Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
China Earth

Up To a Quarter of California Smog Comes From China 259

Posted by samzenpus
from the you-can-have-this-back dept.
wabrandsma writes "What goes around comes around – quite literally in the case of smog. The US has outsourced many of its production lines to China and, in return, global winds are exporting the Chinese factories' pollution right back to the U.S. From the article: '...the team combined their emissions data with atmospheric models that predict how winds shuttle particles around. These winds push Chinese smog over the Pacific and dump it on the western US, from Seattle to southern California. The modelling revealed that on any given day in 2006, goods made in China for the US market accounted for up to a quarter of the sulphate smog over the western U.S..'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Up To a Quarter of California Smog Comes From China

Comments Filter:
  • by Viol8 (599362)

    How can these particles remain in the very lowest part of the atmosphere while travelling all the way across the Pacific, apparently completely unaffacted by weather or mixing of air strata? It doesn't make sense. Low level particulates rain out of the atmosphere very quickly. If he's talking about high level pollutants in the stratosphere then fair enough - but thats not smog.

    • I seem to remember an axiom from E-school: "Gravity always works."

    • by Sockatume (732728) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @06:49AM (#46044387)

      Nope, definitely low-level; it's a tropospheric transport model. Apparently it's a standard model (GEOS-Chem) that's pretty reliable, and it seems to incorporate interactions between particulates and the surface, including e.g. exchange of particulates between the troposphere and ocean/land.

      http://www.pnas.org/content/ea... [pnas.org]

      • by Viol8 (599362)

        If thats the case then it'll almost certainly be skewed by all the pollution from shipping along the way. The high sulphur fuel oil they burn produces hugh amounts of sulphates.

        • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday January 23, 2014 @08:28AM (#46044749) Homepage Journal

          If thats the case then it'll almost certainly be skewed by all the pollution from shipping along the way. The high sulphur fuel oil they burn produces hugh amounts of sulphates.

          So what? That shipping is done to bring the goods from China... might as well fold it in.

        • by amiga3D (567632)

          Have you seen pictures of smog in China? It's fucking incredible. It's not that much of it that makes it here, only a small portion. It seems like a lot but compared to what started it's not that much. The health problems the Chinese are going to have from this stuff is unimaginable.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      > How can these particles remain in the very lowest part of the atmosphere

      That's the Invisible Hand, son.

    • by RabidReindeer (2625839) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @08:49AM (#46044869)

      Forget particulates. Actual sand has been known to show up on my front doorstep (literally) transported across the Atlantic from the Sahara. And, from time to time, going the other direction from Kansas and Oklahoma.

      If something that heavy can be transported that far, the only thing that would change with lighter particles is how much farther they disperse.

      • How do you know the sand on your doorstep is from the Sahara and not some closer sandy area?

        • by riverat1 (1048260)

          If nothing else you could chemically analyze the dust to find its origin but dust storm remnants crossing the Atlantic have been tracked by satellite so it's know to happen.

          • If nothing else you could chemically analyze the dust to find its origin but dust storm remnants crossing the Atlantic have been tracked by satellite so it's know to happen.

            Also isotopically.

            However, A) I'm quite familiar with all the local (within 500 miles) types of sand and B) that's where the Weather Service said it came from.

            C) you can sometimes see it in the satellite pictures off the western coast of Africa. When hurricane season is at its peak, that's where the big storms come from, so I keep an eye on it.

    • by e70838 (976799)
      I live in north of France and I have already received sand from sahara. This does not happen often, but it happens.
  • by Firethorn (177587) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @06:35AM (#46044323) Homepage Journal

    Now, I'm mostly libertarian, but in the whole 'your right to throw your fist stops at my nose' sense I'd be okay with imposing tariffs on products that aren't produced up to US pollution standards, or even trade restrictions against countries that aren't even trying, pollution wise.

    • by Njovich (553857) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @06:37AM (#46044331)

      Great, so will the US then also meet EU polution standards? Or does this rule only apply when you like it?

      • by Firethorn (177587) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @06:59AM (#46044429) Homepage Journal

        Well, I did a quick google search on emissions, a fair bit about cars, not industry. My general conclusion is that the differences are basically a wash. Which is why I mentioned 'aren't even trying, pollution wise'. China for the most part isn't even trying. The USA at least tries.

        A country that is trying to protect itself will generally protect it's neighbors as well.

        • by Njovich (553857) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @07:44AM (#46044611)

          Well, it may seem like a wash because it's complicated. The EU only sets broad rules, which the individual countries then must implement.

          Also, you can't always directly compare rules.

          However, For instance for some directly possible comparison:

          SO2 Annual mean is 20 microgram per m^3 in the EU, 79 in US.
          NOx: 40 vs 100 ug/m^3
          PM10: 40 vs 50 ug/m^3
          Ozone: 120 vs 160 ug/m^3 (way of measurement differs slightly)
          CO: same for both 10000 ug/m^3

          These are *huge* differences. It may seem like a wash, but on the scales we are talking about, these are enormous differences.

          Of course, some regulations may be stricter in the US than EU, I didn't do a full on study on this.

          (these numbers may be a couple of years out of date, but I doubt there were many changes)

          Having said that, my previous comment wasn't entirely meant to be serious. In fact, I'm all in favor of applying more pressure on countries to do things about pollution. Also, the EU regulation might be a bit over the top.

          • by MightyYar (622222)

            Good exercise... now throw the Chinese numbers up and see what it looks like.

            • by Njovich (553857) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @10:39AM (#46045707)

              There is a huge difference between making a law and applying a law, obviously. This is just standards, not what you will actually find when you measure.

              But here you go:

              China:
              SO2: 20ug/m^3 (60 in urban areas)
              NOx: 50ug/m^3
              PM10: 40ug/m^3 (70 in urban areas)
              Ozone: 160 ug/m^3
              CO: 10000 ug/m^3

              • by MightyYar (622222)

                Well, that is pretty hilarious, isn't it :)

              • by Rich0 (548339) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @11:33AM (#46046263) Homepage

                There is a huge difference between making a law and applying a law, obviously. This is just standards, not what you will actually find when you measure.

                But here you go:

                Tell me about it - next to your air quality limits, here are the actual figures for High-tech zone, Shijiazhuang at http://aqicn.org/ [aqicn.org].
                China:
                SO2: 20ug/m^3 (60 in urban areas) - actual 60
                NOx: 50ug/m^3 - actual 73
                PM10: 40ug/m^3 (70 in urban areas) - actual 546!!!!!!!
                Ozone: 160 ug/m^3 - actual 3
                CO: 10000 ug/m^3 - actual 0

                Note that this is a point-in-time value. So, the laws are actually somewhat better than the US, but apparently nobody follows the law.

        • by epine (68316)

          China for the most part isn't even trying. The USA at least tries.

          It won't be long now--maybe a generation--before China is working overtime to outsource their dirtiest industries to lower-wage economics in sub-Saharan Africa, at which point their index of "at least they are trying" will bend abruptly upwards like the knee in a tree-ring extrapolated global warming infographic.

          Funny how often the people regarded as trying the hardest are usually handy to a lumpy carpet covering a trap door which opens onto

      • by JeffOwl (2858633)
        Is there evidence that US pollution is affecting Europe in any significant way? If so, then the EU has every right to demand some remedy.
        • by haruchai (17472)

          The Canadians have been complaining about transboundary air pollution from the Ohio Valley for a long time. Not sure what's the outcome of that.

      • by morgauxo (974071)

        Nah, there is more than enough hot air in the EU to push US smog back west.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Virtucon (127420)

        LOL, sure when the EU outlaws two stroke engines. I was in Spain last month and couldn't count fast enough the number of sputtering two stroke bikes whizzing around the city al belching smoke. So as they say: "Physician heal thyself."

      • If you can show that US pollution is reaching Europe like Chinese pollution is reaching the US, then, yes, the EU should have a say. Can you show that a quarter of EU air pollution comes from the US?

      • by Rich0 (548339)

        Great, so will the US then also meet EU polution [sic] standards? Or does this rule only apply when you like it?

        It only makes sense for the EU to tariff US products that don't have the same level of environmental and labor protection laws behind them. Only somebody with more nationalism than brains would claim otherwise.

        In a global economy passing laws to make your workforce and population safer and not placing tariffs on products from countries that do not implement similar controls is just asking for massive unemployment. The level of tariff should of course be proportional to the level of deviation. While the E

      • Great, so will the US then also meet EU polution standards? Or does this rule only apply when you like it?

        We don't even have a mechanism to deal with this within the US. I live in western New Hampshire, right by the big hydro power plant. Aside from a few automobiles, all of our air pollution comes from elsewhere (and we have lots of trees [discovery.com] to absorb pollution so we're probably a net negative for pollution in this area). Yet, when the heat of the summer comes and the midwest cranks up their coal-fired pow

      • Strawman argument alert. Additionally, tu quoque argument alert.

        Firethrorn never said the US should be exempt from similar laws. Additionally, Firethorn is not an embodiment of the US, nor does he have much power over US trade agreements. You appear to be suggesting hypocrisy where there is none.

        You could make an argument that such a move will have unintended consequences when other countries enact similar laws, however Firethorn might thing that was a good thing. I certainly would. Countries i
    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @06:57AM (#46044421) Journal

      Now, I'm mostly libertarian, but in the whole 'your right to throw your fist stops at my nose' sense I'd be okay with imposing tariffs on products that aren't produced up to US pollution standards, or even trade restrictions against countries that aren't even trying, pollution wise.

      The tricky thing about libertarian analyses of pollution standards is that a 'pollution standard' is actually a rather odd thing (from a libertarian standpoint, from the 'just throwing things together according to no particular overarching theory as the needs of the day dictate' sense, they occur quite naturally): Depending on how unpleasant it is, pollution is anywhere from a cost imposed on others to lethal violence visited on others, and a 'pollution standard' is the state explicitly granting the right to inflict a certain amount of that on everybody else. It's like talking about 'theft standards' for regulating the activities of pickpockets to a certain amount per wallet...

      • by Firethorn (177587)

        Depending on how unpleasant it is, pollution is anywhere from a cost imposed on others to lethal violence visited on others, and a 'pollution standard' is the state explicitly granting the right to inflict a certain amount of that on everybody else. It's like talking about 'theft standards' for regulating the activities of pickpockets to a certain amount per wallet...

        You are indeed correct about this. On the other hand, 'no pollution allowed' isn't very economical either, and it IS generally tough to seperate out just which factory/industry killed which person via pollution. Complicating this is that, generally speaking, ONE pollution source isn't enough to kill anybody; poison is in the dose, after all.

        As my original post was a one-liner unless you have a really small screen, I didn't get into that stuff. Still, in my view pollution should be charged for. No giveaw

        • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @07:29AM (#46044555) Journal
          Oh, there's definitely a reason why even the assorted "Green Parties" (in countries that have them) propose pollution standards greater than zero, and why the 'just bodging our way toward something resembling compromise' school of legislation tends to end up at some equilibrium value.

          My point was merely that libertarianism is among the most vexing theoretical frameworks from which to try to arrive at acceptable pollution levels that aren't either zero ("Pollution is violence, one of the state's few legitimate roles is preventing you from committing it unless you, as is probably impossible, negotiate the consent of all those affected") or infinite ("Pollution is a product of me exercising my property rights, state infringement on which is unacceptable"), with zero being the arguably stronger; but rather less well-befriended, outcome. It's not a useful outcome (preindustrial society kind of sucked, and somebody was still shitting upstream from your drinking water); but trying to come up with a theoretical justification for some pragmatically calculated value is quite an exercise (coming up with the pragmatically calculated value is bad enough; but that's at least mostly a technical problem).
          • by Firethorn (177587)

            I fully understand, which is why I said 'mostly'.

            My idea for pollution basically amounts to:
            (Damage from pollution type in $)/(amount released by all industries in selected area)*(amount you released over the period)*1.2*(Hassle Modifier; IE it goes up the more granular you want the selected area/release type to be)

      • by amiga3D (567632)

        "It's like talking about 'theft standards' for regulating the activities of pickpockets to a certain amount per wallet..."

        Oh, you mean like taxes?

      • It's like talking about 'theft standards' for regulating the activities of pickpockets to a certain amount per wallet...

        It seems a bit more like "assault standards", where brushing against someone as you pass in a narrow hallway isn't prosecutable, but knocking them unconscious is.

      • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

        It seems odd because you look at the government as some kind of external force that acts by itself. In reality society decided that a certain level of pollution is tolerable in order to maintain our modern lifestyle and economy, at least until we can do better without harming our interests too much.

        Of course this is highly obfuscated and prevented from functioning properly by the way modern democracy works, but it is the basic theory.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by number17 (952777)
      China seems pretty libertarian about this whole pollution thing.
    • How about "If you want to sell it here, it has to be built here"?
    • by rts008 (812749) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @10:56AM (#46045859) Journal

      There's a price for outsourcing production, and now we are seeing some of the price.

      This is not China 'throwing their fist' at our nose, this is China burping after the buffet we gleefully threw at them.

  • If Chinese manufacturing accounts for 17 to 36 percent of China's pollution, and a fifth of *that* is attributable to the manufacturing destined for US export, how can a quarter of west US smog be attributable to the US export pollution? Does the other 80 percent of manufacturing smog know to go elsewhere?

    • by Sockatume (732728) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @07:05AM (#46044449)

      The New Scientist article has smudged a lot of things from the original text. Basically overall, they find that "EEE-related Chinese pollution contributed about 3–10% of the annual mean surface sulfate concentrations, 1–3% of BC, 2–3% of CO, and 0.5–1.5% of ozone over the western contiguous United States (west of 100W)." However the amount reaching the US was highly variable from day to day (is episodic) because the atmosphere is complicated. It can "save up" pollution and dump it en mass, and on those days, it could account for "12-24% of sulfate concentrations, 2–5% of ozone, 4–6% of CO, and up to 11% of BC over the western United States".

      • Right. But if 25 percent of US West coast smog is attributable to pollution from the 20% of Chinese manufacturing that's attributable to US exports ... then along with the other 80 percent of Chinese manufacturing pollution (that's attributable to other-than-US-export-products), Chinese pollution alone would make up more than 100% of west coast smog.

        • by Sockatume (732728)

          You're right, it still doesn't make any damn sense as written. The denominator would have to be something completely un-obvious and incorrect for that number to fall out.

  • by some old guy (674482) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @06:40AM (#46044357)

    Have we not been repeatedly assured by the UN and the US government that our bestie friend China is a paragon of environmental awareness? Don't all the charts show China with a lower carbon footprint than Switzerland? Surely the pollution must be the US's own being recirculated. After being partially cleansed by the pristine skies of China, of course. /sarcasm

    • by Sockatume (732728)

      Are we still talking about the UN report that some conservative blog called "only communism can prevent forest fires", but literally read "China's populace are eager for air that they don't have to look at"?

  • Somehow fitting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pablo_max (626328) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @06:48AM (#46044383)

    I have often said to people that there is a reason why things are so cheap at these big box stores.

    I do not say this as a critique of China or which ever country is producing low cost products, but rather as a critique of Western culture and "acquire more crap at all costs" mentality. China is just filling our demand.
    Sadly, we tend not to think about the real price of what and where they buy thing. What the human costs of not supporting our local economy is.
    We do not think about HOW theses items are so cheap compared to locally produced goods. We do not think twice about buying goods from a US company which closes his factories in America or Europe to sweat shops in China or India.

    I do my best to source my goods locally, but it getting more and more difficult. The fact is, local producers of most items cannot compete because westerns are not willing or not able to pay what it actually "costs" to produce.

    Now, the fruits of this are coming to bear. From a polluted planet to not getting a living wage. I wish it would turn around, but it won't.

    • +1. Sad truth.
      A lot of people don't understand that the less they give as customers, the less they'll receive as employees.
      It's the same problem at a global level : Germany doesn't understand either that a 2 billion $ train produced in Germany is much cheaper than a 1 billion $ train produced in China.
      Karma and macroeconomics are bitches.

      • A lot of people don't understand that the less they give as customers, the less they'll receive as employees.

        Which is, of course, why we're all much worse off now than when the industrial revolution started. Back then it was the machines making goods cheaper than the people could. Of course people would buy the cheaper goods made by machine, not realising they were sowing the seeds of their own economic destruction. The less they gave as customers, the less they received as employees!

        Honestly, can we dro

      • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

        It's funny you should mention Germany as it is generally seen as a model of how not to participate in the race to the bottom. German products cost a little more but are of significantly better quality and have a much lower environmental impact, and it seems people are willing to pay that bit more. Japanese products are similar, more expensive but worth it.

    • by Sockatume (732728)

      Those local sources aren't really charging you "what it actually costs to produce", because once upon a time they would've had a much larger niche, could've run a larger - yet still modest - store, and therefore had much lower costs. I dare say people would be willing to pay those costs, and use that medium-sized source, but unfortunately that niche is gone.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by dkf (304284)

      I do not say this as a critique of China or which ever country is producing low cost products, but rather as a critique of Western culture and "acquire more crap at all costs" mentality. China is just filling our demand.

      So you're saying that a consequence of my wanting cheap electronics is that Californian hipsters have to put up with choking to death on smog imported across the Pacific?

      Is this an argument for or against?

    • ...we tend not to think about the real price of what and where they buy thing...

      In my country products could have a similar price to the international price. But I am obliged to pay taxes on almost everything, and in several cases these taxes are 50% or more of the total price. And if that was not bad enough, here traders only are content with profit margins that are at least 50%
  • Basic Math (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NoKaOi (1415755) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @06:49AM (#46044397)

    Maybe it's just a horrible article, but the numbers don't make sense:

    The team found that between 17 and 36 per cent of smog produced in China in 2006 came from factories making goods for export. One-fifth of those goods are destined for the US.

    Okay, so let's take the average of 17 and 36, we get (17+36)/2 = 26.5. One fifth of that is 5.3. So, 5.3% of smog produced in China came from producing goods for export to the US.

    The modelling revealed that on any given day in 2006, goods made in China for the US market accounted for up to a quarter of the sulphate smog over the western US.

    Ok, so here's what doesn't make sense. If they're saying 25% of the smog came from china, then only 1.3% of the total smog is from goods produced for export to the US. On the other hand, if they're really saying that what they're saying, and 25% of total smog is from US goods, that means 470% of the smog in total is form China.

    This leads to the conclusion that one of the following must be true:
    1. The study is full of shit, and the authors need to go back to elementary school. Or,
    2. The article is full of shit, and the journalist needs to go back to elementary school. Maybe what the study really says is 25% of the US west coast's smog comes from China, of which 5.3% of that is from production of goods for the US. Or,
    3. The paper was written in Chinese, and the translator needs to learn English. Ever put together something complicated made in China? As in, wtf do you mean insert 4 bolts there? There are only screws, and there are only two holes, and they don't line up! Or,
    4. Somehow, perhaps by magic, only the sulphate molecules that came out of factories producing goods for the US get blown to the US, while the sulphate molecules made in other production don't. If these molecules somehow know the destination of the goods whose manufacture resulted in their creation, that could make for some really interesting follow up studies! Or,
    5. I'm really tired and I missed something. But I don't think I'm that tired.

    • by Lumpy (12016)

      first, they are "journalists" It seems that they just make crap up and do not do any actual research on their articles anymore. I have discovered that 99% of technology journalists are complete idiots that dont even know 1/80th of what they are talking about and do ZERO research before they write something down.

      Environmental Science is harder than tech, so I will bet these are the same caliber "journalists". We dont have an real ones out there anymore, most of them are just half hearted bloggers t

    • It's also a bit of a red flag (excuse the pun) that it's from 2006. A LOT has changed since then, especially in 2008. It makes me think that maybe the year was cherry picked.
      Apparently pollution controls were ramped up for the Olympics and necessity has resulted in a lot of other pollution controls since in some of the very badly effected areas. A building boom resulted in plenty of old and badly run industrial plants etc being replaced.
      • by Sockatume (732728)

        They actually discuss a full decade of emissions data from 2000-2009, and state that they picked 2006 as an interesting turning point in China's consumption versus production emissions. I'm guessing that 2000-2009 was the most up to date info when somebody started their PhD in 2009, and now they're writing up.

    • Re:Basic Math (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sockatume (732728) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @07:22AM (#46044533)

      One's the average, one's the maximum day-to-day. It fluctuates. It's not the study that's "full of shit", it's that the New Scientist article is written unclearly. You can find the original PNAS at the bottom of the NS piece, can't tell if it's open-access because I've got a golden ticket:

      http://www.pnas.org/content/ea... [pnas.org]

    • Ok, so here's what doesn't make sense. If they're saying 25% of the smog came from china, then only 1.3% of the total smog is from goods produced for export to the US. On the other hand, if they're really saying that what they're saying, and 25% of total smog is from US goods, that means 470% of the smog in total is form China.

      5. I'm really tired and I missed something. But I don't think I'm that tired.

      The article is a bit whiffy when it comes to the figures, but the bit you are missing is that it is not just the smog from goods produced for export to the US that is making its way over to the US. If it was, that would be an interesting irony... I do not think it helps that the article seems to be at the same time trying to discuss the amount of pollution generated by Chinese manufacturing of goods for export to the US, while also discussing the amount of smog "exported" from China to the US. Those things

  • Karma (Score:5, Funny)

    by ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) <obsessivemathsfreak.eircom@net> on Thursday January 23, 2014 @07:07AM (#46044457) Homepage Journal

    Made in China.

    Designed in California.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 23, 2014 @07:07AM (#46044461)

    For quite a long time, acid rain was causing severe deforestation in Canada, killing fish in lakes and so on, as a result of burning coal in the US.

    Coal has a lot of sulfur in it. When you burn sulfur, then makes the resulting oxide gases with water, you get sulfuric and sulfurous acid.

    Canada protested vigorously, but the US totally blew it off and kept sending the acid rain to the great white north.

    Back in 1983 or so, I watched a documentary movie about this, that had been produced in Canada. The United States authorities labeled the film as "Foreign Propaganda".

    Now, I'd rather than China not send us her smog, but I don't see how the United States has standing to gripe about it.

  • by Trogre (513942) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @07:11AM (#46044481) Homepage

    Smells like poetic justice...

  • by SETY (46845) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @07:33AM (#46044571)

    "These winds push Chinese smog over the Pacific and dump it on the western US, from Seattle to southern California."
    The smog probably actually covers western North America. I highly doubt Chinese smog hates the US so much that it only goes from Seattle to San Diego.

  • by Connie_Lingus (317691) on Thursday January 23, 2014 @09:20AM (#46045029) Homepage

    don't anyone tell Walmart about this...

    they will want to charge Californians an "extra-low price " for it all...

  • I'm curious if all those particulants are partially contributing to current drought conditions by seeding clouds to dump their load into the Pacific before getting to the West coast.

  • And a study complimentary to this one has found the remainder of the particulate matter inhaled in California came from Mexico.

  • by Dark Fire (14267) <clasmc@gNETBSDmail.com minus bsd> on Thursday January 23, 2014 @12:09PM (#46046637)

    The California climate changers have been working to drive coal power out of the United States which is driving up the cost of electricity which in turn drives up manufacturing costs both in the short term and long term. This has created low coal prices in the short term and in the long term causing China to double down on coal power to keep its energy costs low and to make its manufacturing base even more competitive in the international market. This means more manufacturing will be done in China which ironically will actually make the air quality in California much worse (better air quality for the eastern US though). I also think that it would be ironic if this ultimately kills US manufacturing to the point where the US becomes a third world country where all the wealthier nations of the world come to plunder the natural resources that many conservationists have fought hard to protect. But in protecting our natural resources, it has been taken to such extremes that it ultimately weakens our economy and in so doing our government and world influence. People forget that it takes strength to defend what you cherish (ideas, people, etc.) and that there are no given rules that all uphold. People cling too tightly and take for granted that things will remain as they are now. We must find a balance to remain strong.

"The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was." -- Walt West

Working...