i think you're confusing ground water with surface water. and even then you're not understanding the mechanics at play.

ground water comes from wells. its not filtered by soil, it's filtered by rock, because that's what it's "flowing" through, and is essentially several millenia old because that's how long it takes to "flow".

surface water is where most people water comes from. it's also not filtered by soil, because it's not going through the soil. its creeks and streams and rivers.

sewage isnt put into the ground.
it's discharged into creeks, streams, and rivers. but its not raw sewage.

you know how the water is usually treated* before going to your tap?
well, sewage is treated again before being released back into the river.
it's filtered, flocced, settled, skimmed, and chlorinated, such that it's nearly identical to the body of water it came from and is going back into.

*usually, especially if you're downstream from another town/city; though some mountain cities and the like that get it straight fromt eh mountain don't treat theirs

I was going to go with the Aliens reference, but 5th Element works too.

Derek Smart and Battlecruiser 3000AD.
Now there's a fellow that brings back memories.

same way they always have.
first by force.
then by tradition.
otherwise known as "possession is 9/10's of the law".

the only reason we haven't (yet) seen it in Antarctica and the treaty there has yet been observed and maintained, is there hasnt yet been a big push to produce or obtain resources down there (it's bloody cold, and the resources are under a very thick layer of ice). just wait til they decide it's time to get the oil or other BigMoneyItem out of the gruond down there, and then see how long that treaty lasts.

the problem is thats not exactly what happened.
this child was not continually observed and studied.
the mother is apparently not only been bad (and im not passing judgement in saying that) about maintaining the treatment, but also about maintaining any contact or followup with the doctors who did the treatment.

its like walking in and out of a movie every few minutes for minutes at a time, and trying to figure out what happened while you wre out.

No. They havent.

And saying "scientists" question it is an illegitimate statement. No one cares what a neurobiologist thinks of climate, and no one cares what a climatoligy thinks of nuerobiology. A non-expert is still a non-expert, even if he happens to be a scientist in some other field.

No. It doesn't.

here's your options:
--total freedom eventually leading to extinction
--some very mild controls that will improve health, boost the economy, create jobs, and possibly prevent extinction as well.

You presently have the freedom to be ignorant and stupid.
But that doesn't mean you should be or that it is desireable.
And I could build a decent case that that freedom (to be stupid) should be stricken because of hte burden you then place on everyone else.

you do realize that humans didnt evolve to breathe CO2 at those levels, right? that when humans evolved CO2 levels were lower than today, let alone during the dinosaurs time? not to mention the fact that most plants alive today ALSO did not evolve to exist in such high CO2 levels? That such CO2 levels will cause dramatically higher temperatures and vastly different climatology, which will more than offset (ie: Kill the plants) any gains from higher CO2 levels? You also realize that CO2 is not "plant food" ? Plants use far more than just CO2? And plants are in general carbon nuetral, using and storing carbon while alive (in the form of growth), which then gets released back into the biosphere when they die?

Basic CO2 concentration guidelines:

higher reliability, lower (or at least different) mechanical complexity.
there are also various operational issues with the V22.

for one thing, its big. both in size and weight it is MUCH bigger and heavier than the CH46's it's replacing. The result is on board ship they can only carry 6 of them per embarked squadron, as opposed to the normal 8 of the 46's.

It's much more mechanically complex (engines rotate, the wing and rotors fold for storage), leading to additional maintenance time required.

due to the 2-abreast layout of the rotors, as ooposed to the tandem setup of the 46, it also takes up a LOT more room on the flightdeck, requiring additional clearance distance and reducing the number allowed on deck. it also means that while one rotor is over the deck and in "ground effect" the other is not. instead its hanging over the side and out of ground effect. this causes an unequal amount of lift and makes shipboard takeoff and landing much more difficult on the pilot, especially since the engines/rotors are crosslinked (each engine essentially drives both rotors) so you can't really decouple it in order to balance out the lift until sufficiently high enough above the deck

thre's more, but its break time for me.

retreating blade stall is less of any issue on compound helicopters if they include a wing. the wing can push that barrier back further, and even offload the rotor entirely of lift responsibility. even the stub wings on the Cobra and Apache provide a measurable amount of offload. not a whole lot, but some.

The nice thing about dual-prop compound helicopter is instead of using a tail rotor to coutneract torque, one of the propellers basically takes its place, providing the same counter force (one will provide more power than the other), at least until sufficient forward speed is achieved for the vertical stabilizer (if present) to be able to take over under sufficient trim (though this will increase induced drag). the down side of course is retreating blade stall, though is you have dual props, you probably have stubwings, or even a full wing, which as said, can offload the rotor. the downside of this design of course, is increased mechanical complexity (gearboxes and drive shafts to run the the rotation out the stubwings to the propellors and turn it 90deg, and of course the gearboxes on each side can't be identical either; one will essentially be a 270deg gear box)

so going coaxial then solves THAT problem, and allows the dual props to both run at the same speed/rpm, which will either simplify engineering, or reduce pilot workload/requirements, depending on how the design approaches the problem.

the simpler design is coaxial + 1 prop. reduced mechanical complexity in that there's only one drive shaft to the single prop, which if located in the rear is a known design method because thats how "normal" helos do it anyway, yet even then its reduced complexity as theres no gear boxes required to turn the rotation 90degree, and no 45deg gearbox to run a short drive shaft up a vertical stabilizer (as in the Cobra/Huey).

but of course, coaxial rotors bring their own added mechanical complexities as well.