Discussion in 'Conservation, Fishery Politics and Management.' started by KV1, Aug 5, 2014.
bit of a difference between "science" and "politics", OBD...
But Environment Minister Mary Polak told CBC the decision was made by neutral civil servants based on science that confirmed draining treated water into the river, as opposed to the lake, was riskier.
"These decisions do not cross any politicians desk. In fact if I was to interfere with the decision I could be in some very serious legal trouble," Polak told CBC.
"That is one of the ways we ensure that there is never any influence by companies that might donate to political parties."
A spokesperson for Mount Polley mine and for Imperial Metals says fears of water quality are overblown.
"People think that there is a slurry of mud and silt. It's absolutely not toxic. Most mines in the world are very envious of our water quality," said Steve Robertson, Imperial Metals spokesperson, who called the aftermath of the Mount Polley mine breach an "environmental success story."
WOW! With that much "success" - we should all flush our toilets onto Stevie's vegetable garden...
Without knowing precisely what they're discharging it's nothing but speculation. My yard and garden in my last house loved having the toilets flushed into it.
I understand the desire to troll 3x5 - but this is serious stuff. On the garden thing - I doubt if your guts would be any better than anyone else's in handling E. coli. On the Polley tailings comment - see: http://www.ec.gc.ca/inrp-npri/donne...n&opt_npri_id=0000005102&opt_report_year=2013
In particular - check out the "on-site disposal" of the quantities of arsenic, selenium, lead ...
Not trolling, just offering an offsetting thought process to the lop sided, fear inducing posts you make a living generating. There's certainly heavy metals created by mining, how much settles in catchments vs how much hits the watershed we don't know that was my point. If we're to take your link at face value, shouldn't we assume on-site means on-site? Or do we pick and choose what parts of the link are accurate to suit a narrative? How about giving some reference points to the volumes you posted so they mean something? How does that compare to say Quesnel's runoff into the Fraser in the same time period? I'll bet you one thing, industry has a way better idea what they're discharging than any municipality does. When I google "heavy metals in storm runoff" the first sentences in the first two links say mining isn't the only culprit.
From the search; Heavy metals wash from tires, automobile exhausts, road asphalt, fuel combustion, parking dust, and recreational land into urban stormwater runoff and its subsequent discharge into surface and subsurface water sources can create public health and environmental hazards.
Concentrations of dissolved metals in stormwater runoff from urbanized watersheds are much higher than established guidelines for the protection of aquatic life.
Your never ending one sided anti-industry crusade is tiring, at least have some balance if you want credibility. Go rally against real estate development and urban sprawl that paves over the catchment and agricultural areas that would otherwise offer some protection for watersheds around the sprawl. As always you're going after something that none of us even you will ever give up which is why you'll continue pissing in the wind and affecting nothing. Most here would be happy if urban sprawl stopped, the last thing the Fraser Valley for example needs is another generic beige big box store strip mall full of Chinese disposables surrounded by a vinyl village, go after that it's what really drives all the industries you dislike. Mining like energy doesn't exist in a vacuum, as long as there's a demand it's going to be filled, you're wasting your time and bandwidth with these tactics.
"On-site" used to mean the tailings pond, 3x5. Now it means Quesnel Lake...
AA, so you are saying that the scientists are wrong?
I doubt it, it's stored in a pit and tested BEFORE being released to the treatment plant. Think about it, there'd be pics all over the place every MSM outlet and all social media sites would be plugged with them if they were pumping slurry into the lake. Rest assured something this high priority is being monitored by several agencies and NGO's not just the fox in the hen house. You've omitted some details in past posts, probably on purpose. Scientists say the water meets drinking water quality, and after the spill the mine built a $2 million water treatment plant. It's not the same water that went into the tailings pond in the past.
when did we become a third world country?
would like to see some of our politicians drinking the water they're pumping back into the lake.... show me that and maybe I'll believe it...
Guess you avoided reading the previous pages of posts, 3x5 - where there are pics of the tailings pond emptying into Quesnel Lake...
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Do you really think I'm not aware of what happened? Hint; refer to post #5 in this thread. I think this is just a tactic for you to avoid acknowledging the truths you've omitted that were highlighted in #389. It's pretty obvious my last few posts were in response to your link in #378, and talking about today not what happened in 2014 as just like a river moving there's nothing to debate. You have a habit of missing the point but I'm beginning to think it's not accidental and is merely part of your campaign of half truths. The funny part is yesterday you accused me of ignoring the issues and going for personal attacks when all I did was give members the rest of the story that you once again conveniently left out. Here you are doing the same, ignoring the content of the post which would be commenting on the efficacy of the current settling and treatment process but instead insinuating massive ignorance on my part asserting I was unaware of the breach. Weak and transparent, the trend is very telling.
Yes - I do - from this post above:
Your words, 3x5...
You are right sir but I'm sure it's being so closely monitored by concerned citizen groups and NGO's we'd know if there was a serious threat. I know the mayor of Bills Puddle offered to but not sure if it ever happened or not.
This isn't directed at you bigdogeh but it's really interesting to me how people can cite the government provided info and policies when it suits their agenda but literally turn around a day later and claim it's a conspiracy of political donations and corporate cronyism on a different issue when it doesn't match their narrative.
Where are they pumping unsettled, untreated slurry into the lake today? We're not talking about the original breach.
"We are not talking about the original breach"
Huh? That comment makes no sense 2 me 3x5. Where do you think the slurry stored behind the tailings berm went when it was released? Magically into thin air - never to be a worry, again?
I don't understand how 10 million cubic metres of contaminated slurry released into Quesnel Lake suddenly becomes irrelevant because you don't want to talk about it.
It's not irrelevant I didn't say it was, did you look back to see my stance at the beginning of the thread? There's multiple posts showing it, I even highlighted one to make it easy for you. It's a disaster there's nothing to debate, how much clearer can I be? Refer to the last line in my previous post quoted from half a page up. I'm asking questions about the current situation, sorry I don't know how else to say it if you're not getting my drift.
Taken out of context it wouldn't but in context it does you just missed it, I'm trying to show you we're talking about 2 separate events. One we agree on, one I'm not ready to decide on yet so I've asked some questions. Get where I'm coming from?
3x5 - stating that the few reported water quality tests were "under the drinking guidelines" is a misleading comment - and I believe purposely so - from those same regulators and provincial PR firms.
All those guidelines do is to try to see if a person will become immediately sick from drinking the water. These guidelines are NOT based on food safety concerns nor do they account for bioaccumulation up the trophic levels. Anyone quoting those guidelines in an attempt to mollify concern over contamination from the Polley tailings release either doesn't understand this stuff - or is hoping others won't...
Separate names with a comma.