|
|
|
Author |
|
Message | |
|
Bodger
Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 13524
|
|
|
|
|
cab
Joined: 01 Nov 2004 Posts: 32429
|
|
|
|
|
Behemoth
Joined: 01 Dec 2004 Posts: 19023 Location: Leeds
|
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 45468 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
James
Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 2866 Location: York
|
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 09 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
bodger wrote: |
how much of it is down to a genuine effort compared to a general melt down of the countries manufacturing base |
This drives me absolutely mad. I'm fed up to the back teeth of hearing this sort of comment.
Do you think that salmon just appear in our rivers like magic?
The seals that now come up as far as Tadcaster- are they random accidents of nature?
The river corridor floral diversity which is second to none within Europe doesn't just happen by fluke of circumstance.
Two generations ago, we had the by far the worst rivers in Europe. Now they are out and out the best by a long chalk.
I've spen almost all my working life trying to stop contamination entering rivers. I've helped clean up more land than you could shake a stick at. And as such, my work has had a dirrect impact on the quality of our rivers. To say otherwise is to say what I do is pointless.
Its hard science, I deal with stuff that you cant see in 4 dimesions. I deal in chemical break down products, half lives, fluid dynamics and monte-carlo probability models. Thats how our rivers are kept clean.
In 2005, one of the big four supermarkets spilled 115,000 litres of diesel into one of the major rivers in the north east. The Environment Agency have spent the last 10 years encouraging Salmon back into this river, and have succeeded. Shortly after the spill, diesel started appearing in the river. Environment Agency officers controlled the spread of the leak to a very limited area and stopped gross pollution of the estuary (which had two SSSI's at its mouth). The environmental prosecution team called me in to determine the risk to the river, and to enter into discussions with the geological consultants employed by the supermarket.
The arguments went on for two years. I prepared a detailed report on the physical, chemical and geological risks to the river associated with the spill.
Two days before I was due in court, they backed down and were fined vast amounts of money.
Two weeks ago (four years after the incident..), I signed off the land surrounding the river as clean. In the meantime, Environment Agency staff have been constantly working to ensure that no pollution enters the salmon river.
The result: The river has been kept clean, the supermarket has been fined, Salmon still swim up stream. It was "genuine effort" on our part over many, many years that brought about this successful outcome.
And you know the real irony of it ? You paid for this work in your taxes.
and you don’t even realise we do it.
And you have the audacity to say it's just because our industry has collapsed.
Laugh? I almost pissed myself. Do you think that the contamination stops when the company goes bust?
Most of my workload is from industrial contamination that’s over 100 years old impacting on the rivers.
Couple that with the fact that we use more hazardous substances now than we did 50 or 100 years ago, and it becomes clear that surely...somehow these hazardous chemicals are being managed properly given that the river quality is improving.....
I'm fed up the back teeth of people saying we don’t do anything important and its all just dint of circumstance.
And if you think its all about the past and the now, you probably don't realise that right now, we're working to ensure the quality of your green and pleasant land under future climate change risks fifty years in the future. I'm doing stuff today to make sure your children can enjoy cleaner rivers and better environments.
Go on then, go back to the good ol' days when rivers stank of coal tar and had no fish in them at all. Do you miss seeing frogs with no sexual organs? Do you miss seeing floating excrement in the little brooks? We produce more sewerage now than at any point in the past….but tell me truthfully the last time you saw human excrement in a river?
If it comes over as a flame…its meant to be. It makes me SO MAD.
Don’t go spouting off on stuff you don’t know enough about.
post script:
bodger wrote: |
Be wiser than other people if you can; but do not tell them so |
Ironic, dont you think?
There are a lot of quiet, wise people out there doing important stuff . Just 'cos you dont know about it, doesnt mean its not happening.
Last edited by James on Sat Jul 25, 09 7:45 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 45468 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 45468 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
Behemoth
Joined: 01 Dec 2004 Posts: 19023 Location: Leeds
|
|
|
|
|
James
Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 2866 Location: York
|
Posted: Sat Jul 25, 09 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
dpack wrote: |
...there is much still to do |
there certainly is lots more still to do. Many rivers are much lower quality than they should be.
Interestingly, the most common reason for lower water quality is now agriculture. Many of the Yorkshire rivers have problems with ammonia, phosphates, permathrin and dieldrin (..as an asside here, we're not picking up any glyphosate...)
Cleaning up industrial point source pollution is a walk in the park compared to changes farming practices...
dpack wrote: |
...due to storm water flushing the sewers through the overflows |
Storm water overflows are a big issue, and the water co's are trying to reduce their numbers (everytime there's a pollution incident like your example, they get fined). One big advance is that all new sewers are seperate from surface water drains, so they dont get flooded in times of heavy rain. Changing infrastructure takes time and £££, but the amount of money available is somewhat dictated by the annual water co. pricing review, which has just demanded a reduction in water bills. Good news for consumers, not so good news for environmental bennefits.
Not wishing to polish Behemoth's ego or anything, but Yorkshire water are pretty good in the bigger scheme of things. Compare your Colne example to Brighton, for example, where they still have a constant raw seweage discharge dirrect into the sea.
YWS have put big money into places like Hull to ensure this type of discharge stops. |
|
|
|
|
Jonnyboy
Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 23956 Location: under some rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Tavascarow
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Posts: 8407 Location: South Cornwall
|
|
|
|
|
mihto
Joined: 03 Feb 2008 Posts: 3273 Location: West coast of Norway
|
|
|
|
|
twoscoops
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 1924 Location: Warwickshire
|
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 31902 Location: York
|
|
|
|
|
Behemoth
Joined: 01 Dec 2004 Posts: 19023 Location: Leeds
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
|