|
So our cool new environment minister (who is actually an economist) okayed the dumping of 8 million (edit: billion) litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence. good environment minister best quality environment minister
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
brucio posted:How does this increase property values? If there wasn't a big river, they'd have to build tanks or another treatment plant. Also, the whole project is an urban beautification thing. quote:The elevated section will be demolished and transformed into 20,000 square metres of green space. The 40-metre wide park will be created between the northbound and southbound lanes, an addition Coderre believes Montrealers will love.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:So our cool new environment minister (who is actually an economist) okayed the dumping of 8 million (edit: billion) litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence. None of the stories about this discuss the alternatives, as I believe I pointed out when Mulcair brought this issue up during the campaign. Unless you want people to retroactively stop making GBS threads somehow, I feel like this is one of those situations where people have to pick the least-bad option, and given none of the critics are discussing other options, I find it hard to say this decision is objectively incorrect, even if it's unpleasant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
The least bad option would be using our historically unprecedented levels of wealth and technology to come up with a better solution than dumping raw sewage into a river.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Seeing as how this is only for draining a sewer pipe for construction work, why can't they just isolate a section and pump it dry? I'll admit I don't know the logistics, but what do they do when they need to replace sewer infrastructure in other places?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The least bad option would be using our historically unprecedented levels of wealth and technology to come up with a better solution than dumping raw sewage into a river. I'm sure they'd love to hear your recommendation. I hear a lot of "there must be a better option" but not a lot about what to actually do. I don't think we should treat this as a sustainable solution, but with a lack of better options in the short term, what can we do? We should work to improve, but in the meantime, what should we do with all this poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:Seeing as how this is only for draining a sewer pipe for construction work, why can't they just isolate a section and pump it dry? I'll admit I don't know the logistics, but what do they do when they need to replace sewer infrastructure in other places? The problem is that is a major sewer main with 8 billion litres of effluent. That is 8 million cubic meters. Or a pond 1 km on a side and 8 meters deep. Or in truck terms, 400,000 vac truck loads, or 266,000 tanker truck loads.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Environment Canada gave them conditions to be met. McKenna said if the city met the conditions they could go ahead with the dumping.quote:Calling the city's plan "far from ideal," McKenna agreed with the findings of an independent panel of scientists that the city's planned release this fall was preferable to an accidental release of waste water caused by Montreal's decaying sewer system. e: like even environmentalists are saying they have to do it, they're just suggesting they do it in winter
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:Seeing as how this is only for draining a sewer pipe for construction work, why can't they just isolate a section and pump it dry? I'll admit I don't know the logistics, but what do they do when they need to replace sewer infrastructure in other places? They are pumping it dry, by moving it into the river. To be less of an rear end when a sewage system doesn't have capacity to hold effluent due to flooding rivers are a common dumping place. It's not like we constantly dump our waste there anymore. E: not that this plan is a good idea though. Obviously this isn't a great plan, but outside spending a lot of money its the only one I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Man the trudeaumetre site is a cesspool in the comments. As I expected the climate change and indigenous peoples sections attracted terrible people like flies to poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
266,000 trucks is more than just a lot of money. Seeing the full size of the issue in inclined to agreed the dump might be the best option. Even getting the trucks working long enough in series sounds like it would involve shutting down parts of the sewer for unworkably long periods of time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
There has to be a better way; I'm not really keen on trusting what an economist has to say about it because those fuckers worked out long ago that dumping garbage on public property is cheaper than dealing with it. Like how about treating it and releasing it more gradually, or like not into a big public waterway? Edit: Maybe I'm just irate because they hold other industries to far, far lower standards than the nuclear industry. Anytime we have a small demineralized water leak we get raked over the coal and these guys can just drop a massive wad of raw sewage into a river? wtf BattleMaster fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:There has to be a better way; I'm not really keen on trusting what an economist has to say about it because those fuckers worked out long ago that dumping garbage on public property is cheaper than dealing with it. Like how about treating it and releasing it more gradually, or like not into a big public waterway? You realize that the Environment minister isn't actually determining whether or not it's a good idea to go ahead with this, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:There has to be a better way; I'm not really keen on trusting what an economist has to say about it because those fuckers worked out long ago that dumping garbage on public property is cheaper than dealing with it. Like how about treating it and releasing it more gradually, or like not into a big public waterway? Well the drains they are using already drain into the river when the sewers flood. Also it's not McKenna saying it, Environment Canada has looked at it and approved, they just needed the ministerial OK. It still seems less than ideal but the amount being talked about doesn't seem workable, especially since, reading more, it seems some of the structures being dismantled and replaced are in very bad need of work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:There has to be a better way; I'm not really keen on trusting what an economist has to say about it because those fuckers worked out long ago that dumping garbage on public property is cheaper than dealing with it. Like how about treating it and releasing it more gradually, or like not into a big public waterway? Do you have any evidence that we have the capacity to hold and treat it and release it more gradually? If so, absolutely that's what we ought to do. I haven't seen any viable alternative presented, so in the absence of such, what's to be done?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Do you have any evidence that we have the capacity to hold and treat it and release it more gradually? If so, absolutely that's what we ought to do. I haven't seen any viable alternative presented, so in the absence of such, what's to be done? I don't know much about it but it's disgusting that we've even let it get to this point and I think we could stand to actually spend some money not making GBS threads where we eat (somewhat figuratively, somewhat not in this case) instead of just throwing up our hands and saying "well what do you do"
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:I don't know much about it but it's disgusting that we've even let it get to this point and I think we could stand to actually spend some money not making GBS threads where we eat (somewhat figuratively, somewhat not in this case) instead of just throwing up our hands and saying "well what do you do" That's very much the truth, but I don't think there's anything we can do about it at this point except to make better plans for the future. If you had a time machine, you should have this discussion with the relevant governments several decades ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
PT6A posted:That's very much the truth, but I don't think there's anything we can do about it at this point except to make better plans for the future. If you had a time machine, you should have this discussion with the relevant governments several decades ago. If there's no other option than so be it, but if there's another option, even an expensive one, then they should be paying for it to make them think twice about being lax in the future, but they're going to dump it and nothing is going to change except the level of used condoms on the shores
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:If there's no other option than so be it, but if there's another option, even an expensive one, then they should be paying for it to make them think twice about being lax in the future, but they're going to dump it and nothing is going to change except the level of used condoms on the shores Fair point. Again, I think this would be a much more productive discussion if we had some idea what the other options were.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:If there's no other option than so be it, but if there's another option, even an expensive one, then they should be paying for it to make them think twice about being lax in the future, but they're going to dump it and nothing is going to change except the level of used condoms on the shores Maybe they could send the city into the corner to think about what it did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Why don't we just roll it up into a large spherical object and shoot it into space
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Slightly Toasted posted:Why don't we just roll it up into a large spherical object and shoot it into space What if that thing [he] said? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:Maybe they could send the city into the corner to think about what it did. nice contribution
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
On the other hand the flow rate of the St. Lawrence is roughly 9000 m3/s. Or 32 million m3/hr. Combined with the fact that they're doing the release over a few weeks and it's a rare event, I don't think anyone is going to notice or see a decline in water quality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Gorau posted:On the other hand the flow rate of the St. Lawrence is roughly 9000 m3/s. Or 32 million m3/hr. Combined with the fact that they're doing the release over a few weeks and it's a rare event, I don't think anyone is going to notice or see a decline in water quality. How dare you bring reason into this?! BattleMaster, I agree completely with the argument against the absurd double standards you mentioned earlier, as an outspoken supporter of nuclear power. We need reason-based policy in all things, not lunatic paranoia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:nice contribution You're right, that's a silly idea. A much better and more realistic idea would be to force Montreal to pay heavy fines to proceed with much needed sewage infrastructure repairs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:nice contribution Where is that Grimey Drawer thing from?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:If there's no other option than so be it, but if there's another option, even an expensive one, then they should be paying for it to make them think twice about being lax in the future, but they're going to dump it and nothing is going to change except the level of used condoms on the shores They could make a temporary holding area for the waste. I don't know what the cost would be, but it would be immense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
A 1km² pond of poop sitting around is going to kill more birds than if you flushed it down a major river gradually
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm sure they'd love to hear your recommendation. I hear a lot of "there must be a better option" but not a lot about what to actually do. I don't think we should treat this as a sustainable solution, but with a lack of better options in the short term, what can we do? We should work to improve, but in the meantime, what should we do with all this poo poo? Spend a lot of money on building new sewage treatment plants and related infrastructure, and fire anyone who complains about it into the sun. We've never been richer as a society. The only justification for not spending whatever money is necessary to avoid dumping raw sewage into a waterway is lack of political will to raise the necessary funds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
PT6A posted:How dare you bring reason into this?! I'm fine with the environmental standards on the nuclear industry but I think it's everyone else who needs similar standards. Everyone else gets to dump poo poo (figurative or literal) willy-nilly while we have to do a multi-year environmental assessment at each stage of the design, construction, and commissioning process. Tsyni posted:Where is that Grimey Drawer thing from? Clearly I don't wash my underwear enough (it's the $10 tier for donating money to SA) Helsing posted:Spend a lot of money on building new sewage treatment plants and related infrastructure, and fire anyone who complains about it into the sun. It's pretty perverse how Western society is wealthier and more productive than any before it and we're still told that we have to tighten our belts and that the money just isn't there for pork-barrel projects like basic infrastructure BattleMaster fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Reminder. Big part of the lpc platform is massive infrastructure spending.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:So our cool new environment minister (who is actually an economist) okayed the dumping of 8 million (edit: billion) litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence. i work in sewer inspection america's environmental protection on things like this is so much better than ours and their sewers are waaaaay nicer too Victoria BC simply dumps its untreated sewage into the georgia straight every single day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:i work in sewer inspection I didn't know you get paid to read SA posts
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Spend a lot of money on building new sewage treatment plants and related infrastructure, and fire anyone who complains about it into the sun. I agree, going forward, but that can't retroactively fix our fuckups.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Isn't the entire reason they're dumping the sewage this time is because they're building updated sewage infrastructure? Here's hoping this last massive poo water dump means there won't be any more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:i work in sewer inspection Just to add I worked with waste water containment and a municipality wanted to use human waste water as fertilizer. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Sovy Kurosei posted:Just to add I worked with waste water containment and a municipality wanted to use human waste water as fertilizer. Environmental Engineer here. Human waste is a fantastic fertilizer, especially if it's sludge from a waste plant. The reason nobody uses it is because it gives people the heebie-jeebies and there are small concerns about emerging contaminants.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
PT6A posted:To be fair, I think supporting eugenics and forced sterilization is actually a bad thing worthy of criticism. I acknowledge that McClung did many things that were great and important in addition to that, in fact eclipsing that, but that's a fairly dark stain to try and erase. The birth control movement was closely tied to the eugenics movement in the early 20th century so it's a Complicated issue. Ming the Merciless posted:Environmental Engineer here. Human waste is a fantastic fertilizer, especially if it's sludge from a waste plant. The reason nobody uses it is because it gives people the heebie-jeebies and there are small concerns about emerging contaminants. I always wondered about that. My parents have a deal with the horse stables across the way that makes a difference especially since our land is getting cash cropped into soil depletion. But you'd think human waste would be a good alternative to chemical fertilizer. Time to crack open the cistern when I go visit and start spraying. 
Dreylad fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Nov 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
"Biosolids" is one of the big things Hong Kong exports to China, where it's used for fertilization. A lot of places in Asia do it, including Japan and South Korea. The only big concerns are potential contamination of food with pathogens, which is also a risk with other types of bio-originating fertilizers, and bio-accumulation of metals like lead leading to higher concentrations in food fertilized with it. E: though the studies I saw seemed to show that heavy metals were still well within safe levels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 07:01
|
|