition and part of the "old order") and in creating a Daddy State, and in the last few years they even lead liberals in wanting to amend the Constitution in a variety of ways and for the most piddling of reasons! That's hardly conservative. But many who engage in these activist tactics like to call themselves "conservatives" when they're simply not.

I've also heard definitions of liberal and conservative that both fit me to a t. Only that's not how the majority of liberals or conservatives would describe themselves--at least not if they're being honest with themselves and everyone else. To me, political labels are useless, even between citizens of the USA, since language has been so corrupted and messed up that no one really knows what anyone is saying anymore (especially when it comes to politics and big business). What else could you expect from a society that pays well for spin doctors?

Natch, both sides are prone to not see the discrepancies of the "other side" while blind to their own and to think the "other side" is out to create an anarchic police state (such as a socialist dystopia where gays and drugs are on every block with Clockwork Orange type evil on both sides of the law being commonplace or a corporate and/or theocratic feudal tyranny where gun battles over parking spaces are everyday and all the land, air, and water are poisoned).

My favorite is how some who promote a Democrat or Republican to me get defensive when I say I can't find that they answered the issue position statements on a neutral site like Project Vote Smart. The Republican say, "It's a liberal site," while the Democrat say, "It's a conservative site." So far, NONE have answered when I pointed out that plenty in the "other party" also haven't answered. But I'm not surprised:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/

posted December 29, 2007 10:43 AM              

So...how do you feel about the "Conservation of water resources vs. We have plenty of water" question?

Do we have enough, or should we be saving every precious drop?

posted December 29, 2007 10:56 AM            

I suppose we could appoint a "problems guru" and follow his/her intellectual/moral/spiritually enlightened policies.

posted December 29, 2007 07:26 PM              

Secondly, you do realize that your digs about spiritually enlightened this and that are only demonstrating that you still, after like 2 or 3 years..couldn't wrap your head around a simple idea that so many others here understood. (And this with your mighty intellect.)

I don't know a blessed thing except that God is everywhere.

I don't claim any special knowledge.

I don't know any special spells or spirits or anything.

I don't have the keys to any magic kingdoms.

And I ESPECIALLY don't want any of crazy, f--ked up minions of a society which I just barely acknowledge as a matter of necessity, to be following my example or taking anything I say too literally.

The words I write are here because they occurred to me and I promised to share everything that I've experienced in life and thought..publicly through my writing when I was 14.

I'm sorry I use metaphor and parable to illustrate some of my points. I'm sorry you find that cultish.

I'm sorry that makes you edgy, triggers past scars and causes you to judge me in the light of some...memories that are not mine.

I don't know what you see...and I really don't care anymore because you don't know how to have a point-counterpoint dialog that doesn't seem to degenerate into a text tantrum if you happen to disagree with the poster or anyone responding to them.

You're a really bad cue card:

(Cue Caroll O'Connor playing the part of a man who hasn't learned how to politely disagree after lord only knows how many decades on this planet.)

There are as many humans on the net as tons of water on the planet I'm sure. You're just another one of them. One drop in a mighty ocean..and not exactly a drop worth drinking at the moment. Guess we both have something in common with that.

That's it. I don't know anything except what I believe from moment to moment...and that is subject to change at a moment's notice.

You might be a figment of my imagination, or a bad dream, or a piece of bratwurst stuck in my small intestine. (Of course life rarely turns out to be that easy...sigh.)

The venom..the bile..the ignorant attacks against others for no reason other than posturing and acting like juvenile sh--heads to support or impress our friends.

Stupid high school clique games that the "dark spirits" in us all have been letting go unchecked for entirely too long here at Lindaland. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
( Where's my beer?)

Those are the DARK spirits that were mentioned as being "here at Lindaland" and MANY of us contribute to it in one way or another.

I hope that you're enjoying the attention.

My wife will do this too. when she starts just slinging crap without thought to what she's saying..it's usually because she needs attention and wants to see me jump around like I'm livid.

Zat whatcha need JW? (Leos, Leos, Leos sigh just don't ever tell THEM that they're exaggerated drama queens. Yikes!)

I certainly don't mind jumping up and down and acting the fool, although I can think of more constructive ways to get the attention. Can you?

So anyhow. May I quote you as saying that you'll be joining a cult in response to people's ecological concerns JW? I mean for our paper? It'll fit a piece I'm doing perfectly.

daf

P.S. Excuse me...forum moderators? Is "froob" considered name calling? Well but HE did it first! Yea..but that's not fair! (begins holding breath, stamping feet, and in other ways emulating my two year old grand children.)

posted December 29, 2007 08:03 PM              

I don't really feel like conservationists are being fair with their propaganda or their methods, although for the most part, I applaud their intent and agree with many of their ideals.

There are a lot of resources out there, the problem has little to do with the amount of resources available and more to do with how many of them are directly accessible to society where they are needed as opposed to being in the hands of private entities or in remote locations. (No this isn't a call for Communist redistribution of land. Just pointing out some of the dynamics of the problem.)

Should we protect our streams? Well ugly streams suck..so sure. But should we start going ape sh-- about fining people over some violations, while others are just as blatantly wasting the same resources..but with society's blessing? I don't think so.

Do we have enough resources to waste? I don't know..I'd say yes, for now (oil notwithstanding..)

But that also depends upon how many more of us we're planning on stuffing the planet with..like Isis suggests, conservation may be or become an overpopulation issue.

If we get in good habits now, perhaps it won't be as hard to change our ways if and when the day comes that there actually IS an undeniable crisis..

posted January 02, 2008 11:22 AM            

quote:

---

Secondly, you do realize that your digs about spiritually enlightened this and that are only demonstrating that you still, after like 2 or 3 years..couldn't wrap your head around a simple idea that so many others here understood. (And this with your mighty intellect.)Daf.....

---

Do you realize I've never come into contact with anyone who truly was/is spiritually enlightened...who had to constantly remind everyone of his/her elevated status among the "enlightened"?

posted January 03, 2008 03:25 PM              

And I'd also say there's a big humongous Leo pride issue in the mix as evidenced by your mention of "elevated status." (Only prideful people care about status. That's as old as human history. You know that.)

So what IS your beef JW?

I'm guessing it's a "stomping grounds" issue..and I'm gunna call tough sh--.

I've got stuff to say on this forum. Think I'll stick around for awhile if it pleases the gods. (Randall?)

This is probably the final time I'll be addressing you or your comments for a bit.(I hate to erase a person from my experiences (shudder), but when my grand kids throw tantrums, that's exactly what I do. Ignore them. Works like a charm with them. I imagine you'll just continue trying to plant your flagpole somewhere. Just keep it out of my face.)

It was fun for a bit, but yer starting to sound like the bearings on my son's yo-yo and I really don't have time for that all of the time. (Truth be told neither do you..but that's yer call.)

So good luck. Hope you figure out how someone like you, who believes in freedom and choice, becomes a voice for driving people out of the Global Unity forum because of his personal belief that people who don't agree with him, should be roasted..regularly.

I don't roast like that..b----.
(Strut, kick the dirt...strut..swagger..)

(Rooooooooaaaar!!!)

Right back atcha.

posted January 04, 2008 12:05 PM            

Do you actually believe I need....for some reason...pride/ego/?? to run you off this forum? Do you actually believe you and I are competing for space...for acceptance...for something....here?

You must be insane Daf...if you actually believe that.

Truth is Daf, I'm not a joiner...don't run with herds and never have....so Daf, I'm not looking for love...or acceptance of either myself or my ideas.

You're free to believe whatever you wish.
I find much of what you have to say to be absolute horseshiiit packaged in a wrapper of self righteous pseudo enlightenment....but, you're free to say it...and I'm free to comment on what you've said.

I find you to be about 95% negative so it's not surprising an optimistic person like myself would find most of what you post to be non productive, non starting bs.

posted January 05, 2008 04:28 AM              

It takes 1,360 gallons of water to produce just one ton of hydrated(cured)cement.

Worldwide consumption is estimated at around 2.6 billion tons of concrete. (they also mention that cement production accounts for 5% of worldwide Co2 emissions.)
(http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/172052237.html)

U.S. Cement consumption hovers somewhere around 127 Million tons per year.
(http://concreteproducts.com/mag/concrete_forecast_5/)

I won't go on..just working with those figures.

127,000,000 x 1,360 = 172,720,000,000 gallons of water used for hydrating cement in the U.S. last year. That's 172 billion gallons lost to hydrated cement in the U.S. alone. In one year.

Now let's do the whole world:

2,600,000,000 x 1,360 = 3,536,000,000,000 gallons of water lost to hydrated (cured) cement.

That's 3.5 TRILLION gallons of water lost to cement hydration every year.

Plus cement production is expected to increase by 160 Million tons per year. That's another 217 Billion gallons per year..gone forever.

Not able to be cleaned up, not able to be reclaimed.

Now I'm not saying it's a problem...mind you.

But I'd say it's a bigger problem than Pete Coors getting the fish drunk in Golden, Colorado.

So again I'd like to suggest that we don't know what we're fighting for when it comes to conservation..

What's the problem? Is there one? How can it be addressed? Should it be?

posted January 05, 2008 11:12 AM            

Each cubic mile of water contains 1,101,117,147,428 (one trillion, one hundred one billion, one hundred seventeen million, one hundred forty seven thousand, four hundred twenty eight) gallons of water.

posted January 05, 2008 02:34 PM              

So I looked up water distribution. It's important, because cement isn't made with salt water and most of the water on the planet IS salt water:

97.4% of the water on the planet is nonpotable salt water.

2.2% Of the 2.6% potable water on the planet is locked up in the polar ice caps or is currently held by soil/earth/etc.

The total amount of potable water on the planet that is immediately accessible by living things is less than 0.5% (one half of 1%) of the total water on the planet.

And that is the only source of water for cement production.

That's STILL Thousands of Trillions of gallons of water available for life on the planet.

However at a rate of 3.5 TRILLION gallons COMPLETELY LOST every year with no chance of recovering it...in 100 years, we will have locked away 350 trillion gallons ASIDE from what is lost to pollution.

There isn't an animal on the planet that is doing that to our water resources. (A side question might be, what entitles us to destroy a resource that belongs to all of us?)

So again the question, if there is anyone still following this thread, is:

Why do we spend billions of dollars a year fighting pollution, in order to "save our drinking water", when we currently feel we have enough water to throw away 3.5 Trillion gallons of it a year? Is it that we like wasting our money? Or is it that we don't mind wasting our water? Or is it both? Or is it neither?

Are we nuts?! Is there a problem or isn't there? IF there is a problem, why are we throwing away 3.5 trillion gallons(3.17 cubic miles?) of water per year on concrete production?

If there ISN'T a problem, then why are we spending money on water conservation at all?

Either answer works. What do you believe?

daf

P.S. Another question, which I'm sure they are working on..is when are we going to be able to use salt water for concrete production?

A move like that would almost completely invalidate the question posed on this thread.

If we could use salt water to produce cement, it would probably be at least 90-100 million years before we could get through all of our salt water reserves.

posted January 05, 2008 03:11 PM              

The reason we need this information, is that just having an opinion about it, won't do. In order for cement production/pollution/water destructive activities to REALLY be a problem, we'll need to demonstrate some sort of collision course between the amount of water destroyed and the amount required for consumption.

After this, I'll start collecting data on human "water destroying" activities. Those activities which either COST money in making the water "destroyed" usable again, and those that permanently destroy water.

It's probably fair to assume that salt water pollution should be carefully factored out for now. We'll focus on fresh water pollution, since the loss of drinking and agricultural water would be the most immediate cause for concern.

Data will be posted on this thread.

daf

Collecting Stats here for processing:

1. 4,533 Gallons used to feed one person for one day.(http://www.bottledwater.org/public/water_use.htm)
(Ok this constitutes agricultural use. I'd imagine we'll also want to come at it the other way too, multiplying crop production times the number of gallons of water required to produce x amount of crops. Then maybe average the two. Remember not to forget to factor in that drier countries will tend toward drier foods and less water consumption. Reducing this average per person figure by an appropriate amount to adjust isn't exactly scientific, but should more than compensate for areas of lower water consumption.)

posted January 05, 2008 04:06 PM              

So 4,533 gallons per day are used to feed each person. (http://www.bottledwater.org/public/water_use.htm)

We said we'd lower that to account for areas of lower consumption. So let's say..half of that.

2266 gallons per person per day to eat and drink on average(rounded down and taking into account drier areas with less water consumptive crops.)

We saw 125 - 180 gallons of water consumption per day as the average. Let's assume some people don't have our water luxuries. Say..half of the average.

So 152 gallons per day divided by 2 =
76 gallons per person per day for other use (both indoor and out taking drier areas with less water use into consideration.)

365 days in a year. Let's take a few days off for periods of fasting. We'll call it..355? Every human being on the planet does not take 10 days of fasting. I'd say that's fair.)
Ok so:

355 days per year of feeding the human race.

So (2266 gallons + 76 gallons) =
2342 gallons per person per day (worldwide average)for all personal use. (Non industry related.)

2342 gallons x 355 days per year =
831,410 gallons used by society to feed, hydrate, bathe, amuse and flush the waste of one person for one year.

831,410 gallons per person per year x
6,000,000,000 people on the planet =

49,884,600,000,000,000 gallons of water. The amount of water used to sustain the human race for one year. (Non consumable industrial uses not included.)

That's a 50 Quadrillion gallon pool of water that we need available in order to sustain our current population. Corn must be grown. Cows must be fed corn and watered, people seem to like to eat cows and corn. It all adds up.

Ok, but:

1. Toilet flushing could be done with salt water. But that wouldn't be practical inland. Also, from what I remember from cleaning our salt water pump space in the Navy..salt water's not very good for plumbing either.
(It's a major problem with using salt water in many industries. No one wants to pay the added expense of maintaining equipment against the effects of saltwater corrosion.)

Such a VERY complex problem.
(All the more reason to investigate it reasonably thoroughly. If cement hydration is irreversible, it could prove disastrously foolish NOT to examine the possible consequences.)

2. Also, water is reclaimed throughout the year, so this figure might be able to be cut to about a third? So say...16.7 Quadrillion gallons MINIMUM for all food related agricultural and personal home water use? That doesn't take industry into account.

Ok, I'll be back with more data tomorrow.

Still looking for input.

posted January 08, 2008 03:22 AM              

Still looking for the many many many pieces to the agricultural puzzle to see if the "gallons per day" figure comes close to the "gallons used by agriculture" figure.

See you guys probably end of the week. Any input is appreciated. What other factors could help us understand this issue better? (whether you think its a problem or a big "chicken little" scare..)

What data is available? What questions can we ask that will help us find out what's really going on with water?

Are we being stupid? Or are we being stupid? You decide.

posted January 08, 2008 10:33 AM            

So, we still have over a million years of water available to make concrete.

posted January 08, 2008 04:32 PM              

So my friend and I were talking about this the other day. We're real certain that there are solutions, if indeed this is any problem.

We both mentioned water desalination as a possible solution to any fresh water shortages.

It was helpful that they're wrestling with this problem in Australia. (An island surrounded by Salt Water having a Fresh Water Crisis? Who would've thought?)

What was determined from investigating a little, was that few construction companies want to pay the additional costs associated with use of desalinated water (plus shipping to get it inland), when as far as they know, there is no problem. As long as there is cheap, local fresh water available, most will choose to reduce the cost of their project by using the cheaper alternative.

So instead, perhaps we can use up all of the drinking water for construction projects, and then we'll ALL pay more for desalinated drinking water. Mmmmmm. Desalinated...

daf

From: http://www.crcsalinity.com.au/newsletter/SeaNews/dpap0102.htm

"Any economic evaluation of the total cost of water delivered to a customer must include costs for environmental protection, particularly disposal of brine (highly concentrated saline water) which is an output of desalination processes. There are also costs of distribution and of losses in the storage or distribution network. Typically the total cost of desalted water reported by desalination plants or literature is the combination of investment, capital, and operating and maintenance costs. No attempts are usually made to include the costs of environmental protection or water distribution."

posted January 09, 2008 12:52 PM            

I can't seem to recall you ever having anything good to say about America. If you did, I missed it.