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?
> 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.
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?