[toothcomb]

Some pollution or environmental damage takes years or centuries to recover from. Desertification and top soil erosion for example.

A decade is no time at all.

What are you arguing? My point was that electronic waste has a high environmental cost, probably more so than farming.

[anamax]

> Some pollution or environmental damage takes years or centuries to recover from. Desertification and top soil erosion for example.

Whether or not that's true, your claim was about the great lakes.

> What are you arguing?

I'm pointing out that your claims have been false. When someone points that out, you respond with different claims as if that somehow justifies things. It doesn't. (Neither does good intentions.)

> My point was that electronic waste has a high environmental cost, probably more so than farming.

One can make that point without engaging in falsehoods. You didn't bother and don't seem to understand why that's relevant. You don't even seem to care about getting things right.

[toothcomb]

Water pollution is defined as a change in the chemical, physical and biological health of a waterway due to human activity.

I do not think I have stated any falsehoods. If I have supply counter evidence, rather than just poo pooing me.

The reference to the great lakes was that it was a classic and very well known example of human pollution. And that was a main theme of the article.

The Silicon valley reference was to highlight the huge environmental impact of the high tech industry. That may be in North America, or India. If they have cleaned up the industry in recent times, then that is great, have they?

[anamax]

> Water pollution is defined as a change in the chemical, physical and biological health of a waterway due to human activity.

True, but that doesn't make your claim about the Great Lakes true.

> The Silicon valley reference was to highlight the huge environmental impact of the high tech industry.

Silicon Valley isn't the high tech industry. It is a specific place in California.

As I suggested you're arguing "the truth of my claims doesn't matter because I mean well." That's both wrong and counter-productive for both your credibility and your cause.

> That may be in North America, or India.

In other words, you have no idea if it actually happened.

And you don't care.