Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> Mike Lorrey wrote,
>
> > According to sources, there is more oil pollution from natural seepage
> > than from leaks from oil drilling and transport.
>
> Any studies not funded by the oil companies that show this?
Not sure, but you can see the seepage from orbit.
>
> > > We didn't have to do this when I was a kid.
> >
> > And back in the 'good old days', nobody knew about these things, and
> > people just died for the same reasons that were attributed to other
> > sources that people were aware of.
>
> You don't give oldtimers enough credit, Mike. When peoples start dying for
> no reason, it is easy to figure out that all the dead people ate the same
> thing before they died. Fishing communities and clamming communities are
> aware of their environment. They know if something is wrong with the fish.
> Also, people don't just die suddenly for no reason. Bad mussels or bad fish
> will make a lot of people sick, and it is easy to figure out that they ate
> something bad. Your theory that maybe nobody noticed this stuff before
> might be a good conjecture, but I don't think it holds up to investigation.
Well, lets see some stats. If they knew if something is wrong with the
fish then, why don't they know it that easily now? Are there any stats
for blooms going back in time or not?
>
> > I remember when the Androscoggin River up in northern NH was colored
> > orange and smelled to high heaven from pulping operations in Berlin.
> > Between the mill and the hydro station downstream in Berlin, there would
> > be 1-3 feet of suds on top of the orange water, and when the wind
> > shifted direction, those on the west side of the river received the full
> > brunt of the stink of the mill (which is why nobody lives on the east
> > side of the river). The mill spewed out a terrible orange/brown plume of
> > smoke that could be seen from 20 miles away (and smelled from that
> > distance).
> >
> > Today, the mill is still in operation, but the river is no longer the
> > mess it once was. It is clear and smells fine. The mill still smells
> > from the smell of rotting bark and the bleaching of pulp inside, but the
> > river is now a fine place to do fly fishing, and there are no worries
> > about them being toxic. The mill only emits a slight plume of white
> > steam, and they've stopped shipping logs down the river, everything is
> > by truck now. Atlantic salmon are back in migration in the watershed
> > now, as their spawning streams are protected from streamside logging,
> > and erosion controls are used.
>
> Wonderful example, Mike. I hate to ask, but did the Mill clean up its own
> act by itself, or did the government or public have to pressure them to do
> so?
It was a private lawsuit that did it. No need for government.
>
> > As for my local area here in Lebanon, I've got pictures from early in
> > the 20th century when there would be log jams miles long on the
> > Connecticutt river. They would scour out the beds of the river of all
> > life, and wipe out bridges as well. Today, there are no such log
> > shipments, and everyone gets in a tizzy if someone's riverbank collapses
> > from natural erosion.
>
> All true. But are these examples of why we shouldn't worry about pollution?
> Or are these examples of how bad it was before we started worrying about it?
These are examples of how bad it used to be, to refute claims by
yourself here and in 'common knowledge' in the public that the
environment now is worse off than before.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:57 MDT