BS: Environmental pollution problem?

Subject: BS: Environmental pollution problem?
From: nutty
Date: 06 Sep 05 - 01:57 PM

I am based in the UK so please forgive me if I am being naive but in watching, on TV, the developments in New Orleans, I have a question which I would be grateful if some good soul would answer.

We are being told, over and over again, that the water being pumped out of New Orleans is contaminated with oil , chemicals, and other unpleasant substances, yet it is being pumped INTO Lake Ponchetrain.

Is this likely to create another environmental issue or is the lake already so polluted that its waters are partially responsible for the New Orleans problems?

Subject: RE: BS: Environmental pollution problem?
From: pdq
Date: 06 Sep 05 - 02:03 PM

Environmentalism is a luxury that we cannot afford while people are dying in a huge disaster. Sorry to tell you that.

Subject: RE: BS: Environmental pollution problem?
From: GUEST,Jaze
Date: 06 Sep 05 - 02:06 PM

Most likely a second disaster. The water is being pumped into the lake and also the Mississippi, which empties into the Gulf of Mexico. It is extemely contaminated and authorities say there's no time or means to clean the water, they just need to get it out of the city. Sadly, it will probably kill everything in the lake and river and have a devastating effect in the Gulf as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Environmental pollution problem?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Sep 05 - 02:11 PM

Fishing in Lake Ponchartrain has dropped over the years, as a result of wetland loss.
Pumping out N. O. into the lake obviously will not help water conditions, but pdq is correct. The sooner N. O. can be cleaned out and on the road to recovery the better.

Subject: RE: BS: Environmental pollution problem?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 05 - 02:14 PM

it is simply that there is no choice. In the lake, and eventually, in the Gulf, it will be gradually diluted. Many of the chemicals end up in the gulf anyway, though not so high concentrations all at once. Much of the sewage IS a temporary problem, as it is not being treated first. Experts could tell you the precise answers to this, and no doubt are hard at work figuring it out right now. Careful searching on Google could no doubt get relevant answers....but I'm not sure I want to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Environmental pollution problem?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Sep 05 - 02:15 PM

It will certainly create a whole other set of problems. But environmental pollution problems have never really been a high priority issue to the US government, and at this point there really isn't anything else they can do.

Subject: RE: BS: Environmental pollution problem?
From: Mooh
Date: 06 Sep 05 - 11:46 PM

Bet the water table will be poisoned beyond repair for generations. Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Environmental pollution problem?
From: nutty
Date: 08 Sep 05 - 03:57 AM

I listened to an 'expert' on CNN this morning who reckoned that the food chain in the lake will be disrupted for many years.

First to be affected will be small organisms, then fish and birds and eventually alligators.
In the Gulf he believed that huge stocks of shellfish will be inedible.

Apparently the main chemical in the water that is likely to have the most catastrophic effect is lead.

Subject: RE: BS: Environmental pollution problem?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Sep 05 - 10:55 AM

'Progress' was being made before all this...it seems the lake was just opened to swimming about 3 years ago, after decades of pollution, and manatees had begun to return. This will set things back for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Environmental pollution problem?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 Sep 05 - 11:04 AM

Environmentalism is a luxury that we cannot afford while people are dying in a huge disaster.

(1) The city is practically empty, the dead are dead, the living are safe, so the urgency of drying it out is reduced, except for commercial reasons.

(2) The problem appears to have been caused in part by ignoring the basics of environmentalism over many decades. Good time to start doing it right?

(3) "Afford" is an odd concept for the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Environmental pollution problem?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Sep 05 - 11:31 AM

On NPR's Morning Edition today they spoke with people who have monitored the level of the City of New Orleans since 1950. It has been sinking at the rate of about 2 feet per century, and all of this water will help speed up that rate. Considering the rate of sinking (due to "subsidence") and the toxic sediments that will settle out and remain after the water is gone, it sounds like a dangerous place to rebuild.

Saving New Orleans, a Sinking City

Abstract: Morning Edition, September 8, 2005 · Katrina's damage to New Orleans is not surprising to geologists. The city was built on loose soil that compacts over time, causing it to sink every year, and the sea level is rising. Planners will have to consider this as they discuss how to rebuild the city.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Environmental pollution problem?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Sep 05 - 12:00 PM

I understand that at least two tanks of MTBE were ruptured during Katrina, spilling the chemical into the already contaminated water. Maybe it is time to look at this giant mistake again:



EPA strikes out on MTBE

By Bonner Cohen
Copyright 1999 Washington Times
August 9, 1999


"There isn't a decision I make on any given day that's not related to the health of the American people."
EPA Administrator Carol Browner
Forbes Magazine, October 20, 1997

In taking the Hippocratic oath, fledgling physicians solemnly pledge they will, "First, do no harm." That the oath has survived over the centuries is eloquent testimony that those who oversee the medical profession's code of conduct recognize the unique responsibility doctors have to protect the health of people in their care.

Unfortunately, federal regulatory agencies, even those acting in the name of public health, have no equivalent to the Hippocratic oath. More concerned with procedures than with outcomes, the regulatory behemoths that inhabit Washington are constantly on the lookout for ways to expand their power. And if this sometimes means rushing ahead with a grandiose scheme without a proper understanding of the elements involved, then so be it.

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) misadventure with the gasoline additive MTBE is a case in point. Once embraced by EPA as an effective weapon in the agency's war on air pollution, MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) has become an outcast. Its fall from grace was brought on by public outcry over the presence of MTBE in the nation's drinking water supply.

On July 27 an EPA-appointed blue-ribbon panel grimly announced it was recommending that the use of MTBE be "reduced substantially" because it turns up in groundwater after leaking from gas stations and underground storage tanks. Even though most detections were well below levels that pose a risk to public health, enough people from Maine to California had been frightened and enough water systems contaminated for the panel to urge radically changing course.

What's remarkable about the panel's findings is that they are not based on any new data. The panel's members simply reviewed the same data that had been available to EPA for years. But while EPA has been a tireless cheerleader for MTBE and other so-called "reformulated" gasolines, the panel reviewed the data and came to an entirely different conclusion. In truth, EPA was caught off guard about the problems associated with MTBE because it never bothered to conduct a scientific evaluation of the health effects of oxygenated fuels - not just MTBE, but also ethanol and methanol. What's worse, it ignored warnings from its own scientists years ago that MTBE could make its way into ground water.

EPA's MTBE debacle got under way in 1990 with the enactment of a host of amendments to the Clean Air Act. One of those amendments instructed EPA to develop a reformulated gasoline program for the nation's most polluted cities, with the goal of reducing carbon monoxide emissions from cars and trucks. EPA unveiled its reformulated gasoline program with great fanfare in 1993 and promptly mandated the use of what it touted as cleaner-burning oxygenated fuels in 39 metropolitan areas beginning in 1995.

In accordance with EPA's new policy, oil companies were required to supply the targeted metropolitan areas with oxygenated fuels. While some oil refiners chose corn-based ethanol, most decided to use octane-boosting MTBE. When added to standard gasoline, MTBE raises its oxygen content, which in turn reduces emissions of carbon monoxide, particularly in older vehicles.

Such was the theory, and in practice MTBE did improve air quality in the cities where it was in use. It did so, however, at a cost that ultimately negated whatever benefits it achieved.
Had EPA looked before it leaped, it would have noticed a most unsettling characteristic of MTBE. Unlike standard gasoline, which, when spilled or leaked, does not spread far and breaks down over time, MTBE is highly soluble in water. Once it reaches ground water it spreads rapidly. EPA's own scientists had warned of just such a likelihood in a study released for external review in December 1992. The study, "Alternative Fuels Research Strategy," (EPA: 600-AT-92/002) set up a framework for comparative risk assessments of MTBE, ethanol, ETBE, methanol and compressed natural gas. Written in the hope that its findings would generate a full-fledged research program at EPA to investigate alternative fuels, the study instead did little more than gather dust at the agency. Its warnings went unheeded. Sure enough, in 1996, MTBE was detected in the water system of Santa Monica, Calif., as a result of leaks from gas stations and underground storage tanks. By 1998, MTBE had been found in water in more than 10,000 locations throughout Central and Northern California. When present in large enough quantities, MTBE gives off an offensive odor and turns water a murky shade of brown. With political pressure building in affected communities and in Congress to do something about the problem, Carol Browner finally set up her blue-ribbon panel.

Cleaning up the mess that is EPA's reformulated gas program is going to take years. There isn't enough ethanol to replace MTBE, putting the whole alternative fuels program in doubt. Gas prices are likely to go up in those states still under EPA's reformulated gasoline mandate, as production of MTBE is cut back. Oil companies don't know whether the $7 billion they spent converting their refineries to make MTBE will ever be recouped.

Much of this could have been avoided if EPA had followed the advice of its own scientists and familiarized itself with the properties of the chemicals it was putting into communities across the nation. EPA knows older underground storage tanks are prone to leaks, and an adequate understanding of the peculiarities of MTBE would have alerted the agency to trouble ahead. In fact, Carol Browner's agency didn't raise a finger until political pressure forced it to do so.

And she talks about protecting public health?

(Bonner R. Cohen is a senior fellow at the Lexington Institute in Arlington.)

Subject: RE: BS: Environmental pollution problem?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 05 - 03:21 PM

Yes, it's very unfortunate that the EPA (under both Republican and Democrat administrations) lives in the pockets of the very industries from which it is supposed to be protecting the people of the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Environmental pollution problem?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Sep 05 - 06:26 PM

there was a long opinion piece in the Washington Post today, by Benjamin Forgery, a major critic ot the arts and the cultural scene. He does not rush to judgement, and his views are widely respected.

It begins:

Planning for a New, Improved Orleans

By Benjamin Forgey
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 8, 2005; Page C01

Some things you just cannot rush, even after a catastrophe such as the one in New Orleans.

You can and should rush to rescue people, find them shelter and provide medical aid. You can and should begin right away to ask questions about what went wrong, why it did so and who is responsible.


And, of course, it is natural to wonder what's going to happen in the future.

What you shouldn't do, however, is to try to answer these questions in haste and rancor.

Rushing to judgment, though understandable, is a short-term response to a lot of serious, long-term issues. One is the very survival of a nearly 300-year-old city.

...........

"It is not unreasonable, then, to ask if we should rebuild a city in such a geographical bind.

The cost will be astronomical -- billions of dollars just to build an adequate levee system; billions more to do something about the degraded swamps that surround the city and which, when in good health, can do much to protect from hurricane-driven surges. Such a prospect implies an immense investment of federal money -- more by far than went to New York after 9/11 -- simply because there is no other capable source. And so, whether they desire it or not, all federal taxpayers have a stake in the future, or non-future, of New Orleans."


it continues, as he tries to sort out what might be done, what must be done, and what can't be done....well worth reading the whole thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Environmental pollution problem?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 05 - 06:34 PM

I'm wondering about whether or not they will allow the Mississippi to divert itself over to the Atchafalaya, and let just the parts of New Orleans that are above sea level to remain as an historic city.