Green is not Mean. plz plant a tree... One more reason to not be a vegetarian. jgk lives
x
Click to expand

Comments(152):

[ 152 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#8 - anon (04/28/2013) [-]
As a soil scientist I can tell you that the colorations of the water are more caused by the amount of soil exposed to the running water. The bin with the plants is only clear because of the amount of plant material that prevents the soil from being picked up (bin has roots and stems). The bin with the leaves is clearer because the decaying plant humus is doing an alright job at keeping the soil in place. The bin with only dirt will only produce muddy water because there is no other material inside it. So in reality this "experiment" really only shows how plant and leaf cover affects the amount of soil in runoff. While the water in the one with plants is clear, it didn't really filter any pollutants moving across it. If there was a way to see the water after it moves down through the soil after being absorbed then you would see the filtration effect.
#137 to #8 - anon (04/29/2013) [-]
your credentials are phony, because while you are right, you are also wrong, the amount of soil effects the colouration of the water, but trees also do filter out polutants, in newzealand where i live, trees are planted arround lakes, to filter harmfull farm runoff that would end up poluting the lakes, trees filter out nitrates and other chemicals in fertilisers that damage the lake by promoting algae growth and introducing heavy metals.
User avatar #114 to #8 - awesomenessdefined (04/29/2013) [-]
How do you feel about the fact that you wasted your life to become a soil scientist?
#125 to #114 - turbodoosh (04/29/2013) [-]
He probably makes more money and gets laid more often than someone who calls themselves 'awesomenessdefined'
#141 to #125 - sadaurkar (04/29/2013) [-]
Quiet, turbodoosh
User avatar #158 to #125 - awesomenessdefined (05/03/2013) [-]
WOAH! Sick Burn, Dude1!
#140 to #8 - LOLinternet (04/29/2013) [-]
'Soil scientist'

Ok. Was totally not expecting soil to be a scientific field.






AHUEHUEHEHEUE. FIELD.
User avatar #84 to #8 - gorginhanson (04/29/2013) [-]
THANK YOU SOIL SCIENTIST

Said someone for the first time ever
#73 to #8 - isenseven (04/29/2013) [-]
I think the real question here is what the **** is a soil scientist doing on funnyjunk?
User avatar #29 to #8 - RisenLichen (04/28/2013) [-]
Soil Scientist? Holy **** .
User avatar #10 to #8 - logicstrike (04/28/2013) [-]
what Ilearned here is that "Soil scientists" are actually called soil scientists what the **** (I checked and everything)
#4 - charpentier (04/28/2013) [-]
One more reason to not be a vegetarian.
#52 to #4 - anon (04/29/2013) [-]
Not obliterating the human species through ultimate form of retardation (poisoning your own environment) is somehow vegetarianism? What the **** ?
User avatar #46 to #4 - waaw (04/29/2013) [-]
What do you think the cows are eating before you eat them?
User avatar #9 to #4 - HarvietheDinkle (04/28/2013) [-]
because people eat grass, shrubs and trees (the most abundant source of erosion-preventing plants)
#11 to #9 - captnpl ONLINE (04/28/2013) [-]
No, but they clear out forests to make room for extra soybeans.
User avatar #12 to #11 - HarvietheDinkle (04/28/2013) [-]
that goes for most farms of any kind
#13 to #12 - captnpl ONLINE (04/28/2013) [-]
True, but cattle farms maintain dense grass fields and produce fertilizer to help other crops grow more effectively and on less land.
User avatar #23 to #13 - nogphille (04/28/2013) [-]
for every kg of meat, you'd need 10kg of wheat or other crops to feed them.. so i highly doubt it's more economical for the soil..
#49 to #23 - captnpl ONLINE (04/29/2013) [-]
It's 7kg for beef, but they only give it to the cattle during the winter, or if there is an excess of grain. Most cows feed on grass 60% of the year.

Also, if you raise cattle you get milk, then you can use the rest of the cow to make glue, soap, insulin, arthritis medication, leather, asphalt tar, fire extinguisher foam, surgical sutures, and a hundred other things that I don't feel like typing. lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/Week-of-Mon-20040105/015167.html
User avatar #66 to #49 - nogphille (04/29/2013) [-]
point still remains that the cattle need more land to be fed than it would take to farm soy or other crops that could feed people in the same quantity that meat products would..
also mentioning that those walking meatsticks also consume water and produce methane and other harmfull byproducts..
=>
http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/mammals/methane-cow.htm
#95 to #66 - captnpl ONLINE (04/29/2013) [-]
1. We already produce enough food to feed everyone in the world, it's more of a distribution problem.

2. Plants drink water too.

3. Methane is being used as an alternate energy source You need to login to view this link

4. I couldn't find any other harmful byproducts, google kept redirecting me to horse meat contamination articles.
User avatar #152 to #95 - nogphille (04/29/2013) [-]
let me provide some better points than drastronomy.. i hope :)

1. your point was that huge areas of forests were being cleared for soy etc.
having a more efficient food/land ratio would clear massive amounts of land, which could be used to regrow forests or provide food for the still rising population.
2. the water plants consume does not need to have the same standards as what cows consume, this water will still be consumed by us indirectly, unlike through meat
=> http://vegetarian.about.com/od/vegetarianvegan101/f/waterpollution.htm
the cows even contaminate the water and soil.
3. his point was fairly good. you can't harvest the methane, unless you want to go around catching cowfarts.. instead, these damage the ozone layer..
4. search harder, carbon dioxide, methane, water consumption,...
=> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production
User avatar #120 to #95 - drastronomy (04/29/2013) [-]
1. yes, but it is easier to distribute with more food to go around
2. not nearly as much, and they filter it anyway and do not turn it into piss
3. the methane cannot be harvested
4. release enormous amount of carbon dioxide
#6 to #4 - anon (04/28/2013) [-]
Vegetarian diets would create a higher demand on organic vegetables and crops, so more people would b able to plant them.
#69 to #6 - anon (04/29/2013) [-]
Yes, but planting more crops would exhaust the soil and lose its nutrients.

Also we could also plant the crops for the livestock.
User avatar #155 to #69 - nogphille (04/29/2013) [-]
livestock needs food and soil just as badly... how are you guys not seeing this?
+6
#7 to #4 - lieutenantshitface **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#21 - winglit (04/28/2013) [-]
Vegetarians are killing our planet! GET EM!
User avatar #62 - Katzie (04/29/2013) [-]
Is there some big joke I'm missing today where everyone comes on and posts either things that aren't funny or the most tasteless things possible? Or is this ******* facebook now?
User avatar #76 to #62 - sidekickman (04/29/2013) [-]
It's Tumblrfeed now.
#132 to #62 - whymewhy (04/29/2013) [-]
what do you mean today... everyday is full of unfunny **** on here now.
User avatar #97 - xxELITExx (04/29/2013) [-]
my water is filtered by the city's water treatment plant.
#71 - darthblam (04/29/2013) [-]
How the **** does this **** make it to the front page?
#115 - stevencolbert ONLINE (04/29/2013) [-]
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAA AAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAA AAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#104 - ishotthedeputy (04/29/2013) [-]
Found the liberal
User avatar #129 to #104 - rhiaanor ONLINE (04/29/2013) [-]
because being for equality is a bad thing, and has to do with plants
#144 to #104 - ludislavonac (04/29/2013) [-]
Americans and your stupid complaining about liberals, you're annoying
Americans and your stupid complaining about liberals, you're annoying
#117 to #104 - anon (04/29/2013) [-]
How is valuing the environment and wanting clean water a political thing?
#122 to #117 - heroicvenom (04/29/2013) [-]
2 reasons
1. liberals are away going on about the environment
2. **** you, thats why
User avatar #123 to #122 - heroicvenom (04/29/2013) [-]
*always
#16 - killerdeath ONLINE (04/28/2013) [-]
I live in Maine. 			****		 all of you with 			******		 water.
I live in Maine. **** all of you with ****** water.
User avatar #26 to #16 - doublefatjack (04/28/2013) [-]
from a geological stand point, North Carolina has the best well water in the country
#27 to #26 - killerdeath ONLINE (04/28/2013) [-]
Maine has layers of sand and gravel that was left behind by the glaciers. The sand a gravel naturally filters the water and creates safe spring water. The same may be true for North Carolina but I don't know. Also any Poland spring water you drink comes from Maine.
User avatar #28 to #27 - doublefatjack (04/28/2013) [-]
glaciers don't leave sand, they leave bolder fields
#30 to #28 - killerdeath ONLINE (04/28/2013) [-]
That is simply not true. Bolder fields aren't the only things they leave. They can also leave small sediment too.
User avatar #31 to #30 - doublefatjack (04/28/2013) [-]
yeah, but no where near enough to contain an entire water table
#32 to #31 - killerdeath ONLINE (04/28/2013) [-]
In Maine it did. Do you really think the only thing in the glaciers were bolders? Small sediment existed before the glacier came and was trapped in the glacier along with the bolders. The sediment was also left along with the bolders. There may be more of it in Maine than other places but It really is the reason why Maine water is so pure.
User avatar #39 to #16 - crackmaster (04/28/2013) [-]
what part of maine?
#43 to #39 - killerdeath ONLINE (04/29/2013) [-]
Midcoast. Why?
User avatar #44 to #43 - crackmaster (04/29/2013) [-]
im from calais
#45 to #44 - killerdeath ONLINE (04/29/2013) [-]
Ah. Well nice to see a fellow Mainer on the internet.
User avatar #47 to #45 - crackmaster (04/29/2013) [-]
likewise
User avatar #72 to #16 - darthblam (04/29/2013) [-]
Can't beat Texas aquifers, bitch.
#153 to #72 - killerdeath ONLINE (04/29/2013) [-]
Have you tried Maine water? It's the purest water you'll ******* find.
#18 to #16 - fukkentyranitar (04/28/2013) [-]
Yeah, but Maine is no Ontario.
#19 to #18 - killerdeath ONLINE (04/28/2013) [-]
But I can sit in my house in piece without hearing a single car.
#24 to #19 - beasert (04/28/2013) [-]
Fine, Nova Scotia.
#25 to #24 - killerdeath ONLINE (04/28/2013) [-]
Hell. I cant even see the road from my house.
#54 to #19 - ilikethisusername ONLINE (04/29/2013) [-]
in piece you say?
User avatar #20 to #19 - fukkentyranitar (04/28/2013) [-]
Whats so bad about cars?
#22 to #20 - killerdeath ONLINE (04/28/2013) [-]
They're a heck of a lot less peaceful than a couple birds off in the distance. Plus I can run around my yard naked and not a single other person will ever see.
#34 to #22 - sparkyoneonetwo (04/28/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Growing up in the city things like birds and the sounds all them freaky ass country bugs make are the most annoying thing in the world.
#35 to #34 - killerdeath ONLINE (04/28/2013) [-]
Well good for you. Right now I'm just listening to nice piano music and I haven't heard a damn car drive by in hours. I also don't have to worry about anyone stopping by so I can just sit in my underwear all day.
User avatar #36 to #35 - sparkyoneonetwo (04/28/2013) [-]
I sit in my underwear or naked all the time I don't care if anyone comes in and sees it. It's my house I'll do what I want in it.
#37 to #36 - killerdeath ONLINE (04/28/2013) [-]
That's just fine but are you listening to some piano music?
User avatar #38 to #37 - sparkyoneonetwo (04/28/2013) [-]
The only piano music I listen to is the piano music I play. Right now I am listing to some classic 80s metal.
#40 to #38 - killerdeath ONLINE (04/28/2013) [-]
Eh. To each his own a guess. I just like the peace much more than the sound of cars.
User avatar #41 to #40 - sparkyoneonetwo (04/28/2013) [-]
quite creeps me out. Being away from cities and all the noise of them is like the second scariest thing in the world to me. I don't know why but the peace just freaks me out.
#50 - sirbutterballs (04/29/2013) [-]
Well we do have science.We could make mechanical filtering-systems.
#51 to #50 - sirbutterballs (04/29/2013) [-]
But then again if there was ever an EMP we'd have no drinkable water...
User avatar #53 to #51 - sketchE ONLINE (04/29/2013) [-]
i live in alaska ill just go live on a glacier
#105 to #53 - anon (04/29/2013) [-]
I had allreadyy claimed my glacier. I live in Wasilla
User avatar #64 to #53 - jtwagner (04/29/2013) [-]
Interesting fact, Alaska is a water neutral state. For as much water as humans **** up, in alaska it's replenished in full by rain/snowfall.
#61 to #51 - Katzie (04/29/2013) [-]
Implying all science is ruined by an EMP
-1
#88 to #61 - sirbutterballs has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #77 to #61 - sidekickman (04/29/2013) [-]
no science is ruined by emp. advanced circuitry is. unless our water purifier is super basic or doesn't involve circuits, it would survive. just know that any car that isn't like, fifty years old probably gets fried in an emp.
#96 to #77 - winglit (04/29/2013) [-]
there's ways of EMP proofing electronics you know? expensive and largely unnecessary but possible
User avatar #103 to #96 - sidekickman (04/29/2013) [-]
how about you look up the percentage of emp-proofed items to regular items available in the market.
#106 to #103 - winglit (04/29/2013) [-]
I said It was expensive and largely unnecessary! I didnt say my ******* toaster was EMP proof why the hate bud?
User avatar #108 to #106 - sidekickman (04/29/2013) [-]
just saying, didn't intend to come off hostile. the only cheap way of emp-proofing an item is the faraday cage, but the item inside must not be plugged in, at least that's all im aware of. nothing is really completely EMP proof, since it just charges things with a high voltage that fries things that require less voltage.
User avatar #157 to #108 - Katzie (04/30/2013) [-]
We are kinda talking about the future, and if it was our only source of drinkable water I think we'd take steps to make it as infallible as humanly possible.
#134 to #108 - whymewhy (04/29/2013) [-]
you didn't seem hostile to me, he just is overly sensitive and looking for a fight/argument.
0
#156 to #134 - sidekickman has deleted their comment [-]
-1
#87 to #77 - sirbutterballs has deleted their comment [-]
#138 to #87 - whymewhy (04/29/2013) [-]
please tell me you are trolling and really know who makes the charger. i don't know much about cars even i know dodge makes the charger.
User avatar #154 to #138 - sirbutterballs (04/29/2013) [-]
Not really trolling. My brain said it was right while I was typing and when I looked at it again I knew I ****** up.
User avatar #101 - reptarz (04/29/2013) [-]
i suspect a gopher is just living and ******** in that 3rd one.
+1
#85 - ninjalazor **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #90 to #85 - calawesome (04/29/2013) [-]
I do...not sure what goes on at your place.
#65 - anon (04/29/2013) [-]
Guys when you run water through dirt it gets dirty
#82 - zzRedzz ONLINE (04/29/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#58 - foelkera (04/29/2013) [-]
I don't get it
#60 to #58 - anon (04/29/2013) [-]
The less plant life = the dirtier the water
User avatar #63 to #60 - razerblazer (04/29/2013) [-]
( he drinks his own piss)
#93 to #60 - Uranium (04/29/2013) [-]
You didn't get it either
User avatar #2 - jesussausage (04/28/2013) [-]
Not to mention it won't be long before the pesticides that have been used for the past 30 years find their way down.
User avatar #121 - garuda (04/29/2013) [-]
this might be a vegan
#119 - EdwardNigma ONLINE (04/29/2013) [-]
#81 - aliksander ONLINE (04/29/2013) [-]
Or it could just be that the plants in the first jug are holding the dirt so it is not eroded as quickly as in the last jug where there is nothing to stop the dirt from being picked up by the water? This is basic earth science people.

As why is this on the front page? WTH is happening to funnyjunk?......
User avatar #86 to #81 - rynkar (04/29/2013) [-]
thats exactly the point...
#98 to #86 - aliksander ONLINE (04/29/2013) [-]
It says pollution. Dirt is not pollution,.... it's dirt. Pollution implies a harmful impurity. Dirt is not necessarily harmful, just unpalatable. Also, the opening of the bottle is at the level of the surface of the dirt, hence the water collected is not 'ground water', but 'water runoff'. These are two totally different things. If water runs over dirt, there are going to be dirt particles in the water. Having plants reduces how much dirt is picked up, but people don't tend to drink water that runs over dirt in the first place. So basically this picture and the quote put with it tells us NOTHING about plants purifying water for us to drink.

And once again,.... where is the funny?
[ 152 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)