Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: chris gadsden on January 15, 2015, 07:31:31 PM
-
Please consider signing after you read. http://www.waterwealthproject.com/protect_the_fraser
-
Signed
-
Signed
Thank you.
-
A provincial report projects that by the end of the century under a moderate flood risk scenario "the 50-year return period event will have a magnitude similar to the 1948 flood". The same report states that a failure of the earthen Lajoie Dam and subsequent failure of the Terzaghi Dam below it would result in a flood "significantly larger than the estimated 10,000 year return period event". It would be only hours before those flood waters reached the hazardous waste site. In this seismically active province this is a risk that cannot be discounted. One need only consider the failure of the earthen Mount Polley dam, which needed no earthquake to trigger it.
Well, in reality a flood of this nature would turn many areas thought to be fairly safe into sources of toxic contamination even if the hazardous waste site is never built in the proposed location. Personally, the magnitude of such a catastrophic event, and everything else that can accompany it, kind of overshadows the purpose of this protest.
Risks from this facility, if built, include emissions from normal operations, accidents on the site, accidents transporting materials to and from the site, and flooding from the river.
In my opinion, this site could be moved elsewhere and it would run into similar opposition. Although badly needed, toxic waste recycling doesn't attract willing neighbours I don't think. Not saying that the proposed site is the best option out there, but I don't necessarily believe this website when they say they support the facility, but not the location - especially when they start saying the things they are saying in the quote above. If the facility is built somewhere else away from the river will there not be these "emissions from normal operations" or is this only a concern in the proposed location? When you push something like this away from one place to another it will inevitably piss someone else off. I feel that there will just be another group protesting at another site these emissions from normal operations, possible accidents on site, and accidents transporting materials to and from the site. Probably get more support opening up a new Target store or a Steven Harper shrine.
-
No one wants in their back yard, but this location in my opinion is worse due to the proximity to the river. Everything washes down river and in to the ocean. I know there will be others not happy if it was moved to their neighbourhood. But this is bigger than people not happy... It's about the sheer danger and damage that can come with this material washing down the Fraser River.
-
Gosh SS, I thought we have you on board on this one. ::)
-
SS is used to supporting toxic waste sites he does it every day here.
-
Some of you guys don't read too well.
-
Some of you guys don't read too well.
As well, some of us do not write that well either. ;D ;D ;D
-
Hasn't that site been a de facto hazardous waste site for the last 75 years already? Log dumps, cement plants, heavy equipment warehousing, etc. The unregulated First Nations dump sites upstream are far more dangerous, in my opinion, than a regulated and responsibly operated facility.
Where should the facility go? Good road access, large customer base nearby, rail access, history of industrial use, upwind of most of the population.
-
Hasn't that site been a de facto hazardous waste site for the last 75 years already? Log dumps, cement plants, heavy equipment warehousing, etc. The unregulated First Nations dump sites upstream are far more dangerous, in my opinion, than a regulated and responsibly operated facility.
Where should the facility go? Good road access, large customer base nearby, rail access, history of industrial use, upwind of most of the population.
Correct but this practice needs to stop and this would be a step in the correct direction.
-
Hasn't that site been a de facto hazardous waste site for the last 75 years already? Log dumps, cement plants, heavy equipment warehousing, etc. The unregulated First Nations dump sites upstream are far more dangerous, in my opinion, than a regulated and responsibly operated facility.
Where should the facility go? Good road access, large customer base nearby, rail access, history of industrial use, upwind of most of the population.
Shhh, you're making too much sense ;)
-
As well, some of us do not write that well either. ;D ;D ;D
Don't be so hard on yourself. :)
-
Don't be so hard on yourself. :)
I am world renowned on this site since 2002. ;D ;D ;D
-
Gonna need a larger hat Chris ;D
-
.--On the site they indicate that a toxic waste facility is required. I would conscider signing the petition if they stated where the new site should be located...even give a general area for conscideration.
--No is not a solution.
-
.--On the site they indicate that a toxic waste facility is required. I would conscider signing the petition if they stated where the new site should be located...even give a general area for conscideration.
--No is not a solution.
Not sure wheer it should but there must be some better place, away from a major water course like the Fraser River one should think. Nearly 600 signed now and growing by the hour. ;D ;D ;D
-
Not sure wheer it should but there must be some better place, away from a major water course like the Fraser River one should think. Nearly 600 signed now and growing by the hour. ;D ;D ;D
From what you and Flytech are saying there must be a better place because the proximity of the proposed location is too close to a major water course like the Fraser River. Ok....then do you figure it would get more support if it was located near a tributary of the Fraser like the Vedder or Sumas? How close is too close? At what point do we feel comfortable that those professionals responsible (MOE) have chosen the correct site?
Would there be the same concern of this material entering a tributary of the Fraser instead? It all washes down –right? As for this being “bigger than people not happy” well my response is that opinion would likely change if it were likely move into your neighbourhood. People in other areas likely will similar concerns equal to the ones made by individuals protesting this proposed site. Again, it is easy to just say move it somewhere else, but it if it’s move next to you then another can of worms potentially opens.
-
From what you and Flytech are saying there must be a better place because the proximity of the proposed location is too close to a major water course like the Fraser River. Ok....then do you figure it would get more support if it was located near a tributary of the Fraser like the Vedder or Sumas? How close is too close? At what point do we feel comfortable that those professionals responsible (MOE) have chosen the correct site?
Would there be the same concern of this material entering a tributary of the Fraser instead? It all washes down –right? As for this being “bigger than people not happy” well my response is that opinion would likely change if it were likely move into your neighbourhood. People in other areas likely will similar concerns equal to the ones made by individuals protesting this proposed site. Again, it is easy to just say move it somewhere else, but it if it’s move next to you then another can of worms potentially opens.
I guess you donot know it in an area very close to the Fraser that will be covered with water if we have a flood during the spring freshet that last happened in 1948.
I realize you like to differ on what many environmentalist say which is your choice of course but that does have some good results as it makes us work harder to bring these issues to the public's attention. Many people will not post their thoughts as they know they will under attack that many environmentalists suffer from many directions on every issue.
As I have said before, things could be a lot worse if we were not arround. ;D ;D ;D
Keep your posts coming.
-
Chris, I know that your contributions to our community have made this world a better place and I appreciate your work. I also don't believe that just because "environmentalists" have good intentions they are always right.
My problem with "environmentalists" is that they expect to live in a sterile bubble and that is impossible. A few years ago there was a ship full of pcb's, destined to Alberta, to be destroyed properly when the "environmentalists" decided that this was a lousy idea. Sterile bubble. They were successful in having the pcb's returned to sender and all was well. At least until the state of origin decided to burn off the oil in an open fire which meant that the pcb's were not destroyed but released into the atmosphere only to fall on us as rain. But hey, at least they didn't travel all the way to the Albertan disposal site in a relatively safe train to be disposed of properly.
The site that is designated for this facility is in no more danger than the city of Chilliwack where the whole population should be moved out if this site is unsafe.
There are more hazardous materials in underground tanks in Chilliwack than this site will have, do you intend to have all of them removed also?
-
I guess you donot know it in an area very close to the Fraser that will be covered with water if we have a flood during the spring freshet that last happened in 1948.
I realize you like to differ on what many environmentalist say which is your choice of course but that does have some good results as it makes us work harder to bring these issues to the public's attention. Many people will not post their thoughts as they know they will under attack that many environmentalists suffer from many directions on every issue.
As I have said before, things could be a lot worse if we were not arround. ;D ;D ;D
Keep your posts coming.
It’s not that I like to differ on what many environmentalists say, but I find it ironic that many initiatives pressed for by environmentalists (i.e. recycling of toxic materials, alternative fuels, alternative energy using biofuels, etc.) for years can be later killed by environmentalists. For instance, some years back a gasification facility was proposed to be built in Kamloops in the Mission Flats area. The proponent was from Manitoba and they thought they secured a good site in Kamloops. The purpose of the facility was to dispose of creosote railway ties (a big problem identified by environmentalists and the railways) safely that would otherwise find their way into a landfill where the materials inside could leach into the ground. The technology is not new, but the type of gasification being proposed was.
Gasification is a process that converts organic or fossil fuel based carbonaceous materials into carbon monoxide, hydrogen and carbon dioxide. This is achieved by reacting the material at high temperatures (>700 °C), without combustion, with a controlled amount of oxygen and/or steam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasification
According to MOE, the emissions from this facility would be the same as from a wood burning stove. The permit that was in place would have had the most stringent monitoring regime of any industry in the city. The facility was going to start out as a feasibility study where if things did not go as planned in the permit it would have been discontinued. However, local environmentalists gathered enough local opposition against the project and killed it. They had their own website set up to oppose the project, held numerous rallies in town and had a PhD chemist from a liberal arts university in the eastern US who specializes in giving presentations for these types of protest come here to talk to city council and the media. The public was told that their health was at great risk with all these diseases and other illnesses brought up. Google was working over time with all these studies being pumped out showing how bad this was for citizens; however, many were either not relevant or unfair. The methodology was being falsely labelled as “incineration” by environmentalists, but it was not conventional burning. The project was totally misrepresented and the proponent vilified in the end. The province did their due diligence and put together a very good permit, but there was too much local opposition. Following the public town hall meeting, where opponents basically heckled the proponent or anyone that had a difference of opinion, it was lights out for the project.
Looking back, the proponent likely contributed to this bad public relations by not engaging the public earlier with the plan and methodology to get ahead of the protest. They underestimated environmentalists’ ability to mobilize opposition and didn’t sell the project like they should have. One thing I have learned over the years is that you can have a smart scientist with a great project and great science, but if he/she cannot sell it to people then it does not matter how good the science is. However, although the public could have been engaged better much earlier it does not mean that the facility was a bad thing. Despite this, once the protest gathered momentum and started to make people fearful for their health it was too little too late for the proponent to turn the tide.
It was thought that this type of facility could potentially generate electricity if proved successful. Funny thing is that a gasifier has been currently operating for sometime immediately north of the city core in Heffley Creek at Tolko. Whatever happened to those creosote railway ties? Did the proponent build somewhere else? Not sure, but it would be sad if these railway ties were leaching away into the ground instead of disposed of in a much safer manner because if this is the case then what did environmentalists really gain? Merely pushing the problem somewhere probably didn’t solve the problem. That is more NIMBYism. If the result is actually worse than what was being proposed to solve the problem then how is that much better for the environment? This is one of the main criticisms I have with environmentalists, and although they have good intentions, they are not always right. Simply saying “No” is not a constructive answer because we all recognize that things like recycling of toxic materials are important. When I read what you provided in that website (not all about potential flooding) it basically tells me that protest will likely follow that recycling facility wherever it goes.
Chris, the thing is that people that might think different than you (or other likeminded) can still care about the environment just as much; however, when they see the two examples that have been presented they start to question if the goals of environmentalists are truly being met after a successful protest…..and are we (meaning all of us) and the environment much better off because of it.
-
It’s not that I like to differ on what many environmentalists say, but I find it ironic that many initiatives pressed for by environmentalists (i.e. recycling of toxic materials, alternative fuels, alternative energy using biofuels, etc.) for years can be later killed by environmentalists. For instance, some years back a gasification facility was proposed to be built in Kamloops in the Mission Flats area. The proponent was from Manitoba and they thought they secured a good site in Kamloops. The purpose of the facility was to dispose of creosote railway ties (a big problem identified by environmentalists and the railways) safely that would otherwise find their way into a landfill where the materials inside could leach into the ground. The technology is not new, but the type of gasification being proposed was.
Gasification is a process that converts organic or fossil fuel based carbonaceous materials into carbon monoxide, hydrogen and carbon dioxide. This is achieved by reacting the material at high temperatures (>700 °C), without combustion, with a controlled amount of oxygen and/or steam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasification
According to MOE, the emissions from this facility would be the same as from a wood burning stove. The permit that was in place would have had the most stringent monitoring regime of any industry in the city. The facility was going to start out as a feasibility study where if things did not go as planned in the permit it would have been discontinued. However, local environmentalists gathered enough local opposition against the project and killed it. They had their own website set up to oppose the project, held numerous rallies in town and had a PhD chemist from a liberal arts university in the eastern US who specializes in giving presentations for these types of protest come here to talk to city council and the media. The public was told that their health was at great risk with all these diseases and other illnesses brought up. Google was working over time with all these studies being pumped out showing how bad this was for citizens; however, many were either not relevant or unfair. The methodology was being falsely labelled as “incineration” by environmentalists, but it was not conventional burning. The project was totally misrepresented and the proponent vilified in the end. The province did their due diligence and put together a very good permit, but there was too much local opposition. Following the public town hall meeting, where opponents basically heckled the proponent or anyone that had a difference of opinion, it was lights out for the project.
Looking back, the proponent likely contributed to this bad public relations by not engaging the public earlier with the plan and methodology to get ahead of the protest. They underestimated environmentalists’ ability to mobilize opposition and didn’t sell the project like they should have. One thing I have learned over the years is that you can have a smart scientist with a great project and great science, but if he/she cannot sell it to people then it does not matter how good the science is. However, although the public could have been engaged better much earlier it does not mean that the facility was a bad thing. Despite this, once the protest gathered momentum and started to make people fearful for their health it was too little too late for the proponent to turn the tide.
It was thought that this type of facility could potentially generate electricity if proved successful. Funny thing is that a gasifier has been currently operating for sometime immediately north of the city core in Heffley Creek at Tolko. Whatever happened to those creosote railway ties? Did the proponent build somewhere else? Not sure, but it would be sad if these railway ties were leaching away into the ground instead of disposed of in a much safer manner because if this is the case then what did environmentalists really gain? Merely pushing the problem somewhere probably didn’t solve the problem. That is more NIMBYism. If the result is actually worse than what was being proposed to solve the problem then how is that much better for the environment? This is one of the main criticisms I have with environmentalists, and although they have good intentions, they are not always right. Simply saying “No” is not a constructive answer because we all recognize that things like recycling of toxic materials are important. When I read what you provided in that website (not all about potential flooding) it basically tells me that protest will likely follow that recycling facility wherever it goes.
Chris, the thing is that people that might think different than you (or other likeminded) can still care about the environment just as much; however, when they see the two examples that have been presented they start to question if the goals of environmentalists are truly being met after a successful protest…..and are we (meaning all of us) and the environment much better off because of it.
Thanks for the well thought out and written post, I remember this issue and do not know what the end results were.
-
This is what happenens when the public is not engaged properly on environmental issues.
http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/mlas-turn-on-gasification-plant-1.1244954
-
SS if you take the time to read this you will see assessments on some projects that should be done are tried to be avoided by some unless the issue is pushed. This is why environmentlist and others concerned about many issues are very important these days as some governmnets try not to do what they should.
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/christy-clark-confronted-aboriginal-leaders-torn-over-lng-plans
-
This is what happenens when the public is not engaged properly on environmental issues.
http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/mlas-turn-on-gasification-plant-1.1244954
I took a big interest in this proposal and followed it quite closely. I actually spoke to MOE, the proponent and Mr. Lake about it. I even read the permit. The proponent, Kim Sigurdson of Aboriginal Cogeneration, was a decent guy and felt very passionate about what he was doing, but in my opinion he seemed to believe that having the support of governmental agencies was enough. He felt he went through the proper channels to get approval which he did, but he left the general public (primarily the undecided) sort of hanging because they did not really understand what his plan was and how the methodology/science was going to work. Local environmentalists beat him to the punch and "explained" the project and the science in their own words - albeit very misleading. Nevertheless, local environmentalists filled the void and by the time Sigurdson finally decided to hold public meetings it was too little too late. In addition, Sigurdson spent too much time fighting with environmentalists and protestors instead of spending more time reaching out to the general public who likely were very undecided at the time, but not by the time the public meeting were finally held.
Like I said before, one can have a great scientist, a great project and great science, but if you cannot sell it then it doesn't really matter much. These days with social media being the way it is today and the ability to get information off the internet (like Google) one can really create a big stink really fast. By using sites like Facebook it is easy to get a community of likeminded people mobilized for this type of protest. It is not a hard exercise to go onto the internet to find studies to use as ammunition against projects like these.
Strangely enough, this type of issue was brought up recently on another forum I was on where this other person (who was against this gasifier at Mission Flats) asked why the City of Kamloops was not jumping on board with using biofuels for generating electricity. I told him that it was people like him who killed the project that was along the same lines as the one he wants now. Sigurdson could have done better, but the fact is that local environmentalists killed the project and were not fair in their assessment of it. They need to be held accountable, but they are seen as not having any financial interest as well as having the public's well being at heart - that's their "out". Local environmentalists created so much fear for public health that I highly doubt that a facility of this nature will ever see the light of day in Kamloops or other interior city. After seeing what happened to Aboriginal Cogeneration, why would a proponent want to spend the time and money proposing a similar initiative and go through the referral process only to be vilified in the end and have the proposal totally misrepresented?
-
SS if you take the time to read this you will see assessments on some projects that should be done are tried to be avoided by some unless the issue is pushed. This is why environmentlist and others concerned about many issues are very important these days as some governmnets try not to do what they should.
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/christy-clark-confronted-aboriginal-leaders-torn-over-lng-plans
I am not saying that there is not any merit in environmentalism and holding government accountable, but I believe that environmentalists also have a responsibility to be fair/objective in their assessment, provide viable alternatives and get their facts straight. It does not help when media sources like the Vancouver Observer posts pictures of "abscesses" on the internal organs from mammals in the area and attempts to automatically link them to current resource development in the area without any other supporting evidence or objective scientific opinion.
-
I am not saying that there is not any merit in environmentalism and holding government accountable, but I believe that environmentalists also have a responsibility to be fair/objective in their assessment, provide viable alternatives and get their facts straight. It does not help when media sources like the Vancouver Observer posts pictures of "abscesses" on the internal organs from mammals in the area and attempts to automatically link them to current resource development in the area without any other supporting evidence or objective scientific opinion.
It's like all those lies about L Ron Hubbard ::)