damn pollution

[The Andy-Man]

is it me, or is pollution exagertated in civ3. no way it is that bad in RL, or ever was....

[ACooper]

Polution has been the same in every game of the Civ series. It is handled differently from real life due to game play issues.

[Zouave]

If you have enough workers, you can clean it up very quickly. So that it is hardly more than an annoyance. It is much more than an annoyance in real life.

[The Andy-Man]

well, i have the workes etc.

the point i ment was, that pollution is t the problem the environmentalists say it is.... the higher the cardbon dioxide in the air, the more fungus that 'eats' it grows, canceling it out.

sulphur in the air maybe a prob, but it is still not as bad as is said

[Arrian]

"Anti-Encomium"

*climbs back off the floor*

Andy-Man,

My job relates to environmental problems (though I do not work for Greenpeace or the EPA or anything like that) and I see tons of environmental reports from contaminated sites around the USA. Prior to getting this job, I thought the same way you did - "ah, the environmentalists are exaggerating." Well, let me tell you, it's pretty damn bad. I don't know about global warming (or cooling, depending on who you listen to), but nasty chemicals in our groundwater is not a good thing.

As for Civ III, pollution is my pet peeve. I hate it. So I'd be fine w/o it, except that there should be some sort of downside to building factories and coal plants everywhere. Civ I, II and III have all implemented that downside this way. There probably is a better way to do it, but this way is fairly simple.

-Arrian

[The Andy-Man]

my complaint is that there is just to much of it.......
and no real way to stop it from occuring.

perhaps it should effect pop growth or production instead...

[Willem]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
well, i have the workes etc.

the point i ment was, that pollution is t the problem the environmentalists say it is.... the higher the cardbon dioxide in the air, the more fungus that 'eats' it grows, canceling it out.

sulphur in the air maybe a prob, but it is still not as bad as is said

And on which environmental report do you base your observations? Do you know something that scientists the all around the world don't? The vast majority of them are saying the same thing. The only ones that aren't are no doubt on the payroll of the industrialists.

And I'm afraid that fungus will not eat carbon dioxide. There's even debate whether large tracts of forests have any long term benefits. No one knows for sure at this point.

[Dis]

cleaning up pollution is easy.

the annoying part is it kicks your worker off the polluted square. And you have to reassign them.

[Skanky Burns]

Pollution is annoying for me too. The problem is there is no realistic way to get rid of it, and after you get half-way through the industrial era, polluting is unaviodable.
Then you have to wait until the modern era to even begin to combat pollution.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Pollution is annoying for me too. The problem is there is no realistic way to get rid of it, and after you get half-way through the industrial era, polluting is unaviodable.
Then you have to wait until the modern era to even begin to combat pollution.

Sounds like realism to me.

[Dis]

realism? come on.

Pollution does not affect hundreds of square miles. At the worst it only affects certain parts of military bases or industrial areas. Usually less than 1 acre.

And if you include nuclear pollution the other Chernobyl reactor kept operating after the other one melted down. The same can be said for 3 mile island.

I look around my city and I see no pollution. Our air quality sucks, but it doesn't prevent me from going to work and doing my job.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Dissident
realism? come on.

Pollution does not affect hundreds of square miles. At the worst it only affects certain parts of military bases or industrial areas. Usually less than 1 acre.

And if you include nuclear pollution the other Chernobyl reactor kept operating after the other one melted down. The same can be said for 3 mile island.

I look around my city and I see no pollution. Our air quality sucks, but it doesn't prevent me from going to work and doing my job.

Living in a farming community in Illinois not far from Chicago I can tell you 1 fact for sure. Pollution is all around us. It affects the soil, the water (we have to drink bottled water), the river is so polluted is is not recommended for boating, much less swimming.

The affects of the Chernobyl are still coming out. Check out . ]http://www.chernobyl.com/


If your air quality sucks then you have pollution. You will have a part of your work force affected every day.

You are seriously mistaken my friend. To help you out I'll provide you with some links:


http://www.great-lakes.net/envt/

http://www.doh.gov.uk/comeap/

http://niem.med.nyu.edu/outreach/childreneffects.html

http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/e...e/12_healt.pdf
and
http://www.worldbank.org/nipr/polmod.htm




Please get your "facts" straight.


Sorry if this strayed of topic, but I believe it goes to the heart of the argument

[Dis]

my facts are straight. I realize there is pollution everywhere. But it is small amounts.

It does not shut down farming or production. At worst you can say it has economical impact.

And I can show you a story from a reputable source that says the long term effects from chernobyl weren't that bad. Aside from the exposure from the workers cleaning it up, the surrounding towns weren't in that much danger. Yes I'm sure you can provide me with stats showing higher lukemia rates. But I have seen stats that show those lukemia rates aren't significantly higher than lukemia rates in the rest of the world.

So I can't say for sure what you midwesterners have done with the water. but our drinking water is just fine. Disgusting, yet perfectly safe. We have very little pollution here. Aside from asthma poor air quality does not have any other significant threats. and asthma does not shut down production in large regions of my city or surrounding land.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Dissident
my facts are straight. I realize there is pollution everywhere. But it is small amounts.

It does not shut down farming or production. At worst you can say it has economical impact.

And I can show you a story from a reputable source that says the long term effects from chernobyl weren't that bad. Aside from the exposure from the workers cleaning it up, the surrounding towns weren't in that much danger. Yes I'm sure you can provide me with stats showing higher lukemia rates. But I have seen stats that show those lukemia rates aren't significantly higher than lukemia rates in the rest of the world.

Talk to the farmers around here. Talk to the people with sick kids. Talk to business that pump a lot of money into cleaning up the effects on their equipment. Get the real facts. Not this Rush Limbaugh crap.

[Dis]

I don't listen to Rush.

What sick kids? give me a break.

Show me proof there are more sick kids today than 100 years ago. If there is a reason for that it is living in cities. There is evidence that living on farms is more healthier for humans. but that isn't because of pollution. It is because it is healthier to be exposed to other animal species such as cattle, chickens etc. The more exposure a child gets, the healthier he/she will be. But then you have people in cities that use disinfectants to try to shield their child from germs. That is doing more harm than good.