1. Is there something about the concept of “degree” that you are struggling with? As a thought exercise, change “environmental regulation” to “immigration” and “CO2” to “Mexicans”. (Ie a certain number are present “naturally” and society functions just fine, yet the US builds a wall to keep most of them out and many clamour for better enforcement of immigration laws to keep the LEVEL of new migrants manageable for local economies / communities).

2. I have a hard time believing that you really don’t get that concepts of “toxic when ingested” and “pollution” are different. And, as it turns out, yeah, introducing water into the environment at levels where it does not currently exist is, given the circumstances — think of flooding from a hydroelectric dam — subject to environmental restrictionsn regulations and permissions. Again, it depends on the level and the harm. I don’t see what is so difficult about this.

Anyway, what Bob said.

Bob

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-drinking-too-much-water-can-kill

Your argument is pure sophistry.

No, it doesn’t. It means you have to do something like include a concept of harm or talk about quanitity (ie introduce unacceptable levels etc) in your regulation.

There are a bajillion naturally occuring substances that are present in the environment in trivial amounts that cause no harm to humans or to ecosystems (dunno — salts, lead and other heavy metals, hydrocarbons, asbestos). Introduce that same substance beyond its natural level, and it is a pollutant. Doesn’t seem at all illogical.

Now who wants another arsenic smoothie!

And perhaps formaldehyde was a poor example above. How about, say, oil? It is present naturally, but at the quantities disgorged following the BP disaster, it’s an environmental disaster. Dump a bunch of it in a local fishing hole and see is your argument “but it’s natural!” gets much traction.

Formaldehyde fits this description, too.

What an asinine comment. No it does not. I will grant you that it is naturally occurring. It is the necessary for life part that you are completely wrong about. I guess biology was not your strong suit.

Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring substance in the environment made of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Natural processes in the upper atmosphere may contribute up to 90 percent of the total formaldehyde in the environment. Formaldehyde is an intermediate in the oxidation (or combustion) of methane as well as other carbon compounds, e.g. forest fires, in automobile exhaust, and in tobacco smoke. When produced in the atmosphere by the action of sunlight and oxygen on atmospheric methane and other hydrocarbons, it becomes part of smog. Formaldehyde has also been detected in outer space (see below).
Formaldehyde, as well as its oligomers and hydrates are rarely encountered in living organisms. Methanogenesis proceeds via the equivalent of formaldehyde, but this one-carbon species is masked as a methylene group in methanopterin. Formaldehyde is the primary cause of methanol’s toxicity, since methanol is metabolised into toxic formaldehyde by alcohol dehydrogenase. Formaldehyde does not accumulate in the environment, because it is broken down within a few hours by sunlight or by bacteria present in soil or water. Humans metabolize formaldehyde quickly, so it does not accumulate, and is converted to formic acid in the body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formaldehyde

Formaldehyde fits this description, too. I guess it shouldn’t be considered a pollutant.

As with anything else, the dose makes the poison.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2049