|
|
Posts: 4266
| Don't know how this affects our muskie fishing brethern, but I just caught the tail end of this on the news.....
An earthen dam in Avery, KY gave way releasing tons and tons of fill from a coal plant, loaded with heavy metals, into a river that runs into the Tennesee River? flooding woodland, farmland, and other smaller rivers causing instant fish kill along the way.
The DNR people on TV said that it was an environmental catatrophe that may never be completely cleaned up because of the damage done by the heavy metals seeping into the water table.
That's just what I caught, but they said that every TVA resevour downstream from Avery would be devastated.
Any of our southern brothers know more?
I hope that none of you are affected, but it sounds like everyone along any TVA waterway will have major problems sooner or later and lasting a long time.
Please fill us in.
I found more.
DEC 24th- Hundreds of thousands of gallons of toxic coal sludge burst an earthen dam, burying houses and flooding the waterway with sludge containing heavy metals. The spill threatens the TVA rivers systems and the groundwater and is bound to cause fish kills where ever it spreads.
That's all that I could find so far, because it just happened.
Toxic coal sludge full of toxic heavy metals, not fly ash.
Houses were washed away, not covered with ash.
I think it might be of some importance to the people living near, or planning to fish empoudments in the TVA system. They were showing dead fish all over on the National News,
Beaver | |
| | |
Posts: 57
| Beav,
I don't if this is the one you are talking about. An "ash" holding pond (40 acres) busted or let go in Harriman, Tn on Dec 22nd. The Fossil Plant is known locally as the Kingston Steam Plant.
Kingston Fossil Plant is located at the confluence of the Emory and Clinch Rivers near Kingston, Tennessee (west of Knoxville, Tn). For those who have fished Melton Hill, Kingston is located on Watts Bar Reservoir the next lake down stream.
I have seen the aerial video footage and it looks bad. I hate it for families that have been relocated during the Holidays and who might have to rebuild.
I'm sure that it will have huge impact on the fishery down stream.
http://www.tva.gov/emergency/ashslide_kingston.htm
Keith
Edited by CLARK1 12/24/2008 6:44 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 4266
| No, this just happened today, and it was right below a coal-powered power plant. They showed houses being washed away and areas much larger than 40 acres that were flooded downsteam. I didn't catch all of the interviews, but the DNR people were pretty worked up about the severity of it.
That's why I'm asking if anyone from down there knows more about it. | |
| | |
Posts: 57
| Beav,
If you hear any more news please post.
The total area effected at Kingston was "1.7 million cubic yards of fly ash and water over about 400 acres in Roane County".
I first heard 40 acres (size of the holding pond ?)
Keith
Edited by CLARK1 12/24/2008 7:07 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | This has been predicted by environmentalists for years. The implications are wide spread and not at all good.... | |
| | |
Posts: 4266
| That's right, Steve. The last guy being interviewed was bashing coal powered power plants saying that there is no such thing as a safe coal powered plant, and that this will take place all over the country in the very near future. It's pretty bleak when you think that every coal powered plant is sitting on the shores of some waterway. Take a look at The Mississippi River system. Coal powered plants up and down the river. The Great Lakes too. Power plants all along the shores. Seems that we won't have to worry about invassive species, we're doing a fine job of killing ourselves off.
Bad news for Christmas.
Best of luck to our fellow fishermen down South. Share some updates and details when you get them.
Beav | |
| | |
Posts: 1057
Location: Medford, WI | Beav,
Thank you for posting this. I'm going to look up and see what I can find on the internet right now. As you mentioned, I feel for the families who have had to relocate. Hope they can find some Christmas cheer in being together at least.
-Jake | |
| | |
Posts: 1057
Location: Medford, WI | Here's another link regarding the incident which CLARK1 mentioned:
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/dec/22/officials-dike-burst-flood...
Beav, I'm still looking for a seperate case involving which you are speaking about. Not finding anything yet; but I'm going to keep looking. If you have any links, could you post them?
Thanks, Jake | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| "TVA continues to manage river flows on the Clinch and Tennessee Rivers to minimize impact on recovery and monitoring activities associated with the ash-slide. There are no expected impacts to any other TVA facilities downstream."
This from the article.
Edited by firstsixfeet 12/25/2008 7:43 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 170
Location: Chicagoland | They should be sued for every dime they have. The environment can only take so much of this crap | |
| | |
| The Fed. Govt. owns all of the TVA plants in the USA. | |
| | |
Posts: 4266
| I'll have to look around to find it. I found it on an Environmental site. Some articles try to make slight of it, while others are blasting the TVA citing the long-term ramifications. The thing that caught my eye was the NBC World News talking to the locals about a fish clean up and the fact that they were all boiling their water. That can't be the sugar-coated version that some people are running, because of the fact that it's in the water table all ready. There aint no way to clean that up once it's in there.
I'm spending the next few days with my daughter, so I won't be doing much digging, but to me there is a dramatic difference between "fly ash" and "toxic sludge".
Not much good in the news about the people who are watching our waterways.
Beav
Go to www.treehugger.com or Google "December 24, 2008 TVA sludge spill" for a bunch of results.
2.8million cubic yards of toxic coal ash slurry or sludge released.........
I wonder what kind of "bailout" the government has planned for this problem?
Edited by Beaver 12/25/2008 9:48 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 170
Location: Chicagoland | I guess the government can do what ever it wants to the environment without consequences. | |
| | |
Posts: 412
Location: Waukesha, WI | Beav, I probably caught the tail end of the same footage you're referencing. The comment I heard was no such thing as clean coal. And to think they are expanding the coal fired power plant in Racine. Need for concern? Two completely different situations?
Edited by ESfishOX 12/25/2008 8:54 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 626
Location: ashtabula ohio | my god , how horrible! happy new year to the south. what a way to spend the holidays. i saw a quote "a bigger area than the exxon valdez"...!!!!!! | |
| | |
Posts: 626
Location: ashtabula ohio | okay i just read "40 times bigger than the valdez spill"!!!!!!!! this is just unreal. i cant even imagine what those poor people are going through, and will go through the next 6 months.... | |
| | |
Posts: 83
| At the plant I worked at, there were basically two main byproducts. Molten slag was drained from the bottom of the boilers. Fly ash was removed from the exaust gasses by percipitators. the biggest problem with fly ash is that it is highly acidic. the higher the sulfer content of the coal, the worse it is.
Boiling their water won't remove the acidity. I would think they might use lime and limestone, but I'm no chemist | |
| | |
| I hope those effected get appropriate restitution and the long term effects are not as bas as predicted by some posters here. What I fear most about this incident is the long term effects it may represent as some smoking gun that the tree huggers can use to continue the story of doom and gloom they and their talking head Al Gore are pontificating. One event does not constitute certainty of widespread failures in the future. However this one event may further the movement to convert coal plants to natural gas. When we have to compete for natural gas with power plants, the pain at the pump last summer will pale in comparison to what you will see for your home heating bills in the next few years. No such thing as clean coal? Does anyone remember the air pollution we had many years ago? People suffered health issues directly from it. Coal consumption has gone up over 30% in the last 25 years yet our air is cleaner and talk of your neighbor’s health issues related to coal are history. When will this doom and gloom get toned down? How far will it go if not checked? Does anyone remember when diesel vehicles belched black smoke? Perhaps diesel isn’t ever going to clean enough either? What should we burn in the diesel vehicles we depend on to deliver our goods? How much is this country willing to change our standard of living to accommodate the wishes of the Sierra Club? I fear we are headed toward living like the residents of Europe where we can’t afford to have any tow vehicles or trailerable toys and have to downsize our homes to afford the utility bills. | |
| | |
| You seem like the one preaching doom and gloom..... | |
| | |
Posts: 724
Location: Southern W.Va. | Dear Guest,
Come on down to my neck of the woods (southern W.Va.) and I'll show you " clean coal" .Heifer dust, there ain't no such thing. When you get up in the morning and the winds been right with a little force , then your car has a fine dust all over it , stuck in the morning dew. I've seen the rivers run black here in the spring and the river in front of my house use to be a good small mouth stream. When I was a younger man, I could fish a mile of this stream and ,on a good day, catch up to 70 -80 bass of all sizes up to 18"- 20". Now , on a good day , in that same mile of stream, you might catch 10, with the largest being maybe 12" long. Don't get me started on the subject of "clean coal" , come to my house this summer and you can sweep the "clean coal" from my front porch.
Who do you work for , A.T. Massey??
Mauser
Edited by Mauser 12/25/2008 11:04 PM
| |
| | |
| Just another "guest" here that shares the same frowned upon (more and more everyday it seems) common sense viewpoint as the original guest who posted above. Maybe we should consider Nuclear power plants? Sounds like a clean/efficient alternative energy source to me. We'll have to wait at least 4 years before that idea could be utilized however. Let's hope the situation in Kentucky is not as devastating as reported. | |
| | |
Location: Illinois | hey- don't be so sensitive guys- people aren't frowning on your opinions, merely sticking to their own! Sounds more like the "Guests" are the intolerant ones frowning on differing viewpoints! We'd be in a lot of trouble in the world without the doom and gloomers- just as we need the practical minded folks to calm them down when they go too far.
personally- I love the crap out of trees. If you don't love trees I feel for you, I really do. I know the term "tree hugger" has another connotation but when you talk down about "tree huggers" you sound like you hate nature, and specifically TREES! Is that true? If so, how can you enjoy musky fishing- there are trees all over!! | |
| | |
Posts: 4266
| I knew when I put up the link to that site that it wouldn't get a warm reception, but it seemed to have the most information. Besides, it's a product of The Discovery Channel, who I respect the hell out of along with their other affiliates. Did any of you scroll the entire page that came up? Stories about energy conservation and the decimation of the Baltic Cod fishery.
Treehugger may have been a 70's term that stuck around, and it was always used in the same breath as PETA, anti-hunter and anti-gunner. This site seemed to have a bunch of impartial information, but it is definitely geared toward people who care about the planet, which I believe is all of us. We live here, and would like to see a sustained fishery for our children and grandchildren. I've seen a multitude of posts and pictures that would make us "fish huggers", and I don't think that any of us would argue that point. Get's us back to the "Sportsman, Nuturalist....whatever post." Whatever label we choose to hang on ourselves, the tag invariably means that we care about nature and all impacts to it, good and bad. | |
| | |
| facts are often a very different thing than the presentation of information by groups with an agenda.
caring about nature is a good thing, anyone who enjoys the outdoors should think of themselves as a conservationist and an environmentalist, i know i do.
however, it does that cause harm to spread inflammatory mis-information; titling this thread "disaster" actually diminishes the impact of that word in the future when there might be a real disaster.
to describe treehugger.com as providing "impartial" information is beyond a stretch...to the point of being irresponsible.
- they call the event a "disaster of epic proportions" (it's not...relatively small area, relatively small impact)
- they compare it to the Exxon Valdez (how is that relevant? water/ash vs crude oil?)
- they say it wrecked a train (it didn't...the train is just stopped)
- they ring the alarm about ground water contamination (at that time there was no determination of amounts of contaminants in the washout, but has there been a retraction on their website? nope...)
the TVA says:
http://www.tva.gov/emergency/ashslide_kingston.htm
- sampling downstream has revealed contaminant levels are below TDEC standards to protect fish/wildlife
- water will be safe for drinking after passing through the normal filtering process
CNN news says:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/23/tennessee.sludge.spill/index.html?...
- EPA estimates cleanup to take 4-6 weeks; others concerned it could take much longer
- tests show drinking water is fine
FOX news says:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472285,00.html
- the water/ash/mud mix covered an area larger than the Valdez spill, but it wasn't crude oil...
- only 12 homes damaged
- only 100 people are involved in the cleanup
- reduced flow at the dam to prevent pollution from run-off
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | - the water/ash/mud mix covered an area larger than the Valdez spill, but it wasn't crude oil...
- only 12 homes damaged
If one is a home owner in that spill area, it certainly is a disaster. It's not 'irresponsible' to quote one source of news or another, and in this case Beav actually offered his viewpoint as to why that website was quoted; I'd say everyone is entitled to their opinions, and can support them with whatever evidence is offered out there as long as one does so within our posting permissions.
Go there, stand next to the busted storage facility, look at the damage, and tell me this is OK. I have seen several reports on national news over the years predicting this and worse would happen in facilities across the South. The infrastructure, as in the water main break of late, is old, not maintained well, and as a result, not even close to safe in many cases. AND, IMO, coal burning power plants in this country have killed more fish by their very existence than all of the muskie anglers together, living or dead. Sure, some are better than others, but the idea they are 'clean' isn't supported by the acidity levels in an awful lot of water ways downwind from those stacks. I uderstand the risk/benefit balance here, but coal power is what it is. I suppose we will continue to do what we do balancing the benefits against the damage done; it's how we do most things in the US, and improve the plant's efficiencies and reduce pollution accordingly...or not. Oddly, if I lost my relatively 'cheap' access to power my stuff if coal was eliminated from use, I'd be hollering like mad...ironic, isn't it?
Every one of the news sources lambeau quoted has an 'agenda'; if not, why is each report of the severity of this event different? As I read each report, I see potential for some considerable long term damage done to that area, and implications for the future as well. The 'disaster' of it will be if nothing is done to reinforce and repair the aging and failing infrastructure, or a similar incident will occur in the future elsewhere.
From CNN:
-Although video from the scene shows dead fish on the banks of the tributary, he said that "in terms of toxicity, until an analysis comes in, you can't call it toxic."
One environmental attorney called that statement "irresponsible." The ash that gives sludge its thick, pudding-like consistency in this case is known as fly ash, which results from the combustion of coal.
Fly ash contains concentrated amounts of mercury, arsenic and benzine, said Chandra Taylor, staff attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center.-
So Fox doesn't report this part, CNN does. Fox calls it 'mud'.
And:
'For other uses, see Disaster (disambiguation).
A disaster is the tragedy of a natural or human-made hazard that negatively affects society or environment.
In contemporary academia, disasters are seen as the consequence of inappropriately managed risk. These risks are the product of hazards and vulnerability. Hazards that strike in areas with low vulnerability are not considered a disaster, as is the case in uninhabited regions.[1]
Developing countries suffer the greatest costs when a disaster hits – more than 95 percent of all deaths caused by disasters occur in developing countries, and losses due to natural disasters are 20 times greater (as a percentage of GDP) in developing countries than in industrialized countries.[2]
A disaster can be defined as any tragic event that involves at least one victim of circumstance, such as an accident, fire, terrorist attack, or explosion.'
An exact fit, as I see it.
If this facility was on the banks of the Fox in Green Bay and this had happened, we'd all be looking at it as a disaster and hollering like madmen.
It's good to get reports from those living down there, keep them coming.
| |
| | |
Location: Illinois | It's hilarious that you contrast fact from presentation of info from groups with an agenda and THEN link to a FOX news story!
If you just want to shrug your shoulders and say "no big deal" fine, Mike. If you want to get offended because people are alarmed at the possible environmental impact, that's your business.
What I believe (you may disagree) is: groups need to "cry wolf" and claim "the sky is falling" for a couple of reasons:
1)it gets people to pay attention- 99%(not official data- my own estimation) of the population is extremely indifferent
2)corporations and businesses will lie, bribe, and misreport damages caused to save money in fines.
While I agree with you that we must treat info from groups with "agendas" with a skeptical eye, I understand that their "exaggerations" are for the good of their cause. If not for their efforts, IMHO, too many ecological "disasters" would be swept under the proverbial rug!
Kudos to your conviction and research and your arguement- when reading the "guest"- I thought to myself- "c'mon, Lambeau- sign your name!" I realized I was probably wrong but then I wake up and see you chirped in. Maybe I was projecting, but I knew we'd hear you spew some junk about treehuggers ruining the country.LOL
Don't take offense Mike, we all have opinions. Hug a tree sometime- just not a pine tree!!!
Mike Witowski
| |
| | |
| yep, Fox has an agenda (conservative), so does CNN (liberal), so does the TVA (try to appear accountable), so does treehugger.com (radical). that's why i presented each viewpoint, it covers the spectrum. i never stated they were unbiased, i simply pointed out the huge disparity in "facts" being presented...something that exactly NONE of the previous Chicken Little posts had even bothered to do prior to running around shouting that the sky was falling. in my experience, it's always better to give things a bit of time to find out what's really happened before ranting about it.
here's a quote from one of Beaver's posts to illustrate my point:
this will take place all over the country in the very near future. It's pretty bleak when you think that every coal powered plant is sitting on the shores of some waterway. Take a look at The Mississippi River system. Coal powered plants up and down the river. The Great Lakes too. Power plants all along the shores. Seems that we won't have to worry about invassive species, we're doing a fine job of killing ourselves off.
this will take place all over the country in the very near future? ummm...no.
we're killing ourselves off? considering that this spill hasn't been shown to be toxic to the water, isn't that just a tad bit over the top?
perspective is important.
i'm sure the people who lost their homes are suffering, and that sucks.
at the same time, individual situations are an emotional measure, and one that is inherently flawed in determining whether or not something is a "disaster." pulling the dictionary.com definition of "disaster"? what does that tell us? the point isn't whether or not one person got hurt or lost their home. doing so attempts to contrast empathy with objectivity, and that never works. it is possible to feel bad for the people impacted and also recognize that this situation is not anywhere near as serious as Beaver and treehugger.com initially made it out to be. the point is whether or not this is an "ecological" disaster, and there's no facts to support that, only rhetoric.
at the end of the day, the agreed-upon facts are that it's 400 acres of land covered with ashy mud, 12 homes ruined, 0 people killed, to this point no levels of toxins measured that are beyond acceptable ranges (ie., not good, but not dangerous), and some pain-in-the-butt dirty work cleaning up the mess.
i never said this was "OK"; it's a bad thing when we spill our milk.
but how exactly does this equate to being a "ecological" disaster?
Edited by lambeau 12/26/2008 10:39 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 626
Location: ashtabula ohio | just look at the photos. if you dont think this is a disaster, of any kind, you are inhuman. | |
| | |
Location: Twin Cities | If this is a disaster, what are the tornado's and hurricane's we've been seeing in the last 5 years called? Or the housing/stock/wall street mess? Those things seem like disasters, not this.
Edited by JRedig 12/26/2008 1:19 PM
| |
| | |
| just look at the photos. if you dont think this is a disaster, of any kind, you are inhuman.
again, please read the posts carefully.
this is definitely a human trajedy, and clearly a disaster for those individuals.
what is at issue is whether or not this qualifies as an "ecological" Ragnarok.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1057
Location: Medford, WI | Well, this discussion has gotten beyond me now. But, I for one, would like to thank Beav for at least brining up/posting the event. I showed my brother and parents the video link on one of the sites where they flew over the land and showed all of the "fly ash" (I believe that's what the "muck" is called - I could be wrong on that). They all thought it was a big deal and we had a good conversation about environmental protection, pollution, etc. Maybe not all of our conversation was relevant to this story or the topic, but I believe that just initiating and having a discussion about it was a productive thing.
Also, "another guest" made a very good point - maybe we should think about nuclear...but, that's a whole other topic that I'll stay away from for now.
-Jake Bucki | |
| | |
Posts: 4266
| I guess that once again I am guilty of not watching my mouth. The evening news called this picnic a disaster and I was stupid enough to use their words and I have been admonished for it.
However, did you know that "the use of fish tags is a recipe for disaster."
"Silver carp are a disaster on our waterways."
Missing fish with the net, "are boatside disasters."
If you lose your pictures on your PC, "we can get them back with a procedure called "Disaster Recovery."
The discovery of Asian Carp in Maine waters "is concidered a disaster."
How do I know? Because I read it right here on muskiefirst.
I'll stay in the basement where I belong. There I only have to deal with words like paint, plastic and wood. And I'm pretty sure that I know what those 3 things are. I won't wander out here and perpetrate radical views. Because somehow I've been circulating untruths by reporting what I heard spoken on the national news or relaying things that I read on the internet.
Just be mindful when you come in the basement, because I had woodshop in high-school.
Edited by Beaver 12/26/2008 9:13 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I gave the actual book version dictionary definition of the term 'disaster'. Like it or not, that definition is King's English defined. This event is a 'disaster' by simple definition. It was used correctly, period. The adjectives used to define the seriousness of the event are what might be called into question. I think much remains to be clarified.
I worked with a professor on a very unpopular acid rain study back in the late 70's and read quite a few of the source documents on acid rain, acidic ground water, and other damage brought to us by industry; much of that by coal fired power. I'll choose to take the environmental attorney's position that was reported on National news seriously until testing of the sludge proves otherwise. The very fallout from fly ash and chemicals in the emissions in the AIR from those stacks has effectively sterilized through increased acidity an awful lot of water out east, so I can't imagine what's in the solids.
http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/surface_water.html
http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/reducing/index.html#understand
Interesting sidebar articles and videos on this topic, including new information, and good information on the debate on Coal Fired power here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/
There are some interesting videos there.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'm following and commenting on a news story I have interest in, not debating directly with those proclaiming to be experts on one side (TVA or Environmental Activists, for example) or the other.
I posted much needs to be clarified.
Your response:
yes, absolutely. and tone is a part of the "adjectives" about an issue, too...
Is the desire to have all the facts of this disaster clarified before I believe this is 'no big deal' to the local environment an unacceptable tone? If so, why?
It is other major media covering the story, and no 'expert' from either side has posted here, attempting to use OutdoorsFIRST's audience to gain support for their position. I therefore have not felt it necessary to interview those who are recognized experts in this field, as was necessary in the case you mention that took place HERE, on THIS media.
I didn't say I 'support' this fellow.
I'll assume you read what I posted.
You interpreted that to mean:
'it's odd that you would support an environmental activist as a sludge toxicity expert. he's a well-informed layman making use of a highly publicized event to rally attention to his cause.'
You then appear to attack my credibility to assume a personal position on a national news story by comparing my personal opinions on this issue with an active debate that involved hours of interviews, emails, and phone calls with those who ARE experts who gave me their official position in great detail but did not want to enter the debate personally on the web, interviews and phone calls and emails with a few scientists who were more than willing to be published here, attending several public meetings where the other side's position was described in great detail, and then attempting to get all the facts out in the light of day.
I posted I'd take the environmental attorney's POSITION (not the fellow himself, I don't know him or his credentials).....SERIOUSLY...UNTIL TESTING ON THE SLUDGE PROVES OTHERWISE (that's called a caveat), and that based on my previous personal experience discussing the toxic nature of what comes out of those stacks and what it does to lake ecosystems, explaining why I have concerns. I then posted a series of links for folks to read and perhaps form their own opinion on each.
There are major obvious differences between my debate with the 'it's the Fish' crew and my opinions about this national news story.
Until that testing is complete, and results announced officially, I'd say every precaution should be taken and an open mind is warranted. Mine is. Yours?
Other than what appears to be a need to personally attack a couple people who you believe disagree with your take on the story, what dog do YOU have in this hunt?
Chicken little, irresponsible, etc...your posts on this subject called out two of us. One posted an angry response, one not so angry ( you are reading it now)
| |
| | |
| Until that testing is complete, and results announced officially, I'd say every precaution should be taken and an open mind is warranted. Mine is. Yours?
yes.
and that's the WHOLE point.
until there are any real facts to support such a claim, is it responsible to call it an "ecological disaster"? imho, doing so suggests foregone conclusions...the definition of a closed mind.
i pointed out that the known facts don't support those claims and suggest that a bit more reasonable view is warranted and I'M the bad guy?
that's funny stuff.
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I guess my biggest concern would be the lasting effects on the fish populations in any water bodies affected. I read the TVA page and read the portion about cenospheres. The main concern I would have would be for the waterways that had some of the sludge/ash get into the system. I've seen the direct effects of ash on a fish population. To say the least, it was not good.
Water quality concerns are always there in this type of issue, but continued monitoring of toxin levels from wells within the spill radius should tell in some time if the groundwater is going to be affected. The soil should act as a natural filter to some extent. So time will tell what the long term implications are and if this truly is going to be a several year, ongoing recovery time.
What happened certainly wasnt good, and all caution should be taken in the cleaning of this spill as well as future prevention. However, to an extent I agree with Lambeau that we should jump to a drastic conclusion. Hopefully this wont be a huge issue. | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Mike,
I don't recall posting you 'are' anything at all, more specifically a 'bad guy'.
My point has been that some will see this completely differently than others, and present data collected from sources others disagree with. One posts one's opinions, and quotes media sources others might not believe in. One's interpretation of what are 'known facts' may differ with others because of the sources of the data and conflicting information, yes? If and when the facts are brought out by both side's scientists and experts, and a clear winner is established in the debate which will then define the majority 'reality' of this event in history, this story will be one of contention.
It should be.
Call in an expert, do an interview. Get a few scientists specializing in this sort of pollution to comment here. No? then it's one's opinion VS others, neither experts, none more than laymen.
Pointer,agreed, I hope this turns out to be a clean up and reasonable recovery as well. If the break was effecting, say, Bay of Green Bay or the River in Point instead...what would your position be then?
I bet most of the folks living in TN didn't give a second thought to the failure of Lake Delton containment structure. That story was widely reported as a 'disaster', both to the local ecology and economy. No big deal in TN, though, I bet.
Google 'Wisconsin Lake Disaster'. Please, just try it. The term 'disaster' used in it's common form, one report after another.
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I definately agree that if this was much more local this topic would have about 45 pages worth of stuff on it. People would be fuming. Hard to say where my stand would be, as I try (emphasis on try) to keep a level mind about things without jumping to drastic conclusions without hearing all the facts. But if it were in my musky hole, you bet I'd be pissed.
Perhaps my question is ecological the best word to describe this disaster? What parts of the ecosystem are directly effected by this disaster, whatever form it is? How are the wildlife, trees, plants, fish, birds, insects, soils and waters all affected?
Problem is, environmental protection and care cant happen on a local level only. Everyone has to care about other areas. | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 40 acres of that stuff spread out all over the place will make a hell of a mess out of the local ecology for awhile, at least it sure looks crappy if your are standing in the middle of it from published images. The TVA page allows it's a mess, and what they are trying to do to contain it until cleanup is completed. The stuff covers 'under 300 acres' according to the TVA webpage. I imagine the effect on that direct spill area won't be immediately positive. Immediate effects on the waters the containment failure hit were not good.
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | The cenospheres and ash would be my largest concern in regards to the fish. Ash does a great job coating the gills of fish making oxygen uptake nearly impossible. This happened on a reservoir in Utah that contained our state sensitive June Suckers. A forest fire had occured there about a year ago to the day that a giant rain storm hit dropping a ton of rain. Flash floods came up quick and flooded the reservior. The dyke almost broke. We lost fish everywhere. 10,000 plus dead. A boss of mine and I pulled nearly an all nighter picking fish out of the sludge and ash filled water. We saved a couple hundred. Point is, ash can have a terrible effect on fish, so hopefully this doesnt have to great of an impact on any waterways the sludge and fly ash may have contaminated.
Any idea on what the clean up process entails? | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sounds like making bowling balls is the key to end all cenospheres.
Sorry, up too late. No idea, pretty hard to tell what is happening with all the ash and water. | |
| | |
Posts: 145
| Tell you what, those who would drink the water or let thier children drink the water because they were told that it was ok and not toxic raise your hand. Any type of industrial run off is bad for you and the enviroment period. I think the #1 point of this post was to draw attention to an issue that may sound minor but I bet that this was not the only site that has simular safety issues and poor conditions. I will bet $100 that this exact same thing happens in the next 1-3 years at the latest because they are not going to take any kind of real resposiability and when they get the estimated costs to repair simular earthen dams they will weigh the cost of repair vs. the cost to clean up and depending on which is cheaper they will make the decision. Everything comes down to money. | |
| | |
| Tell you what, those who would drink the water or let thier children drink the water because they were told that it was ok and not toxic raise your hand. Any type of industrial run off is bad for you and the enviroment period.
that's true. it's a big #*^@ mess.
of course, no one is drinking the water straight from this river (or most any other river anywhere in the United States). heck, i micron-filter my water when backpacking in the mountains.
thankfully, water in the river continues to be within the standards established for fish and wildlife health, though not for direct human consumption. water at the intake point continues to meet standards for use as drinking water, post-treatment. a legitimate worry is contamination to well-water, as that would indicate water table issues, but that hasn't shown up yet.
the initial fish kill was due to flooding/receeding waters that left fish on dry land, not poisoning. any future fish kills might be a "canary in the coal mine" (pun intended!) indicator of different kinds of problems. hopefully that won't occur.
it's interesting to note that the TVA is actually being quite accountable about it:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/29/tennessee.sludge/index.html
Edited by lambeau 12/29/2008 1:21 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
Today on CNN, water contaminated by "coal" spill has toxic levels of arsenic in it.
Sounds like a disaster to me.
JS | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Pretty broad brush stroke of a statement you just made there John. Did you purposely leave out the rest of the details from the article you took that from? I dont disagree that this isnt a good thing, but the way you make your statement implies things that arent known yet. | |
| | |
| http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/29/tennessee.sludge/index.html
The agency said it found "several heavy metals" in the water in levels that are slightly above safe drinking-water standards but "below concentrations" known to be harmful to humans.
"The one exception may be arsenic," the agency said in a letter to an affected community. "One sample of river water out of many taken indicated concentrations that are very high and further investigations are in progress."
However, arsenic was not detected in a water intake facility near Kingston, Tennessee, where the spill happened, said EPA spokeswoman Laura Niles.
and for the first time...the news actually finds an "independent" biologist, a mussel biologist from the USGS. as a humorous aside, this is his moment, the chance to trumpet the importance of the lowly mussel!
Steve Ahlstedt, an independent aquatic biologist, told CNN that a spill of this magnitude probably will affect the area's ecological balance.
"Once the ash has settled to the bottom of the rivers, all heavy metals will hang around for a long time," he said. "When coal releases into the water, the mussel population goes into deep freeze. They are the 'canary in the coal mine.' They are the main indicator of how healthy our water is."
Edited by lambeau 12/29/2008 9:16 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 412
Location: Waukesha, WI | http://www.epa.gov/region4/kingston/index.html
| |
| | |
| Drinking water standards are designed to be conservative, and results to date are below concentrations EPA knows to be harmful to humans.
One sample of river water out of numerous samples taken indicated an elevated level of arsenic, however arsenic has been found to be naturally occurring in the environment and further investigation is in progress. Arsenic was not detected in samples taken close to the Kingston Water Intake.
Unless people regularly drink untreated river water, the arsenic should not cause any adverse health effects. Surface water sample results in the area of the drinking water intakes did not indicate standards exceedances, but sampling will continue.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | In most cases with surface ground contamination it takes much longer than a few days for the pollutants to absorb down into the soil and effect the groundwater unless there is a point source impact. | |
| | |
| http://www.tva.gov/
| |
| | |
| We can't eat fish out of any lake in WI in abundance due to mercury contamination but we save a few dollars a year on electricity costs. Our grandchildren will be proud. The straw man is Global Warming. The real issue is the heavy metals and acid rain building up everywhere. Our grandchildren won't be able to eat fish period. | |
| | |
| Also I might add. There is a reason why cancer rates in the Fox Valley (GB, Appleton) are 25% greater than anywhere else. Take a look at what is sitting on the fox river shorelines for your answer. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of PCB's probably don't help either.
We can't stock muskies this year do to VHS but we can dump Millions of gallons a balasts water and dump coal on our shorelines. Don't you love our Government?
| |
| |
|
TVA Ecological Disaster