PDA

View Full Version : OT- Pumping out New Orleans?



rws
09-07-2005, 07:42 AM
So, the pumps are running. And just what are they pumping and where? Theya re pumping the most contaminated crap you can imagine, into the lake and Mississippi River. And the river dumps into the Gulf. So what kind of impact do you think this will have? And, most importantly, they are doing it against Federal Law! This is setting a presidence that will have imact fro ever. The Federal Government says "it's a time of emergency", so it's OK to polute. So does that mean if a company says it's in an emergency, they can polute too, since the Federal Government did?

IOWOLF
09-07-2005, 08:11 AM
Would you have them put into tank trucks and send it to a treatment plant?

Also the gasoline has stoped going up becouse the EPA has slackend the rules on clean air gas. Or so the prez. says.

So we pollute the water and air to save money.

------------------
The tame Wolf !

thistle
09-07-2005, 08:14 AM
the solution to polution is dilution.

Rustybolt
09-07-2005, 09:07 AM
Everything winds up in the ocean and becomes part of the great circle of life.


I think I'll have a cheeseburger.

J Tiers
09-07-2005, 09:21 AM
Of course, YOU don't actually KNOW how contaminated it is, you are guessing.

You are probably right, but the point remains.

And, do you expect them to treat it in buckets? If they DID have to treat every ounce of it, they would be still working when the last of it evaporated, sometime in 2015.

What do you think they will do with whatever is on the ground after de-watering the place? Fire it into the sun?

Besides, your own house and yard, if you are an average American, is so polluted, from your own activities, and your predecessors, as to be nearly a superfund site. Pesticide residue, lead paint, chemical cleaners of all sorts...... the list goes on.

AZSORT
09-07-2005, 09:40 AM
I still say that not much of New Orleans will be salvageable so they ought to plan on burying most of it right where it stands. Get the dredges going and fill in the bowl raising this key strategic city out of the flood zone. maybe save a historic distric, but start fresh on the rest.

Greg C.

Weston Bye
09-07-2005, 09:41 AM
Recall all the shipping tonnage that went down in the North Atlantic during WWII, with its fuel, oils, human and other cargo. Think of Lake Erie, nearly dead in the middle of the last century from industrial and municipal waste. Given a chance and time, things recover. The Gulf coast is even now being flushed by the Mississippi, mightiest river on the continent. To the Greenies and Tree Huggers it is an imperfect solution. But it's the best option we have.

Wes

rws
09-07-2005, 09:46 AM
Well, I can see from these few replies, that the thought process here is "let it fly". I never said I have the answer, but on the other hand, I disagree to turn your back on something that is completely wrong. The impacts this polution will have will last for decades. Remember that when you go to eat seafood next time. And what this polution will do to the seafood industry there, just to name one. If you can't imagine what type of contaminants are floating around down there, watch Fox News.

Milacron of PM
09-07-2005, 11:06 AM
For more information on the pumps themselves, see here-

www.practicalmachinist.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=014167 (http://www.practicalmachinist.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=014167)

KENZ
09-07-2005, 11:49 AM
Don't forget that Lake Ponchatrain empties into the Gulf too.

The Gulf is already messed up enough. Here in Florida the EPA issued an emergency permit to the state in 2003 to dump up to 534 million gallons of "treated" waste water from a bankrupt phosphate plant into the Gulf. They say the discharge of the treated water isn't harmful and not linked to the severe Red Tide in the area.

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/secretary/news/2003/pp/oct_qa.pdf

http://tampatrib.com/MGB41NS2ECE.html

Happy
09-07-2005, 12:00 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rws:
So, the pumps are running. And just what are they pumping and where? Theya re pumping the most contaminated crap you can imagine, into the lake and Mississippi River. And the river dumps into the Gulf. So what kind of impact do you think this will have? And, most importantly, they are doing it against Federal Law! This is setting a presidence that will have imact fro ever. The Federal Government says "it's a time of emergency", so it's OK to polute. So does that mean if a company says it's in an emergency, they can polute too, since the Federal Government did?</font>

I think you will find there is a difference between a company with some pollution saying it's in an emergency, and Katrina. really.

Al Messer
09-07-2005, 12:44 PM
I understand that during normal times, New Orleans employed 128 pumps to keep the city drained. Last word I had, only 2 are back on line. BTW: I read this week that 2 of the remaining pumps are operated by old fashioned Corliss Steam Engines.

Weston Bye
09-07-2005, 12:48 PM
Yep, let it fly. That's not to say that they should continue as before. The city has the opportunity to start fresh and do it right this time. Will they do it?

Wes

andy_b
09-07-2005, 01:18 PM
on the news last night they had on a former Senator (i think) from LA. he said it has taken decades for the lake to get clean enough that they were just recently (like this year) starting to see fish populations return and people could fish there and eat the fish. he said with all the crap they are pumping back in there, the lake will be back to the polluted condition it was decades ago.

i'm no enviro whacko, but i do believe at least SOME treatment of the water should take place. i mean, the fact that you won't be able to fish or swim in the lake for the next decade must have some financial impact. ah hell, another $40 or $50 billion in aid will tide them over. that only works out to $130 per US citizen.

andy b.

Evan
09-07-2005, 01:42 PM
I don't expect that any of the flooded houses and buildings can be returned to safe livable condition. They will have to be razed. When I hear some of the statements about how long they think it will take to get "New Orleans back on it's feet" I really wonder what they are smoking. What it is is the largest superfund site yet.

[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 09-07-2005).]

uncrichie
09-07-2005, 04:28 PM
Whats the difference where the water goes. All the solid debris that is water soaked is going to be landfilled also, more than likely in another state. I don't think there are landfills in the lowlands? I could be wrong but all of this waste will be spread around for all of us to enjoy. Actually they should burn all the solid polluted material where it stands. It will have the least environmental impact. Uncrichie...

Happy
09-07-2005, 04:34 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by andy_b:
on the news last night they had on a former Senator (i think) from LA. he said it has taken decades for the lake to get clean enough that they were just recently (like this year) starting to see fish populations return and people could fish there and eat the fish. he said with all the crap they are pumping back in there, the lake will be back to the polluted condition it was decades ago.

i'm no enviro whacko, but i do believe at least SOME treatment of the water should take place. i mean, the fact that you won't be able to fish or swim in the lake for the next decade must have some financial impact. ah hell, another $40 or $50 billion in aid will tide them over. that only works out to $130 per US citizen.

andy b.</font>


do you really want to leave 160,000 houses flooded while they build a treatment plant. how about if there is only 1 foot of water in 20,000 houses, they should stay wet for a couple of years so they can build a treatment plant?

pump it now, worry about it later.

J Tiers
09-07-2005, 05:03 PM
Then there is the question of how many generations of NO residents can live in the "resettlement camps" before you have to get something done.

We have some "palestinian refugee camps" getting started, we can't afford to have them there forever.

I would not be surprised to see that it is not as bad as the doomsayers claim. It won't be "nice" regardless, floods rarely are.

And, the largest "superfund site" (meaning place with untreated industrial pollution) of the present day is china (or Russia, it's likely close). If you don't think so, YOU go there and smell the rivers..... I already did, and I know what I found.

Whatever is in N.O. is small potatos to what flows out of the rivers into the sea from industrial areas of china and Taiwan, each and every day.

Then of course there is Mexico, a bit closer to home and the gulf.......

N.O. as a one-shot deal is hardly a fleabite.

BTW, I can guarantee that in china, nobody even knows what's in the water.... if its industrial waste, its probably in the water.

But EVERY building has a separate drinkable water system..... because E-Coli is off the scale every day of the year...... the rivers smell of $hit and chemicals.


[This message has been edited by J Tiers (edited 09-07-2005).]

Evan
09-07-2005, 05:17 PM
That remains to be seen. NO was a major port for the shipment of hazardous materials. It depends on just what is in the water. They don't have a good read on that except the e-coli is "off the scale" according to the news this morning.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/08/31/Worldandnation/New_Orleans_now__haza.shtml

[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 09-07-2005).]

tattoomike68
09-07-2005, 05:30 PM
what you guys with big shops down there want to get in on is machining big bronze bushings and seals.

about ten years ago my brother machined a bushing for the us army corps of engineers and the bronze chunk cost $10,000. they still bring him work.

I want to see jobs like that go to good old machinist here in the usa.

but there again, can you turn a 500+ lb bushing?

I have brazed many pump rotor seals and re machined them after booring the pump housing seal to clean it up,or it can be brazed too if it is realy big.

rebuilding is good money to the guys who can do it, save our country some money but put some in your pocket too.

I think machinist make the world go round. try life without them http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//smile.gif



[This message has been edited by tattoomike68 (edited 09-07-2005).]

Paul Alciatore
09-07-2005, 06:06 PM
I try to maintain a sensible attitude on the subject of pollution. I would like to think that I am somewhere in the middle between the extreme "tree huggers" and the industrial jackasses that would never spend even a single cent to clean up their messes. Both of these attitudes can be harmful.

I have to agree that this is an emergency situation and that normal rules may have to be bent or even broken. After all, the whole point of not polluting is to keep OUR (that's the people's) environment clean and suitable for living in. Yes, we must protect other species but the real reason for this is not some lopsided concern for their welfare even at the expense of our own. Rather it is a quest for a balance to make the world better for all.

I have seen flooding in NO before. Yes it is bad but nature has a way of coping. Bacteria and other organisms will naturally treat most of those pollutants and render them less harmful. And this is not the first time that Lake Pontchartrain has been dumped into. The spillway above the city of NO is basically designed to dump river (Mississippi River) water into the lake when it rises too high and threatens the city. It has been used many times in the past century. It is somewhat harmful to some of the species in the lake but they do recover. And I am sure they will recover this time. You want nature? You want natural? Bears s*** in the woods. Birds s*** in the sky and drop it everywhere. Animal waste matter also has germs in it. No one picks it up. No one processes it. Nature takes care of it. It is a PART of nature. Bacteria break it down. The plants consider it a feast. It’s the cycle of life. As for the human diseases that are present in those waters, they are mostly a threat to humans, not fish and vegetation. As for other pollutants, they are there every day when it rains and are swept not only into Lake Pontchartrain, but into each and every lake, stream, river, etc. in the entire country – in the entire world. There may be a little more of such pollutants due to the wrecked buildings, but most of that would have wound up there anyway, it just would have taken a bit longer.

As for the Golf of Mexico, it is a very big body of water and the pollutants will be rapidly diluted there and attacked by the various forms of life from bacteria up as well as the rays of the sun. I don’t think that this will amount to more than a drop in the bucket, so to speak.

Fishing: Lake Pontchartrain is not used for much commercial fishing. I would say none but someone will have a tenth cousin, sixteen times removed who fishes there. Most of the area’s commercial fishing is in the Golf. As for the Golf, I would imagine it would have an impact on some areas for a while. However, those are the same areas where the local fishermen are presently out of homes, boats, a livelihood. I am sure they will make studies that track the results of this dumping. However, I would strongly suspect that they would be very minimal. Sport fishing? Yes. But have you seen any fishing boats in the news pictures? Anyone casting their lures from the shores of the lake? I suspect it will be a while before that happens again and time cures a lot of ills.

This is a temporary situation. When the city is dry the normal processing plants will be returned to operation and the sewage will once again be processed to government standards. Should we really use this as ammunition to obstruct the recovery? How much more harm will befall those who have been displaces from their homes if this effort is delayed over such considerations? And how much more will it cost to clean up?

Paul A.

Paul Alciatore
09-07-2005, 06:12 PM
Evan,

The docks are on the river front. Sensible place to have them. Most of the warehouses are less than a few hundred yards from the water's edge. The river's edge that is. The river front is some of the highest ground in the city. Thay's why the original settlers put the French Quarter there. I suspect that many of the warehouses are dry and the ones that did flood will be among the first to be drained.

While it is possible for a major spill to have taken place, it is also more likely that it did not.

Paul A.



<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Evan:
That remains to be seen. NO was a major port for the shipment of hazardous materials. It depends on just what is in the water. They don't have a good read on that except the e-coli is "off the scale" according to the news this morning.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/08/31/Worldandnation/New_Orleans_now__haza.shtml

[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 09-07-2005).]</font>

IOWOLF
09-07-2005, 06:58 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by J Tiers:
Of course, YOU don't actually KNOW how contaminated it is, you are guessing.

You are probably right, but the point remains.

And, do you expect them to treat it in buckets? If they DID have to treat every ounce of it, they would be still working when the last of it evaporated, sometime in 2015.

What do you think they will do with whatever is on the ground after de-watering the place? Fire it into the sun?

Besides, your own house and yard, if you are an average American, is so polluted, from your own activities, and your predecessors, as to be nearly a superfund site. Pesticide residue, lead paint, chemical cleaners of all sorts...... the list goes on.</font>

There are dead bodies in that water, How much more contaminated can you get?


------------------
The tame Wolf !

chief
09-07-2005, 07:07 PM
During Hurricane Agnes in 1972 which covered a greater area than NO most housing and buildings were restored and the one beyond repair were replaced. Most everything was back to normal in about 2 years execpt some bridge work.
Evan, you should really see a specialist about you intense hatred of America, it's getting to be a recurring theme in all your posts.

Evan
09-07-2005, 07:25 PM
Pay up the six billion the US owes and we might feel a bit better.

IOWOLF
09-07-2005, 07:28 PM
Hell Evan, I am sure you will get some of that money,but even if you don't I bet your taxes will go down.
NOT !

------------------
The tame Wolf !

Evan
09-07-2005, 07:31 PM
It isn't a matter of taxes. The US refusal to honour international agreements has had a direct and significant impact on my entire families standard of living and was a contributing reason for my daughter, son in law and grandkids having to move eight hours away from here. It's personal.

[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 09-07-2005).]

meho
09-07-2005, 07:34 PM
I find this interesting and oh so true....or not?

You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity.

Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time.


It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. Might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. You think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. Hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.

lotsa luck
09-07-2005, 07:42 PM
I hate to fan the flames on this any further but there is yet another angle to this that is NOT being discussed anywhere I can find. There is a huge Superfund site in No between the major levee break and the downtown area. That site was covered in 36 inches of top soil instead of removing it due to the shear size and homes that would have been destroyed to do so. It has been likened to the love canal waste dump. Where do you think that junk is now? I just came from there and I'll tell you where it smells like it is. It's in the water they are now pumping into the gulf.

What a mess...

pgmrdan
09-07-2005, 08:05 PM
Sorry meho but I have to say your attitude and the attitude of other like you sickens me.

It's horrible that this waste is being pumped out untreated but guess what, the City of New York and other areas take their garbage by barge out into the ocean and dump it. And other take it to holes in the ground and dump it.

We're ruining the earth and yes, the earth is of finite size and capacity. It can be destroyed.

chief
09-07-2005, 10:14 PM
Win some, lose some, it seems I remember you guys couldn't wait to jump on the NATFA
band wagon becuase you thought it was all rigged in your favor.

meho
09-07-2005, 10:25 PM
Pgmrdan,

I find it interesting that you can divine one's "attitude" by a single post on a web page.

No where in my post do I declare damn the toxins full pollute ahead.

I did not write it, perhaps someone here will recognise where it comes from.

That happens to be a passage I have always found interesting and oh so true...OR NOT? Emphasis on the OR NOT. I am not smart enough a man to know if there is any truth there in or what to do with the water in NO.

I always give people the benefit of the doubt. Until proven wrong.

James

J Tiers
09-07-2005, 10:26 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by IOWOLF:
There are dead bodies in that water, How much more contaminated can you get?
</font>

Well, fish crap in and die in the lakes you swim in.... along with frogs, ducks, etc, etc..... and any bigger animals that fall in. And if that's all there is in there, we call it beautiful clean water......

Evan
09-07-2005, 11:04 PM
"Win some, lose some, it seems I remember you guys couldn't wait to jump on the NATFA
band wagon becuase you thought it was all rigged in your favor. "

You don't know much about it, do you. The NAFTA panel has a majority of US reps and has ruled against the US 8 times. If the US doesn't intend to uphold it's end of a bargain then why did they sign on? It isn't rigged in our favour at all, the trade is two way and nearly equal, unless illegal duties are imposed.

Evan
09-07-2005, 11:06 PM
JTiers,

Animals, especially fish, tend to not carry human diseases.

mochinist
09-07-2005, 11:11 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Evan:
JTiers,

Animals, especially fish, tend to not carry human diseases.</font>

And to add to that, if there were ten thousand(estimate of dead last I heard)human sized fish all dead and floating in a lake at the same time , I wouldn't go water skiing or fish in it thats for sure.

Rich Carlstedt
09-07-2005, 11:56 PM
Anything biological, like you ,me, dung, oil, breaks down with bacteria. Thats the way the Earth works.
There are huge outrages by tree huggers over spilled oil, but there are Microbes that eat it...after all, it is a natural fluid here on Earth..
If no oil is spilled, the Microbes die for lack of food.
Next time you see a oil spill, know that you are feeding some poor destitute microbe, who would die without your help. Gosh, I love this Earth,It heals itself.
To bad man is so involved with his own self importance that he does not understand this.

Simple terms...No one beats Mother Nature!

Milacron of PM
09-08-2005, 12:12 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">We're ruining the earth and yes, the earth is of finite size and capacity. It can be destroyed.</font> Even if he's right that it cannot be destroyed by man, seems a rather silly point, as I'm a bit more concerned about sustaining me, my family and those that come after me than I am the earth per se. The main reason to sustain the earth and keep it hospitable is to sustain human life and make living more pleasurable. Anyone that thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves. When push comes to shove, we want to survive and the notion that we might perish but the earth will "come back" is only comforting to someone in La La Land.

.RC.
09-08-2005, 12:13 AM
Makes you wonder why are they pumping the water out of an area that is below sea level....Even retarded Freddy knows that something below sea level is going to be filled up with water another day....

J Tiers
09-08-2005, 12:56 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Evan:

Animals, especially fish, tend to not carry human diseases.</font>

Mebbe so, a few miscellaneous ones excepted.... But the last time I checked, a dead coyote, or large bird, etc, which isn't human, poisons a non-flowing water hole pretty well.... you drink, you get sick.

But that isn't the point, nobody is drinking that water.... and if people don't get animal diseases, animals and fish don't get human ones either, so that won't be a problem for the fishes.

Fish EAT dead people, and LIKE them, when they can get them. Crabs like them fairly ripe.

Pumping out water in which dead people have been will just disappoint the fish because they can't find the bodies to go with that lovely "smell" of food. So dead people aren't the problem with pumping.

There are many more dead fish, turtles, and whatevers in the carribean and the gulf than are in NO. Even a few people, that the SA druggies tossed in, drowned Cubans, etc. And a few tankers from WW2 that are still leaking a bit, along with old leaks from some U-boats, other sunken ships, and then whatever the cruise ships pump over when nobody is looking (and don't think they won't).

Point being, "clean" tends to be defined by the person speaking.... to suit their ends and intentions. For instance, YOU think dead bodies are dirty and may carry disease (and I'd agree, although a person dead or alive who is healthy doesn't spread diseases).

Many fish (and crabs) think a dead body is a free dinner. Small difference of perspective there.

NO is a few square miles, max, flooded an average of 10 foot deep. Figure the cubic capacity of the lakes, and the gulf against that.

The water in NO is not pure oil, arsenic, cyanide, and PCBs, it is largely water. Maybe 0.25% or less "something else", and I think that is generous. Not all the "something else" is lasting pollutants. Figure out the dilution....

How many years can we keep people in suspended animation in hangars, stadiums, or purpose built camps somewhere?

The whole concept of considering a short term issue with some excess local pollution against several hundred thousand displaced people, a shut-down city in limbo, and a large semi-permanent economic disruption is somewhat ludicrous.

My guess is that more people would likely die from the effects of displacement and related economic issues if the camps last for the years it would take to treat all the water, than will die from the long term effects of the pumping.

And the longer you leave the city under water, the worse the problem becomes. Better to get at cleaning it up now, than to wait and have a far worse problem to deal with. Dewatering the city is the first step towards preventing further pollution.

Frankly, those who seem to want a 2 year environmental impact study before commencing work seem to have a separate agenda..... Soem very nasty and divisive conclusions could be drawn... this is not the place for them.

[This message has been edited by J Tiers (edited 09-08-2005).]

AZSORT
09-08-2005, 01:31 AM
I heard that they are having to be careful not to suck bodies into the pumps.

Stanko
09-08-2005, 06:11 AM
Cant see what the fuss is about the pollution. In the bigger picture the US makes up about 5% of the worlds population and creates around 35% of the worlds pollution. What difference could a few billion cubic meters of polluted water really make? 35.1%

pgmrdan
09-08-2005, 07:18 AM
So Stanko, I take it you're saying that since we're already such horrible abusers of the planet that it's alright if we become worse. Does that sum up your outlook?

I suppose I can understand that attitude if your thinking is, "We're already killing the planet. What difference does another injury here or there make?"

[This message has been edited by pgmrdan (edited 09-08-2005).]

Mcgyver
09-08-2005, 11:24 AM
I've become a disenchanted with what seems the mantra of the human species: growth.

Whether it’s a microcosm like you can’t drive around Toronto anymore because its double in size (yet is no better for it) or that the world is rushing towards industrializing the third world oblivious the fact (from U of T) that it will take 4-5 planets to provide the resource if that happens.

Oil is the big problem. It’s been essentially free – not in $$$ but in the ratio of total energy expended vs what is gained. historically oil provides up the 20-30x the energy expended to extract it. This free energy is responsible for the world we live in today; vs. pre-industrial revolution. Consider just agriculture: free energy has converted humanity from an agrarian existence to an urban/industrial existence. Think in terms of supply chain and the importance of energy to mechanized agriculture; making the tractor & implements, delivering it to the farmer, maintaining it, running it, getting the produce to market, refrigerating and distributing it to consumers etc and then hauling away the waste.

Believing alternative energy will save us is naive and is sticking your head in the sand. Maybe one day a new energy source will emerge, but alternatives currently do not approach oil’s 30x payback – for alternatives to save us there needs to be a breakthrough.

Our western lifestyle couldn't exist without the free energy. That this existence will come to an end as the oil supply dwindles is a given with our current technology. The crunch however decades before actually running out as the supply curve changes.

Perhaps all of us living in urban areas will be as readily criticized as NO residents are for living below sea level for not living in a local that provides its own food & fuel sources.

We’ve got to change the mantra to sustainability. The point of passing this along is not to depress, but to get people thinking about it. Ultimately a democratic government is at least reflection of what the people want, and more people need to be vocalizing that they want sustainability over growth


[This message has been edited by Mcgyver (edited 09-08-2005).]

Evan
09-08-2005, 12:05 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
...But this is not the same water that flooded the city. What started flowing back into the lake on Monday and continued spilling into it Tuesday is laced with raw sewage, bacteria, heavy metals, pesticides and toxic chemicals, Louisiana officials said on Tuesday.</font>

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/07/national/nationalspecial/07lake.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1126194424-yCt9zEHjIoDR+O3YXUeBLQ)

Paul Alciatore
09-08-2005, 01:02 PM
So Evan, exactly what would you suggest? And are you ready to take in any of the displaced persons?

Please, this isn't an attack on your position. I just want to understand it better.

Paul A.

Evan
09-08-2005, 01:30 PM
No suggestions. I haven't criticized the actions taken (the pumping), just pointed out what is being reported and what is likely the outcome. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Particularly worrisome is the heavy metal contamination. I wonder how much mercury there was in millions of broken flourecent and mercury vapor lamps? Early tests reported this morning showed high levels of lead and mercury. That doesn't bioremediate and will settle out in the lake. PCBs are another problem.

[This message has been edited by Evan (edited 09-08-2005).]

J Tiers
09-08-2005, 01:41 PM
Now it is one thing to SAY "laced with toxic chemicals and pesticides, etc, etc", but it is a far different thing to say "the concentration of X is this, the concentration of Y is that, etc, etc.

I have seen NOTHING that actually says what the concentrations of ANY pollutants or potential pollutants ACTUALLY are. Ordinary ocean water is toxic to humans, and for that matter pure fresh water is toxic to humans, too.

And, BTW, aren't pesticides by definition "toxic" chemicals? A company comes in to my workplace and sprays toxic chemicals all around the place. People all over the midwest dump diazinon and other really nasty stuff on their lawns, which it runs off of, goes down the Mississippi, and flows past (or into) NO.

Everyone is talking about what MAY be there, based on what was present, or what they think they see floating on the water in a slick, etc. A lot of what is in that water is probably present in the average swamp.... what we call wetlands.... which BTW, are pretty good at de-toxifying water....

What is needed is actual determinations of "toxic" content of non-natural materials, if this is an issue.

Crowing about what MAY be in the water without having data is just moving the mouth like any average politician. It is open to the possibility that it is based on a preconcieved notion or bias, and a desire to slant the issues so as later to apply blame to a pre-designated culprit. In any case it isn't helpful, it is basically "nattering".

If it is better to pump, we should pump. If it is better to take as long as it takes to detoxify every single liter of that water, even if it takes 10 years, that is what we should do....

It looks like the least long term harm will come from pumping. That allows getting in and cleaning up the continuing leakages.

Most any decision is better than no decision, in almost any situation.

Leaving everything in limbo until each and every person or organization approves of the proposed solution is frankly impossible.

Rustybolt
09-08-2005, 02:33 PM
The likely outcome is that it will all get pumped into the gulf of mexico like all the water from the Misssissippi and Ohio and Missouri river systems not to mention the Great Lakes, that drain and incredibly huge amount of farmland and industrial cities with the concommitant pollutants.
In the long run everything will be as before.
Not long ago the Lake trout population of lake Michigan was threatened by pollution. Today the great Lakes support every species of fresh water fish available in N. America.
In the shadow of the Sears Tower a person can catch
Perch
sunfish
warmouth
largemouth bass
smallmouth bass
king salmon
coho salmon
pink salmon
atlantic salmon
lake trout
rainbow trout
steelhead
brown trout
brooktrout
splake(hybrid)
whitfish
mooneye
rainbow smelt
alewife herring
gizzad shad
catfish
carp
walleye
northern pike
pickerel
musky
etc

35% of the worlds pollution?
I don't think so.

Evan
09-08-2005, 02:42 PM
Don't eat too much.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
For the average coho salmon sample, EPA guidance would recommend restricting consumption to 12 meals per month; and for the average lake trout sample, EPA guidance would recommend restricting consumption to 4 meals per month. This recommendation is consistent with state-wide advisories for mercury that have been issued by several states. While Lake Michigan fish mercury concentrations warrant some level of fish advisory, few fish advisories in Lake Michigan have been based solely on mercury contamination, because Lake Michigan waters are generally under more stringent fish advisories based on PCB contamination.
</font>

http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lmmb/results/mercury/

Happy
09-08-2005, 03:20 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Stanko:
Cant see what the fuss is about the pollution. In the bigger picture the US makes up about 5% of the worlds population and creates around 35% of the worlds pollution. What difference could a few billion cubic meters of polluted water really make? 35.1%</font>

great spin. But, you should put it another way. The U.S. makes up about 21.1% of Gross World Product, and produces about 23.6% of pollution. these figures are from wikipedia. Obviously, some tribal person in Africa who eats roots and bugs, but produces nothing is going to have a smaller impact then me, who produces a lot of electrical power at my job.

J Tiers
09-08-2005, 05:00 PM
Saw in current USA Today (not a very reliable source of ANY information) that the state EPA found low levels of a list of chemicals and pesticides, but nothing significantly over limits. Fed EPA reported higher lead content than allowable in drinking water. This from a relatively few sample points in accessible areas.

The main thing seems to be bacteria, which is hardly surprising. Many of them are stated to be salt water bacteria normally present in much lower concentrations, but apparently happy in the N.O. swamp. The rest are various bacteria capable of causing distress if ingested, but not normally dangerous to the life of healthy people.

If that is indeed the case, the howling about "toxic soup" and arguments about pumping are likely totally moot, since no great harm will come from pumping that type material into the ocean or the lake.

Spin Doctor
09-08-2005, 05:41 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by J Tiers:
Then there is the question of how many generations of NO residents can live in the "resettlement camps" before you have to get something done.

We have some "palestinian refugee camps" getting started, we can't afford to have them there forever.

I would not be surprised to see that it is not as bad as the doomsayers claim. It won't be "nice" regardless, floods rarely are.
[This message has been edited by J Tiers (edited 09-07-2005).]</font>

But at least the Nawlins refugees won't be constrained from relocating in their host communities as the Palistinians are in the ME. But a lot of NO will have to be leveled and quite possibly areas of the city have huge amounts of fill brought in.

zl1byz
09-08-2005, 08:27 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Mcgyver:


Perhaps all of us living in urban areas will be as readily criticized as NO residents are for living below sea level for not living in a local that provides its own food & fuel sources.

We’ve got to change the mantra to sustainability. The point of passing this along is not to depress, but to get people thinking about it. Ultimately a democratic government is at least reflection of what the people want, and more people need to be vocalizing that they want sustainability over growth

</font>

Wow Mcgyver, I have been thinking a little about this myself with the oil and what is going on at present, and I think you are bang on.

We must all be crazy. Think about it if that oil flow stops the resulting desaster will make NO look like a hiccup.

Think about it without oil our current method of food production will fail. The mentod of transporting the food to the cities will fail. One could go on and on.

So those who said those people living in a city below sea level were crazy, take a deep breath they are not alone.

On a brighter note I beleive we humans will overcome this but I think sustainability rather than growth is the way to go.

If not nature may find a way to rub us out and leave it to the swamps and frogs to clean up the mess.

John

vaderman
09-08-2005, 08:56 PM
Pumping the sludge left from the hurricane aftermath into any body of water that drains into the ocean does not make eco-system sense. Trying to eliminate one disaster and create another is insane. Contain the water, treat it and then disperse it! The New Orleans people are already relocated so why is there a sense of urgency of rebuilding. The United Nations should be moving on this issue as it has Global impact. Oh well as a tourist attraction New Orleans will be able to offer self-cooking shrimp that glow in the dark. My 2 cents

HTRN
09-08-2005, 09:14 PM
First they'd have to build a massive water treatment plant. Then they'd have to process the water. By the time all that happens, the water would have all evaporated in ten years.

Tell me, what do you think they do now? Those pumping stations haven't been sitting idle since the 1920's.


HTRN

------------------
This Old Shed (http://thisoldshed.tripod.com)

J Tiers
09-09-2005, 12:28 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by vaderman:
Pumping the sludge left from the hurricane aftermath into any body of water that drains into the ocean does not make eco-system sense. The United Nations should be moving on this issue as it has Global impact. Oh well as a tourist attraction New Orleans will be able to offer self-cooking shrimp that glow in the dark. My 2 cents</font>

With all due respect, that is silly, a knee-jerk reaction with zero for facts.

In the first place, the reports I have seen suggest there is not the predicted "toxic soup" of chemicals, per EPA tests.

Second , "glow in the dark"? Where is the ionizing radiation (radioactive materials)to make THAT happen? Where did you get the idea that tons of radioactive stuff is swirling around NO? Even the wildest doomsayers are not asserting that....

Third, the UN? Don't even go there..... maybe they can bring their black helicopters, and the oil for food guy.... http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//rolleyes.gif

Evan
09-09-2005, 12:48 AM
I would wait till they get to the bottom of the pool before deciding what toxic materials are in that water. Some of the really bad stuff sinks.

Too_Many_Tools
09-09-2005, 01:48 AM
FYI


Tests Find High Levels of Lead, Bacteria in New Orleans Flood Water
By David McAlary
Washington
07 September 2005

Flooded street in New Orleans
Samples of New Orleans floodwaters show that it contains high levels of lead and of bacteria associated with raw sewage. U.S. environmental authorities are warning against direct skin contact with the water and say it will not be safe for drinking for a long time.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says its initial testing in New Orleans waters shows very high concentrations of lead and of E. coli and coliform bacteria. Agency administrator Stephen Johnson says the concentrations far exceed not only healthy limits, but also the limits of current tests to measure their true levels.

"In every single one of our samples, they hit the maximum. So our testing showed that each one exceeded ten times what would be safe,” he noted. “It's a major health concern. It's the maximum of the tests that we performed, and that's not good, and that's why you need to avoid contact as much as possible with the water."

Mr. Johnson says the initial water testing in New Orleans looked only for bacteria and more than 100 chemicals, such as pesticides and metals. The head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Julie Gerberding, says the good news is that the tests have not turned up compounds other than lead in the putrid water. She also notes that these first tests took place only in flooded residential neighborhoods, and that officials will learn more from subsequent tests in industrial areas. Stephen Johnson says his agency's workers have seen floating gasoline slicks, which they will soon evaluate.

Even without chemicals, Dr. Gerberding says New Orleans' fetid water is unsafe for the people who have not yet evacuated the city. She urges rescue workers to wear protective clothing.

"The results indicate that the water is full of sewage. We know that there are many common intestinal illnesses that can be transmitted by ingesting this sewage and in some cases by being in the water with these organisms in it without protective clothing,” she noted. “This water is not going away anytime soon, even though it is beginning to recede and we have more work to do to get back to a state of safe drinking water and a safe community."

The U.S. environmental official, Mr. Johnson, says his agency is also testing water in hurricane-ravaged areas of Mississippi and Alabama.

Even when floodwaters recede, contamination is expected to persist. The dirty New Orleans water is being pumped back slowly to the city's Lake Pontchartrain, where barriers overwhelmed by the storm broke and caused the flooding. A spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council in New York, Erik Olsen, says the lake's water can be skimmed or cleaned by other means, but toxic residue can remain in the sediments below.

"If there is significant discharge of persistent chemicals or of heavy metals, that can settle into the sediments, which can be re-stirred up every time there is a big storm or dredging or construction activity,” said Mr. Olsen. “That can re-suspend the sediments and cause re-contamination."

Even worse, the pollution runoff could poison the Gulf of Mexico, whose fisheries are already threatened by chemical runoff from Midwestern U.S. farms. Mr. Olsen speaks of a dead zone in the Gulf, where algae blooms and oxygen is depleted.

"That already exists, and as we see more and more of this raw sewage and runoff and toxic chemicals just coming in a huge wallop all at once, we could exacerbate that dead zone and the fisheries could suffer long term losses," he added.

U.S. health and environmental officials acknowledge the potential long term impact of pollution from southeastern coastal areas, but say that their short term focus is protecting the health of evacuees and those still remaining in flooded areas

bob308
09-09-2005, 07:05 AM
evan before you bitched that they were not doing anything fast enough. now that they are cleaning up you bitch wait. and you bitch that nafta has an impact on your life.

J Tiers
09-09-2005, 10:35 AM
Yep, that's the report.....lead and sewage bacteria, another one showed an ocean bacterium which is also bad to drink. About what you'd expect from flooding old streets with persistent lead from auto exhaust (old leaded gas), lead paint from the last 250 years, and so forth.

Bacteria get dealt with by the environment into which they go. It's what wetlands do. Sewage treatment is a way of speeding that up.

Lead? The lead test is VERY sensitive, so "exceeding its limits" may not mean that there is a ton of lead dissolved.... it just means that a test for hundredths of a microgram per litre is too sensitive. Lack of exact data.

So far not exactly "glowing in the dark" from high level refined plutonium dust contamination.......... or the like.

Time will tell, and other stuff almost undoubedly will be found. It would be very surprising if it wasn't, there are sunken cars, fuel oil tanks, etc, etc.

But I suspect the water is pretty well mixed up from having swirled in through several levee breaks.... the tests so far probably are reasonably representative of the flood water wherever they have tested it.

BTW, I wouldn't rely on the NYT for all my news..... nor on USA Today, nor the supermarket tabloids, for that matter.
The NYT have an agenda, as ALL papers do, they have been proven to falsify their stories (one or two folks actually got caught), and in this case, they seem to have been wrong about the "toxic soup" they suggested was then being pumped out.

[This message has been edited by J Tiers (edited 09-09-2005).]

Evan
09-09-2005, 01:09 PM
Bob said:

"evan before you bitched that they were not doing anything fast enough. now that they are cleaning up you bitch wait. and you bitch that nafta has an impact on your life."

You don't read very carefully. They were far too slow to help the people in NO. Our search and rescue team was the first on the scene. FEMA still has hundreds of house trailers sitting in Georgia that Mississippi is begging them to send.

Show me a post where I said they should wait on anything.

I didn't bitch about NAFTA. Try to find anything I said like that. What I am pissed about is the illegal duties imposed on our wood products. That is against NAFTA. The NAFTA panel agrees, repeatedly.

I also haven't expressed any opinion on what I think about NAFTA either. However, it is what the US and Canada agreed to. The US isn't living up to the agreement. That I have bitched about. Seems reasonable to me to bitch when someone rips you off.

Rustybolt
09-09-2005, 01:54 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Evan:
Don't eat too much.

http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lmmb/results/mercury/</font>

They're OK to eat, but I wouldn't develope a taste for zebra mussles.



[This message has been edited by Rustybolt (edited 09-09-2005).]

jkilroy
09-09-2005, 03:02 PM
Oh you can bet New Orleans is one polluted place. The entire gulf coast, thanks to our oil/chemical industry, has some of the highest cancer rates in the world. But even as bad as it is there is not a single city on the gulf coast, except for Houston, that makes the top 20 most polluted cities list. The state with the largest number of cities on the top 20 list is Kalifornia.

When I was a kid living there, when it would rain hard, this white smelly foam would come up on the street out of the sewers. Looked like soap bubbles but smelled more like fart bubbles! Kids would be out in the street playing in the stuff. http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//biggrin.gif

Too_Many_Tools
09-09-2005, 03:22 PM
Read the article folks.

The tests were from residential areas because that is where the rescue efforts are happening RIGHT NOW. They are very concerned that the thousands of rescuers could become the next victums. They are already having health problems due to the contaminated waters.

Note the results were off the scale...very bad. What the exact levels are is unknown because the tests are designed to test for extra high levels.

They haven't even begun to do the industrial areas where the really bad stuff is. When that happens, it will likely be much worse.

They are pumping because they have no other choice...this country cannot afford to walk away from New Orleans for economical reasons.

They know that there will be terrible consequences to the lake and Gulf...how terrible, again they just don't know but it will be bad.

The bacteria and organic matter (bodies included) nature can handle...the heavy metals and many other chemicals it can't.

I suspect that the Gulf fishery business is in big trouble and the lake will be dead for decades to come. If the ecological impact destroys the marsh lands that serve as a buffer to the ocean, New Orleans will be worse off than it is now.

If you doubt the seriousness of this situation, I invite you to go purchase a home in New Orleans and live there. I am sure the price of New Orleans real estate is inexpensive at this time. In lieu of that, do a few laps in your septic tank to get a feel for the conditions of living in today's New Orleans.

TMT

J Tiers
09-09-2005, 11:13 PM
I read it... the factual data seemed to concern the presence of lead and bacteria.. and teh relative absence of other chemicals and "heavy metals".

There was speculation, lots of "ifs" but no data concerning the other untested areas. There is simply no point in flying off the handle about that which is not known...

Given the industry there, one would expect other stuff. The question is whether it is indeed loose, and if so, why none of it seems to have washed into the other areas as yet.

I expected far more pesticides, because most americans seen to think they should pour poisons by the bagful onto their lawns, If they don't do it them selves, they pay someone to spray an evil-looking yellow-green stuff that you need to stay off teh lawn because of.

Maybe it's good that's a poor area. Nobody has money for that sort of suicidal idiocy.

The lead test is very sensitive, if it is the usual water test, and would not be expected to give a decent result, because it is for testing DRINKING water. It can find the lead from water sitting in a leaded brass faucet overnight..........

This water has picked up old paint, and lead deposited by cars from leaded fuel, etc, etc.

Ditto for the bacteria tests, if they are for DRINKING water, they are irrelevant to the situation there. Nobody is interested in drinking that stuff....

bob308
09-10-2005, 08:51 AM
there has not been leaded fuel since the mid 70's

J Tiers
09-10-2005, 09:57 AM
If you have ever been to NO, you'd understand.

I was there in the late 80's, and it looked like they hadn't cleaned it since the 1950s....

Too_Many_Tools
09-10-2005, 11:41 AM
Actually any large metro area has a lead problem...between the lead paint that was in use for decades and car emissions, lead is a long term problem that slowly deposits in one's system and causes many long term problems.

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/lead/index.html

If your private well has a busy highway in its watershed, you may want to have a lead test done...you may be in for an unpleasant surprise.

TMT

Tinker2
09-10-2005, 08:48 PM
Police fearing deadly confrontations with jittery residents enforced a new order that bars homeowners from owning guns. That order apparently does not apply to the hundreds of M-16-toting private security guards hired to protect businesses and wealthy property owners.