Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) causes massive toxic waste spill.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by FieldingMellish, Aug 22, 2015.

  1. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #1
    Here’s the skinny.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ter-spill-of-toxic-waste-into-colorado-river/

    The article starts:

    The head of the Environmental Protection Agency toured the sludge-coated banks of Colorado’s Animas River on Wednesday, as the Obama administration sought to limit the environmental and political damage from last week’s 3-million-gallon toxic waste spill — one caused in part by the agency’s own contractors.

    So who’s head is going to roll and what of the EPA, al the while BP is fined nearly 14 billion for its toxic spill?

    That one starts:
    Deepwater Horizon spill could haunt British oil major for years to come, as the US prepares for a trial that may see the company fined nearly $14bn. From fishermen and oystermen to hoteliers, restaurateurs and tourist businesses, hundreds of thousands of individuals and businesses stretching along the entire coast of the Gulf of Mexico have sued BP over its Deep Water Horizon spill. The scale of the fines and compensation claims facing the British oil major is staggering, with tens of billions of costs already accumulated.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ding-legal-battle-for-Deepwater-disaster.html
     
  2. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #2
    Funny how you don't even mention the poorly-built containment system left abandoned by the mine's owners. I wonder why.
     
  3. ElectronGuru, Aug 22, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2015

    ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #3
    It's called externalizing the losses. And it's still legal:

    Foreign-owned mines operate royalty-free under outdated US law
    https://www.revealnews.org/article/foreign-owned-mines-operate-royalty-free-under-outdated-us-law/

    "Let’s say you own 245 million acres. And underneath that land are billions of dollars’ worth of minerals – gold, silver, copper, uranium and more. Would you let foreign companies in to tear up your land, put your water at risk and take those minerals without paying royalties?

    You already are. That’s the amount of public surface land controlled by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the federal government’s biggest landholder. And companies that mine these lands are exempt from federal royalty payments."

    And then we get to pay to clean up the mess. And argue about how well that effect is going so we can ignore the cause. Genius!
     
  4. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #4
    From the OP's article ...

    And ...

    But somehow this is spun as the fault of the EPA. There's another telling line from the OP's article that I think sums it up quite well ...

     
  5. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #5
    how DARE you post anything that paints obama in a bad light?
     
  6. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #6
    You seem to hate biased articles. Here's a clue: this is one. I should say, how DARE you post something that only gives one particular side to a story, without even attempting to explain what really happened because it doesn't fit your narrative. Naaa...that would be like hard and stuff.
     
  7. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #7
    The mine was causing contaminated water and other toxic chemicals to drift several miles away. Fish species nearby all disappeared and land animals several miles away were being affected by other chemicals in the wastewater.

    The EPA did cause a major leak, they acknowledged it was their fault, but it doesn't change the fact that it was an accident. Unlike the BP incident, which official reports criticised safety procedures and a lax attitude by managers, there is no evidence so far that the EPA failed to follow proper procedures. The mine was already leaking contaminants, probably because it was not properly built.

    What do you propose to happen? Fine the EPA?
     
  8. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    Given this has never happened before the EPA has done a good job IMO.
     
  9. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #9
    Was Obama driving the bulldozer? Did he issue an Executive Order demanding the EPA work on this site?

    The question seems pretty clear: Either you recognize the fact that the EPA has done a great deal to clean up, protect, and preserve the environment - and living conditions - for million of Americans.

    Or you don't. That you somehow cling to the belief that unchecked business will magically police itself. And that corporate executives won't save costs by dumping their waste and runoff anywhere thats convenient for them.

    Around the world: from the River Thames in London (that a century ago was a toxic dump masquerading as a slow-moving cess pit, and now has reports of dolphins and whales frolicking the estuary) - to Germany, which is making amazing progress in cleaning up a generation of Communist overseen toxic dumping. Environmental action undertaken by central Governments is proven to work. It makes life immeasurably more pleasant for the citizens of those countries. It lets people drink the water, breathe fresh air, and live long lives. And, in the long run, its good for business.
     
  10. Mr. Buzzcut macrumors 65816

    Mr. Buzzcut

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio
    #10
    How about if the EPA and associated regulations were effective, this nasty "accident" would not have been staged in the first place. Amazing and disappointing.
     
  11. Zach Vega macrumors regular

    Zach Vega

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Location:
    Singapore
    #11
    I know that the EPA has become burdensome lately, but c'mon people, things happen. Not every disaster can be prevented.
     
  12. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #12
    Just about everything we don't agree with is biased
     
  13. jkcerda, Aug 22, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2015

    jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #13
    Spade is a spade. Nice post.
    EDIT.
    http://news.yahoo.com/epa-knew-blow-risk-tainted-water-gold-mine-044309124--politics.html
     
  14. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    So what should they have done? Continued to let toxins pollute the area and never have taken the risk?

    Well there wasn't an EPA in the 19th century when the mine was in operation.
     
  15. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #15
    Based on the articles, they should have had a plan to deal with things instead of simply taking the risk
     
  16. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #16
    A subcontractor may have precipitated an accident at a toxic site.

    How is that a reflection on Obama?
     
  17. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #17
    Never would have happened under President Perry.
     
  18. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    Agreed, but that of course costs more money.
     
  19. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #19
    Accidents happen.

    Trucks delivering groceries kill pedestrians. People die undergoing routine, but needed, surgery. Responsible gun owners sometimes accidentally shoot themselves.

    But I don't see people suggesting, as a result, that we go back to being hunter gatherers; reject modern medicine; or call for the outlawing of private firearms.

    This accident involving the EPA was unfortunate. It is very possible mistakes were made; and that changes in EPA policy and procedure need to be made. Possibly administrators or private contractors need to lose their jobs. But lets not pretend throwing the (unimaginably good) baby out with the bathwater.

    OK?
     
  20. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #20
    Please don't agree with that. His sentence barely makes sense to begin with.

    Plus, I don't believe the contractor or the agency was oblivious to the risks or lacking a plan.

    jkcerda paints an overly simplistic picture, without adequate knowledge of the circumstances or the contingencies that were put in place. So far, his posts amount to little more than blind stabs at Obama and the EPA.

    And you agree with that?
     
  21. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #21
    It should have been done. It's too late. Glad they at least acknowledge the mistake. Time to clean up
     
  22. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #22
    This is so funny

    Thanks eraserhead for agreeing with me, apparently you also agree with everything else I have said/implied , wonder if this applies to just this thread or every post that I have made :D
     
  23. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #23
    What does BP have to do with this?
     
  24. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #24
    Where in the world do you get that?
     
  25. Mr. Buzzcut macrumors 65816

    Mr. Buzzcut

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio
    #25
    So the leeching waste was a major concern. You're exactly right; they should have evaluated every step they were taking, or hired engineers to help evaluate the risk. What happened after millions of gallons were unleashed? Somehow, it was reported that the EPA claimed no immediate or long term threat as the heavy metals would be diluted. So what's the truth? If no threat, why screw around with it?
     

Share This Page