|
|
Posts: 1058
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?
|
|
| |
